Existing law establishes the Adult Education Block Grant Program under the administration of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The program requires the chancellor and the Superintendent, with the advice of the Executive Director of the State Board of Education, to divide the state into adult education regions and approve one adult education consortium in each adult education region, as specified. The program also requires the chancellor and the Superintendent, with the advice of the executive director, to certify, no later than July 31, 2015, the amount of state funds required to be expended for adult education by a school district and county office of education, as specified. The program further requires the chancellor and the Superintendent to apportion funds appropriated for the program in the Budget Act of 2015 to each school district and county office of education by August 30, 2015, in accordance with a specified formula and, by October 30, 2015, to allocate the funds that remain after the apportionment to each consortium, as specified.

This bill would also provide that require the chancellor and the Superintendent, with the advice of the executive director, (1) certify Superintendent to certify, upon the request of a joint powers authority consisting of community college districts, school districts, or county offices of education, or a combination of these, the amount of state funds required to be expended for adult career technical education by that joint powers authorities consisting of one or more community colleges, school districts, or county offices of education, or a combination of these, (2) apportion an amount to each of these joint powers authorities in accordance with the same formula, and (3) allocate to each consortium the funds that remain after this apportionment, as specified. In regard to these joint powers authorities, the deadlines in existing law would not apply. authority in the 201213 fiscal year and to apportion an amount equal to the amount certified directly to that joint powers authority. As a condition of receipt of this apportionment, the bill would require the joint powers authority to be a member of an adult education consortium.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law establishes the Adult Education Block Grant Program under the administration of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The program requires the chancellor and the Superintendent, with the advice of the Executive Director of the State Board of Education, to divide the state into adult education regions and approve one adult education consortium in each adult education region, as specified. The program also requires the chancellor and the Superintendent, with the advice of the executive director, to certify, no later than July 31, 2015, the amount of state funds required to be expended for adult education by a school district and county office of education, as specified. The program further requires the chancellor and the Superintendent to apportion funds appropriated for the program in the Budget Act of 2015 to each school district and county office of education by August 30, 2015, in accordance with a specified formula and, by October 30, 2015, to allocate the funds that remain after the apportionment to each consortium, as specified.

This bill would also provide that the chancellor and the Superintendent, with the advice of the executive director, (1) certify the amount of state funds required to be expended for adult education by joint powers authorities consisting of one or more community colleges, school districts, or county offices of education, or a combination of these, (2) apportion an amount to each of these joint powers authorities in accordance with the same formula, and (3) allocate to each consortium the funds that remain after this apportionment, as specified. In regard to these joint powers authorities, the deadlines in existing law would not apply.

Existing law requires the Secretary of the Government Operations Agency, in consultation with the Department of General Services and other appropriate state agencies that maintain or purchase vehicles for the state fleet, including the campuses of the California State University, to develop and implement, and submit to the Legislature and the Governor, a plan to improve the overall state fleets use of alternative fuels, synthetic lubricants, and fuel-efficient vehicles by reducing or displacing the consumption of petroleum products by the state fleet when compared to the 2003 consumption level, based on a specified schedule. Existing law requires the Department of General Services to prepare an annual progress report on meeting the goals set by the schedule.

Existing law also requires the Department of General Services and the Department of Transportation to develop and implement advanced technology vehicle parking incentive programs in specified parking facilities to provide incentives for the purchase and use of alternatively fueled vehicles in the state.

This bill would require the progress report prepared by the Department of General Services relative to fleet vehicles to also include a progress report on developing and implementing the advanced technology parking incentive programs.

Date of Hearing: August 26, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 786

Author:(Allen) – As Amended Ver:August 17, 2015

Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the California Community College Chancellor's Office (CCCCO) and the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to certify, upon request from a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), the amount of state funds expended by the JPA for adult career technical education (CTE) in the 2012-13 fiscal year, for purposes of determining Adult Education Block Grant Program funding. Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies, if the CCCCO and the SPI certify that a JPA expended 40% or more of the JPA's total state funding in 2012-13 for adult CTE, the JPA is deemed to have expended state funds for adult education for purposes of determining their share of Adult Education Block Grant Program funding.

