(1)Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board to make available on its Internet Web site data concerning the emissions of greenhouse gases, criteria air pollutants, and toxic air contaminants, as specified.

This bill would require the state board to develop a uniform statewide system of annual reporting of emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants for use by certain categories of stationary sources. The bill would require those stationary sources to report their annual emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, as specified.

(2)Existing law generally designates air pollution control and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. Existing law authorizes the state board or an air district to require the owner or the operator of an air pollution emission source to take any action that the state board or the air district determines to be reasonable for the determination of the amount of air pollution emissions from that source.

This bill would require the state board, by October 1, 2018, to prepare a monitoring plan regarding technologies for monitoring criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and the need for and benefits of additional community air monitoring systems, as defined. The bill would require the state board to select, based on the monitoring plan, the highest priority locations in the state for the deployment of community air monitoring systems. The bill would require an air district containing a selected location, by July 1, 2019, to deploy a system in the selected location. The bill would authorize the air district to require a stationary source that emits air pollutants in, or that materially affect, the selected location to deploy a fence-line monitoring system, as defined, or other specified real-time, on-site monitoring. The bill would authorize the state board, by January 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, to select additional locations for the deployment of the systems. The bill would require air districts that have deployed a system to provide to the state board air quality data produced by the system. By increasing the duties of air districts, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the state board to publish the data on its Internet Web site.

This bill would require the state board, by October 1, 2018, to prepare and update, at least once every 5 years, a statewide strategy to reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants in communities affected by a high cumulative exposure burden. The bill would require the state board to select locations around the state for the preparation of community emissions reduction programs, and to provide grants to community-based organizations for technical assistance and to support community participation in the programs. The bill would require an air district containing a selected location, within one year of the state boards selection, to adopt a community emissions reduction program. By increasing the duties of air districts, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law requires air districts, prior to adopting rules to meet the requirement for best available retrofit control technology or for a specified feasible measure, to take specified actions, including, among others, identifying one or more potential control options that achieve the emissions reduction objectives for the rule. Existing law also authorizes a district to establish its own best available retrofit control technology requirement based upon the consideration of specified factors.

This bill would require a district that is in nonattainment for one or more air pollutants to adopt an expedited schedule for the implementation of best available retrofit control technology, as specified. The bill would require the schedule to apply to each industrial source that, as of January 1, 2017, was subject to a specified market-based compliance mechanism and give highest priority to those permitted units that have not modified emissions-related permit conditions for the greatest period of time.

This bill would require the state board to establish and maintain a statewide clearinghouse that identifies the best available control technology, best available retrofit control technology for criteria air pollutants, and related technologies for the control of toxic air contaminants.

(4)Existing law establishes maximum criminal and civil penalties for any person, as defined, for violations of air pollution laws from nonvehicular sources. Existing law generally establishes the maximum criminal and civil penalties at $1,000, unless otherwise specified.

This bill would increase the maximum for the generally applicable criminal and civil penalties under these provisions to $5,000. The bill would annually adjust maximum penalties for violations of these laws based on the California Consumer Price Index.

(5)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board to make available on its Internet Web site data concerning the emissions of greenhouse gases, criteria air pollutants, and toxic air contaminants, as specified.

This bill would require the state board to develop a uniform statewide system of annual reporting of emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants for use by certain categories of stationary sources. The bill would require those stationary sources to report their annual emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, as specified.

(2)Existing law generally designates air pollution control and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. Existing law authorizes the state board or an air district to require the owner or the operator of an air pollution emission source to take any action that the state board or the air district determines to be reasonable for the determination of the amount of air pollution emissions from that source.

This bill would require the state board, by October 1, 2018, to prepare a monitoring plan regarding technologies for monitoring criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and the need for and benefits of additional community air monitoring systems, as defined. The bill would require the state board to select, based on the monitoring plan, the highest priority locations in the state for the deployment of community air monitoring systems. The bill would require an air district containing a selected location, by July 1, 2019, to deploy a system in the selected location. The bill would authorize the air district to require a stationary source that emits air pollutants in, or that materially affect, the selected location to deploy a fence-line monitoring system, as defined, or other specified real-time, on-site monitoring. The bill would authorize the state board, by January 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, to select additional locations for the deployment of the systems. The bill would require air districts that have deployed a system to provide to the state board air quality data produced by the system. By increasing the duties of air districts, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the state board to publish the data on its Internet Web site.

This bill would require the state board, by October 1, 2018, to prepare and update, at least once every 5 years, a statewide strategy to reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants in communities affected by a high cumulative exposure burden. The bill would require the state board to select locations around the state for the preparation of community emissions reduction programs, and to provide grants to community-based organizations for technical assistance and to support community participation in the programs. The bill would require an air district containing a selected location, within one year of the state boards selection, to adopt a community emissions reduction program. By increasing the duties of air districts, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law requires air districts, prior to adopting rules to meet the requirement for best available retrofit control technology or for a specified feasible measure, to take specified actions, including, among others, identifying one or more potential control options that achieve the emissions reduction objectives for the rule. Existing law also authorizes a district to establish its own best available retrofit control technology requirement based upon the consideration of specified factors.

This bill would require a district that is in nonattainment for one or more air pollutants to adopt an expedited schedule for the implementation of best available retrofit control technology, as specified. The bill would require the schedule to apply to each industrial source that, as of January 1, 2017, was subject to a specified market-based compliance mechanism and give highest priority to those permitted units that have not modified emissions-related permit conditions for the greatest period of time.

This bill would require the state board to establish and maintain a statewide clearinghouse that identifies the best available control technology, best available retrofit control technology for criteria air pollutants, and related technologies for the control of toxic air contaminants.

(4)Existing law establishes maximum criminal and civil penalties for any person, as defined, for violations of air pollution laws from nonvehicular sources. Existing law generally establishes the maximum criminal and civil penalties at $1,000, unless otherwise specified.

This bill would increase the maximum for the generally applicable criminal and civil penalties under these provisions to $5,000. The bill would annually adjust maximum penalties for violations of these laws based on the California Consumer Price Index.

(5)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board to make available on its Internet Web site data concerning the emissions of greenhouse gases, criteria air pollutants, and toxic air contaminants, as specified.

This bill would require the state board to develop a uniform statewide system of annual reporting of emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants for use by certain categories of stationary sources. The bill would require those stationary sources to report their annual emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, as specified.

(2)Existing law generally designates air pollution control and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. Existing law authorizes the state board or an air district to require the owner or the operator of an air pollution emission source to take any action that the state board or the air district determines to be reasonable for the determination of the amount of air pollution emissions from that source.

This bill would require the state board, by October 1, 2018, to prepare a monitoring plan regarding technologies for monitoring criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and the need for and benefits of additional community air monitoring systems, as defined. The bill would require the state board to select, based on the monitoring plan, the highest priority locations in the state for the deployment of community air monitoring systems. The bill would require an air district containing a selected location, by July 1, 2019, to deploy a system in the selected location. The bill would authorize the air district to require a stationary source that emits air pollutants in, or that materially affect, the selected location to deploy a fence-line monitoring system, as defined. defined, or other specified real-time, on-site monitoring. The bill would authorize the state board, by January 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, to select additional locations for the deployment of the systems. The bill would require air districts that have deployed a system to provide to the state board air quality data produced by the system. By increasing the duties of air districts, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the state board to publish the data on its Internet Web site.

This bill would require the state board, by October 1, 2018, to prepare and update, at least once every 5 years, a statewide strategy to reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants in communities affected by a high cumulative exposure burden. The bill would require the state board to select locations around the state for the preparation of community emissions reduction programs, and to provide grants to community-based organizations for technical assistance and to support community participation in the programs. The bill would require an air district containing a selected location, within one year of the state boards selection, to adopt a community emissions reduction program. By increasing the duties of air districts, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law requires air districts, prior to adopting rules to meet the requirement for best available retrofit control technology or for a specified feasible measure, to take specified actions, including, among others, identifying one or more potential control options that achieve the emissions reduction objectives for the rule. Existing law also authorizes a district to establish its own best available retrofit control technology requirement based upon the consideration of specified factors.

This bill would require a district that is in nonattainment for one or more air pollutants to adopt an expedited schedule for the implementation of best available retrofit control technology, as specified. The bill would require the schedule to apply to each industrial source that, as of January 1, 2017, was subject to a specified market-based compliance mechanism and give highest priority to those permitted units that have not modified emissions-related permit conditions for the greatest period of time.

This bill would require the state board to establish and maintain a statewide clearinghouse that identifies the best available control technology, best available retrofit control technology for criteria air pollutants, and related technologies for the control of toxic air contaminants.

(4)Existing law establishes maximum criminal and civil penalties for any person, as defined, for violations of air pollution laws from nonvehicular sources. Existing law generally establishes the maximum criminal and civil penalties at $1,000, unless otherwise specified.

This bill would increase the maximum for the generally applicable criminal and civil penalties under these provisions to $5,000. The bill would annually adjust maximum penalties for violations of these laws based on the California Consumer Price Index.

(5)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires the State Board of Education and the State Department of Education to request that the Instructional Quality Commission review and revise, as necessary, the course requirements in the history-social science framework. Existing law requires the commission, when revising the history-social science framework, to ensure that voter education is included in the American government and civics curriculum, including, but not limited to, information on the requirements, importance, and process of registering to vote in local, state, and federal elections.

This bill would require the commission to ensure that the voter education information included in the American government and civics curriculum at the high school level include information on preregistering to vote and that government and civics instruction provides pupils the opportunity to preregister and register to vote.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

AB 617 (Cristina Garcia) - Nonvehicular air pollution: criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 617 specifies several requirements for the State Air Resources Board (ARB) related to the reporting of criteria air pollutants emissions and toxic air contaminants, air pollutant monitoring, a statewide strategy to reduce emissions, as well as related requirements for air quality control districts.

Fiscal Impact:

Significant, potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars (GGRF and other special Funds) for ARB to establish the statewide system and clearinghouse. (See staff comments.

Background:

Regulatory jurisdiction. State law assigns the ARB with primary responsibility for control of mobile-source air pollution, including adoption of rules for reducing vehicle emissions and the specification of vehicular fuel composition. Stationary sources of air pollution, such as factories and refineries, are under the jurisdiction of local air districts (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). ARB and the local air districts share jurisdiction over emissions of toxics from stationary sources.

