BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2558|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2558
Author: Feuer (D), et al
Amended: 8/18/08 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 7-3, 6/24/08
AYES: Lowenthal, Cedillo, Corbett, Kehoe, Oropeza,
Simitian, Yee
NOES: Ashburn, Harman, Hollingsworth
NO VOTE RECORDED: McClintock, Maldonado, Torlakson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-6, 8/7/08
AYES: Torlakson, Cedillo, Corbett, Florez, Kuehl, Oropeza,
Ridley-Thomas, Simitian
NOES: Cox, Aanestad, Ashburn, Dutton, Runner, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-33, 5/27/08 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Vehicle registration and motor vehicle fuel:
surcharge
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill authorizes a regional transportation
agency, as defined, to impose, subject to voter approval
within the jurisdiction of the regional transportation
agency, a climate protection and system preservation fee on
either motor vehicle fuel or motor vehicle registration
within their jurisdictions.
CONTINUED
AB 2558
Page
2
ANALYSIS : Existing law establishes a basic vehicle
registration fee of $31, plus a $10 surcharge for
additional personnel for the California Highway Patrol
(CHP), for the new or renewal registration of most vehicles
or trailer coaches. Existing law also authorizes local
agencies until January 1, 2010 to impose separate vehicle
registration fee surcharges in their respective
jurisdictions for a variety of special programs, including:
1.One dollar ($1) for service authorities for freeway
emergencies.
2.One dollar ($1) for deterring and prosecuting vehicle
theft.
3.Up to seven dollars ($7) for air quality programs.
4.One dollar ($1) for removing abandoned vehicles.
5.One dollar ($1) for fingerprint identification programs.
The Legislature passed AB 32 (N??ez), Chapter 488, Statutes
of 2006, to establish a statewide greenhouse gas emissions
limit such that by 2020 California reduces its greenhouse
gas emissions to the level they were in 1990. AB 32
requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to
implement regulations and impose fees that achieve the
maximum feasible and cost effective reduction in carbon
emissions.
This bill:
1.Authorizes a regional transportation agency (RTA) to
place before the voters in their jurisdictions a climate
protection and system preservation fee for up to 30
years. The fee shall be either on, (a) motor vehicle
fuel, excluding aircraft fuel, in which case the fee may
be up to three percent of the retail sales price, (b)
vehicles registered in the agency's jurisdiction and
shall vary based on the carbon emissions produced by the
vehicle but may be no greater than $90 on any one
vehicle. Vehicles owned by those eligible to receive
AB 2558
Page
3
specified state welfare benefits shall be exempt from
this fee.
2.Requires Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), if
requested by the RTA, shall impose and collect the
registration fees set forth in this bill for every motor
vehicle registered in the jurisdiction of the RTA where
the fee is imposed. After deducting all costs incurred
pursuant to this section, DMV shall distribute the fees
set forth in this bill.
3.Requires the RTA to contract with the State Board of
Equalization (SBE), pursuant to the Fee Collection
Procedures Law, for the administration if the fee is
imposed on motor vehicle fuel, and requires the SBE be
reimbursed for its actual cost in the administration of
the fee and for its actual cost of preparation to
administer the fee based upon an independent audit.
Requires the SBE adopt the necessary rules and
regulations to administer the fee.
4.Requires the RTA and applicable air district (district)
to jointly adopt an expenditure plan (plan) for the
revenues derived from the fees.
5.Requires the plan:
A. Describe proposed transportation projects and
programs along with their estimated cost.
B. Include recommendations from a working group on
which projects to include in the plan. The working
group shall include representatives from regional
agencies and commissions, local agencies such as
cities, counties, and congestion management
agencies, nonprofit transportation and land use
experts, academic institutions working on climate
change and vehicle miles traveled reduction, and
other interested groups. For those projects or
programs in the expenditure plan, the RTA and the
district shall prioritize expenditures that are
most cost effective at producing reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicle use in
the jurisdiction of the regional transportation
AB 2558
Page
4
agency and addressing maintenance and
rehabilitation needs of the regions' transportation
system. These reductions should include the
associated greenhouse gas emission benefits of
reduced traffic congestion to ensure the reductions
accurately reflect the full benefits of the project
or program.
C. Estimates of cost, greenhouse gas reduction, and
mobility improvement for each project shall be
prepared by the RTA and district, in consultation
with project sponsors. An equity analysis shall be
conducted, showing the costs and benefits to each
income and geographic group of the proposed
expenditure plan. The expenditure plan presented
to the voters include sufficient funding to operate
and maintain each included project for the duration
of the fee, unless other fund sources are already
available for this purpose.
D. Be approved by the RTA and the district by a
two-thirds vote of their respective boards.
6.Requires projects or programs, to be eligible for
inclusion in the expenditure plan, meet at least one of
the following regional environmental or transportation
needs:
A. Cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions
directly associated with the operation of motor
vehicles.
B. Infrastructure to promote safe bicycling and
walking.
C. Capital or operating expenses of public transit
systems.
D. Improve the operational efficiency of the
existing state highway and local roadway system
without a physical expansion of the system.
E. Maintenance and rehabilitation of local streets
and roads, sidewalks, or bicycle routes.