2. Requires the CCCCO and the SPI to apportion funds directly to the JPA from the Adult Education Block Grant appropriation in the 2015 Budget Act in an amount equal to the amount certified for adult CTE.

3. Requires the JPA to be a member of an adult education consortium as a condition of receipt of funds.

FISCAL EFFECT:

This bill could result in a redirection of up to $38.1 million (Proposition 98/GF) from the Adult Education Block Grant Program to support the loss of regional occupation center or program (ROC/P) funds for any JPA that used at least 40% of their funds to provide adult CTE. There are approximately 26 JPAs in the state. It is not clear how many meet the 40% adult CTE spending requirement in the bill. At least one JPA, the Southern California Regional Occupational Center (SoCal ROC) appears to meet these criteria at a cost of approximately $3.4 million.

The 2015-16 Budget Act provides a total of $500 million for the Adult Education Block Grant Program. Of this amount, the budget set aside up to $375 million for school districts to maintain prior year adult education spending levels. According to the Department of Finance, $336.9 million of the $500 million has been certified for this purpose. Existing law specifies the remaining $38.1 million shall be allocated to each adult education consortium based on the region's share of statewide need. Any funds certified for purposes of this bill will reduce overall funding for adult education consortia.

COMMENTS:

1. Background on JPAs. Existing law authorizes the establishment of an ROC/P JPA by two or more school districts, with the consent of the State Board of Education and the county superintendent of schools. Theses programs provide career technical education (CTE) to high school students and some adult students. Current law finds and declares that vocational training resources provided through ROC/Ps should be prioritized for pupils enrolled in high school. The statute also requires that beginning in the 2011-12 fiscal year, ROC/Ps may not claim more than 10% of the state ADA for students not enrolled in grades 9 through 12.

The Local Control Funding Formula eliminated approximately 40 categorical programs, including dedicated funding for ROC/Ps. ROC/P funds were incorporated into the LCFF base grants and local educational agencies now receive an increase in their base funding for students in grades 9-12 for career or college readiness.

2. Background on Adult Education. Prior to 2008-09, school districts operating adult schools received dedicated Proposition 98 categorical funding (approximately $635 million annually). In 2008-09, in response to the recession, the Legislature granted categorical flexibility, allowing districts to use restricted funds for any educational purpose. In order to protect adult education programs as the state transitioned to LCFF, the state required maintenance-of-effort (MOE) to ensure school districts continued to expend the same amount of funds on adult education as they had in 2012-13 through the 2014-15 fiscal years. Additionally, the budget provided $25 million for the development of regional consortia comprised of CCCs and K-12 school districts to determine how best to serve adult students within regions throughout the state.

3. Purpose. This bill seeks to provide at least one JPA, SoCal ROC, with adult education maintenance of effort (MOE) funds from the Adult Education Block Grant to supplement their loss of regional occupation center or program (ROC/P) categorical program funds. According to the author, SoCal ROC provides CTE to more than 2,400 adults from more than 60 cities throughout Los Angeles and Orange counties. ROC/P funds passed-through from Torrance Unified School District were the primary source of funding for these adult students.

Under LCFF, Torrance is no longer required to pass these funds through since they have been incorporated into their LCFF base grant. As a result, SoCal ROC lost approximately $3.4 million in ROC/P funding. The author is seeking to supplement this loss with adult education MOE funding. SoCal ROC is in a unique position because they chose to use a significant portion of their ROC/P funding to support a large number of adult students from outside their member JPA’s jurisdictions. They argue they should be able to access funding set aside to maintain services for adults.

4. Current law options for funding. The 2015 budget package authorized JPAs to be members of the consortia, and as members of the consortia, the consortia may provide resources in the Adult Education Block Grant Program, however, the amount provided to the JPA is determined by the consortia. Alternatively, local educational agencies who are members of JPAs may pass through Adult Education Block Grant Program funding at their local discretion to JPAs that provide adult education on their behalf.

