AB 2620: Passenger rail projects: funding.
- Session Year: 2015-2016
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2016-09-28
Proposition 116, an initiative measure, enacted the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990, which establishes the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Fund, continuously appropriates specified amounts from the fund for, among other things, rights-of-way for rail purposes and capital expenditures deemed necessary for a specified rail service, and requires the California Transportation Commission to adopt guidelines for the approval of grants for transit projects which are essential to the implementation of safe and reliable transit services.
The act authorizes, if any of the funds are not expended or encumbered prior to July 1, 2010, the Legislature to reallocate the funds for any other passenger rail project in the state by a statute passed in each house by a 2/3 vote.
This bill would reallocate funds allocated pursuant to the act that are not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2020, to any other existing passenger rail project with existing rail service, as specified. The bill would require the commission to determine the projects pursuant to this reallocation. By reallocating unexpended or unencumbered funds to any other existing passenger rail project, the bill would make an appropriation.
Proposition 116, an initiative measure, enacted the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990, which establishes the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Fund, continuously appropriates specified amounts from the fund for, among other things, rights-of-way for rail purposes and capital expenditures deemed necessary for a specified rail service, and requires the California Transportation Commission to adopt guidelines for the approval of grants for transit projects which are essential to the implementation of safe and reliable transit services.
The act authorizes, if any of the funds are not expended or encumbered prior to July 1, 2010, the Legislature to reallocate the funds for any other passenger rail project in the state by a statute passed in each house by a 2/3 vote.
This bill would reallocate funds allocated pursuant to the act that are not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2020, to any other existing passenger rail project with existing rail service, as specified. The bill would require the commission to determine the projects pursuant to this reallocation. By reallocating unexpended or unencumbered funds to any other existing passenger rail project, the bill would make an appropriation.
Proposition 116, an initiative measure, enacted the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990, which establishes the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Fund, continuously appropriates specified amounts from the fund for, among other things, rights-of-way for rail purposes and capital expenditures deemed necessary for a specified rail service, and requires the California Transportation Commission to adopt guidelines for the approval of grants for transit projects which are essential to the implementation of safe and reliable transit services.
The act authorizes, if any of the funds are not expended or encumbered prior to July 1, 2010, the Legislature to reallocate the funds for any other passenger rail project in the state by a statute passed in each house by a 2/3 vote.
This bill would reallocate funds allocated pursuant to the act that are not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2020, to any other existing passenger rail project with existing rail service. service, except as specified. The bill would require the commission to determine the projects pursuant to this reallocation. By reallocating unexpended or unencumbered funds to any other existing passenger rail project, the bill would make an appropriation.
Proposition 116, an initiative measure, enacted the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990, which establishes the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Fund, allocates continuously appropriates specified amounts from the fund for, among other things, rights-of-way for rail purposes and capital expenditures deemed necessary for a specified rail service, and requires the California Transportation Commission to adopt guidelines for the approval of grants for transit projects which are essential to the implementation of safe and reliable transit services.
The act authorizes, if any of the funds are not expended or encumbered prior to July 1, 2010, the Legislature to reallocate the funds for any other passenger rail project in the state by a statute passed in each house by a 2/3 vote.
This bill would reallocate funds allocated pursuant to the act that are not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2020, to any other existing passenger rail project in the state. with existing rail service. The bill would require the commission to determine the existing passenger rail projects in the state and implement the reallocation on a pro-rata basis. projects pursuant to this reallocation. By reallocating unexpended or unencumbered funds to any other existing passenger rail project, the bill would make an appropriation.
Proposition 116, an initiative measure, enacted the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990, which establishes the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Fund, allocates specified amounts from the fund for, among other things, rights-of-way for rail purposes and capital expenditures deemed necessary for a specified rail service, and requires the California Transportation Commission to adopt guidelines for the approval of grants for transit projects which are essential to the implementation of safe and reliable transit services.
The act authorizes, if any of the funds are not expended or encumbered prior to July 1, 2010, the Legislature to reallocate the funds for any other passenger rail project in the state by a statute passed in each house by a 2/3 vote.
This bill would reallocate funds allocated pursuant to the act that are not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2020, to any other existing passenger rail project in the state. The bill would require the commission to determine the existing passenger rail projects in the state and implement the reallocation on a pro-rata basis. By reallocating unexpended or unencumbered funds to any other existing passenger rail project, the bill would make an appropriation.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations. The Public Utilities Act prohibits any electrical corporation or gas corporation from beginning the construction of, among other things, a line, plant, or system, or of any extension thereof, without having first obtained from the commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require that construction. The act requires the commission, when calculating the cost-effectiveness of energy resources, to include a value for any costs and benefits to the environment.
