BILL ANALYSIS
SB 757
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 757 (Kehoe)
As Amended August 21, 2006
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :21-15
TRANSPORTATION 8-4 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Oropeza, Chan, Karnette, |Ayes:|Chu, Bass, Berg, De La |
| |Liu, Pavley, | |Torre, Karnette, Klehs, |
| |Ridley-Thomas, Salinas, | |Leno, Nation, Laird, |
| |Torrico | |Ridley-Thomas, Saldana, |
| | | |Yee |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Sharon Runner, Emmerson, |
| | | |Haynes, |
| | | |Nakanishi, Walters |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires state agencies to reduce the growth of
petroleum demand, increase vehicle energy efficiency, and
increase the use of alternative fuels. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the need
to reduce the state's dependency on unstable global oil
supplies.
2)Establishes a policy that state agencies must take every
cost-effective and technologically feasible action to reduce
the growth of petroleum demand and increase transportation
energy conservation and efficiency and the use of alternative
fuels.
3)Requires state agencies to take the state's transportation
energy goals into account in adopting rules and regulations.
4)Defines "technologically feasible," for the purposes of this
bill, as meaning capable of being successfully accomplished
taking into account environmental, economic, social, and
technological factors.
SB 757
Page 2
5)Requires the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA), not later than January 1, 2008, and every third year
thereafter, with the assistance of other specified public
agencies, to submit to the Legislature an assessment of the
transportation policies adopted pursuant to #2 above.
6)Requires that assessment to include information on the status
of adopted policies, the Integrated Energy Policy Report
implementation, and alternative fuel fleet procurement and
infrastructure funding needs.
7)Requires any actions taken pursuant to #2 above to integrate
existing air quality standards.
8)Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB), in adopting rules and
regulations to reduce air pollution and toxic air contaminants
from motor vehicle fuels, to develop requirements, incentives,
and partnerships for publicly administered fleets to purchase
and install alternative fuel vehicles and advanced
transportation technologies, as specified.
9)Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to expand the
scope of its oil industry price and supply reporting,
monitoring, and analysis to include trends in world oil demand
growth, including known and proven oil reserves. CEC would be
required to refer to the Attorney General information it
believes may reflect market abuse or unfair competition.
10) Specifies that this bill does not authorize the imposition
of any tax or fee or on petroleum refiners or suppliers nor
does it confer or reduce the existing authority of ARB, CEC,
or any other regulatory agency to order the production, sale,
or offering for sale of any specific fuel.
11) Requires the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and
Housing Agency to submit recommendations to the Governor and
Legislature by March 31, 2008, regarding alternative revenue
sources to supplement or replace lost gasoline and diesel fuel
tax revenues that would otherwise fund state transportation
infrastructure investments.
12) Requires CalEPA to take action to influence Congress and
SB 757
Page 3
the U.S. Department of Transportation to double the combined
fuel economy of cars and light trucks by 2020. That action
must include, but not be limited to, performing analyses and
participating in forums that the secretary deems useful.
EXISTING LAW requires CEC to implement and administer various
generation and conservation programs. Additionally, CEC is
responsible for monitoring transportation fuel supplies and
prices in the state and is required to develop biennially an
integrated energy policy report that looks at issues of supply,
demand, and supply reliability for transportation fuel.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill will result in ongoing annual costs of
$300,000 starting in 2006-07, to state agencies to integrate
transportation energy goals into their adoption of rules and
regulations. There will also be ongoing annual costs, probably
less than $150,000 starting in 2006-07, for ARB to consider
alternative fuel vehicle programs and advanced transportation
technology when adopting air pollution rules and regulations
applicable to motor vehicles. Finally, there will be ongoing
annual costs of about $100,000 starting in 2006-07, for CEC to
expand its reporting, monitoring and analysis of oil market
pricing and supply.
COMMENTS : According to supporters "California faces a future of
increasing petroleum dependence, supply disruptions, and
transportation fuel price volatility. As a consequence, the
state has become a significant importer of oil from foreign
countries often plagued with military and political instability.
If this import trend continues, the state's economy, oil supply
and price fluctuations, will be vulnerable to external
disruptions and geopolitical instability, making the reduction
of petroleum consumption a matter of energy dependence."
The author notes that California is in a constant gasoline
crisis and is dependent upon imported fuel to meet and keep up
with consumer demand. The state has already reached the point
where it can no longer refine enough fuel in state to meet the
needs of its consumers. The state must import 57% of its oil by
tanker ship in order to be refined into gasoline and diesel, but
it also imports 10% of its gasoline to keep up with current
demand. The price of oil has almost doubled in the past two
years and almost tripled in the past three: current oil prices
SB 757
Page 4
are over $70 per barrel, compared to a $37 per barrel average in
2004 and $27 per barrel average in 2003.
According to CEC, demand for gasoline will outstrip refined
supply by almost 2 billion gallons by 2008 and each year after.
Without state policies to examine alternative sources for fuel,
increased fuel efficiency and conservation measures, the author
contends that California's consumers will experience with higher
and higher prices at the pump. She also argues that continued
reliance on foreign oil places the state at the mercy of
geopolitical influences beyond our control and that instability
abroad, along with the increasing need for oil by other growing
industrialized nations, will add to the volatility of oil
prices.
This bill addresses improvement of oil refinery safety and
pollution prevention, alternatives to petroleum-based
transportation fuels, and monitoring global petroleum adequacy.
The author believes that petroleum reduction would strengthen
national security, support energy independence, create jobs and
business opportunities, and reduce air, water, and soil
pollution while improving public health and worker safety, and
increase the economic competitiveness of alternative fuels and
energy resources.
AB 2076 (Shelley), Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000, required CEC
and ARB to present recommendations for the Governor and the
Legislature by January 31, 2002, on a strategy to reduce
petroleum dependence. The CEC report, "Reducing California's
Petroleum Dependence" recommended that the state adopt a policy
to reduce gasoline and diesel fuel demand to 15 percent below
2003 demand levels by 2020 and to maintain that level after that
date. The report included specific recommendations such as
using more fuel efficient tires, improving vehicle maintenance,
doubling light duty vehicle fuel efficiency, and developing fuel
cell-powered vehicles. It also recommended adopting a general
goal of increasing the use of non-petroleum fuels to 20% of
on-road fuel consumption by 2020 and 30% by 2030.
The oil industry argues that investment in oil refineries will
suffer if California establishes a goal of reducing gasoline
demand by 2020. It contends that, while this bill explicitly
states that it does not authorize the imposition of any taxes or
fees, there is nothing in it to prevent state agencies from
SB 757
Page 5
using their existing authority "to impose a wide range of fees
and other draconian measures to reduce consumption." The
industry also fears that this bill will give regulators "broad
authority to pick favored technologies. There are no
requirements of the agencies to weigh costs and benefits, to
consider economic impacts, to pick winners that truly are
feasible, or to assure that the state's consumers and businesses
will not be harmed by state policies and proposed actions."
Analysis Prepared by : Howard Posner / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0016493