South Coast Air Quality Management District

Legislative Committee

SYNOPSIS: 

The Legislative Committee considered agenda items including the following Legislative Concepts for 2002:
 
State Legislative Concept #1--Funding to Assist Fleet Rules Compliance
State Legislative Concept #2--Sustain Air District Subventions
State Legislative Concept #3--Diesel Fuel Tax
State Legislative Concept #4--Diesel Retrofit Requirements
State Legislative Concept #5--Hearing Board

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the Legislative Concepts recommended below.

Jane Carney, Vice Chair
Legislative Committee

Attendance

The Legislative Committee met on December 21, 2001. Present were Committee Vice Chair Jane Carney, and Committee members Michael Antonovich, Cynthia Verdugo-Peralta and Roy Wilson (by videoconference). Committee Chair Beatrice LaPisto-Kirtley was unable to attend.

Washington Update

Peter Robertson, AQMD Washington Legislative Representative, reported that Congress continues to focus on a few remaining Appropriation bills yet to pass and consensus on an Economic Stimulus package is expected next week.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) introduced on December 5, the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (S. 1766). This comprehensive energy legislation addresses electricity restructuring, hydroelectric relicensing, nuclear fuel and domestic energy production. The legislation also contains language addressing renewable fuels, energy efficiency, climate change policy and ethanol production. The Energy Policy Act will be considered when Congress returns in January.

Sacramento Update

Allan Lind, AQMD Sacramento Legislative Representative, briefed the Committee on the state’s fiscal crisis. In October, Governor Davis requested state departments to review their FY 2001-02 programs and propose to the Governor areas where budget cuts could be made. The Governor has prepared $2.2 billion in budget reductions and is expected to convene a special legislative session in January regarding the fiscal crisis. Included in the proposed cuts is $14.4 million of the $16 million appropriated for air district diesel mitigation projects. The remaining $1.6 million will be distributed to air districts to cover administrative costs incurred in response to the energy crisis. Supervisor Antonovich asked if the AQMD would need to adjust their budget due to the decreased funding. Dr. Wallerstein responded that these monies were to be pass-through dollars and no adjustments to the current budget are necessary. However, Dr. Wallerstein added that staff is already looking at areas in the FY 2002-03 budget where decreased spending may need to occur if air district subvention funding is reduced.

On the ballot in March is Proposition 40, the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhoods, Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. Included within this measure is $50 million for the Carl Moyer Program. Additionally, the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) has been working on the Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Act, an Initiative slated for the November, 2002, ballot. The Initiative would allocate 30 percent of the state’s share of the sales tax on new and used motor vehicles to a new trust fund for transportation improvements around the state. The current funding estimate is $870 million. Of that, 3 percent, or $26 million, will go to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the Carl Moyer Program. Another 8 percent, or approximately $70 million, will go the Department of Education for distribution to schools to replace diesel buses.

Lastly, Mr. Lind reported that leadership changes in the Legislature are likely to occur next year with 14 out of 28 Assembly committee chairs termed out in 2002. Changes are likely to occur in early February.

Draft 2001 State Legislative Proposals (Attachment 2)

Staff briefed the Committee on the following legislative proposals for the 2002 legislative session.

State Legislative Concept #1--Funding to Assist Fleet Rule Compliance
State Legislative Concept #2--Sustain Air District Subventions
State Legislative Concept #3--Diesel Fuel Tax
State Legislative Concept #4--Diesel Retrofit Requirements
State Legislative Concept #5--Hearing Board

Legislative Concept #1 would seek to support legislation, in partnership with local governments and public/private entities, to provide expanded or new funding opportunities to assist with costs of complying with AQMD fleet rules.

Legislative Concept #2 seeks to sustain current state subvention to air districts for general operating costs. Dr. Wallerstein stated that the state subvention represents approximately $6 million for the AQMD.

Legislative Concept #3 seeks to support legislation to create a financial incentive for the production and consumption of low sulfur diesel fuel. Dr. Liu stated that conventional CARB-certified diesel is approximately 5˘ more per gallon than low sulfur diesel fuel and this proposal could provide a significant incentive for the early use of cleaner diesel fuel and accommodate the use of PM catalyst traps.

Legislative Concept #4 will seek to accelerate implementation of CARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, so that every diesel engine in the South Coast region, for which it is feasible, has at least a particulate trap, and uses 15 ppm diesel fuel, at the earliest feasible date. Dr. Liu stated that Board Member Bernson requested that the Board support a policy that requires retrofit on all heavy-duty engines as soon as possible. At this time CARB is pursuing the retrofit program, but the pace is slowing. Ms. Verdugo-Peralta asked if there was a reason for the slow down and Dr. Liu responded that there have been some complications in the verification process on the retrofit technology. Dr. Wallerstein added that Board Member Bernson wants the AQMD to do this and if CARB is unwilling, then staff has been directed to seek the authority to do this.

Legislative Concept #5 seeks to amend current law to change various administrative procedures for the Hearing Board to allow flexibility in response to public health threats; to allow closed session to discuss trade secret information; and to update existing law regarding Hearing Board variance processing. Specifically, staff is recommending to:

1. Amend current law to give the Governing Board and Hearing Board authority to issue orders for abatement to prevent future violations and authorize the Hearing Board to issue an emergency order for abatement upon 24-hour notice to the affected source without having to wait for the currently required 10-day noticing period to expire.
   
   Peter Mieras, District Prosecutor, explained that currently orders for abatement can only be issued when there is a violation of a District rule. The order requires the violating source to come into compliance as quickly as possible under the terms and conditions imposed by the Hearing Board after a hearing where the source can present its case, the District presents its case and the public can speak. Amending the law would assist the District in protecting public health in situations where problems are continually investigated in a community regarding fugitive dust, potential nuisance, and suspected toxic emissions and, despite warnings that a problem is brewing and a violation is imminent, do not acknowledge the problem and address it. It would allow an order of abatement to be issued before a violation occurs. Ms. Carney suggested that the proposal be refined. Mr. Mieras responded that criteria have been developed so that the concept of imminent harm is not defined too narrowly or too expansive. Ms. Baird added that it would be similar to a temporary restraining order. Dr. Wallerstein stated that this is a draft proposal and staff will seek an author to include these concepts into legislation and that an amended proposal will be brought back to the Legislative Committee for approval which is consistent with the committee’s comments.
   
   
2. Mr. Mieras explained that the second concept of the Hearing Board proposal would seek to amend current law to allow the Hearing Board to convene to closed session to consider trade secret information. In the past the Hearing Board has agreed to closed hearings based on legal opinions interpreting prior versions of the Brown Act. However, the Brown Act was amended and now appears to forbid such closed sessions. Requests for closed session to present trade secret information rarely occur, but for those limited situations this would allow the option and prohibit a company from having to choose between presenting a meaningful case or protecting their trade secrets.
   
   
3. Lastly, Mr. Mieras explained that the third concept in the Hearing Board proposal is to update existing law that requires the Hearing Board to process variances in the county in which a variance is applicable. The AQMD Headquarters in Diamond Bar is now more centrally located for all petitioners. This would update the meeting requirements of the Hearing Board and is consistent with other current law that requires any hearing conducted by the Hearing Board to be held in a location readily accessible to the public. Additionally, upon request, the Hearing Board holds more localized hearings in the various counties and also arranges meetings during the evening hours at Headquarters or at other locations. The Hearing Board will continue to do this.

None

Attachments

1. Attendance Roster
2. Year 2002 State Legislative Concept Proposals

/ / /