This bill would make a nonsubstantive, revision to the requirement that the commission, when calculating the cost-effectiveness of energy resources, include a value for any costs and benefits to the environment.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations. The Public Utilities Act prohibits any electrical corporation or gas corporation from beginning the construction of, among other things, a line, plant, or system, or of any extension thereof, without having first obtained from the commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require that construction. The act requires the commission, when calculating the cost-effectiveness of energy resources, to include a value for any costs and benefits to the environment.
This bill would make a nonsubstantive, revision to the requirement that the commission, when calculating the cost-effectiveness of energy resources, include a value for any costs and benefits to the environment.
(a)Funds allocated pursuant to this part that are not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2020, are hereby reallocated pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 99684 to any other existing passenger rail project with existing rail service.
(b)The California Transportation Commission shall determine the projects pursuant to the reallocation as described in subdivision (a). The high-speed rail project as described in Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 2704) of Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code is not eligible to receive reallocated funds pursuant to subdivision (a) as it is not providing existing rail service.
(a)Funds allocated pursuant to this part that are not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2020, are hereby reallocated pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 99684 to any other existing passenger rail project with existing rail service.
(b)The California Transportation Commission shall determine the projects pursuant to the reallocation as described in subdivision (a). The high-speed rail project as described in Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 2704) of Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code is not eligible to receive reallocated funds pursuant to subdivision (a) as it is not providing existing rail service.
(a)Funds allocated pursuant to this part that are not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2020, are hereby reallocated pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 99684 to any other existing passenger rail project with existing rail service.
(b)The California Transportation Commission shall determine the projects pursuant to the reallocation as described in subdivision (a). The high-speed rail project as described in Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 2704) of Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code is not eligible to receive reallocated funds pursuant to subdivision (a) as it is not providing existing rail service.
(a)Funds allocated pursuant to this part that are not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2020, are hereby reallocated pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 99684 to any other existing passenger rail project. project with existing rail service.
(b)The California Transportation Commission shall determine the existing passenger rail projects in the state and implement the reallocation described in subdivision (a) on a pro-rata basis. the projects pursuant to the reallocation as described in subdivision (a).(a)Funds allocated pursuant to this part that are not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2020, are hereby reallocated pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 99684 to any other existing passenger rail project.
(b)The California Transportation Commission shall determine the existing passenger rail projects in the state and implement the reallocation described in subdivision (a) on a pro-rata basis.
SECTION 1.Section 701.1 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:701.1.(a)(1)The Legislature finds and declares that, in addition to other ratepayer protection objectives, a principal goal of electric and natural gas utilities resource planning and investment shall be to minimize the cost to society of the reliable energy services that are provided by natural gas and electricity, and to improve the environment and to encourage the diversity of energy sources through improvements in energy efficiency, development of renewable energy resources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy, and widespread transportation electrification.
(2)The amendment made to this subdivision by the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (Chapter 547 of the Statutes of 2015) does not expand the authority of the commission beyond that provided by other law.
(b)The Legislature further finds and declares that, in addition to any appropriate investments in energy production, electrical and natural gas utilities should seek to exploit all practicable and cost-effective conservation and improvements in the efficiency of energy use and distribution that offer equivalent or better system reliability, and which are not being exploited by any other entity.
(c)In calculating the cost-effectiveness of energy resources, including conservation and load management options, the commission shall include, in addition to other ratepayer protection objectives, a value for any costs and benefits to the environment, including air quality. The commission shall ensure that any values it develops pursuant to this section are consistent with values developed by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission pursuant to Section 25000.1 of the Public Resources Code. However, if the commission determines that a value developed pursuant to this subdivision is not consistent with a value developed by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 25000.1 of the Public Resources Code, the commission may nonetheless use this value if, in the appropriate record of its proceedings, it states its reasons for using the value it has selected.
(d)In determining the emission values associated with the current operating capacity of existing electric powerplants pursuant to subdivision (c), the commission shall adhere to the following protocol in determining values for air quality costs and benefits to the environment. If the commission finds that an air pollutant that is subject to regulation is a component of residual emissions from an electric powerplant and that the owner of that powerplant is either of the following:
(1)Using a tradable emission allowance, right, or offset for that pollutant, which (A) has been approved by the air quality district regulating the powerplant, (B) is consistent with federal and state law, and (C) has been obtained, authorized, or acquired in a market-based system.
(2)Paying a tax per measured unit of that pollutant.
The commission shall not assign a value or cost to that residual pollutant for the current operating capacity of that powerplant because the alternative protocol for dealing with the pollutant operates to internalize its cost for the purpose of planning for and acquiring new generating resources.
(e)(1)The values determined pursuant to subdivision (c) to represent costs and benefits to the environment shall not be used by the commission, in and of themselves, to require early decommissioning or retirement of an electric utility powerplant that complies with applicable prevailing environmental regulations.