Air quality standards. The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) passed in 1963 and has been revised many times thereafter. The FCAA and its implementing regulations are intended to protect public health and environmental quality by limiting and reducing pollution from various sources. Under the FCAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that apply to outdoor air throughout the country.

In 1969 and 1971, ARB set the first air quality standards for ozone, Particulate Matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOx), and carbon monoxide due to their negative impacts on public health above specified concentrations.

The federal government followed suit and set NAAQS for six “criteria pollutants.” These included ground-level ozone, PM, NOx, SOx, and carbon monoxide, and added lead. Now, the US EPA reviews each NAAQS at five-year intervals to ensure that the standards are based on the most recent scientific information.

Regions that do not meet the national standards for any one of the standards are designated “nonattainment areas.” The FCAA sets deadlines for attainment based on the severity of nonattainment and requires states to develop comprehensive plans, known as the state implementation plan (SIP), to attain and maintain air-quality standards for each area designated nonattainment for an NAAQS.

The FCAA specifies which entities qualify as major sources of air pollutants, and requires those sources to be permitted and regulated under the requirements in Title V of the FCAA, which is implemented in California by local air districts. Certain sources of air emissions, including combustion facilities and incinerators, are subject to specific Title V requirements regardless of size. A Title V permit authorizes those sources to operate.

In July of 2011, sources not previously subject to Title V requirements became subject to Title V if they had GHG emissions at least 100,000 tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e). For air pollutants besides GHGs, the threshold for determining which sources qualify as Title V changes depending on whether the pollutants are hazardous and whether the source is located in a non-attainment area. The default standard for qualifying as a major source of air pollutants is 100 tpy, although nonattainment areas have lower threshold emission levels for the pollutants that are not in attainment.

Within severe non-attainment areas, sources that emit over 10 tpy of NOx or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are Title V sources. Common Title V sources include large factories, refineries and power plants. Major source thresholds for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs, in California these are called Toxic Air Contaminants or TACs) are 10 tpy for a single TAC or 25 tpy for any combination of TACs. Examples of TACs include benzene, found in gasoline; perchlorethlyene, emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, used as a solvent and paint stripper by a number of industries.

Due to the lower emission thresholds for air pollutants that are in nonattainment air basins, a larger fraction of facilities are required to be permitted under Title V in the South Coast Air Quality Management District and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, which are nonattainment areas for ozone and PM.

Health impacts of air pollution. When not adequately controlled, air pollution has dire consequences on the health and safety of both people and the environment. Poor air quality causes the lungs to constrict, resulting in wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, especially during exercise or physical activity.

It is well known that air pollution causes asthma. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nationwide 7.4% of adults and 8.6% of children have been diagnosed with asthma. In California, the numbers are significantly higher: 13.1% of adults and 12.5% of children have been diagnosed with asthma. Lower income and minority groups are disproportionately affected by asthma due to their increased exposure to air pollution.

Depending on exposure, air pollution alone can cause an increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory illness, lung disease, cancerous tumors, birth defects, premature births, developmental disorders, central nervous system damage, intellectual disability, persistent memory impairments, epilepsy, dementia, and premature death.

A June 2017 study published by Harvard researchers in the New England Journal of Medicine found that there is no safe level of long-term exposure to PM 2.5 (PM that is less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter) and ozone below which there is no risk of premature death. The study followed over 60 million Americans over 65 years old for seven years. Two key findings in the study are that reducing PM 2.5 concentrations by 1 microgram per cubic meter nationwide would save about 12,000 lives each year and that reducing ozone concentrations by 1 part per billion nationwide would save about 1,900 lives each year.

Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed list of goods and services. The CPI provides a way to compare current costs with historical costs. As such, the CPI is a widely used measure of inflation that can be used to adjust, over time, otherwise static fees, fines, penalties, etc., in statute without the need for further legislative action should the desire be to tie the fees, fines, penalties, etc., more or less to inflation.

Proposed Law:

This bill:

1. Defines:
   
   1. “Nonattainment pollutant” means a criteria pollutant for which a district is classified as a nonattainment area pursuant to this division or the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).
      
   2. “Stationary source” means any of the following:
      
      1. A facility that is required to report to the state board the facility’s greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to HSC Section 38530.
         
      2. A facility that is authorized by a permit issued by a district to emit 250 or more tons per year of any nonattainment pollutant or its precursors.
         
      3. A facility that receives an elevated prioritization score based on cancer or noncancer health impacts pursuant to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987.
   3. “Community air monitoring system” means advanced sensing monitoring equipment that measures and records air pollutant concentrations in the ambient air at or near sensitive receptor locations and in disadvantaged communities and that may be useful for estimating associated pollutant exposures and health risks, determining trends in air pollutant levels over time, and in supporting enforcement efforts.
      
   4. “Disadvantaged community” means a community identified by the CalEnviroScreen tool created pursuant to HSC §39711.
      
   5. “Fence-line monitoring system” means monitoring equipment that measures and records air pollutant concentrations at or adjacent to a stationary source that may be useful for detecting or estimating emissions of pollutants from the source, including the quantity of fugitive emissions, and in supporting enforcement efforts.
      
   6. “Nonattainment pollutant” means a criteria pollutant for which a district is classified as a nonattainment area pursuant to this division or the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).
      
   7. “Sensitive receptors” includes hospitals, schools and day care centers, and such other locations as the district or state board may determine.
      
   8. “Stationary source” means any of the following:
      
      1. A facility that is required to report to the state board the facility’s greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Section 38530.
         
      2. A facility that is authorized by a permit issued by a district to emit 250 or more tons per year of any nonattainment pollutant or its precursors.
         
   9. A facility that receives an elevated prioritization score based on cancer or noncancer health impacts pursuant to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987.
      
2. Requires ARB, at a date uncertain, in consultation with local air districts, to establish a uniform, statewide system for stationary sources to report their annual emissions of criteria pollutants and TACs, and other information, as specified.
   
3. Allows ARB to require third-party verification of the criteria pollutants and TACs emissions information reported by stationary sources.
4. Requires local air districts, on or before January 1, 2019, to adopt an expedited schedule to implement already approved BARCT requirements for sources covered by the cap-and-trade program adopted pursuant to AB 32, with priority given to facilities based on the length of time since their last permit update.
   
   1. Requires, depending on the reader’s interpretation, that the expedited schedule for BARCT implementation be completed by the earliest feasible date, but no later than December 31, 2023.
      
5. Exempts facilities with permits dating after 2007 from the expedited BARCT schedule.
   
6. Requires local air districts to consider, at a public hearing, among other things, public health benefits, clean air benefits, and control option cost-effectiveness prior to adopting the expedited schedule.
   
7. Requires ARB to establish and maintain a clearinghouse of best available control technology (BACT) and BARCT for the control of criteria pollutants and TACs.
   
8. Increases the criminal fine and civil penalty for a person who violates air pollution laws, rules, regulations, permits, or orders of the ARB or of a district, including a district hearing board, as specified, from $1,000 to $5,000.
   
9. Increases from $1,000 to $5,000 the daily civil penalty threshold for providing liability relief if the accused alleges by affirmative defense and establishes that the violation was caused by an act that was not the result of intentional or negligent conduct.
   
10. Increases, as of January 1, 2018, maximum penalties assessed by ARB or local air districts based on the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and reported by the Department of Industrial Relations.
11. Requires ARB, in consultation with specified entities, to establish, on or before October 1, 2018, “a monitoring plan regarding the availability and effectiveness of TAC and criteria air pollutant advanced sensing monitoring technologies and existing community air monitoring systems, as well as the need for and benefits of establishing additional community air monitoring systems.”
    
12. Requires, before adopting the monitoring plan, ARB to hold at least one public workshop in each of the northern, central, and southern parts of the state.
    
13. Requires ARB, as specified, to identify high priority areas subject to criteria pollutant and TAC exposure to deploy community air monitoring systems.
    
14. Requires local air districts with high priority areas, by July 1, 2019, to deploy community air monitoring systems.
    
15. Allows local air districts to require stationary sources in high priority areas to implement fence-line monitoring systems, as specified.
    
16. Requires ARB, by January 1, 2020 and annually thereafter, to identify other high priority areas, if appropriate, and requires local air districts to deploy community air monitoring systems within one year of the designation of a high priority area within their jurisdiction being made.
    
17. Requires ARB to hold annual public hearings on the status of implementing community air monitoring systems and make recommendations for improvement.
    
18. Requires local air districts to provide ARB with the data from community air monitoring systems, which ARB must post on its Internet Web site.
    
19. Requires ARB, on or before October 1, 2018, as specified, to prepare a statewide strategy to reduce TACs and criteria pollutants in communities affected by high exposure.
    
20. Requires the statewide strategy to include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
    
    1. An assessment of communities with high cumulative exposure burdens for TACs and criteria pollutants, as specified.
       
    2. A methodology for identifying sources of air pollution and quantifying contributions to air pollution, as specified.
       
    3. An assessment of whether a local air district should update and implement a risk reduction audit and emissions reduction plan for a facility developed pursuant to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 in order to reduce its emissions, as specified.
       
    4. An assessment of available control technology to reduce criteria pollutants and TACs, including, but not limited to, BACT and BARCT.
       
21. Requires ARB, as specified, to select locations around the state for preparation of community emissions reduction programs, and to select additional locations annually thereafter, as appropriate.
    
22. Requires local air districts to implement a community emissions reduction program, in consultation with a variety of entities, within one year of the ARB selecting a location within the district’s jurisdiction, as specified.
    
23. Requires that community emissions reduction programs to be consistent with the statewide strategy and result in emissions reductions in the community based on monitoring and other data, and that ARB and the districts are responsible for measure within their respective jurisdictions.
    
24. Requires that local air districts submit their community emissions reduction programs to ARB for approval, with specified timelines and public processes for approval, rejection, or rejection in part, and specified timelines for resubmitting programs or portions of programs that were rejected in whole or in part.
    
25. Requires a district to prepare an annual report on the impacts of any community emissions reduction program located within its jurisdiction.
    
26. Specifies that compliance with community emissions reduction programs is enforceable by the local air districts and ARB.
    
27. Requires ARB to provide grants to community-based organizations for technical assistance and to support community participation in developing community emissions reduction programs.