5. Prior related legislation. AB 2216 (Muratsuchi), would have extended by two years the MOE requirement for school districts to spend at least as much on ROC/Ps as they did in the 2012-13 from 2014-15 to 2016-17. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file in 2014.

Analysis Prepared by: Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 15, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 786

Author:(Allen) – As Amended Ver:July 6, 2015

SENATE VOTE: Vote not relevant

SUBJECT: Adult education: regional consortia.

SUMMARY: Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the chancellor of the California Community Colleges to certify the amount of funds expended by joint powers authority (JPA) comprised of a community college, school district, county office of education (COE) for the purpose of determining Adult Education Block Grant Program funding. Specifically, this bill:

1. Adds JPAs to the provisions that do the following:

   1. Requires the SPI and the chancellor of the California Community Colleges to certify for each school district and COE the amount of state funds required to be expended for adult education in the local control funding formula (LCFF).

   2. Specifies the allocations of funds if the total amount certified for school districts and COEs is less than $375 million.

   3. Specifies the allocations of funds if the total amount certified for school districts and COEs is more than $375 million.

2. Authorizes the SPI and the chancellor to certify and apportion funds after the dates required for 2015-16 maintenance of effort (MOE) funding for a JPA.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the establishment of adult school programs and specifies eligibility criteria, programmatic requirements, and the manner in which school districts' adult education revenue limit per unit of average daily attendance (ADA) shall be determined.

2. Prohibits state apportionment to be made for any course or class not specified in law.

3. Defines "adult" as a person 18 years of age or older for a person who is not concurrently enrolled in a regular high school program.

4. Charges the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (CCCCO) and the California Department of Education (CDE) to jointly implement an adult education planning process; authorizes the CCCCO and the CDE to distribute $25 million to regional consortia to develop plans with the shared goal of better serving the educational needs of California's adult learners; and, specifies that the following five areas are to be addressed in the plans:

1. Elementary and secondary basic skills, including classes required for a high school diploma.

2. Classes and courses for immigrants in English as a second language, citizenship, and workforce preparations.

3. Education programs for adults with disabilities.

4. Short-term career technical education programs with high employment potential.

5. Programs for apprentices.

5. Establishes the Adult Education Block Grant Program and specifies the process for funding based on plans developed by regional consortia. Requires the SPI and the chancellor, with the advice of the executive director of the state board of education to, no later than July 31, 2015, certify, for each school district and COE, the amount of state funds required to be expended for adult education pursuant to the MOE required under the LCFF.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Background. Adult education in California is part of a large, complex, and diverse multi-provider system. It is a vital and integral part of the larger educational system that provides adults with the skills and education that enable them to earn a high school diploma or a general educational development certificate, become United States citizens, acquire specific job skills, learn English, and/or become independent and productive parents and members of their community. Adult education is provided by a number of delivery systems, but the two main providers are school districts and the California Community Colleges (CCCs). K-12 adult schools were funded by an adult education categorical program that, prior to budget reductions, received over $600 million annually.

In 2013, the Governor proposed and the Legislature passed a new K-12 funding system that replaced revenue limits with a new base grant – LCFF. LCFF incorporated most categorical program funds into the base grant and eliminated the categorical programs. School districts choosing to continue their adult education programs would do so using their base funds. However, school districts and COEs were required to maintain the amount of funds expended for the adult education categorical program in fiscal year (FY) 2012-13 for two years, in FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15.

AB 86 Regional Consortia. Also in 2013, the budget provided $25 million for the development of regional consortia comprised of CCCs and K-12 school districts for the purpose of creating plans to integrate existing programs and determine how best to serve adult students within regions throughout the state (AB 86 (Budget Committee), Chapter 48, Statutes of 2013). Seventy regions were formed comprised of at least one CCC district and one or more K-12 school districts.