(2)Further, the environmental values determined pursuant to subdivision (c) shall not be used by the commission in a manner which, when those values are aggregated, will result in advancing an electric utilitys need for new powerplant capacity by more than 15 months.
(f)This subdivision shall apply whenever a powerplant bid solicitation is required by the commission for an electric utility and a portion of the amount of new powerplant capacity, which is the subject of the bid solicitation, is the result of the commissions use of environmental values to advance that electric utilitys need for new powerplant capacity in the manner authorized by paragraph (2) of subdivision (e). The affected electric utility may propose to the commission any combination of alternatives to that portion of the new powerplant capacity that is the result of the commissions use of environmental values as authorized by paragraph (2) of subdivision (c). The commission shall approve an alternative in place of the new powerplant capacity if it finds all of the following:
(1)The alternative has been approved by the relevant air quality district.
(2)The alternative is consistent with federal and state law.
(3)The alternative will result in needed system reliability for the electric utility at least equivalent to that which would result from bidding for new powerplant capacity.
(4)The alternative will result in reducing system operating costs for the electric utility over those which would result from the process of bidding for new powerplant capacity.
(5)The alternative will result in equivalent or better environmental improvements at a lower cost than would result from bidding for new powerplant capacity.
(g)This section does not require an electric utility to alter the dispatch of its powerplants for environmental purposes.
(h)This section does not preclude an electric utility from submitting to the commission any combination of alternatives to meet a commission-identified need for new capacity, if the submission is otherwise authorized by the commission.
(i)This section does not change or alter any provision of commission decision 92-04-045, dated April 22, 1992.
(a)(1)The Legislature finds and declares that, in addition to other ratepayer protection objectives, a principal goal of electric and natural gas utilities resource planning and investment shall be to minimize the cost to society of the reliable energy services that are provided by natural gas and electricity, and to improve the environment and to encourage the diversity of energy sources through improvements in energy efficiency, development of renewable energy resources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy, and widespread transportation electrification.
(2)The amendment made to this subdivision by the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (Chapter 547 of the Statutes of 2015) does not expand the authority of the commission beyond that provided by other law.
(b)The Legislature further finds and declares that, in addition to any appropriate investments in energy production, electrical and natural gas utilities should seek to exploit all practicable and cost-effective conservation and improvements in the efficiency of energy use and distribution that offer equivalent or better system reliability, and which are not being exploited by any other entity.
(c)In calculating the cost-effectiveness of energy resources, including conservation and load management options, the commission shall include, in addition to other ratepayer protection objectives, a value for any costs and benefits to the environment, including air quality. The commission shall ensure that any values it develops pursuant to this section are consistent with values developed by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission pursuant to Section 25000.1 of the Public Resources Code. However, if the commission determines that a value developed pursuant to this subdivision is not consistent with a value developed by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 25000.1 of the Public Resources Code, the commission may nonetheless use this value if, in the appropriate record of its proceedings, it states its reasons for using the value it has selected.
(d)In determining the emission values associated with the current operating capacity of existing electric powerplants pursuant to subdivision (c), the commission shall adhere to the following protocol in determining values for air quality costs and benefits to the environment. If the commission finds that an air pollutant that is subject to regulation is a component of residual emissions from an electric powerplant and that the owner of that powerplant is either of the following:
(1)Using a tradable emission allowance, right, or offset for that pollutant, which (A) has been approved by the air quality district regulating the powerplant, (B) is consistent with federal and state law, and (C) has been obtained, authorized, or acquired in a market-based system.
(2)Paying a tax per measured unit of that pollutant.
The commission shall not assign a value or cost to that residual pollutant for the current operating capacity of that powerplant because the alternative protocol for dealing with the pollutant operates to internalize its cost for the purpose of planning for and acquiring new generating resources.
(e)(1)The values determined pursuant to subdivision (c) to represent costs and benefits to the environment shall not be used by the commission, in and of themselves, to require early decommissioning or retirement of an electric utility powerplant that complies with applicable prevailing environmental regulations.
(2)Further, the environmental values determined pursuant to subdivision (c) shall not be used by the commission in a manner which, when those values are aggregated, will result in advancing an electric utilitys need for new powerplant capacity by more than 15 months.
(f)This subdivision shall apply whenever a powerplant bid solicitation is required by the commission for an electric utility and a portion of the amount of new powerplant capacity, which is the subject of the bid solicitation, is the result of the commissions use of environmental values to advance that electric utilitys need for new powerplant capacity in the manner authorized by paragraph (2) of subdivision (e). The affected electric utility may propose to the commission any combination of alternatives to that portion of the new powerplant capacity that is the result of the commissions use of environmental values as authorized by paragraph (2) of subdivision (c). The commission shall approve an alternative in place of the new powerplant capacity if it finds all of the following:
(1)The alternative has been approved by the relevant air quality district.