RELATED LEGISLATION:

AB 398 (E. Garcia) would extend the cap-and-trade program established pursuant to AB 32, with modifications, and is a part of a two-bill package on extending the cap-and-trade program. AB 617 is the companion measure to AB 398. AB 398 is pending hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 151 (Burke, Cooper) establishes the Compliance Offsets Protocol Task Force for the purpose of providing guidance to ARB for new offset protocols under a market-based compliance mechanism with a priority on the development of new urban offset protocols and a multitiered incentive system for compliance offset credits. AB 151 is pending on the Assembly Floor.

AB 378 (C. Garcia, Holden, E. Garcia) would have authorized ARB to utilize market-based compliance mechanisms through December 31, 2030 and integrated specified air quality performance requirements into the program, including no-trade zones or facility-specific declining GHG emissions limits, and prohibits facilities that do not meet the specified air quality standards from being allocated allowances. AB 378 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.

AB 1647 (Muratsuchi, 2017) will require the installation and maintenance of air quality monitors at the refinery fence-line and in the community, and require that the governing agency publicly report the readings from the monitors in real-time, if feasible for the governing agency. AB 1647 is pending on the Senate Floor.

SB 32 (Pavley, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016) requires ARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by December 31, 2030.

AB 32 (Núñez, Pavley, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006) establishes the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires ARB to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions that cause global warming in order to reduce emissions of GHG, as specified.

STAFF COMMENTS:

According to ARB,

“AB 617 mandates a number of new programs in response to concerns about the disproportionate air quality burdens faced by disadvantaged communities. The bill focuses on a comprehensive, integrated suite of actions to reduce community level health impacts of criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions from large stationary sources. The bill mandates a number of new requirements, including the following tasks and resource needs:

• Enhance community air monitoring: CARB will establish and maintain technical expertise in advances and low-cost air monitoring methods, perform public engagement and outreach for the monitoring plan and network, develop and maintain in-house sensor evaluation expertise, analyze toxic air contaminant samples, and develop a database and interactive webpage to make data publically available; this would require up to 14 positions annually.
• Determine cumulative air impacts: CARB, in consultation with others, will develop a State strategy to identify communities with high cumulative pollutant impacts, identify community reduction measures, assist local air districts with developing community action plans, and perform enforcement activities; this would require up to 27 positions annually.
• Statewide clearinghouse for air quality measures: CARB will establish and maintain a statewide clearinghouse that identifies best available control technology (BACT), best available retrofit control technology (BARCT), and related technologies for the control of toxic air pollutants; this would require up to 4 positions annually.
• Pollutant reporting methodologies: CARB will develop statewide, uniform reporting methodologies for criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants from stationary sources; this would require up to 18 positions annually.
• Support staff: To assist with implementation, new legal, IT, and administrative support staff will be needed; up to 9 positions annually.
• Contract funding: Monies to support the community monitoring program at CARB, to develop a database to support the State BACT/BARCT clearinghouse, and to develop a database to support the criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions data collected from the stationary source and district reporting; this would require up to $4.2 million in the first year and $2.8 million annually, ongoing.
• Grant funding: Monies to support increased workload for local air districts relative to air monitoring and to draft, implement, and track progress of an action plan for each community; estimated cost is $25 million for approximately 125 local air district positions annually. The bill also requires CARB to provide grants to community-based organizations for technical assistance and community participation in the development of the community action plans; estimated cost is $1 million annually.

In summary, CARB estimates that overall, the work described above will require up to 72 State positions and 125 local air district positions at a cost of up to $37 million annually. In addition, CARB estimates contract and grant funding needs of up to $5.2 million during the first year, $3.8 million the second year, and $3.4 million annually, thereafter.

In addition to the above costs for personnel, contracts, and grants, CARB recognizes that in light of limited local resources and potential concerns from the regulated community, there may be major cost pressures on the State to provide incentive funding for emission reduction programs to directly reduce criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions in disadvantaged communities. These costs could be in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.”

State mandate not reimbursable. This bill constitutes a state mandate. However, under the California Constitution, cost associated with the following are not reimbursable (1) legislation defining a new crime or changing an existing definition of a crime; (2) mandates on local agencies or school districts because have the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated; or (3) legislative mandates requested by the local affected agency.

-- END --

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 617

Author: Bloom (D), Bocanegra (D), Chu (D),
Friedman (D), Eduardo Garcia (D), Gipson (D),
Gonzalez Fletcher (D), Holden (D), Jones-Sawyer (D), McCarty (D), Muratsuchi (D), Nazarian (D), Quirk (D), Reyes (D), and
Santiago (D), et al.

Amended: 7/14/17 in Senate

Vote:

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 7/13/17

AYES: Wieckowski, Hill, Lara, Skinner, Stern

NOES: Stone, Gaines

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 7/17/17

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Not relevant

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill, among other things, (1) requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to establish a uniform, statewide system for stationary sources to report their emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs); (2) creates, upon determination by an air district, an expedited schedule for certain facilities covered under the state’s cap-and-trade program to implement best achievable retrofit control technology for criteria pollutants and TACs; (3) requires ARB to establish a clearinghouse of information on best achievable control technology and best achievable retrofit control technology; (4) increases civil and criminal penalties for certain types of emissions; and (5) creates community emissions reduction programs for communities exposed to criteria pollutants and TACs, as specified.

ANALYSIS: Existing federal law provides that the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its implementing regulations set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants, designate air basins that do not achieve NAAQS as nonattainment, and require states with nonattainment areas to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) detailing how they will achieve compliance with NAAQS. (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.)

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the ARB as the air pollution control agency in California and requires the ARB, among other things, to control emissions from a wide array of mobile sources and coordinate with local air districts to control emissions from stationary sources in order to implement the FCAA. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §39500 et seq.)
2. Requires ARB to promulgate and enforce rules and regulations necessary for the proper execution of its statutory mandates. (HSC §39601 et seq.)
3. Requires ARB to make available on its Internet Web site the emissions from stationary sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs), criteria pollutants, and TACs throughout the state, as specified, and to update that information at least once a year. (HSC §39607)
4. Provides shared authority over TAC emissions between ARB and local air districts. (HSC §39650 et seq.)
5. Defines “toxic air contaminant” to be an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health, and includes any substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412(b)) as a TAC. (HSC §39655)
6. Requires, subject to the powers and duties of the ARB, the local air districts to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards in all areas affected by emission sources under their jurisdiction, and to enforce all applicable provisions of state and federal law. (HSC §40001)
7. Establishes the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 to, among other things, require a “health risk assessment” to be submitted to the air districts that evaluates and predicts the dispersion of hazardous substances in the environment and the potential for exposure of human populations, and to assess and quantify both the individual and population wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure. (HSC §44300 et seq.)

This bill (Section 1):

1. Defines:
   1. “Nonattainment pollutant” means a criteria pollutant for which a district is classified as a nonattainment area pursuant to this division or the FCAA (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).
   2. “Stationary source” means any of the following:
      1. A facility that is required to report to the state board the facility’s GHG emissions pursuant to HSC Section 38530.
      2. A facility that is authorized by a permit issued by a district to emit 250 or more tons per year (tpy) of any nonattainment pollutant or its precursors.
      3. A facility that receives an elevated prioritization score based on cancer or noncancer health impacts pursuant to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987.
2. Requires ARB, at a date uncertain, in consultation with local air districts, to establish a uniform, statewide system for stationary sources to report their annual emissions of criteria pollutants and TACs, and other information, as specified.
3. Allows ARB to require third-party verification of the criteria pollutants and TACs emissions information reported by stationary sources.

Existing law:

1. Requires, under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also known as AB 32), the ARB to determine the 1990 statewide GHG emissions level and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to that level to be achieved by 2020. (HSC §38500 et seq.)
2. Allows the ARB until December 31, 2020, under certain circumstances, to adopt regulations that utilize market-based compliance mechanisms. (HSC §38562)
3. Requires ARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by December 31, 2030. (HSC §38566)
4. Requires air districts to develop plans, as specified, and submit those plans to ARB detailing how they will achieve state air quality standards. (HSC §40910 et seq.)
5. Requires, among other things, the plans developed by air districts with moderate air pollution to include the use of reasonably available control technology (BARCT) for all existing stationary sources, except stationary sources permitted to emit five tons or more per day or 250 tons or more per year, which are required to be equipped with the best available retrofit control technology. (HSC §40918)
6. Requires, among other things, the plans developed by air districts with serious, severe, or extreme air pollution to include the use of the best available retrofit control technology for all existing permitted stationary sources. (HSC §40919, §40920, §40920.5)
7. Allows local air districts to determine their own requirements for BARCT based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, alternatives to BARCT, cost-effectiveness of BARCT, and the incremental cost-effectiveness of other control measures. (HSC §40920.6)

This bill (Sections 2 and 3):

1. Requires local air districts, on or before January 1, 2019, to adopt an expedited schedule to implement already approved BARCT requirements for sources covered by the cap-and-trade program adopted pursuant to AB 32, with priority given to facilities based on the length of time since their last permit update.
   1. Requires, depending on the reader’s interpretation, that the expedited schedule for BARCT implementation be completed by the earliest feasible date, but no later than December 31, 2023.
2. Exempts facilities with permits dating after 2007 from the expedited BARCT schedule.
3. Requires local air districts to consider, at a public hearing, among other things, public health benefits, clean air benefits, and control option cost-effectiveness prior to adopting the expedited schedule.
4. Requires ARB to establish and maintain a clearinghouse of best available control technology (BACT) and BARCT for the control of criteria pollutants and TACs.
5. Requires local air districts to use the information in the clearinghouse only when updating their BACT determinations, subjects such activities to an annual appropriation or subvention by ARB, and allows districts to assess a fee on nonvehicular sources for costs associated with implementing these activities.

Existing law:

1. Deems any person who violates air pollution laws, rules, regulations, permits, or orders of the ARB or of a district, including a district hearing board, as specified:
   1. To be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both. (HSC §42400)
   2. Is strictly liable for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both. (HSC §42402)
2. Provides, when civil penalties are in excess of $1,000 per day, that there is no civil liability if the accused alleges by affirmative defense and establishes that the violation was caused by an act that was not the result of intentional or negligent conduct. (HSC §42402)

This bill (Sections 4, 5, and 6):

1. Increases the criminal fine and civil penalty for a person who violates air pollution laws, rules, regulations, permits, or orders of the ARB or of a district, including a district hearing board, as specified, from $1,000 to $5,000.
2. Increases from $1,000 to $5,000 the daily civil penalty threshold for providing liability relief if the accused alleges by affirmative defense and establishes that the violation was caused by an act that was not the result of intentional or negligent conduct.
3. Increases, as of January 1, 2018, maximum penalties assessed by ARB or local air districts based on the California Consumer Price Index (CPI) as compiled and reported by the Department of Industrial Relations.