Adult Education Block Grant Program. The FY 2015-16 Budget provided $500 million for the Adult Education Block Grant Program, enacted through the education budget trailer bill, AB 104 (Budget Committee), Chapter 13, Statutes of 2015. The program is built upon regional consortia established by AB 86. Beginning 2016-17, funds will be distributed to each consortium by the SPI and the chancellor, with the advice of the Executive Director of the State Board of Education, based on 1) the amount of funds apportioned in the previous year; 2) a consortium's share of the statewide need for adult education; and 3) the consortium's effectiveness in meeting the educational needs of adults in the region based on available data. Funds are allocated according to a plan developed by each consortium. The planning consortia established by AB 86 included only school districts and CCCs, although COEs, regional occupational centers and other private and public agencies also participated in the planning process. AB 104 extended membership of regional consortia to COEs and JPAs. For the 2015-16 fiscal year, the trailer bill specifies that up to $375 million shall be allocated to school districts and COEs based on a certification of the MOE required over the last two years. The remainder is allocated to regional consortia by the SPI and the chancellor, with concurrence from the Executive Director of the State Board of Education.

What does this bill do? This bill inserts JPAs in all provisions relating to funding for school districts and COEs for the 2015-16 year. The intent of the bill is to make JPAs eligible for funding in 2015-16 based on their LCFF MOE requirements.

What are JPAs? Existing law authorizes the establishment of a regional occupational center or program (ROC/P) joint powers agencies by two or more school districts, with the consent of the State Board of Education and the county superintendent of schools. There are approximately 26 JPAs in the state. JPAs receive funding from a variety of sources, including prior state ROC/P funding as well as contributions from each participating school district. JPAs provide career technical education (CTE) programs to high school students and some to adult students. Current law finds and declares that vocational training resources provided through ROC/Ps should be prioritized for pupils enrolled in high school. The statute also requires that beginning in the 2011-12 fiscal year, ROC/Ps may not claim more than 10% of the state ADA for students not enrolled in grades 9 through 12. With LCFF, the ROC/P categorical program has been eliminated, ROC/P funds have been incorporated into the LCFF base grants and local educational agencies now receive an increase in their base funding for students in grades 9-12 for career or college readiness.

It is unclear whether this bill will result in MOE dollars for JPAs. The bill requires the SPI and the chancellor to certify a JPA's MOE. The MOE established by the trailer bill is based on funding previously received by school districts and COEs through the adult education categorical program. Some JPAs may have received adult education categorical program funding through participating school districts. If those school districts claim the MOE, allowing these JPAs to also certify a MOE may result in double reporting and claims. It is highly likely that most JPAs have not received adult education categorical funding, and as such, do not have MOEs to certify.

This bill was introduced on behalf of the Southern California Regional Occupational Center (SoCal ROC). According to the author, SoCal ROC provides CTE to more than 2,400 adults from more than 60 cities throughout Los Angeles and Orange counties and will experience more than $3 million reduction in its 2015-16 budget absent additional funding. SoCal ROC received approximately $3.4 million in ROC/P funds, not adult education program funds, which Torrance Unified School District received from CDE and passed through to SoCal ROC to serve adult students. With the elimination of ROC/P funds, SoCal ROC is seeking alternative funding.

Budget process. SoCal ROC attempted to secure funding through the budget process. The Senate Budget Subcommittee #1 on Education adopted a placeholder to express its intent to enable SoCal ROC to continue to receive funding for providing adult education. The Budget Conference Committee did not adopt the Senate version and instead adopted the language in the trailer bill allowing JPAs to become members of adult education regional consortia. JPAs have an opportunity to receive direct Adult Education Block Grant Program funding if the regional consortia plans include JPAs. Alternatively, local educational agencies who are members of JPAs may pass through Adult Education Block Grant Program funding at their local discretion to JPAs that provide adult education on their behalf. The Committee may wish to consider the extent to which this bill is consistent with the Budget agreement signed by the Governor.