(2)The alternative is consistent with federal and state law.
(3)The alternative will result in needed system reliability for the electric utility at least equivalent to that which would result from bidding for new powerplant capacity.
(4)The alternative will result in reducing system operating costs for the electric utility over those which would result from the process of bidding for new powerplant capacity.
(5)The alternative will result in equivalent or better environmental improvements at a lower cost than would result from bidding for new powerplant capacity.
(g)This section does not require an electric utility to alter the dispatch of its powerplants for environmental purposes.
(h)This section does not preclude an electric utility from submitting to the commission any combination of alternatives to meet a commission-identified need for new capacity, if the submission is otherwise authorized by the commission.
(i)This section does not change or alter any provision of commission decision 92-04-045, dated April 22, 1992.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2016 | Ordered to third reading. |
| Jun 27, 2016 | In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Aug 11, 2016 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 11). |
| Aug 15, 2016 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 25, 2016 | Re-referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Aug 29, 2016 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Aug 29, 2016 | Senate Rule 29.3 (b) suspended. |
| Aug 29, 2016 | Senate Rule 29.3(b) suspended. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 5482.) |
| Aug 30, 2016 | (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 5529.) |
| Jun 15, 2016 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (June 14). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Aug 30, 2016 | Withdrawn from committee. |
| Aug 31, 2016 | Assembly Rule 63 suspended. |
| Aug 31, 2016 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. |
| Aug 31, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Aug 31, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 5569.). |
| Aug 31, 2016 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Sep 12, 2016 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 11:30 a.m. |
| Feb 19, 2016 | Introduced. To print. |
| May 19, 2016 | Referred to Com. on T. & H. |
| May 12, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0.) |
| May 12, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 4788.) |
| May 12, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| May 12, 2016 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 5, 2016 | Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| May 4, 2016 | From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 20. Noes 0.) (May 4). |
| Apr 19, 2016 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (April 18). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 12, 2016 | Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Apr 11, 2016 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 28, 2016 | Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Mar 18, 2016 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 17, 2016 | Referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Feb 22, 2016 | Read first time. |
| Feb 21, 2016 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 22. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2016 | AB 2620 DABABNEH Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 31, 2016 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB2620 Dababneh By Galgiani | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 11, 2016 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 27, 2016 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 14, 2016 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Housing |
Passed |
|
| May 12, 2016 | AB 2620 DABABNEH Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 4, 2016 | Do pass. To Consent Calendar. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 18, 2016 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| California Transportation Commission | ** Support | Aug 31, 2016 |
(Without Reference to File)
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2620
Author:(Dababneh)
As Amended Ver:August 29, 2016
2/3 vote
ASSEMBLY: | 78-0 | (May 12, 2016) | SENATE: | 39-0 | (August 31, 2016) |
Original Committee Reference: TRANS.
SUMMARY: Authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to reallocate funds from the Proposition 116 (1990) program, if they are not encumbered or expended by 2020, for other existing passenger rail projects with existing rail service.
The Senate amendment clarify that the high-speed rail project is not eligible to receive reallocated funds since it does not provide existing rail service.
EXISTING LAW:
- Enacts Proposition 116, the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act (CATIA), which authorized $1.99 billion in general obligation bonds for specific projects, purposes, and geographic jurisdictions, primarily for passenger rail capital projects.
- Allows the Legislature to reallocate funds not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2010, to any passenger rail project in the state by a two-thirds vote in each house.
- Creates the CTC with specified powers and duties relative to the programming of transportation capital improvement projects and the allocations of transportation revenues.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, reallocation of up to $12.8 million in general obligation bond funds, potentially resulting in additional General Fund costs for debt service payments in the mid hundreds of thousands annually for 30 years, to the extent these bonds remain unsold absent the bill. See staff comments below.
COMMENTS: Proposition 116, which was approved by voters in 1990, authorized $1.99 billion in general obligation bonds for a variety of intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, transit and other projects. Specifically, $1.852 billion was authorized for the preservation, acquisition, construction, or improvement of rail rights-of-way, rail terminals and stations, rolling stock acquisition, grade separations, rail maintenance facilities, and other capital expenditures for rail purposes. Additionally, $73 million was authorized for 28 non-urban counties for various rail projects, the purchase of paratransit vehicles, and other capital facilities for public transportation. Finally, for non-rail projects, $20 million was available for a competitive bicycle program for capital outlay for bicycle improvement projects and $30 million for a water-borne ferry program. Proposition 116 is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the CTC and is programmed and allocated in two-step process similar to the process used for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). First, the CTC programs the funds for projects eligible under the original authorization, which it does by approving project applications that define a project's scope, schedule, and funding. Then the CTC allocates the funds when the project is ready for funding.