Existing law:

1. Establishes the ARB as the air pollution control agency in California and requires the ARB, among other things, to control emissions from a wide array of mobile sources and coordinate with local air districts to control emissions from stationary sources in order to implement the FCAA. (HSC §39500 et seq.)
2. Requires ARB to promulgate and enforce rules and regulations necessary for the proper execution of its statutory mandates. (HSC §39601 et seq.)
3. Provides shared authority over TAC emissions between ARB and local air districts. (HSC §39650 et seq.)
4. Requires, subject to the powers and duties of the ARB, the local air districts to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards in all areas affected by emission sources under their jurisdiction, and to enforce all applicable provisions of state and federal law. (HSC §40001)
5. Establishes the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 to, among other things, require a “health risk assessment” to be submitted to the air districts that evaluates and predicts the dispersion of hazardous substances in the environment and the potential for exposure of human populations, and to assess and quantify both the individual and population wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure. (HSC §44300 et seq.)

This bill (Sections 7 and 8):

1. Defines:
   1. “Community air monitoring system” means advanced sensing monitoring equipment that measures and records air pollutant concentrations in the ambient air at or near sensitive receptor locations and in disadvantaged communities and that may be useful for estimating associated pollutant exposures and health risks, determining trends in air pollutant levels over time, and in supporting enforcement efforts.
   2. “Disadvantaged community” means a community identified by the CalEnviroScreen tool created pursuant to HSC §39711.
   3. “Fence-line monitoring system” means monitoring equipment that measures and records air pollutant concentrations at or adjacent to a stationary source that may be useful for detecting or estimating emissions of pollutants from the source, including the quantity of fugitive emissions, and in supporting enforcement efforts.
   4. “Nonattainment pollutant” means a criteria pollutant for which a district is classified as a nonattainment area pursuant to this division or the FCAA (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).
   5. “Sensitive receptors” includes hospitals, schools and day care centers, and such other locations as the district or state board may determine.
   6. “Stationary source” means any of the following:
      1. A facility that is required to report to the state board the facility’s GHG emissions pursuant to Section 38530.
      2. A facility that is authorized by a permit issued by a district to emit 250 or more tpy of any nonattainment pollutant or its precursors.
      3. A facility that receives an elevated prioritization score based on cancer or noncancer health impacts pursuant to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987.
2. Requires ARB, in consultation with specified entities, to establish, on or before October 1, 2018, “a monitoring plan regarding the availability and effectiveness of TAC and criteria air pollutant advanced sensing monitoring technologies and existing community air monitoring systems, as well as the need for and benefits of establishing additional community air monitoring systems.”
3. Requires, before adopting the monitoring plan, ARB to hold at least one public workshop in each of the northern, central, and southern parts of the state.
4. Requires ARB, as specified, to identify high priority areas subject to criteria pollutant and TAC exposure to deploy community air monitoring systems.
5. Requires local air districts with high priority areas, by July 1, 2019, to deploy community air monitoring systems.
6. Allows local air districts to require stationary sources in high priority areas to implement fence-line monitoring systems, as specified.
7. Requires ARB, by January 1, 2020 and annually thereafter, to identify other high priority areas, if appropriate, and requires local air districts to deploy community air monitoring systems within one year of the designation of a high priority area within their jurisdiction being made.
8. Requires ARB to hold annual public hearings on the status of implementing community air monitoring systems and make recommendations for improvement.
9. Requires local air districts to provide ARB with the data from community air monitoring systems, which ARB must post on its Internet Web site.
10. Requires ARB, on or before October 1, 2018, as specified, to prepare a statewide strategy to reduce TACs and criteria pollutants in communities affected by high exposure.
11. Requires the statewide strategy to include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
    1. An assessment of communities with high cumulative exposure burdens for TACs and criteria pollutants, as specified.
    2. A methodology for identifying sources of air pollution and quantifying contributions to air pollution, as specified.
    3. An assessment of whether a local air district should update and implement a risk reduction audit and emissions reduction plan for a facility developed pursuant to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 in order to reduce its emissions, as specified.
    4. An assessment of available control technology to reduce criteria pollutants and TACs, including, but not limited to, BACT and BARCT.
12. Requires ARB, as specified, to select locations around the state for preparation of community emissions reduction programs, and to select additional locations annually thereafter, as appropriate.
13. Requires local air districts to implement a community emissions reduction program, in consultation with a variety of entities, within one year of the ARB selecting a location within the district’s jurisdiction, as specified.
14. Requires that community emissions reduction programs to be consistent with the statewide strategy and result in emissions reductions in the community based on monitoring and other data, and that ARB and the districts are responsible for measure within their respective jurisdictions.
15. Requires that local air districts submit their community emissions reduction programs to ARB for approval, with specified timelines and public processes for approval, rejection, or rejection in part, and specified timelines for resubmitting programs or portions of programs that were rejected in whole or in part.
16. Requires a district to prepare an annual report on the impacts of any community emissions reduction program located within its jurisdiction.
17. Specifies that compliance with community emissions reduction programs is enforceable by the local air districts and ARB.
18. Requires ARB to provide grants to community-based organizations for technical assistance and to support community participation in developing community emissions reduction programs.

Background

1. Regulatory jurisdiction. State law assigns the ARB with primary responsibility for control of mobile-source air pollution, including adoption of rules for reducing vehicle emissions and the specification of vehicular fuel composition. Stationary sources of air pollution, such as factories and refineries, are under the jurisdiction of local air districts (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). ARB and the local air districts share jurisdiction over emissions of toxics from stationary sources.
2. Air quality standards. The FCAA passed in 1963 and has been revised many times thereafter. The FCAA and its implementing regulations are intended to protect public health and environmental quality by limiting and reducing pollution from various sources. Under the FCAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) establishes the NAAQS that apply to outdoor air throughout the country.

In 1969 and 1971, ARB set the first air quality standards for ozone, Particulate Matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOx), and carbon monoxide due to their negative impacts on public health above specified concentrations.

The federal government followed suit and set NAAQS for six “criteria pollutants.” These included ground-level ozone, PM, NOx, SOx, and carbon monoxide, and added lead. Now, the US EPA reviews each NAAQS at five-year intervals to ensure that the standards are based on the most recent scientific information.

Regions that do not meet the national standards for any one of the standards are designated “nonattainment areas.” The FCAA sets deadlines for attainment based on the severity of nonattainment and requires states to develop comprehensive plans, known as the state implementation plan, to attain and maintain air-quality standards for each area designated nonattainment for an NAAQS.

The FCAA specifies which entities qualify as major sources of air pollutants, and requires those sources to be permitted and regulated under the requirements in Title V of the FCAA, which is implemented in California by local air districts. Certain sources of air emissions, including combustion facilities and incinerators, are subject to specific Title V requirements regardless of size. A Title V permit authorizes those sources to operate.

In July of 2011, sources not previously subject to Title V requirements became subject to Title V if they had GHG emissions at least 100,000 tpy of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e). For air pollutants besides GHGs, the threshold for determining which sources qualify as Title V changes depending on whether the pollutants are hazardous and whether the source is located in a non-attainment area. The default standard for qualifying as a major source of air pollutants is 100 tpy, although nonattainment areas have lower threshold emission levels for the pollutants that are not in attainment.

Within severe non-attainment areas, sources that emit over 10 tpy of NOx or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are Title V sources. Common Title V sources include large factories, refineries and power plants. Major source thresholds for hazardous air pollutants (in California these are called Toxic Air Contaminants or TACs) are 10 tpy for a single TAC or 25 tpy for any combination of TACs. Examples of TACs include benzene, found in gasoline; perchlorethlyene, emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, used as a solvent and paint stripper by a number of industries.

Due to the lower emission thresholds for air pollutants that are in nonattainment air basins, a larger fraction of facilities are required to be permitted under Title V in the South Coast Air Quality Management District and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, which are nonattainment areas for ozone and PM.

1. Health impacts of air pollution. When not adequately controlled, air pollution has dire consequences on the health and safety of both people and the environment. Poor air quality causes the lungs to constrict, resulting in wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, especially during exercise or physical activity.

It is well known that air pollution causes asthma. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nationwide 7.4% of adults and 8.6% of children have been diagnosed with asthma. In California, the numbers are significantly higher: 13.1% of adults and 12.5% of children have been diagnosed with asthma. Lower income and minority groups are disproportionately affected by asthma due to their increased exposure to air pollution.

Depending on exposure, air pollution alone can cause an increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory illness, lung disease, cancerous tumors, birth defects, premature births, developmental disorders, central nervous system damage, intellectual disability, persistent memory impairments, epilepsy, dementia, and premature death.

A June 2017 study published by Harvard researchers in the New England Journal of Medicine found that there is no safe level of long-term exposure to PM 2.5 (PM that is less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter) and ozone below which there is no risk of premature death. The study followed over 60 million Americans over 65 years old for seven years. Two key findings in the study are that reducing PM 2.5 concentrations by one microgram per cubic meter nationwide would save about 12,000 lives each year and that reducing ozone concentrations by one part per billion nationwide would save about 1,900 lives each year.

1. Vehicles and air pollution. Vehicles are one of the primary sources of air pollution in California and nationally. As such, the FCAA authorizes US EPA to establish and regulate emissions standards for mobile sources. Mobile sources—cars, trucks, and a myriad of off-road equipment—and the fossil fuels that power them are the largest contributors to the formation of ozone, PM, diesel PM, and GHG emissions in California. They are responsible for approximately 80% of smog-forming NOx emissions, 90% of diesel PM emissions, and nearly 50% of GHG emissions.

California, due to its preexisting vehicle-emission standards and severe motor vehicle air pollution problems, is authorized under the FCAA to implement separate mobile emission standards from the federal government. Other states may choose to follow either the national standard or the stricter California standards.