Suggested amendment. It is unclear how many JPAs are already members of regional consortia. Since the authority was made explicit only recently through its enactment in the trailer bill, In order to give JPAs an opportunity to receive 2015-16 MOE funding, staff recommends authorizing regional consortia to amend their plans to incorporate JPAs. The trailer bill specifies that the plans developed by regional consortia pursuant to AB 86 are in effect for the 2015-16 through 2017-18 fiscal years.

Author's amendment. The author requests the Committee to adopt an urgency clause. The author states that the urgency clause is needed in order to enable any JPA participating in an adult education consortium to comply with the current year statutory deadlines that must be met for purposes of establishing the JPA's MOE level.

Prior related legislation. AB 2216 (Muratsuchi), would have extended by two years the MOE requirement for school districts to spend at least as much on ROC/Ps as they did in the 2012-13 from 2014-15 to 2016-17. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file in 2014.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

Patrick Furey, Mayor, City of Torrance

Southern California Regional Occupational Center

South Bay Workforce Investment Board

Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce

TACC Governmental Affairs Policy Group

Numerous individuals

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 786

Author: Allen (D)

Introduced: 2/27/15

Vote: 21

SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/28/15

AYES: Hall, Galgiani, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Lara, McGuire

NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Block, Gaines, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT: Advanced technology parking incentive programs: report

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill requires the progress report prepared by the Department of General Services (DGS) relative to fleet vehicles to also include a progress report on developing and implementing the advanced technology parking incentive programs.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the Secretary of the Government Operations Agency, in consultation with DGS and other appropriate state agencies that maintain or purchase vehicles for the state fleet, including the campuses of the California State University, to develop and implement, and submit to the Legislature and the Governor, a plan to improve the overall state fleet’s use of alternative fuels, synthetic lubricants, and fuel-efficient vehicles by reducing or displacing the consumption of petroleum products by the state fleet when compared to the 2003 consumption level, based on the following schedule:

1. By January 1, 2010, a 10% reduction or displacement.

2. By January 1, 2020, a 20% reduction or displacement.

2. Requires DGS, on or before April 1, to annually prepare a progress report on meeting the goals set by the schedule.

3. Requires DGS to post the progress report on its Internet Web site.

4. Requires DGS to encourage, to the extent feasible, the operation of state alternatively fueled vehicles on the alternative fuel for which the vehicle is designed and the development of commercial infrastructure for alternative fuel pumps and charging stations at or near state vehicle fueling or parking sites.

5. Requires DGS to work with other public agencies to incentivize and promote, to the extent feasible, state employee operation of alternatively fueled vehicles through preferential or reduced cost parking, access to charging, or other means.

6. Defines “alternatively fueled vehicles” to mean light, medium, and heavy duty vehicles that reduce petroleum usage and related emissions by using advanced technologies and fuels, including, but not limited to, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, battery electric, natural gas, or fuel cell vehicles.

7. Requires DGS and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to develop and implement advanced technology vehicle parking incentive programs, to the extent feasible, in public parking facilities of 50 spaces or more operated by DGS and park-and-ride lots owned and operated by Caltrans to incentivize the purchase and use of alternatively fueled vehicles in the state. These programs shall provide meaningful, tangible benefits for drivers of alternatively fueled vehicles. These incentives may include preferential spaces, reduced fees, and fueling infrastructure for alternatively fueled vehicles that use these parking facilities or park-and-ride lots.

This bill requires the progress report prepared by DGS relative to fleet vehicles to also include a progress report on developing and implementing the advanced technology parking incentive programs.

Background

Purpose of the bill. According to the author, existing law requires DGS and Caltrans to develop and implement advanced technology vehicle parking incentive programs in lots run by these departments to incentivize the purchase and use of alternative fueled vehicles in the state. However, unlike the mandate to increase the use of alternative vehicles within the state fleet, there is no requirement for either department to report back to the Legislature on progress being made to carry out this program.