As part of its 2015 Annual Report to the California Legislature, the CTC urged the Legislature to enact legislation to sunset the Proposition 116 program and reallocate any funds remaining at that time to other passenger rail projects. The CTC reports the most recent action for allocating funds from the program occurred in 2014-15, and as of June 30, 2015, of the amounts programmed only $12.7 million remains unallocated.
According to the author, during a time when many are looking for a funding source and solution to maintain and repair California's transportation infrastructure, California should better utilize existing funding sources. Further he states that, in the case of Proposition 116, money has been allocated, yet some of these funds have not been utilized and if they remain unused for an extended period of time, the state should reallocate the funds to projects which will move forward. The author continues that, while there has been little activity related to these funds, the additional administrative cost to the state can be avoided if the program sunset and the funds were redirected to existing projects.
The CTC has recommended the Proposition 116 program be sunsetted and the funds be reallocated for many years now. The CTC is working with the remaining local agencies on their programmed projects to try to finalize any allocations. This bill would allow the CTC to continue this process until 2020 before any reallocation would occur. The CTC would then be able to reallocate any unallocated funds to other passenger rail projects in the state as outlined in the proposition. As the state continues to grapple with funding shortfalls in all modes of transportation, utilizing existing, unused Proposition 116 revenues for other rail projects seems appropriate.
Analysis Prepared by: Melissa White / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0005017
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2620
: in Senate
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/14/16
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/12/16 (Consent) - See last page for vote
DIGEST: This bill authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to reallocate funds from the Proposition 116 (1990) program, if they are not encumbered or expended by 2020, for other existing passenger rail projects with existing rail service.
Existing law:
- Enacts Proposition 116, the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act, which authorized $1.99 billion in general obligation bonds for specific projects, purposes, and geographic jurisdictions, primarily for passenger rail capital projects.
- Allows the Legislature to reallocate funds not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2010, to any passenger rail project in the state by a two-thirds vote in each house.
- Creates the CTC, with specified powers and duties relative to the programming of transportation capital improvement projects and the allocation of transportation revenues.
This bill authorizes the CTC to reallocate funds from the Proposition 116 program, if they are not encumbered or expended by 2020, for other existing passenger rail projects with existing rail service. This bill additionally prohibits reallocated Proposition 116 funds being used for the high-speed rail project, as specified.
Comments
- Purpose. The author notes, “During a time when many are looking for a funding source and solution to maintain and repair California’s transportation infrastructure, California should better utilize existing funding sources. In the case of Prop. 116, money has been allocated, yet some of these funds have not been utilized, and if they remain unused for an extended period of time, the state should reallocate the funds to projects which will move forward. While there has been little activity related to the use of these funds, the additional administrative cost to the state can be avoided if the program were to sunset and the funds were redirected to existing projects.”
- A brief history of Proposition 116. Proposition 116, which was approved by voters in 1990, authorized $1.99 billion in general obligation bonds for a variety of intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, transit, and other projects. Specifically, $1.852 billion was authorized for the preservation, acquisition, construction, or improvement of rail rights-of-way, rail terminals and stations, rolling stock acquisition, grade separations, rail maintenance facilities, and other capital expenditures for rail purposes. Additionally, $73 million was authorized for 28 non-urban counties for various rail projects, the purchase of paratransit vehicles, and other capital facilities for public transportation. Finally, for non-rail projects, $20 million was available for a competitive bicycle program for capital outlay for bicycle improvement projects and $30 million for a water-borne ferry program. Proposition 116 is administered by the California Department of Transportation and CTC and is programmed and allocated in a two-step process similar to the process used for the State Transportation Improvement Program. First, CTC programs the funds for projects eligible under the original authorization, which it does by approving project applications that define a project’s scope, schedule, and funding. Then CTC allocates the funds when the project is ready for funding.
- CTC’s report to the Legislature. As part of its 2015 Annual Report to the California Legislature, the CTC urged the Legislature to enact legislation to sunset the Proposition 116 program and reallocate any funds remaining at that time to other passenger rail projects. The CTC reports the most recent action for allocating funds from the program occurred in 2014-15, and as of June 30, 2015, of the amounts programmed only $12.7 million remains unallocated.
- Status of Proposition 116 funds. CTC is working with the remaining local agencies on their programmed projects to try to finalize any Proposition 116 allocations. AB 2620 allows CTC to continue this process until 2020 before any reallocation would occur. CTC would then be able to reallocate any unallocated funds to other passenger rail projects in the state as outlined in the proposition. As the state continues to grapple with funding shortfalls in all modes of transportation, utilizing existing, unused Proposition 116 revenues for other rail projects seems appropriate.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, reallocation of up to $12.8 million in general obligation bond funds, potentially resulting in additional General Fund costs for debt service payments in the mid-hundreds of thousands annually for 30 years, to the extent these bonds remain unsold absent this bill.