State law assigns the ARB with primary responsibility for control of mobile-source air pollution, including adoption of rules for reducing vehicle emissions, the specification of vehicular fuel composition, emissions control devices, and engine standards.

Due to the air pollution caused by vehicles, ARB requires vehicle manufacturers to develop engines and emission equipment systems that reduce the specific pollutants that cause California’s severe air quality problems. These emission control systems are also required to be proven durable and reliable, and may not be tampered with.

1. California Consumer Price Index. The CPI is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed list of goods and services. The CPI provides a way to compare current costs with historical costs. As such, the CPI is a widely used measure of inflation that can be used to adjust, over time, otherwise static fees, fines, penalties, etc., in statute without the need for further legislative action should the desire be to tie the fees, fines, penalties, etc., more or less to inflation.

Comments

1. Purpose of bill. According to the author, “California has some of the most severely polluted regions for smog and particulate matter – especially in the Central Valley and South Coast Air Basin.

“Poor air quality has had devastating effect on my community and many others around the state.

“In addition, my own communities have been subject to repeated exposure to toxic pollutants, including lead, arsenic and hexavalent chromium.

“AB 617 balances the global focus and flexibility of the cap and trade extension with real measures that will improve air quality in our communities.

“The bill addresses air pollution from the large facilities in cap and trade, other stationary sources, and mobile sources through a series of measures:

• Improved monitoring and reporting of criteria and toxic air pollutant emissions.
• Identification of high-priority communities and implementation of emission reduction programs in those communities addressing both stationary and mobile sources.
• Expedited retrofit of pollution control equipment at large industrial facilities by 2023, resulting in positive investments in industrial facilities that will reduce pollution, produce jobs, and not limit production.
• Increased civil and criminal penalties for air pollution violations, adjusting strict liability penalty limits which have not been increased since 1975 and required inflation adjustment for all penalty limits going forward.

“The bill includes targets, deadlines, and enforcement that will reduce air pollution, as well as improved monitoring, data collection, and transparency that will support more effective air quality programs going forward.”

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 398 (E. Garcia, 2017) extends the cap-and-trade program established pursuant to AB 32, with modifications, and is a part of a two-bill package on extending the cap-and-trade program. AB 617 is the companion measure to AB 398. AB 398 is pending hearing in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 151 (Burke and Cooper, 2017) establishes the Compliance Offsets Protocol Task Force for the purpose of providing guidance to ARB for new offset protocols under a market-based compliance mechanism with a priority on the development of new urban offset protocols and a multitiered incentive system for compliance offset credits. AB 151 is pending on the Assembly Floor.

AB 378 (C. Garcia and Holden, E. Garcia, 2017) would have authorized ARB to utilize market-based compliance mechanisms through December 31, 2030, and integrated specified air quality performance requirements into the program, including no-trade zones or facility-specific declining GHG emissions limits, and prohibits facilities that do not meet the specified air quality standards from being allocated allowances. AB 378 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.

AB 1647 (Muratsuchi, 2017) requires the installation and maintenance of air quality monitors at the refinery fence-line and in the community, and require that the governing agency publicly report the readings from the monitors in real-time, if feasible for the governing agency. AB 1647 is pending on the Senate Floor.

SB 32 (Pavley, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016) requires ARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by December 31, 2030.

AB 32 (Núñez, Pavley, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006) establishes the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires ARB to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions that cause global warming in order to reduce emissions of GHG, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/14/17)

Advanced Energy Economy

Aemetis, Inc.

American Lung Association in California

Bioenergy Association of California

California Biomass Energy Alliance

California Business Roundtable

California Interfaith Power & Light

California Labor Movement, OPEIU 29, AFL-CIO

California League of Conservation Voters

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition

California Professional Firefighters

Clean Energy

Coalition for Sustainable Cement Manufacturing & Environment

Dignity Health

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Entrepreneurs

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors

Lutheran Office of Public Policy – California

Mission:Data Coalition

Natural Resources Defense Council

NextGen California

Open Energy Efficiency

Prospect Silicon Valley

San Diego Gas & Electric Company

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

Sierra Club California

Southern California Gas Company

State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO

TechNet

The Nature Conservancy

Union of Concerned Scientists

UtilityAPI

Verdafero

Volta

One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/14/17)

American Veterans

Apostolic Faith Center

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association

California Communities Against Toxics

California Kids IAQ

California Safe Schools

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Coalition for a Safe Environment

Communities for a Better Environment

Community Dreams

Del Amo Action Committee

Desert Citizens Against Pollution

Earthjustice

East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice

EMERGE

Medical Advocates for Healthy Air

Mothers of East Los Angeles

NAACP San Pedro-Wilmington Branch #1069

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

San Pedro & Peninsula Homeowners Coalition

Society for Positive Action

South Coast Air Quality Management District

St. Philomena Social Justice Ministry

Wilmington Improvement Network

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to the American Lung Association in California:

The American Lung Association in California urges support for a critical two-bill package to accelerate California’s clean air and climate leadership - AB 617 (E. Garcia, C. Garcia and Santiago) and AB 398 (E. Garcia). These bills will help move our state forward to meet our 2030 climate target while improving air quality in the most impacted communities throughout California.

Local air quality and climate pollution must be tackled at the same time, and these bills provide the tools to make this happen, particularly in disadvantaged communities. AB 617 brings new tools to suffering communities including air pollution penalty enhancements, enhanced community monitoring, new deadlines for updating industrial sources with control technologies and new local planning efforts focused on cumulative emissions from mobile and stationary sources. These are much needed, long overdue tools that will hold regulators and industry accountable for emissions in local communities.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

According to the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment:

[AB 617] does not meaningfully reform air quality policy sufficient to ensure protection of communities adversely affected by Cap and Trade. Section 8 of the bill includes the Community Emission Reduction Program which would provide significant protections if the bill specified communities for inclusion, mandated specific reductions in specific pollutants to achieve health-based standards, required the reductions by a specific date, and allowed communities the capacities to enforce program requirements when air districts and the Air Resources Board fail to meaningfully enforce Program requirements. Because the bill requires none of this certainty, we must oppose given the decades of neglect by air districts and by the Air Resources Board. The current air quality crisis in California is due in large part to a regulatory system and institutions that allow pollution, that yield to the political pressures of polluters, and has not resulted in equitable or just environmental conditions across California. Allowing air districts and the Air Resources Board to implement and enforce the Community Emission Reduction Program at their sole discretion continues, and does not reform, inadequate air quality policy in California.

Section 2 of the bill offers considerable promise to ensure emissions reductions at Cap and Trade Sources. However, Section 2 leaves far too much discretion in the hands of air districts to determine Best Available Retrofit Control Technology. Section 2 continues to rely on pollution trading programs as a part of BARCT, which includes the failed RECLAIM program in the South Coast Air Basin. Fifty-one selective catalytic reductions systems (SCRs) would have been installed at refineries as Best Available Retrofit Control Technology, but the South Coast AQMD opted for less stringent reductions through the RECLAIM program.

Prepared by:

7/17/17 15:33:16

**** END ****

(Without Reference to File)

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 617

Author:(Cristina Garcia, et al.)

As Amended Ver:July 14, 2017

Majority vote

(Vote not relevant)

Original Committee Reference: ED.

SUMMARY: Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to improve air pollution data collection and reporting; requires expedited pollution control retrofit of large stationary sources; increases penalties for air pollution violations; requires enhanced air pollution monitoring; requires ARB to adopt a statewide emissions reduction strategy targeting pollution-burdened communities; and requires ARB and air districts to implement community emissions reduction programs.

The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of the bill and add the following provisions:

Data collection and reporting:

1. Provides for regular and consolidated reporting of emissions from major stationary sources by requiring ARB to establish a uniform statewide system of annual reporting of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), including reporting by sources of facility-level emissions data and third-party verification.

Expedited pollution control retrofit:

1. Requires each nonattainment district to adopt an expedited schedule for implementation of "best available retrofit control technology" (BARCT) by the earliest feasible date, but in any event not later than December 31, 2023. The schedule applies to each industrial source subject to the current cap and trade regulation, except those emissions units that have implemented BARCT since 2007, and gives highest priority to units that have not modified permit conditions for the greatest period of time. Requires the district, prior to adopting the schedule, to hold a public meeting and take into account:
   1. The local public health and clean air benefits to the surrounding community.
   2. The cost-effectiveness of each control option.
   3. The air quality and attainment benefits of each control option.
2. Requires ARB to establish and maintain a statewide clearinghouse that identifies best available control technology (BACT) and BARCT for criteria pollutants, and related technologies for control of TACs. Requires each district to use the information in the clearinghouse when updating BACT determinations.

Increased penalties:

1. Increases civil and criminal strict liability penalty limits from $1000/day to $5000/day for specified air pollution violations, to account for inflation since the limits were established in 1975. Provides for annual increase of each ARB and district maximum penalty based on the California Consumer Price Index.

Enhanced community monitoring:

1. Requires ARB, on or before October 1, 2018, to prepare a monitoring plan regarding the availability and effectiveness of TAC and criteria pollutant advanced sensing monitoring technologies and existing community air monitoring systems (CAMS), as well as the need for and benefits of establishing additional community air monitoring systems. Requires ARB to hold at least one public workshop in each of the northern, central, and southern parts of the state.
2. Requires ARB, based on the monitoring plan, in consultation with districts, and based on an assessment of the locations of sensitive receptors and disadvantaged communities, to select the highest priority locations around the state to deploy CAMS in communities with high exposure burdens for TACs and criteria pollutants. Requires any district with a location selected by ARB to deploy a CAMS by July 1, 2019. Permits districts to require a stationary source to deploy a fence-line monitoring system or other appropriate real-time, on-site monitoring.
3. Requires ARB to select additional locations by January 1, 2020 and January 1 of every year thereafter, and requires districts to deploy a CAMS within one year.
4. Requires the districts to provide ARB the air quality data produced by the CAMS, and requires ARB to publish the data on its Web site.