The author further argues that one of the significant benefits of state programs like the vehicle parking incentive program is the opportunity we have to learn what works and what doesn’t when we are trying to encourage the adoption of new technologies. The author concludes that policymakers can then take the information produced by the report and work with the private sector to increase the scale at which these technologies are adopted. Without a progress report from DGS, the policymakers are left without this critical information.

Vehicle parking incentive programs. In March 2012, guided by AB 2583 (Blumenfield, Chapter 676) of that year and Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-16-12, DGS began offering several incentives for state employee monthly parking customers who drive a battery electric vehicle, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, or a fuel cell vehicle.

Some of these incentives include reduced monthly rates at DGS-managed parking facilities, first priority for available monthly parking passes when a wait list exists for the facility, and first-come, first-served access to electric vehicle chargers at reasonable hourly rates.

The goal of the these vehicle parking incentive programs is to promote the purchase and use of the zero-emission vehicles as part of an effort to protect the environment, stimulate economic growth and improve the quality of life in California.

According to DGS, there are currently 64 parking facilities in the state that offer some kind of parking incentive program with plans to expand to 100-150 stations at various DGS facilities throughout California.

Prior/Related Legislation

AB 2583 (Blumenfield, Chapter 676, Statutes of 2012) required DGS and Caltrans to develop and implement advanced technology vehicle parking incentive programs in specified DGS and Caltrans operated parking facilities to incentivize the purchase and use of alternative fuel vehicles in the state.

AB 236 (Lieu, Chapter 593, Statutes of 2007) required DGS, in conjunction with the Air Resources Board and the California Energy Commission (CEC), by December 31, 2008, to amend and revise existing purchasing methodology to rank environmental and energy benefits, and costs of motor vehicles for potential procurement by state and local governments and to develop vehicle ranking containing specified criteria.

AB 2264 (Pavley, Chapter 767, Statutes of 2006) required DGS, in consultation with the CEC, to establish a minimum fuel economy standard for the purchase of passenger vehicles and light duty trucks for the state fleet.

AB 1811 (Laird, Chapter 48, Statutes of 2006) provided $25 million for clean alternative fuels including, among other items, infrastructure funding for E-85 fueling stations.

AB 1007 (Pavley, Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required DGS to assist with the development of a government wide plan to increase use of alternative fuels.

AB 1660 (Pavley, Chapter 580, Statutes of 2005) created the California Energy-Efficient Vehicle Group Purchase Program in DGS to encourage the purchase of energy-efficient vehicles by state and local agencies through a group purchasing program.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT:

(Verified 5/12/15)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/12/15)

None received

Prepared by: Felipe Lopez / G.O. / (916) 651-1530

5/13/15 17:17:55

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

Senator Isadore Hall, III

Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: SB 786 Hearing Date: 4/28/2015

SUBJECT: Advanced technology parking incentive programs: report

DIGEST: This bill requires the progress report prepared by the Department of General Services (DGS) relative to fleet vehicles to also include a progress report on developing and implementing the advanced technology parking incentive programs.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the Secretary of the Government Operations Agency, in consultation with DGS and other appropriate state agencies that maintain or purchase vehicles for the state fleet, including the campuses of the California State University, to develop and implement, and submit to the Legislature and the Governor, a plan to improve the overall state fleet’s use of alternative fuels, synthetic lubricants, and fuel-efficient vehicles by reducing or displacing the consumption of petroleum products by the state fleet when compared to the 2003 consumption level, based on the following schedule:

1. By January 1, 2010, a 10-percent reduction or displacement.

2. By January 1, 2020, a 20-percent reduction or displacement.

2. Requires DGS, on or before April 1, to annually prepare a progress report on meeting the goals set by the schedule.

3. Requires DGS to post the progress report on its Internet Web site.

4. Requires DGS to encourage, to the extent feasible, the operation of state alternatively fueled vehicles on the alternative fuel for which the vehicle is designed and the development of commercial infrastructure for alternative fuel pumps and charging stations at or near state vehicle fueling or parking sites.