California Transportation Commission
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/30/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/12/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Burke, Jones-Sawyer
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2620
:
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/14/16
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/12/16 (Consent) - See last page for vote
DIGEST: This bill authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to reallocate funds from the Proposition 116 (1990) program, if they are not encumbered or expended by 2020, for other existing passenger rail projects with existing rail service.
Existing law:
- Enacts Proposition 116, the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act, which authorized $1.99 billion in general obligation bonds for specific projects, purposes, and geographic jurisdictions, primarily for passenger rail capital projects.
- Allows the Legislature to reallocate funds not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2010, to any passenger rail project in the state by a two-thirds vote in each house.
- Creates the CTC, with specified powers and duties relative to the programming of transportation capital improvement projects and the allocation of transportation revenues.
This bill authorizes the CTC to reallocate funds from the Proposition 116 (1990) program, if they are not encumbered or expended by 2020, for other existing passenger rail projects with existing rail service.
Comments
- Purpose. The author notes, “During a time when many are looking for a funding source and solution to maintain and repair California’s transportation infrastructure, California should better utilize existing funding sources. In the case of Prop 116, money has been allocated, yet some of these funds have not been utilized, and if they remain unused for an extended period of time, the state should reallocate the funds to projects which will move forward. While there has been little activity related to the use of these funds, the additional administrative cost to the state can be avoided if the program was to sunset and the funds were redirected to existing projects.”
- A brief history of Proposition 116. Proposition 116, which was approved by voters in 1990, authorized $1.99 billion in general obligation bonds for a variety of intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, transit, and other projects. Specifically, $1.852 billion was authorized for the preservation, acquisition, construction, or improvement of rail rights-of-way, rail terminals and stations, rolling stock acquisition, grade separations, rail maintenance facilities, and other capital expenditures for rail purposes. Additionally, $73 million was authorized for 28 non-urban counties for various rail projects, the purchase of paratransit vehicles, and other capital facilities for public transportation. Finally, for non-rail projects, $20 million was available for a competitive bicycle program for capital outlay for bicycle improvement projects and $30 million for a water-borne ferry program. Proposition 116 is administered by the California Department of Transportation and CTC and is programmed and allocated in a two-step process similar to the process used for the State Transportation Improvement Program. First, CTC programs the funds for projects eligible under the original authorization, which it does by approving project applications that define a project’s scope, schedule, and funding. Then CTC allocates the funds when the project is ready for funding.
- CTC’s report to the Legislature. As part of its 2015 Annual Report to the California Legislature, the CTC urged the Legislature to enact legislation to sunset the Proposition 116 program and reallocate any funds remaining at that time to other passenger rail projects. The CTC reports the most recent action for allocating funds from the program occurred in 2014-15, and as of June 30, 2015, of the amounts programmed only $12.7 million remains unallocated.
- Status of Proposition 116 funds. CTC is working with the remaining local agencies on their programmed projects to try to finalize any Proposition 116 allocations. AB 2620 allows CTC to continue this process until 2020 before any reallocation would occur. CTC would then be able to reallocate any unallocated funds to other passenger rail projects in the state as outlined in the proposition. As the state continues to grapple with funding shortfalls in all modes of transportation, utilizing existing, unused Proposition 116 revenues for other rail projects seems appropriate.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, reallocation of up to $12.8 million in general obligation bond funds, potentially resulting in additional General Fund costs for debt service payments in the mid hundreds of thousands annually for 30 years, to the extent these bonds remain unsold absent this bill.
California Transportation Commission
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/11/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/12/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Burke, Jones-Sawyer
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 2620 (Dababneh) - Passenger rail projects: funding
Version: April 11, 2016 | Policy Vote: T. & H. 11 - 0 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: No |
Hearing Date: June 27, 2016 | Consultant: Mark McKenzie |
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary:
AB 2620 would authorize the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to reallocate Proposition 116 general obligation bond funds that are not encumbered or expended by July 1, 2020 to any other existing passenger rail projects.
Fiscal Impact:
- Reallocation of up to $12.8 million in general obligation bond funds, potentially resulting in additional General Fund costs for debt service payments in the mid hundreds of thousands annually for 30 years, to the extent these bonds remain unsold absent the bill. See staff comments below.
Background:
Proposition 116 (The Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act), which was approved by voters on June 5, 1990, authorized $1.99 billion in general obligation bonds for a variety of intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, transit, and other projects. Specifically, $1.852 billion was authorized for the preservation, acquisition, construction, or improvement of rail rights-of-way, rail terminals and stations, rolling stock acquisition, grade separations, rail maintenance facilities, and other capital expenditures for rail purposes. The remaining funds were authorized to be used for specified expenditures in non-urban counties, capital projects for bicycle improvements, water-borne ferry projects, and administrative costs.
