BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
SB 1217 (Leno) - Climate change: preparedness.
Amended: May 7, 2014 Policy Vote: NR&W 8-1, EQ 5-2
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: May 19, 2014 Consultant: Marie Liu
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 1217 would require the Natural Resources Agency
(agency) to prepare a climate risk assessment and strategy every
five years beginning in 2017 and would require the Strategic
Growth Council (SGC) to identify and prioritize climate
resiliency projects every five years beginning in 2018.
Fiscal Impact:
Ongoing costs between $900,000 and $5 million from the
General Fund every five years to prepare a climate risk
assessment.
Ongoing annual costs of $150,000 from the General Fund for
the development of a climate strategy.
Ongoing costs of approximately $100,000 from the General
Fund to the SGC to identify and prioritize resiliency
projects.
Background: Existing law establishes the Strategic Growth
Council (PRC �75121), consisting of the Director of State
Planning and Research, the Secretary of the Natural Resources
Agency, the Secretary for Environmental Protection, the
Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of California Health
and Human Services, the Secretary of Business, Consumer
Services, and Housing, the Secretary of Food and Agriculture,
and one member of the public appointed by the Governor. The SGC
is required to identify and review activities and funding
programs of member state agencies that may be coordinated to
improve air and water quality, improve natural resource
protection, increase the availability of affordable housing,
improve transportation, meet the state's climate change
mitigation goals, and encourage sustainable land use planning
(PRC �75125). The SGC is also required to review and comment on
the state's infrastructure plan which is to be updated every
five years.
SB 1217 (Leno)
Page 1
The state has generated three climate change assessments in
2006, 2009, and 2012. The first focused on scaling down global
climate models to identify expected impacts on a regional scale.
The second provided initial estimates of some of the economic
impacts of climate risks in the state. The third discussed
institutional barriers to efforts to prepare for climate risk
and risks in specific sectors and geographic regions. The third
assessment supported the update to the 2009 Climate Change
Adaptation Strategy, titled the "Safeguarding California Plan."
In the Governor's proposed budget, the agency had a budget
change proposal (BCP) request for $5 million and one position
(3-year limited term) for the development of a fourth
assessment. Budget Sub2 rejected this proposal without prejudice
and requested that the proposal be resubmitted next year after
legislative intent for such assessments can be established.
Proposed Law: This bill would require the agency to prepare a
climate risk assessment and strategy by January 1, 2017. This
report would be required to evaluate the state's vulnerability
and risk for climate change impacts and identify any mitigation
measures or climate change resiliency methods that can address
those vulnerabilities and risks. The risk assessment and
strategy would be required to updated every five years.
This bill would also require the SGC, by January 1, 2018, to
identify and prioritize climate resiliency projects, and
potential appropriate funding sources for those projects, that
would benefit essential public infrastructure and provide
climate change resiliency. The SGC would also be required to
review the impacts of climate change in the state on capital
outlay and public infrastructure projects. The SGC would be
required to consult with the agency, the CalEPA, and other
appropriate state agencies and departments.
Related Legislation: SB 1268 (Beall) would require the
development of guidelines for the spending of cap-and-trade
revenues in the natural resources sector to reduce GHG emissions
or increase sequestration. (In Senate Appropriations, set for
hearing on 5/19)
Staff Comments: This bill's requirement for the agency to
prepare and update a climate risk assessment and strategy would
essentially continue the work that the agency has done
previously - specifically the third climate change assessment,
which informed the update to the climate change adaptation
SB 1217 (Leno)
Page 2
strategy. The cost for a climate change assessment can vary
greatly. The previous three assessments cost between $900,000
and $3.7 million each, and the BCP for the fourth assessment was
for $5 million. In addition to the cost of the assessment, the
agency would need one PY and $150,000 annually to develop the
strategy.
This bill would result in the SGC incurring costs to review the
impacts of climate change to capital outlay and public
infrastructure projects The SGC estimates that it would incur at
least $25,000 in workload every five years for this
responsibility. Staff notes that this cost could be
substantially higher because "public infrastructure projects"
could be interpreted very broadly to include a vast number of
local and state projects. Staff notes that under existing law,
SGC is required to comment on updates to the state's
infrastructure plan. Limiting SGC's review to those projects
covered by the state's infrastructure plan would control
potential costs to the SGC from this provision.
The SGC will also incur ongoing costs to identify and prioritize
climate change resiliency projects and to identify potential
funding sources. While the bill would require the SGC to do this
activity every five years, this will likely need to be an
ongoing activity with the report to the Legislature occurring
every five years. Ongoing costs are estimated to be
approximately one PY and $100,000 annually. Staff recommends
that these provisions be clarified as to whether the SGC is only
to consider state-funded projects.
Staff is attributing costs for this bill to the General Fund.
However, there may be limited special funds available for these
activities (the agency's BCP would have used monies from
Environmental License Plate Fund), though the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund likely cannot be used to the extent that these
activities are focused on adaptation rather that GHG emission
reductions.