Statewide emissions reduction strategy targeting pollution-burdened communities:

1. Requires ARB, on or before October 1, 2018, to prepare a statewide strategy to reduce emissions of TACs and criteria pollutants in communities affected by a high cumulative exposure burden, and update the strategy at least once every five years. Requires ARB to hold at least one public workshop in each of the northern, central, and southern parts of the state.
2. Requires the strategy to include criteria for development of community emissions reduction programs (CERPs), including:
   1. An assessment and identification of communities with high cumulative exposure burdens for TACs and criteria air pollutants, prioritizing disadvantaged communities (DACs) and sensitive receptor locations based on one or more of the following: best available modeling information, existing air quality monitoring information, existing public health data based on consultation with Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and the results of the new CAMS.
   2. A methodology for assessing and identifying the contributing sources or categories of sources, including, but not limited to, stationary and mobile sources, and an estimate of their relative contribution to elevated exposure to air pollution in impacted communities.
   3. An assessment of whether a district should update and implement the risk reduction audit and emissions reduction plan for any facility to achieve emission reductions commensurate with its relative contribution, if the facility's emissions either cause or significantly contribute to a material impact on a sensitive receptor location or DAC.
   4. An assessment of the existing and available measures for reducing emissions from the contributing sources or categories of sources, including, but not limited to, BACT, BARCT, and BACT for TACs.

Community emissions reduction programs:

1. Requires ARB to select locations around the state for preparation of CERPs, concurrent with the statewide strategy, with additional locations selected annually thereafter, as appropriate.
2. Requires a district, within one year of ARB selection, to adopt a CERP to achieve emissions reductions using cost-effective measures identified by ARB.
3. Requires the CERP to be consistent with ARB's state strategy and include emissions reduction targets, specific reduction measures, an implementation schedule, and an enforcement plan.
4. Requires the CERP to be submitted to ARB for review and approval within 60 days. Requires CERPs rejected by ARB to be resubmitted within 30 days. If a CERP is not approvable by ARB, requires ARB to initiate a public process to discuss options for achievement of an approvable CERP. Requires ARB to concurrently develop and implement the applicable mobile source elements to commence achievement of emission reductions.
5. Requires CERPs to result in emissions reductions in the community, based on monitoring and other data.
6. Requires ARB and the district each to be responsible for measures consistent with their respective authorities.
7. Requires districts to prepare an annual report summarizing the results and actions taken to further reduce emissions pursuant to a CERP.
8. Requires compliance with the CERP to be enforceable by the district and ARB, as applicable.
9. Requires ARB to provide grants to community-based organizations for technical assistance and to support participation in implementation of CERPs and CAMS.

Definitions:

1. Establishes the following definitions:
   1. "Community air monitoring system" means advanced sensing monitoring equipment that measures and records air pollutant concentrations in the ambient air at or near sensitive receptor locations and in disadvantaged communities and that may be useful for estimating associated pollutant exposures and health risks, determining trends in air pollutant levels over time, and in supporting enforcement efforts.
   2. "Fence-line monitoring system" means monitoring equipment that measures and records air pollutant concentrations at or adjacent to a stationary source that may be useful for detecting or estimating emissions of pollutants from the source, including the quantity of fugitive emissions, and in supporting enforcement efforts. "Sensitive receptors" includes hospitals, schools and day care centers, and such other locations as the district or state board may determine.
   3. "Nonattainment pollutant" means a criteria pollutant for which a district is classified as a nonattainment area pursuant to this division or the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).
   4. "Stationary source" means any of the following:
      1. A facility that is required to report to the state board the facility's greenhouse gas emissions.
      2. A facility that is authorized by a permit issued by a district to emit 250 or more tons per year of any nonattainment pollutant or its precursors.
      3. A facility that receives an elevated prioritization score based on cancer or non-cancer health impacts.

EXISTING LAW:

1. The federal CAA and its implementing regulations set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants, designate air basins that do not achieve NAAQS as nonattainment, and require states with nonattainment areas to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) detailing how they will achieve compliance with NAAQS.
2. Establishes the ARB as the air pollution control agency in California and requires the ARB, among other things, to control emissions from a wide array of mobile sources and coordinate with local air districts to control emissions from stationary sources in order to implement the CAA.
3. Requires, subject to the powers and duties of the ARB, the local air districts to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards in all areas affected by emission sources under their jurisdiction, and to enforce all applicable provisions of state and federal law.
4. Requires air districts to develop plans, as specified, and submit those plans to ARB detailing how they will achieve state air quality standards.
5. Requires, among other things, the plans developed by air districts with moderate or more serious air pollution (nonattainment districts) to include the use of BARCT for all existing stationary sources, with specified exceptions.
6. Establishes the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987 to, among other things, require a "health risk assessment" to be submitted to the air districts that evaluates and predicts the dispersion of hazardous substances in the environment and the potential for exposure of human populations, and to assess and quantify both the individual and population wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure.
7. Requires ARB to make available on its Internet Web site the emissions from stationary sources of greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants, and TACs throughout the state, as specified, and to update that information at least once a year.
8. Deems any person who violates air pollution laws, rules, regulations, permits, or orders of the ARB or of a district, including a district hearing board, as specified:
   1. To be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both.
   2. Is strictly liable for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both.

FISCAL EFFECT: Significant, potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and other special Funds) for ARB to establish the statewide system and clearinghouse. (See staff comments.)

COMMENTS:

1. Author's statement:

California has some of the most severely polluted regions for smog and particulate matter – especially in the Central Valley and South Coast Air Basin. Poor air quality has had devastating effect on my community and many others around the state. In addition, my own communities have been subject to repeated exposure to toxic pollutants, including lead, arsenic and hexavalent chromium.

AB 617 balances the global focus and flexibility of the cap and trade extension with real measures that will improve air quality in our communities. The bill addresses air pollution from the large facilities in cap and trade, other stationary sources, and mobile sources through a series of measures:

• Improved monitoring and reporting of criteria and toxic air pollutant emissions.
• Identification of high-priority communities and implementation of emission reduction programs in those communities addressing both stationary and mobile sources.
• Expedited retrofit of pollution control equipment at large industrial facilities, resulting in positive investments in industrial facilities that will reduce pollution and produce jobs.
• Increased civil and criminal penalties for air pollution violations, adjusting strict liability penalty limits which have not been increased since 1975 and required inflation adjustment for all penalty limits going forward.

The bill includes targets, deadlines, and enforcement that will reduce air pollution, as well as improved monitoring, data collection, and transparency that will support more effective air quality programs going forward.

1. Cap and trade and air quality. According a September 2016 research brief, Preliminary Environmental Equity Assessment of California's Cap-and-Trade Program^[1]:

For residents living near large industrial facilities, AB 32 offered the possibility that along with reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs), emissions of other harmful pollutants would also be decreased in their neighborhoods. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary GHG, indirectly impacts health by causing climate change but is not directly harmful to health in the communities where it is emitted. However, GHG emissions are usually accompanied by releases of other pollutants such as particulate matter (PM10) and air toxics that can directly harm the health of nearby residents. In this brief, we assess inequalities in the location of GHG-emitting facilities and in the amount of GHGs and PM10 emitted by facilities regulated under cap-and-trade. We also provide a preliminary evaluation of changes in localized GHG emissions from large point sources since the advent of the program in 2013.

We found that regulated GHG-emitting facilities are located in neighborhoods with higher proportions of residents of color and residents living in poverty. In addition, facilities that emit the highest levels of both GHGs and PM10 are also more likely to be located in communities with higher proportions of residents of color and residents living in poverty. This suggests that the public health and environmental equity co-benefits of California’s cap-and-trade program could be enhanced if there were more emissions reductions among the larger emitting facilities that are located in disadvantaged communities. In terms of GHG emission trends, in-state emissions have increased on average for several industry sectors since the advent of the cap-and-trade program, with many high emitting companies using offset projects located outside of California to meet their compliance obligations. Enhanced data collection and availability can strengthen efforts to track future changes in GHG and co-pollutant emissions and inform decision making in ways that incentivize deeper in-state reductions in GHGs and better maximize public health benefits and environmental equity goals.

In February 2017, the OEHHA report Tracking and Evaluation of Benefits and Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Limits in Disadvantaged Communities^[2] made the following findings:

• 1. A disproportionate number of facilities subject to the Cap-and-Trade Program are located in disadvantaged communities. Of the 281 facilities analyzed, 57% are located in or within one-half mile of a disadvantaged community. More specifically, 15 of 20 refineries (75%), five of seven hydrogen plants (71%) and 72 of the 110 facilities classified by ARB as "other combustion source" facilities (65%) are located in or within one-half mile of a disadvantaged community. While people's actual exposures to toxic co-pollutants emitted from these facilities would depend on various factors such as meteorological conditions and smokestack heights, changes in co-pollutant emissions resulting from the Cap-and-Trade Program would nonetheless tend to have disproportionate benefits (if emissions decrease) or adverse impacts (if emissions increase) on disadvantaged communities because of their proximity to these facilities;
  2. There were moderate correlations between GHG emissions and the emissions of criteria air pollutants. The strongest correlation was with fine particulate matter emissions (PM2.5). There was also moderate correlation between GHG and toxic chemical emissions across the entire set of Cap-and-Trade facilities with covered emissions. Some individual industrial sectors showed greater correlations between emissions of GHGs and toxic co-pollutants. Refineries overall showed a strong correlation, while cement plants showed a moderate correlation. Oil and gas production facilities also showed a moderate correlation, depending on the statistical measure used. Facilities in certain sectors with broad ranges in emissions levels (e.g. electricity generation facilities) showed increased correlation with a specific statistical analysis (logarithmic transformation). This report only looked at emissions from one recent year (2014), however, because this was the only year for which air toxics data could be obtained in time for this analysis;
  3. OEHHA also conducted a more detailed case study of nine cement plants and 19 refineries. These facilities have relatively high toxicity-weighted emissions, and data for the years 2011 to 2014 were available. The different plants showed varying levels of correlation among GHG, toxicity-weighted emissions, and PM2.5 emissions during the four-year period. Several cement facilities showed modest positive correlations between GHG and toxicity-weighted emissions, while two cement facilities showed poorer correlations. For refineries, there generally was a positive correlation between GHG and toxicity-weighted air emissions. Facilities with high levels of GHG emissions generally had higher PM2.5 and toxicity-weighted emissions. There were some differences among individual refineries in the relationships between GHGs, toxicity-weighted and PM2.5 emissions, perhaps reflecting differences in the kinds of products made at each of the refineries; and,
  4. These results indicate that the relationship between GHGs and other pollutant emissions is complex. GHG facilities that emit higher levels of GHGs tend to have higher emissions of toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants. There is a need for additional investigation into the factors that drive emission changes, how GHG emission reductions are likely to be achieved in different industrial sectors, and what that may mean for concomitant changes in emissions of toxic air pollutants. Nonetheless, these analyses suggest that reductions in GHG emissions are likely to result in lower pollutant exposures in disadvantaged communities, based overall on the positive correlations observed for the 2014 data.

