BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 533
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 17, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 533 (Wright) - As Amended: April 25, 2011
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to make
available to the public certain materials related to an adopted
AB 32 regulation. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires ARB to publish any implementation schedule required
to comply with an AB 32 regulation at the time the regulation
is adopted.
2)Requires ARB to publish any compliance tool-including computer
models, databases, algorithms, formulas, forms, software,
labels, protocols, and metrics-to comply with an AB 32
regulation at least 60 days before the compliance date.
3)Requires training specifically mandated by an ARB regulation
to be made available at least 60 days before the compliance
date for which the training is required.
4)Authorizes ARB to revise an implementation schedule, reporting
form, or compliance tool after it adopts a regulation if it
modifies the compliance deadline for the revised regulatory
requirement to allow regulated entities at least 60 days to
comply.
5)Affects only regulations adopted January 1, 2012, or later.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time costs to ARB of an unknown amount, likely in the tens
of thousands of dollars and possibly in excess of $150,000, to
establish the electronic functionality to publish any
SB 533
Page 2
compliance tool, which may include unwieldy items such as
computer models, software and metrics. (Air Pollution Control
Fund (APCF).)
(In contrast to this committee's estimate of the bill's fiscal
effect, ARB estimates the bill to cost approximately $800,000,
equivalent to five staff members, to prepare all compliance
tools for online publication. ARB reports that the high cost
estimate is driven, in part, by the bill's broad definition of
compliance tool.)
2)Ongoing costs of an unknown amount, but likely in the low tens
of thousands of dollars annually, for ARB to prepare
compliance tools for posting on its website and to maintain
them. (APCF.)
3)Ongoing annual costs to ARB of approximately $50,000 provide
training within the specified timeframe. (APCF.)
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author claims ARB has adopted regulations
without publishing materials affected parties need to comply
with those regulations. This bill seeks to ensure that such
materials are made available to the public to facilitate
compliance.
2)Background . AB 32 (N��ez, Chapter 455, Statutes of 2006)
requires California to limit its emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) so that, by 2020, those emissions are equal to what
they were in 1990. To that end, AB 32 requires ARB to quantify
the state's 1990 GHG emissions and to adopt, by January 1,
2009, a scoping plan that describes the board's plan for
achieving the maximum technologically feasible and
cost-effective reductions of GHG emissions reductions by 2020.
In keeping with AB 32, ARB adopted its AB 32 scoping plan in
December of 2008. Consistent with AB 32, the scoping plan
includes both direct regulatory measures, such as such as
efficiency and emissions standards, and "market-based
compliance mechanisms," meaning, in this case, a system of
tradable emissions credits.
3)Language Could Be Clarified. The bill calls on ARB to make
available on its website a reporting form or compliance tool
if an ARB" regulation?specifically requires a reporting form
SB 533
Page 3
or compliance tool." However, it is unclear what is meant by
regulation specifically requiring a compliance tool. This
lack of clarity results, in part, from the bill's broad
definition of "compliance tool." It is not clear, for
example, how an ARB regulation would require for compliance an
algorithm, a computer model or software. It may be helpful if
the bill were reworded. For example, the intent of the bill
may be more easily understood if it were to read "a
regulation?specifically requires a regulated entity to make
use of, or to be evaluated through the use of, a reporting
form or a compliance tool," or some such language.
4)Sixty Days May Not Always Be Best. This bill requires
training specifically mandated by an ARB regulation to be made
available at least 60 days before the compliance date for
which the training is required. However, in some cases, it
may not be practical or in the interest of regulated entities
to provide training within that time period. ARB describes,
for example, its regulation of dry cleaning emissions, for
which ARB provided training statewide to thousands for dry
cleaners during the year following adopting of its regulation,
a period during which ARB was not enforcing regulatory
requirements. According to ARB, it would not a have been
feasible to provide this training within 60 days of the
compliance date.
Similarly, the bill authorizes ARB to revise an implementation
schedule, reporting form, or compliance tool after it adopts a
regulation if it modifies the compliance deadline for the
revised regulatory requirement to allow regulated entities at
least 60 days to comply. In some instances, this 60-day
compliance window may make sense; for example, when a revision
would impose a new or greater burden on regulated entities.
However, in some instances, an ARB revision may make
compliance easier or more efficient, in which case it would be
in the interest of the regulated community that the revision
take effect as soon as possible.
It seems better that the bill provide ARB flexibility in
providing training and in revising certain regulatory
requirements. For example, the bill could be written to allow
ARB to go outside the timeframes described above if it makes a
finding that doing so would be in the interest of the
regulated community.
SB 533
Page 4
5)Why Just AB 32? ARB issues regulations addressing a wide
variety of air emissions. This bill, however, addresses only
ARB regulations issued pursuant to AB 32. It is unclear why
this bill makes requirements of AB 32 regulations but no other
ARB regulations, both of which would seem to affect regulated
entities similarly.
6)Related Legislation . This bill is similar to SB 1351 (Wright,
2010), which passed the Assembly 78-0 but was held on
concurrence by Senate Environmental Quality.
7)Support . The bill is supported by several industry groups
affected by AB 32 regulations.
8)There is no registered opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081