Proposition 116 is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and CTC and funding is programmed and allocated in a two-step process analogous to the process used for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). First, CTC programs the funds for projects eligible under the original authorization, which it does by approving project applications that define the project scope, schedule, and funding. The CTC then allocates funds when the project is ready to proceed.
According to the CTC’s 2015 annual report to the Legislature, approximately $12.8 million in Proposition 116 funds were unallocated as of June 30, 2015. At that time, the CTC recommended that the Legislature act to sunset the Proposition 116 program and reallocate any remaining funds to other passenger rail projects. Existing law, as enacted by Proposition 116, authorizes the Legislature to reallocate funds that are not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2010 for any other passenger rail projects in the state by passing a statute passed in each house by a two-thirds vote.
Proposed Law:
AB 2620 would reallocate funds allocated pursuant to Proposition 116 that are not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2020 to any other existing passenger rail project within existing rail service, as determined by CTC. Pursuant to Proposition 116, the bill must be approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature.
Staff Comments:
The current market for California general obligation bonds is very favorable. The State Treasurer recently sold $2.95 billion in general obligation bonds which enjoyed extremely high demand and the lowest borrowing costs on 30-year bonds in the last three decades, with yields of 3.05%. For purposes of estimating potential debt service payments as a result of this bill, staff notes that bonds could be sold with an interest rate between 3.5% and the historical average of about 5%. If the full $12.8 million in bond authority remains as of July 1, 2020, this bill could result in increased General Fund debt service payments in the range of $696,000 (at 3.5%) to $833,000 (at 5%) annually for 30 years. This estimate assumes the bonds would not otherwise be sold, absent the bill. The potential debt service payments would be lower if some of the funds are allocated to current projects by July 1, 2020. To the extent this bill accelerates the sale of all remaining Proposition 116 bonds, there could be minor CTC administrative cost savings since they would no longer be required to administer the program or include information in its annual report.
Staff notes that, regardless of the potential for increased debt service costs, the bill is consistent with the will of the voters, since they anticipated that there may be residual amounts that could be allocated to other projects 20 years after passage of the measure.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
Author: | Dababneh | ||
Version: | 4/11/2016 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Manny Leon | ||
SUBJECT:
DIGEST: This bill authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to reallocate funds from the Proposition 116 (1990) program, if they are not encumbered or expended by 2020, for other existing passenger rail projects with existing rail service.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Enacts Proposition 116, the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act (CATIA), which authorized $1.99 billion in general obligation bonds for specific projects, purposes, and geographic jurisdictions, primarily for passenger rail capital projects.
- Allows the Legislature to reallocate funds not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2010, to any passenger rail project in the state by a two-thirds vote in each house.
- Creates the CTC with specified powers and duties relative to the programming of transportation capital improvement projects and the allocations of transportation revenues.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. The author notes, “During a time when many are looking for a funding source and solution to maintain and repair California’s transportation infrastructure, California should better utilize existing funding sources. In the case of Prop 116, money has been allocated, yet some of these funds have not been utilized, and if they remain unused for an extended period of time, the state should reallocate the funds to projects which will move forward. While there has been little activity related to the use of these funds, the additional administrative cost to the state can be avoided if the program was to sunset and the funds were redirected to existing projects.”
- A brief history of Proposition 116. Proposition 116, which was approved by voters in 1990, authorized $1.99 billion in general obligation bonds for a variety of intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, transit, and other projects. Specifically, $1.852 billion was authorized for the preservation, acquisition, construction, or improvement of rail rights-of-way, rail terminals and stations, rolling stock acquisition, grade separations, rail maintenance facilities, and other capital expenditures for rail purposes. Additionally, $73 million was authorized for 28 non-urban counties for various rail projects, the purchase of paratransit vehicles, and other capital facilities for public transportation. Finally, for non-rail projects, $20 million was available for a competitive bicycle program for capital outlay for bicycle improvement projects and $30 million for a water-borne ferry program. Proposition 116 is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and CTC and is programmed and allocated in a two-step process similar to the process used for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). First, CTC programs the funds for projects eligible under the original authorization, which it does by approving project applications that define a project’s scope, schedule, and funding. Then CTC allocates the funds when the project is ready for funding.
- CTC’s Report to the Legislature. As part of its 2015 Annual Report to the California Legislature, the CTC urged the Legislature to enact legislation to sunset the Proposition 116 program and reallocate any funds remaining at that time to other passenger rail projects. The CTC reports the most recent action for allocating funds from the program occurred in 2014-15, and as of June 30, 2015, of the amounts programmed only $12.7 million remains unallocated.
- Status of Proposition 116 funds. CTC is working with the remaining local agencies on their programmed projects to try to finalize any Proposition 116 allocations. AB 2620 would allow CTC to continue this process until 2020 before any reallocation would occur. CTC would then be able to reallocate any unallocated funds to other passenger rail projects in the state as outlined in the proposition. As the state continues to grapple with funding shortfalls in all modes of transportation, utilizing existing, unused Proposition 116 revenues for other rail projects seems appropriate.