1. Section 2 requires pollution control retrofits at refineries and the other large industrial sources covered by the cap and trade program. AB 32 (Nunez), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006, recognized the link between climate change, GHG emissions, and air pollution. In fact, AB 32 requires ARB to "(e)nsure that activities undertaken pursuant to the regulations complement, and do not interfere with, efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce (TAC) emissions." AB 32 further requires ARB, prior to the inclusion of any "market-based compliance mechanism" (e.g., cap and trade) regulations, to the extent feasible, and in furtherance of achieving the statewide GHG emissions limit, to do all of the following:
   1. Consider the potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative emission impacts from these mechanisms, including localized impacts in communities that are already adversely impacted by air pollution.
   2. Design any market-based compliance mechanism to prevent any increase in the emissions of TACs or criteria air pollutants.
   3. Maximize additional environmental and economic benefits for California, as appropriate.

However, the reports referenced above point to the lack of meaningful integration of cap and trade and air pollution control, while suggesting that cap and trade may permit, or even enable, increased GHG emissions at facilities without regard to associated air pollution impacts.

Section 2 of this bill directly addresses this problem by adding a new requirement for each nonattainment air district to implement BARCT by the earliest feasible date, but in any event not later than December 31, 2023. This new BARCT requirement applies to each industrial source that is currently subject to the cap and trade regulation, unless that source has implemented BARCT since 2007.

The new BARCT requirement applies to these sources specifically because the cap and trade regulation, as proposed to be extended and modified by a companion measure, AB 398 (Eduardo Garcia) of the current legislative session, does not itself require these sources to directly reduce emissions. In addition, Section 2 establishes a firm deadline because the Legislature has recognized that implementation of BARCT under current law has been inconsistent and that alternatives to BARCT, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program, have failed to produce equivalent or greater emission reductions, as required by law.

According to a July 11, 2017 letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer of ARB, to Wayne Nastri, Executive Officer of SCAQMD:

…AB 617 calls for an expedited schedule for applying (BARCT) level controls at the region's highest emitting sources by the earliest feasible date but not later than December 31, 2023.

ARB is aware that to comply with the RECLAIM amendments adopted in 2015 and 2016, (SCAQMD) is already requiring upgrades to existing equipment at refineries and other large industrial sources to the cleanest retrofit technologies. Now, with the steps called for in AB 617 together with the phase-out of RECLAIM, if the bill goes into effect, the installation of the cleanest retrofit control technologies would occur even more quickly.

Section 2, working in conjunction with Section 3,which requires ARB to update BARCT standards to guide air districts' determinations, will result in installation of available emissions control technologies and equipment upgrades, so that real emissions reductions in nonattainment pollutants will be achieved from the dirtiest units located at industrial sources. These being the same industrial sources that will continue to receive free GHG emission allowances under the cap and trade regulation. The provision is not intended to permit the use of emission reduction credits in lieu of installation of BARCT, including marketable emission reduction credits issued under RECLAIM, which is being phased out by SCAQMD.

1. CERP focuses on improving public health in pollution-burdened communities. The general purpose and focus of this bill is to achieve additional reductions in criteria pollutants and TACs in communities identified as having high cumulative exposure burdens in order to alleviate detrimental health and environmental impacts.

To achieve this purpose, in addition to Section 2, which focuses specifically on industrial sources in cap and trade, Sections 7 and 8 work together to support the implementation of measures to achieve additional emission reductions from all sources – stationary, mobile, indirect, and/or area-wide – determined by ARB and the districts to contribute to elevated pollution burdens in those communities selected by ARB for implementation of a CERP.

1. Enforcement of air pollution laws enhanced through increased penalties. Sections 4 and 5 increase air district criminal and civil strict liability penalty limits from $1,000 to $5,000 per day, which accounts for inflation since the limits were enacted in 1975. Section 6 requires both ARB and air district maximum penalties to be inflation-adjusted annually going forward.

Penalties for stationary source air emission violations are assessed based on the number of days of violation and the intention of the violator. In the absence of evidence to indicate negligence or worse (i.e., knowledge and failure to correct or willful and intentional behavior), civil penalties are assessed at penalty ceilings for the strict liability classification, where the violation is found to occur without proof of carelessness or fault.

Analysis Prepared by: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0001206

1. http://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/242/docs/Climate_Equity_Brief_CA_Cap_and_Trade_Sept2016_FINAL2.pdf ↑

2. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/environmental-justice/report/oehhaab32report020217.pdf ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Wieckowski, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: AB 617

SUBJECT: Nonvehicular air pollution: criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants.

DIGEST:

This bill, among other things:

1. Requires ARB to establish a uniform, statewide system for stationary sources to report their emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants;
   
2. Creates, upon determination by an air district, an expedited schedule for certain facilities covered under the state’s cap-and-trade program to implement best achievable retrofit control technology for criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants;
   
3. Requires ARB to establish a clearinghouse of information on best achievable control technology and best achievable retrofit control technology;
   
4. Increases civil and criminal penalties for certain types of emissions; and
   
5. Creates community emissions reduction programs for communities exposed to criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its implementing regulations set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants, designate air basins that do not achieve NAAQS as nonattainment, and require states with nonattainment areas to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) detailing how they will achieve compliance with NAAQS. (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.)
   

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the Air Resources Board (ARB) as the air pollution control agency in California and requires the ARB, among other things, to control emissions from a wide array of mobile sources and coordinate with local air districts to control emissions from stationary sources in order to implement the FCAA. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §39500 et seq.)
   
2. Requires ARB to promulgate and enforce rules and regulations necessary for the proper execution of its statutory mandates. (HSC §39601 et seq.)
   
3. Requires ARB to make available on its Internet Web site the emissions from stationary sources of greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants throughout the state, as specified, and to update that information at least once a year. (HSC §39607)
   
4. Provides shared authority over toxic air contaminant emissions between ARB and local air districts. (HSC §39650 et seq.)
   
5. Defines “Toxic air contaminant” (TAC) to be an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health, and includes any substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412(b)) as a TAC. (HSC §39655)
   
6. Requires, subject to the powers and duties of the ARB, the local air districts to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards in all areas affected by emission sources under their jurisdiction, and to enforce all applicable provisions of state and federal law. (HSC §40001)
   
7. Establishes the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 to, among other things, require a “health risk assessment” to be submitted to the air districts that evaluates and predicts the dispersion of hazardous substances in the environment and the potential for exposure of human populations, and to assess and quantify both the individual and population wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure. (HSC §44300 et seq.)

This bill (Section 1):

1. Defines:
   
   1. “Nonattainment pollutant” means a criteria pollutant for which a district is classified as a nonattainment area pursuant to this division or the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).
      
   2. “Stationary source” means any of the following:
      
      1. A facility that is required to report to the state board the facility’s greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to HSC Section 38530.
         
      2. A facility that is authorized by a permit issued by a district to emit 250 or more tons per year of any nonattainment pollutant or its precursors.
         
      3. A facility that receives an elevated prioritization score based on cancer or noncancer health impacts pursuant to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987.
         
2. Requires ARB, at a date uncertain, in consultation with local air districts, to establish a uniform, statewide system for stationary sources to report their annual emissions of criteria pollutants and TACs, and other information, as specified.
   
3. Allows ARB to require third-party verification of the criteria pollutants and TACs emissions information reported by stationary sources.

Existing law:

1. Requires, under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also known as AB 32), the Air Resources Board (ARB) to determine the 1990 statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions level and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to that level to be achieved by 2020. (HSC §38500 et seq.)
   
2. Allows the ARB until December 31, 2020, under certain circumstances, to adopt regulations that utilize market-based compliance mechanisms. (HSC §38562)
   
3. Requires ARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by December 31, 2030. (HSC §38566)
   
4. Requires air districts to develop plans, as specified, and submit those plans to ARB detailing how they will achieve state air quality standards. (HSC §40910 et seq.)
   
5. Requires, among other things, the plans developed by air districts with moderate air pollution to include the use of reasonably available control technology (BARCT) for all existing stationary sources, except stationary sources permitted to emit five tons or more per day or 250 tons or more per year, which are required to be equipped with the best available retrofit control technology. (HSC §40918)
   
6. Requires, among other things, the plans developed by air districts with serious, severe, or extreme air pollution to include the use of the best available retrofit control technology for all existing permitted stationary sources. (HSC §40919, §40920, §40920.5)
   
7. Allows local air districts to determine their own requirements for BARCT based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, alternatives to BARCT, cost-effectiveness of BARCT, and the incremental cost-effectiveness of other control measures. (HSC §40920.6)

This bill (Sections 2 and 3):

1. Requires local air districts, on or before January 1, 2019, to adopt an expedited schedule to implement already approved BARCT requirements for sources covered by the cap-and-trade program adopted pursuant to AB 32, with priority given to facilities based on the length of time since their last permit update.
   
   1. Requires, depending on the reader’s interpretation, that the expedited schedule for BARCT implementation be completed by the earliest feasible date, but no later than December 31, 2023.
      
2. Exempts facilities with permits dating after 2007 from the expedited BARCT schedule.
   
3. Requires local air districts to consider, at a public hearing, among other things, public health benefits, clean air benefits, and control option cost-effectiveness prior to adopting the expedited schedule.
   
4. Requires ARB to establish and maintain a clearinghouse of best available control technology (BACT) and BARCT for the control of criteria pollutants and TACs.
   
5. Requires local air districts to use the information in the clearinghouse only when updating their BACT determinations, subjects such activities to an annual appropriation or subvention by ARB, and allows districts to assess a fee on nonvehicular sources for costs associated with implementing these activities.
   

