BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  SB 1 X1
                                                                  Page  1


          SENATE THIRD READING
          SB 1 X1 (Steinberg)
          As Amended  March 10, 2011
          Majority vote 

           SENATE VOTE  :25-15  
           
           UTILITIES & COMMERCE         9-3EDUCATION          6-0          
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Bradford, Buchanan, Fong, |Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano,        |
          |     |Fuentes, Furutani, Roger  |     |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, |
          |     |Hern�ndez, Ma, Skinner,   |     |Eng                       |
          |     |Swanson                   |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Knight, Nestande, Valadao |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           APPROPRIATIONS                 12-5                         

           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield,     |     |                          |
          |     |Bradford, Charles         |     |                          |
          |     |Calderon, Campos, Davis,  |     |                          |
          |     |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara,  |     |                          |
          |     |Mitchell, Solorio         |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly,         |     |                          |
          |     |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner    |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          SUMMARY  :  This bill establishes a dedicated funding stream to 
          invest in career technical education that delivers skills and 
          knowledge needed for successful employment in clean technology, 
          renewable energy or energy efficiency.  Specifically,  this bill  : 
            

          1)Creates the Clean Technology and Renewable Energy Job 
            Training, Career Technical Education, and Dropout Prevention 
            Program for the purpose of creating California Partnership 
            Academies that focus on clean technology and renewable energy 
            businesses.








                                                                  SB 1 X1
                                                                  Page  2



          2)Requires the State Controller to annually allocate $8 million 
            from the Renewable Resources Trust Fund (RRTF), upon 
            appropriation by the Legislature, to the Superintendent of 
            Public Instruction (SPI) for expenditure in the form of grants 
            to school districts for creating and maintaining partnership 
            academies.  If sufficient funds are not available from RRTF, 
            the balance of the $8 million will come from funds provided 
            for in AB 118 (N��ez), Chapter 750, Statutes of 2007.

          3)Requires the SPI to award grants to implement or maintain a 
            partnership academy for pupils in grades 9 to 12 that focuses 
            on employment in clean technology businesses and renewable 
            energy businesses and provides skilled workforces for the 
            products and services for energy or water conservation, or 
            both, renewable energy, pollution reduction or other 
            technologies.

          4)Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC), no later than 
            60 days after the effective date of these provisions, in 
            consultation with SPI, to adopt guidelines to ensure that 
            programs receiving grants reflect current state energy 
            policies and priorities as well as provide skills and 
            education linked to the needs of relevant industries.

          5)Authorizes a school district to apply for planning grants for 
            implementing a partnership academy and allows SPI to pay 
            administrative costs.

          6)Requires SPI, in consultation with CEC, to provide annual 
            reports to the Legislature commencing in 2014 that includes 
            descriptions of the curriculum, proportion of participating 
            pupils who meet the at-risk criteria, pupil participation data 
            and substance of the programs funded by the grants awarded.

          7)Makes a number of legislative findings and declarations 
            regarding California's international leadership in renewable 
            energy, energy conservation, clean technology, and climate 
            change policies.

          8)Becomes inoperative on June 30, 2017, and as of January 1, 
            2018, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that 
            becomes operative on or before January 1, 2018, deletes or 
            extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is 








                                                                  SB 1 X1
                                                                  Page  3


            repealed.

          9)States that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared and 
            affirmed by the Governor by   proclamation issued on January 
            20, 2011.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Assuming appropriations are provided by the 
          Legislature over the life of the program through the Budget Act 
          or other legislation, there will be special fund costs of $8 
          million each year from 2011-12 through 2016-17, including up to 
          $400,000 for program administration by SPI.  It appears that 
          funding is only assured for the program in 2011-12 and 2012-13.  
          This is because authorization to collect ratepayer funds for 
          deposit in RRTF expires January 1, 2012, and the bill only 
          allows use of AB 118 (N��ez), if insufficient RRTF funds are 
          available, through 2012-13.  For 2013-14 and beyond, funding 
          would depend on extension of the Public Goods Charge or an 
          appropriation from any RRTF balance, assuming repayment of prior 
          RRTF loans to other funds.

          CEC costs to develop guidelines within 60 days will, by 
          necessity, be absorbed.  Commission costs for ongoing 
          consultation with SPI should also be absorbable with existing 
          resources or within the amount set aside for program 
          administration.

           COMMENTS  :  Partnership academies are educational programs that 
          provide integrated academic and career technical education to 
          students in grades 10 to 12 including those who present a high 
          risk of dropping out of school.  (Partnership academies are 
          funded as three-year programs, although some school districts 
          operate four-year programs, allowing for the participation of 
          9th graders.)  More than half of the students selected to 
          participate in a California partnership academy must be 
          considered to be "at risk" as demonstrated by irregular 
          attendance, underachievement, low motivation or disinterest in 
          the regular academic program, or having an economically 
          disadvantaged background.  

          According to the California Department of Education (CDE), there 
          are currently 461 partnership academies operating in California 
          schools.  The CDE receives applications for more partnership 
          academy grants than there is funding available.  The green 
          technology partnership academies program, which has eligibility 








                                                                  SB 1 X1
                                                                  Page  4


          criteria similar to the requirements set forth in this bill, has 
          been especially competitive.  For instance, according to CDE 
          staff, the 54 school districts awarded green technology 
          partnership academy grants were selected from among more than 
          100 applications. It is expected that the partnership academy 
          program would generate even more interest and applications from 
          schools and businesses seeking grants because more total funding 
          is available and the program includes grade 9, as well as grades 
          10 through 12.  Existing funding for the green technology 
          partnership academies is scheduled to sunset in 2011-12.

           Arguments in Support  :  The Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) 
          opines that the
          Partnership Academy Model is an important tool to help the state 
          meet our future workforce needs.  In fact, to help prepare the 
          workforce of the future, PG&E is sponsoring five Partnership 
          Academies within its service territory.  PG&E states that these 
          academies provide participating students with an integrated 
          academic and technical education focused on energy and the 
          environment.  PG&E further states new "green" technologies are 
          emerging, driving the demand for workers and students with 
          strong backgrounds in science, technology, engineering and 
          mathematics. 

           Arguments in Opposition  :  While the California Manufacturers & 
          Technology Association
          (CMTA) appreciates the leadership of the author on the need to 
          rebuild career and technical education and addresses the 
          alarming drop-out rate in California schools, they opine that 
          the programs identified in this bill be funded through current 
          and future public education resources. CMTA opposes the use of 
          funds paid by electric and natural gas customers to run programs 
          to keep utility costs low and improve reliability through 
          advancing technology.  CMTA claims that initiatives to increase 
          the amount of renewable power in the state, meet AB 32 (N��ez), 
          Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006, emission reduction goals, and 
          invest in utility infrastructure will be putting upward pressure 
          on utility rates, already among the highest in the nation for 
          manufacturers.  CMTA believes ratepayer dollars should be used 
          for only the most cost-effective energy programs.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    DaVina Flemings / U.C. / (916) 319-2083









                                                                  SB 1 X1
                                                                  Page  5




                                                               FN:  0000049