BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �






           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: SCR 76
          SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN              AUTHOR:  emmerson
                                                         VERSION: 3/15/12
          Analysis by:  Eric Thronson                    FISCAL:  yes
          Hearing date:  May 8, 2012



          SUBJECT:

          School bus emission regulations

          DESCRIPTION:

          This resolution urges the California Air Resources Board (ARB) 
          to exempt school buses from diesel particulate emissions 
          regulations until state funds are available to fully fund the 
          program.

          ANALYSIS:

          Existing law charges ARB with primary responsibility for the 
          control of mobile source air pollution and broadly authorizes 
          ARB to adopt rules for the reduction of emissions.  Under this 
          authority, ARB adopted its Truck and Bus regulations to 
          significantly reduce harmful emissions from diesel trucks and 
          buses (with gross vehicle weights greater than 14,000 pounds) 
          operating in California.  Pursuant to this regulation, school 
          bus operators must retire buses manufactured before 1977 and 
          either replace and retire or install retrofit devices that 
          significantly reduce toxic emissions on all older diesel-fueled 
          buses.  

          In addition, ARB administers the Lower-Emission School Bus 
          program (LESBP), which is a grant program implemented by local 
          air districts that provides funds to purchase new buses to 
          replace older ones or to install retrofit devices on in-use 
          buses.  Since 2000, ARB has provided nearly $300 million through 
          the LESBP to local air districts.  School districts have used 
          roughly 75 percent of this funding to purchase new buses, 
          replacing all buses manufactured before 1977 and roughly 1,500 
          buses manufactured between 1977 and 1986.  In addition, school 
          districts have retrofitted approximately 7,000 buses to 
          significantly reduce emissions.  According to ARB, there remain 
          roughly 3,400 buses statewide that need to be replaced or 
          retrofitted in order to be in compliance with the ARB 




          SCR 76 (EMMERSON)                                      Page 2

                                                                       


          regulations.

           This resolution  urges ARB to: 
          
                 Exempt school buses from the Truck and Bus Regulations 
               until there is full funding available through the LESBP.
                 Focus funds from the LESBP and other programs on 
               replacing the oldest school buses that do not have seat 
               belts and do not have any emissions controls to limit 
               dangerous diesel particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen.
          
          COMMENTS:

           1.Purpose  .  The author introduced this resolution in order to 
            request that ARB consider delaying its school bus regulations 
            until state funding is available.  Over the past several 
            years, the state has significantly reduced school budgets.  
            According to the author, the Legislature cut school 
            transportation funding by 20 percent 3 years ago and has not 
            restored this funding.  The regular funding prior to the cuts 
            only covered approximately 45 percent of the overall cost of 
            pupil transportation in the state.  The author contends that 
            school districts are deeply concerned about their ability to 
            comply with ARB's Truck and Bus regulations. 

           2.Why not a bill  ?  It seems the Legislature could better address 
            the problem identified in this resolution through a bill.  It 
            is the Legislature's prerogative, through bills, to pass laws 
            that directs the state administration's activities.  As part 
            of that process, a bill is sent to the governor for signature 
            or veto.  In this way the legislature is able to be involved 
            in the way the state administers the law, while the 
            administration has the opportunity to respond to those 
            directions.  A resolution, on the other hand, simply 
            communicates a message from the Legislature, but carries no 
            weight of law.  Passing a resolution urging the administration 
            to take action may not be appropriate because the governor 
            neither signs nor vetoes resolutions, and therefore the 
            administration never has an opportunity to weigh in on the 
            issue.  Proponents of the bill indicate that they want to 
            raise awareness of the problem identified in the resolution 
            but do not want to introduce a bill to address this concern 
            because of the unlikelihood of the bill's passage.  

            Notwithstanding that it excludes the administration and 
            carries no weight of law, a resolution is still an instrument 




          SCR 76 (EMMERSON)                                      Page 3

                                                                       


            of value and merit.  By voting for a resolution, a legislator 
            is identifying him or herself with its message.  While not 
            requiring action, resolutions urging a part of state 
            government to act can heavily influence what that agency or 
            department might do.  This resolution communicates to ARB that 
            the Legislature expects ARB to suspend regulations that it 
            adopted years ago, after significant public discussion, 
            because the state is unable to fully fund compliance with the 
            regulation.  
          
          POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the committee before noon on 
          Wednesday, May 2, 2012)

               SUPPORT:  California Association of School Transportation 
          Officials
                         Mid-Placer Public Schools Transportation Agency
          
               OPPOSED:  None received.