5. Requires DGS to work with other public agencies to incentivize and promote, to the extent feasible, state employee operation of alternatively fueled vehicles through preferential or reduced cost parking, access to charging, or other means.

6. Defines “alternatively fueled vehicles” to mean light, medium, and heavy duty vehicles that reduce petroleum usage and related emissions by using advanced technologies and fuels, including, but not limited to, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, battery electric, natural gas, or fuel cell vehicles.

7. Requires DGS and the Department of Transportation (CalTrans) to develop and implement advanced technology vehicle parking incentive programs, to the extent feasible, in public parking facilities of 50 spaces or more operated by DGS and park-and-ride lots owned and operated by CalTrans to incentivize the purchase and use of alternatively fueled vehicles in the state. These programs shall provide meaningful, tangible benefits for drivers of alternatively fueled vehicles. These incentives may include preferential spaces, reduced fees, and fueling infrastructure for alternatively fueled vehicles that use these parking facilities or park-and-ride lots.

This bill requires the progress report prepared by DGS relative to fleet vehicles to also include a progress report on developing and implementing the advanced technology parking incentive programs.

Background

Purpose of the bill: According to the author, current law requires DGS and CalTrans to develop and implement advanced technology vehicle parking incentive programs in lots run by these departments to incentivize the purchase and use of alternative fueled vehicles in the state. However, unlike the mandate to increase the use of alternative vehicles within the state fleet, there is no requirement for either department to report back to the Legislature on progress being made to carry out this program.

The author further argues that one of the significant benefits of state programs like the vehicle parking incentive program is the opportunity we have to learn what works and what doesn’t when we are trying to encourage the adoption of new technologies. The author concludes that policymakers can then take the information produced by the report and work with the private sector to increase the scale at which these technologies are adopted. Without a progress report from DGS, we are left without this critical information.

Vehicle parking incentive programs: In March 2012, guided by AB 2583 (Blumenfield) of that year and Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-16-12, DGS began offering several incentives for state employee monthly parking customers who drive a battery electric vehicle, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, or a fuel cell vehicle.

Some of these incentives include reduced monthly rates at DGS-managed parking facilities, first priority for available monthly parking passes when a wait list exists for the facility, and first-come, first-served access to electric vehicle chargers at reasonable hourly rates.

The goal of the these vehicle parking incentive programs is to promote the purchase and use of the zero-emission vehicles as part of an effort to protect the environment, stimulate economic growth and improve the quality of life in California.

According to DGS there are currently 64 parking facilities in the state that offer some kind of parking incentive program with plans to expand to 100-150 stations at various DGS facilities throughout California.

Prior/Related Legislation

AB 2583 (Blumenfield), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2012. The bill required DGS and CalTrans to develop and implement advanced technology vehicle parking incentive programs in specified DGS and CalTrans operated parking facilities to incentivize the purchase and use of alternative fuel vehicles in the state.

AB 236 (Lieu), Chapter 593, Statutes of 2007. The bill required DGS, in conjunction with the Air Resources Board (ARB) and the Energy Commission (CEC), by December 31, 2008, to amend and revise existing purchasing methodology to rank environmental and energy benefits, and costs of motor vehicles for potential procurement by state and local governments and to develop vehicle ranking containing specified criteria.

AB 2264 (Pavley), Chapter 767, Statutes of 2006. The bill required DGS, in consultation with the CEC, to establish a minimum fuel economy standard for the purchase of passenger vehicles and light duty trucks for the state fleet.

AB 1811 (Laird), Chapter 48, Statutes of 2006. The bill provided $25 million for clean alternative fuels including, among other items, infrastructure funding for E-85 fueling stations.

AB 1007 (Pavley), Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005. The bill required DGS to assist with the development of a government wide plan to increase use of alternative fuels.

AB 1660 (Pavley), Chapter 580, Statutes of 2005. The bill created the California Energy-Efficient Vehicle Group Purchase Program in DGS to encourage the purchase of energy-efficient vehicles by state and local agencies through a group purchasing program.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT:

None received

OPPOSITION:

None received