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 ****