AB 2558
Page
5
7.Requires the board of supervisors of each county and
city and county jurisdiction of the regional
transportation agency where the fee is to be imposed,
upon the request of the RTA and the district, submit to
the voters at a local election consolidated with a
statewide primary or general election specified by the
RTA, a measure authorizing the RTA to impose the fee
throughout jurisdiction of the regional transportation
agency where the fee is to be imposed. Requires the RTA
reimburse each county or city and county in the region
for the cost of submitting the measure to the voters.
8.Limits the RTA administrative expenses associated with
the fee to five percent of annual net revenues.
9.Requires the plan include a process of ensuring periodic
public review of the progress of the plan and citizen
oversight, and requires the RTA update the plan to
reflect completion of projects in the initial voter
approved plan and add additional projects which meet the
requirements of this bill.
10.Allows the RTA's to bond against this fee revenue. Any
bond issued pursuant to this bill shall contain on its
face a statement to the following effect: "Neither the
full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State
of California is pledged to the payment of principal of,
or the interest on, this bond."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2008-09 2009-10
2010-11 Fund
DMV: programming/ Unknown,
significant costs, likely Special*
database mgmt. several million initially, reimbursed
from fees. Ongoing costs offset by
AB 2558
Page
6
fees
BOE: develop/ Unknown,
significant costs to develop
General
administer fuel feefee program, reimbursed from fees.
Ongoing administrative costs offset be
fees.
Mandate: local elections
General
costs
*Motor Vehicle Account
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/24/08) (unable to verify at time of
writing)
Amalgamated Transit Union
American Lung Association
Bay Air Quality Management District
CALPIRG
California League of Conservation Voters
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
City of West Hollywood
Coalition for Clean Air
Environment California
Friends of the Earth
Green California
Los Angeles Business Council
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
Southern California Transit Advocates
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/24/08) (unable to verify at
time of writing)
AAA of Northern California
Automobile Club of Southern California
California Beer and Beverage Distributors
California Chamber of Commerce
California New Car Dealers Association
AB 2558
Page
7
California Service Station and Automotive Repair
Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Associations
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
Stop the Hidden Taxes Coalition
Transportation California Legislative Committee
Western States Petroleum Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents of this bill note that
Los Angeles County residents traveled 80.14 billion miles
using 4.73 billion gallons of fuel resulting in
approximately 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, or
one fifth of the state's transportation carbon footprint,
in 2006. If left unabated, the state Department of
Transportation's 2030 forecast predicts a 67 percent
increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to 134.12 billion
miles and a 47 percent increase in fuel consumption to 6.94
billion gallons.
The 2007 Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) Annual Urban
Mobility Report identified Los Angeles as having the worst
congestion in the nation, and the American Lung Association
reports that Los Angeles has the most polluted air in the
county. The TTI study shows that although annual highway
delay per person increased by 26 hours between 1982 and
1995, it has increased by only one hour since then,
highlighting Los Angeles County's significant investment in
multi-modal transportation improvements, particularly
public transportation. Proponents particularly note that
the TTI study reported that the county's public
transportation system now reduces 28.5 million hours of
travel and saves the county's bus and rail riders over $450
million in costs. MTA asserts that these savings translate
into a demand for the equivalent of 1,400 new freeway lane
miles to meet.
Proponents state, "It is obvious to us that the continuing
growth in the Los Angeles region demands that steps be
taken before the region is hopelessly gridlocked." They
support this bill because it provides a funding mechanism
to support environmentally sound transportation
alternatives at a time when the state budget is in deficit
and the Federal Highway Trust Fund is entering insolvency.
MTA itself reports that it cannot fund significant new
AB 2558
Page
8
transportation improvements to provide the VMT reductions
needed to reach the AB 32 greenhouse gas emission goals.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents express concern that
by authorizing Los Angeles County and the Bay Area to
impose the fees in this bill, it creates a patchwork quilt
of fees across regions of the state without an overarching,
well-defined, statewide strategy to combat the problem of
global warming. In addition, they note that gasoline
mileage requirements under federal law (know as CAF?
standards) increases by at least 40 percent to 35 m.p.g. by
2020; that California has also adopted AB 32 (Nu?ez); that
Governor Schwarzenegger issued an Executive Order creating
a new low carbon fuel standard; and that last year's AB 118
(Nu?ez) will raise over $1 billion over the next decade for
alternative fuels research and air quality improvement
programs. Taken together, these federal and state policies
will yield dramatic changes in California's economy and
transportation system. Opponents assert that adoption of
local programs risk contradicting these state and federal
policies and potentially undermining their projected
positive impacts. Opponents request that these previously
enacted policies be implemented before Los Angeles County
or the Bay Area enact additional carbon emission or air
quality fee-related measures.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Arambula, Beall, Berg, Brownley, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeSaulnier, Dymally, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Furutani,
Hancock, Hayashi, Huffman, Jones, Karnette, Krekorian,
Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Ma, Mendoza, Mullin,
Nava, Nunez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,
Swanson, Torrico, Wolk, Bass
NOES: Adams, Aghazarian, Anderson, Benoit, Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Fuller,
Gaines, Galgiani, Garcia, Garrick, Horton, Huff,
Jeffries, Keene, La Malfa, Maze, Nakanishi, Niello,
Parra, Plescia, Sharon Runner, Silva, Smyth, Spitzer,
Strickland, Tran, Villines, Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fuentes, Hernandez, Houston, Solorio,
Soto
AB 2558
Page
9
JJA:do 8/19/08 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****