BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1095
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1095 (Bill Berryhill, Fuentes and Hill)
As Amended May 27, 2011
Majority vote
NATURAL RESOURCES 9-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Chesbro, Knight, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Brownley, Dickinson, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Grove, Halderman, | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| |Huffman, Monning, Skinner | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, |
| | | |Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Solorio, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires a hearing board within the Air Resources
Board (ARB) for resolution of disputes regarding the California
Global Warming Solutions Act �AB 32 (N��ez), Chapter, 488,
Statutes of 2006]based on existing statutory requirements for
air district hearing boards, to the extent those provisions can
be made applicable.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes ARB within the California Environmental Protection
Agency. ARB's primary duties are controlling motor vehicle
emissions, coordinating activities of air districts for the
purposes of the federal Clean Air Act, and implementing AB 32
(N��ez).
2)Requires ARB to administer an Ombudsman's Office that serves
as a general resource to small businesses, large businesses,
trade associations, and individual community members regarding
air quality regulations.
3)Requires, subject to the powers of the ARB, air districts to
adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and
maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards
in all areas affected by non-vehicular emission sources under
their jurisdiction.
4)Requires each air district to appoint a five-member hearing
AB 1095
Page 2
board, including a lawyer, an engineer, and a medical
professional, for the purpose of hearing applications for
variances from district rules. Districts are authorized to
collect fees from applicants to cover the costs of the hearing
board process.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, potential annual costs to ARB of an unknown amount
for legal and administrative work for the hearing board to hear
disputes, fee revenue, generated from payments made by those
seeking to appeal ARB decisions to the hearing board, of an
unknown amount but sufficient to cover ARB's hearing board
costs, and potential annual savings to ARB of an unknown amount,
but possibly in excess of the costs generated by this bill,
resulting from decreased litigation costs.
COMMENTS : There are existing resources for dispute resolution
at ARB. Before a regulation is adopted, ARB must follow the
usual rulemaking process, which offers all parties an equal
opportunity to comment on proposed regulations, participate in
hearings and workshops, and lobby the board itself. The ARB
process is then followed by review by the Office of
Administrative Law before a regulation is implemented. Parties
aggrieved by adopted regulations may seek administrative relief
from the executive officer, the board, or via judicial review.
In addition, ARB is federally mandated to house an Ombudsman
Office to assist small and large businesses, trade associations,
and individual community members regarding any aspect of the ARB
regulatory process. The Ombudsman's mission includes education
on California's air quality management system, guidance on air
quality rules and regulations, assisting small businesses in
compliance with those regulations, and providing help toward
solutions when there is an air quality compliance problem. The
Ombudsman reports directly to the ARB Chair.
According to the author:
The Air Resources Board's role has evolved from a Board that
primarily regulated mobile sources to one regulating all
emission sources. At present, several regulations are being
developed that give the Executive Officer additional
authority?Currently, air quality management districts that
have similar executive authority also have?dispute resolution
hearing boards. In cases in which individuals or companies
AB 1095
Page 3
come into conflict with rules and regulations, these hearing
boards weigh the evidence and reach a decision.
Currently, the ARB Executive Officer and staff make
significant enforcement decisions that are not subject to
review. In addition, in cases where the ARB would like to
extend a compliance deadline, there is no process to formally
and publically adopt that extension. The only appeal process
available to a regulated party is to sue the state. This
requires significant resources and time that are not
reasonably available to the majority of regulated parties. In
addition, lawsuits frequently do not solve problems.
For example, the AB 32 program requires that ARB create a new,
far-reaching, and complex program under very tight statutory
deadlines. The statutory deadlines are driving rapid
development of regulations which may have unintended
consequences and unknowable problems. These types of problems
need a dispute resolution process to allow discussion and
opportunity outside of traditional enforcement processes and
litigation. An administrative dispute resolution process will
provide a fair, efficient, and predictable forum available to
all regulated parties and will reduce the money and time spent
in litigation. It will also increase the transparency of the
appeal process and thus afford all stakeholders the
opportunity to comment during the hearing. The proposed
dispute resolution process is modeled after existing air
pollution hearing processes?which have worked well in
resolving regulatory compliance issues at the air pollution
control districts in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0001145