Assembly votes:
Floor: 78-0
Approps: 20-0
Trans: 15-0
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
June 8, 2016.)
SUPPORT:
California Transportation Commission
OPPOSITION:
None recieved
-- END --
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2620
Author:(Dababneh) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2016
Policy Committee: | Transportation | Vote: | 15 - 0 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC), if all funds from the Proposition 116 (1990) program not encumbered or expended by July 1, 2020, to reallocate those funds for other existing passenger rail projects with existing rail service.
FISCAL EFFECT:
No additional state costs, as any bond funds remaining after July1, 2020, will be allocated to other passenger rail projects.
COMMENTS:
Purpose. Proposition 116, which was approved by voters in 1990, authorized $1.99 billion in general obligation bonds for a variety of intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, transit and other projects. In its 2015 annual report to the Legislature, the CTC indicated that the most recent allocation of funds from the program occurred in 2014-15, and that, as of June 30, 2015, only $12.7 million remains unallocated. The CTC urged the Legislature to sunset the program.
The CTC is working with the remaining local agencies on their programmed projects to try to finalize any allocations. AB 2620 allows the CTC to continue this process until 2020 before any reallocation would occur.
Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2620 (
Author:Dababneh) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2016
SUBJECT: Passenger rail projects: funding
SUMMARY: Authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to reallocate funds from the Proposition 116 (1990) program, if they are not encumbered or expended by 2020, for other existing passenger rail projects with existing rail service.
EXISTING LAW:
- Enacts Proposition 116, the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act (CATIA), which authorized $1.99 billion in general obligation bonds for specific projects, purposes, and geographic jurisdictions, primarily for passenger rail capital projects.
- Allows the Legislature to reallocate funds not expended or encumbered by July 1, 2010, to any passenger rail project in the state by a two-thirds vote in each house.
- Creates the CTC with specified powers and duties relative to the programming of transportation capital improvement projects and the allocations of transportation revenues.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: Proposition 116, which was approved by voters in 1990, authorized $1.99 billion in general obligation bonds for a variety of intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, transit and other projects. Specifically, $1.852 billion was authorized for the preservation, acquisition, construction, or improvement of rail rights-of-way, rail terminals and stations, rolling stock acquisition, grade separations, rail maintenance facilities, and other capital expenditures for rail purposes. Additionally, $73 million was authorized for 28 non-urban counties for various rail projects, the purchase of paratransit vehicles, and other capital facilities for public transportation. Finally, for non-rail projects, $20 million was available for a competitive bicycle program for capital outlay for bicycle improvement projects and $30 million for a water-borne ferry program. Proposition 116 is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the CTC and is programmed and allocated in two-step process similar to the process used for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). First, the CTC programs the funds for projects eligible under the original authorization, which it does by approving project applications that define a project’s scope, schedule, and funding. Then the CTC allocates the funds when the project is ready for funding.
As part of its 2015 Annual Report to the California Legislature, the CTC urged the Legislature to enact legislation to sunset the Proposition 116 program and reallocate any funds remaining at that time to other passenger rail projects. The CTC reports the most recent action for allocating funds from the program occurred in 2014-15, and as of June 30, 2015, of the amounts programmed only $12.7 million remains unallocated.
According to the author, during a time when many are looking for a funding source and solution to maintain and repair California’s transportation infrastructure, California should better utilize existing funding sources. Further he states that, in the case of Prop 116, money has been allocated, yet some of these funds have not been utilized and if they remain unused for an extended period of time, the state should reallocate the funds to projects which will move forward. The author continues that, while there has been little activity related to these funds, the additional administrative cost to the state can be avoided if the program sunset and the funds were redirected to existing projects.
The CTC has recommended the Proposition 116 program be sunsetted and the funds be reallocated for many years now. The CTC is working with the remaining local agencies on their programmed projects to try to finalize any allocations. AB 2620 would allow the CTC to continue this process until 2020 before any reallocation would occur. The CTC would then be able to reallocate any unallocated funds to other passenger rail projects in the state as outlined in the proposition. As the state continues to grapple with funding shortfalls in all modes of transportation, utilizing existing, unused Proposition 116 revenues for other rail projects seems appropriate.
Related legislation: AB 2411 (Frazier), stops the transfer of miscellaneous transportation revenues, such as the sale of property, to the general fund to pay the general obligation bond debt service for Proposition 116 bonds. AB 2411 is awaiting a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Transportation Commission
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Melissa White / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
Discussed in Hearing
4MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary
2MIN
Assembly Floor
3MIN
Senate Floor
1MIN
Senate Floor
12MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Housing
4MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):