BOARD MEETING DATE: October 6, 2006
AGENDA NO. 28

Legislative Committee

SYNOPSIS:

The Legislative Committee held its regular meeting on Friday, September 15, 2006.  The next Legislative Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, October 13, 2006, at 8:00 a.m. in Conference Room CC8.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Receive and file this report.

Jane Carney, Chair
Legislative Committee

Attendance [Attachment 1]

The Legislative Committee met on September 15, 2006.  Present was Committee Chair Jane Carney.  Present, by videoconference, were Committee Members Roy Wilson, and Jan Perry.

Status Report on bills at the end of 2005-06 Session [Attachment 2]

Mr. Oscar Abarca, Deputy Executive Officer, reported that the 2005-06 legislative session concluded on August 31.  AQMD had significant success this year in its Sacramento efforts and secured quite a bit of local support for AQMD's legislative goals and objectives.  He highlighted the following legislation of greatest interest to AQMD:

• SJR 31 (Lowenthal) Clean Ports.  This legislation, sponsored by AQMD, has been chaptered.  California Strategies is checking to see if there is interest from the Governor to either communicate a similar resolution or to attach a letter to the resolution which will be transmitted to the President and the US EPA urging the US EPA to do more in rulemaking and spelling out the urgency of getting those rules adopted. 
• SB 927 (Lowenthal) Ports: Congestion Relief: Security Enhancement: Environmental Mitigation: Regulatory Fee.  This legislation, supported by AQMD, would allow for the collection of a $30 fee per shipping container at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.  One-third of the funds collected would be used for air pollution mitigation.  The legislation is with the governor for his signature.
• AB 32 (Nunez and Pavley) Air Pollution: Greenhouse Gases: California Global Warming Solutions At of 2006.  AQMD and other air quality districts assisted in moving this legislation that has been sent to the Governor.
• AB 888 (De La Torre) Air Pollution: Equipment Emission, and SB 459 (Romero) Air Pollution: SouthCoast Air Quality Management: Emission of Air Contaminants: Locomotives.  These bills were sponsored by the AQMD.  Both  received legislative support from all policy and fiscal committees that they were heard in, but did not pass the floor on the last days of the session.
• SB 225 (Soto) Carl Moyer Program.  This legislation will provide air districts greater flexibility in administering the Carl Moyer Program and has been sent to the Governor.
• AB 2015 (Lieu) Air Quality: South Coast Air Quality Management District: Board Membership.  This legislation was to have modified the composition of AQMD's Governing Board.  This Legislation was sent to suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, commented that over the last couple of years, several local environmental justice groups have been sponsoring legislation without fully discussing contents with AQMD, resulting in AQMD either opposing, or requesting that amendments be made, or testifying in committees that the Board is opposed to their legislation.  Dr. Wallerstein said that he would like to sit down with these groups, so that in the future, there is no misinformation or mischaracterization of the AQMD, and AQMD will not have to oppose their legislation. 

Dr. Wallerstein also reported thatAQMD has sent a letter to the Governor requesting his signature on SB 927 (Lowenthal) Ports: Congestion Relief: Security Enhancement: Environmental Mitigation: Regulatory Fee.  The container fee will provide a majority of funding which is necessary to implement the draft clean air plan prepared by the ports.

Subsequent to the Committee meeting, the Governor vetoed the measure.  Senator Lowenthal has indicated that he will attempt a similar but modified measure next year.

Update on AQMD’s Federal Legislative Agenda

Dr. Anupom Ganguli, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer/Public Advisor, reported that staff has contacted Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties to see if there is a possibility of cost sharing for the services of a Washington D.C. consultant.  Out of the four counties contacted, San Bernardino is possibly favorable and Los Angeles is not favorable at this time.  He is still waiting to hear back from Orange, and Riverside counties.  However, an RFP for legislative consulting services in Washington, D.C. with cost sharing from the Sacramento Air Quality Management District will be brought before the AQMD Governing Board in October. 

Dr. Wallerstein said that he has met with his counterpart at the Sacramento Metropolitan Air District and they are proposing to put in $35,000 and AQMD will put in $99,000.  He said that Sacramento Air Quality Management District is putting less funding than AQMD because it does not have the same level of Washington D.C. work/needs as AQMD.

Regarding AQMD’s funding requests, Dr. Ganguli said that the nano particles study request is still possible according to the staff of Congresswoman Hilda Solis and contained in HR 5386.  It will still need to pass in conference committee.  Regarding the diesel emissions reduction plan, the funds have been reduced, (the house had recommended $50 million, but the senate has reduced it to $25 million), and a final decision will be made in the conference committee. 

In terms of EPA’s appropriations money which AQMD receives for the Section 103 and 105 grants, the house restored it back to $220 million, but the senate then reduced it down to $200 million.  This amount is still under negotiations.

Dr. Ganguli said that Senator Inhofe had proposed legislation that would place sanctions on the AQMD, and the San Joaquin Valley AQMD for non-compliance with federal air quality standards, in a manner that is not discretionary.  The proposed legislation has died. 

Proposition 87 – Alternative Energy, Research, Production, Incentives, Tax on California Oil Producers, Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statue [Attachment 3]

Mr. Jared Ficker, AQMD, Sacramento consultant, provided a brief informational update on Proposition 87.  (A copy of his presentation is attached as Attachment 3). 

Mr. Ficker said that of the $4 billion being proposed, 58% will be used on gasoline and diesel reduction; 27% on research and innovation acceleration; 10% on commercialization acceleration (the introduction of petroleum reduction and renewable energy technologies); and 5% on public education and the administration and vocational training for community college students.   He also reported that this funding does not go through the budgetary process, and therefore it is a direct allocation to the California Energy Alternatives Program Authority who will work out the details of the program.  

No position was taken on Proposition 87; the presentation was for information purposes only.

Public Comment

None.

Attachment (EXE 211kb)
Attendance Roster
Sacramento Matrix
Proposition 87 Power Point Presentation