Existing law:

1. Deems any person who violates air pollution laws, rules, regulations, permits, or orders of the ARB or of a district, including a district hearing board, as specified:
   
   1. To be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both. (HSC §42400)
      
   2. Is strictly liable for a civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both. (HSC §42402)
      
2. Provides, when civil penalties are in excess of $1,000 per day, that there is no civil liability if the accused alleges by affirmative defense and establishes that the violation was caused by an act that was not the result of intentional or negligent conduct. (HSC §42402)
   

This bill (Sections 4, 5, and 6):

1. Increases the criminal fine and civil penalty for a person who violates air pollution laws, rules, regulations, permits, or orders of the ARB or of a district, including a district hearing board, as specified, from $1,000 to $5,000.
   
2. Increases from $1,000 to $5,000 the daily civil penalty threshold for providing liability relief if the accused alleges by affirmative defense and establishes that the violation was caused by an act that was not the result of intentional or negligent conduct.
   
3. Increases, as of January 1, 2018, maximum penalties assessed by ARB or local air districts based on the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and reported by the Department of Industrial Relations.
   

Existing law:

1. Establishes the ARB as the air pollution control agency in California and requires the ARB, among other things, to control emissions from a wide array of mobile sources and coordinate with local air districts to control emissions from stationary sources in order to implement the FCAA. (HSC §39500 et seq.)
   
2. Requires ARB to promulgate and enforce rules and regulations necessary for the proper execution of its statutory mandates. (HSC §39601 et seq.)
   
3. Provides shared authority over TAC emissions between ARB and local air districts. (HSC §39650 et seq.)
   
4. Requires, subject to the powers and duties of the ARB, the local air districts to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards in all areas affected by emission sources under their jurisdiction, and to enforce all applicable provisions of state and federal law. (HSC §40001)
   
5. Establishes the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 to, among other things, require a “health risk assessment” to be submitted to the air districts that evaluates and predicts the dispersion of hazardous substances in the environment and the potential for exposure of human populations, and to assess and quantify both the individual and population wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure. (HSC §44300 et seq.)
   

This bill (Sections 7 and 8):

1. Defines:
   
   1. “Community air monitoring system” means advanced sensing monitoring equipment that measures and records air pollutant concentrations in the ambient air at or near sensitive receptor locations and in disadvantaged communities and that may be useful for estimating associated pollutant exposures and health risks, determining trends in air pollutant levels over time, and in supporting enforcement efforts.
      
   2. “Disadvantaged community” means a community identified by the CalEnviroScreen tool created pursuant to HSC §39711.
      
   3. “Fence-line monitoring system” means monitoring equipment that measures and records air pollutant concentrations at or adjacent to a stationary source that may be useful for detecting or estimating emissions of pollutants from the source, including the quantity of fugitive emissions, and in supporting enforcement efforts.
      
   4. “Nonattainment pollutant” means a criteria pollutant for which a district is classified as a nonattainment area pursuant to this division or the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).
      
   5. “Sensitive receptors” includes hospitals, schools and day care centers, and such other locations as the district or state board may determine.
      
   6. “Stationary source” means any of the following:
      
      1. A facility that is required to report to the state board the facility’s greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Section 38530.
         
      2. A facility that is authorized by a permit issued by a district to emit 250 or more tons per year of any nonattainment pollutant or its precursors.
         
      3. A facility that receives an elevated prioritization score based on cancer or noncancer health impacts pursuant to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987.
         
2. Requires ARB, in consultation with specified entities, to establish, on or before October 1, 2018, “a monitoring plan regarding the availability and effectiveness of TAC and criteria air pollutant advanced sensing monitoring technologies and existing community air monitoring systems, as well as the need for and benefits of establishing additional community air monitoring systems.”
   
3. Requires, before adopting the monitoring plan, ARB to hold at least one public workshop in each of the northern, central, and southern parts of the state.
   
4. Requires ARB, as specified, to identify high priority areas subject to criteria pollutant and TAC exposure to deploy community air monitoring systems.
   
5. Requires local air districts with high priority areas, by July 1, 2019, to deploy community air monitoring systems.
   
6. Allows local air districts to require stationary sources in high priority areas to implement fence-line monitoring systems, as specified.
   
7. Requires ARB, by January 1, 2020 and annually thereafter, to identify other high priority areas, if appropriate, and requires local air districts to deploy community air monitoring systems within one year of the designation of a high priority area within their jurisdiction being made.
   
8. Requires ARB to hold annual public hearings on the status of implementing community air monitoring systems and make recommendations for improvement.
   
9. Requires local air districts to provide ARB with the data from community air monitoring systems, which ARB must post on its Internet Web site.
   
10. Requires ARB, on or before October 1, 2018, as specified, to prepare a statewide strategy to reduce TACs and criteria pollutants in communities affected by high exposure.
    
11. Requires the statewide strategy to include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
    
    1. An assessment of communities with high cumulative exposure burdens for TACs and criteria pollutants, as specified.
       
    2. A methodology for identifying sources of air pollution and quantifying contributions to air pollution, as specified.
       
    3. An assessment of whether a local air district should update and implement a risk reduction audit and emissions reduction plan for a facility developed pursuant to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 in order to reduce its emissions, as specified.
       
    4. An assessment of available control technology to reduce criteria pollutants and TACs, including, but not limited to, BACT and BARCT.
       
12. Requires ARB, as specified, to select locations around the state for preparation of community emissions reduction programs, and to select additional locations annually thereafter, as appropriate.
    
13. Requires local air districts to implement a community emissions reduction program, in consultation with a variety of entities, within one year of the ARB selecting a location within the district’s jurisdiction, as specified.
    
14. Requires that community emissions reduction programs to be consistent with the statewide strategy and result in emissions reductions in the community based on monitoring and other data, and that ARB and the districts are responsible for measure within their respective jurisdictions.
    
15. Requires that local air districts submit their community emissions reduction programs to ARB for approval, with specified timelines and public processes for approval, rejection, or rejection in part, and specified timelines for resubmitting programs or portions of programs that were rejected in whole or in part.
    
16. Requires a district to prepare an annual report on the impacts of any community emissions reduction program located within its jurisdiction.
    
17. Specifies that compliance with community emissions reduction programs is enforceable by the local air districts and ARB.
    
18. Requires ARB to provide grants to community-based organizations for technical assistance and to support community participation in developing community emissions reduction programs.

Background

1. Regulatory jurisdiction. State law assigns the ARB with primary responsibility for control of mobile-source air pollution, including adoption of rules for reducing vehicle emissions and the specification of vehicular fuel composition. Stationary sources of air pollution, such as factories and refineries, are under the jurisdiction of local air districts (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). ARB and the local air districts share jurisdiction over emissions of toxics from stationary sources.
   
2. Air quality standards. The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) passed in 1963 and has been revised many times thereafter. The FCAA and its implementing regulations are intended to protect public health and environmental quality by limiting and reducing pollution from various sources. Under the FCAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that apply to outdoor air throughout the country.
   
   In 1969 and 1971, ARB set the first air quality standards for ozone, Particulate Matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOx), and carbon monoxide due to their negative impacts on public health above specified concentrations.
   
   The federal government followed suit and set NAAQS for six “criteria pollutants.” These included ground-level ozone, PM, NOx, SOx, and carbon monoxide, and added lead. Now, the US EPA reviews each NAAQS at five-year intervals to ensure that the standards are based on the most recent scientific information.
   
   Regions that do not meet the national standards for any one of the standards are designated “nonattainment areas.” The FCAA sets deadlines for attainment based on the severity of nonattainment and requires states to develop comprehensive plans, known as the state implementation plan (SIP), to attain and maintain air-quality standards for each area designated nonattainment for an NAAQS.
   
   The FCAA specifies which entities qualify as major sources of air pollutants, and requires those sources to be permitted and regulated under the requirements in Title V of the FCAA, which is implemented in California by local air districts. Certain sources of air emissions, including combustion facilities and incinerators, are subject to specific Title V requirements regardless of size. A Title V permit authorizes those sources to operate.
   
   In July of 2011, sources not previously subject to Title V requirements became subject to Title V if they had GHG emissions at least 100,000 tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e). For air pollutants besides GHGs, the threshold for determining which sources qualify as Title V changes depending on whether the pollutants are hazardous and whether the source is located in a non-attainment area. The default standard for qualifying as a major source of air pollutants is 100 tpy, although nonattainment areas have lower threshold emission levels for the pollutants that are not in attainment.
   
   Within severe non-attainment areas, sources that emit over 10 tpy of NOx or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are Title V sources. Common Title V sources include large factories, refineries and power plants. Major source thresholds for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs, in California these are called Toxic Air Contaminants or TACs) are 10 tpy for a single TAC or 25 tpy for any combination of TACs. Examples of TACs include benzene, found in gasoline; perchlorethlyene, emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, used as a solvent and paint stripper by a number of industries.
   
   Due to the lower emission thresholds for air pollutants that are in nonattainment air basins, a larger fraction of facilities are required to be permitted under Title V in the South Coast Air Quality Management District and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, which are nonattainment areas for ozone and PM.
   
3. Health impacts of air pollution. When not adequately controlled, air pollution has dire consequences on the health and safety of both people and the environment. Poor air quality causes the lungs to constrict, resulting in wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, especially during exercise or physical activity.
   
   It is well known that air pollution causes asthma. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nationwide 7.4% of adults and 8.6% of children have been diagnosed with asthma. In California, the numbers are significantly higher: 13.1% of adults and 12.5% of children have been diagnosed with asthma. Lower income and minority groups are disproportionately affected by asthma due to their increased exposure to air pollution.
   
   Depending on exposure, air pollution alone can cause an increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory illness, lung disease, cancerous tumors, birth defects, premature births, developmental disorders, central nervous system damage, intellectual disability, persistent memory impairments, epilepsy, dementia, and premature death.
   
   A June 2017 study published by Harvard researchers in the New England Journal of Medicine found that there is no safe level of long-term exposure to PM 2.5 (PM that is less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter) and ozone below which there is no risk of premature death. The study followed over 60 million Americans over 65 years old for seven years. Two key findings in the study are that reducing PM 2.5 concentrations by 1 microgram per cubic meter nationwide would save about 12,000 lives each year and that reducing ozone concentrations by 1 part per billion nationwide would save about 1,900 lives each year.
   
4. California Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed list of goods and services. The CPI provides a way to compare current costs with historical costs. As such, the CPI is a widely used measure of inflation that can be used to adjust, over time, otherwise static fees, fines, penalties, etc., in statute without the need for further legislative action should the desire be to tie the fees, fines, penalties, etc., more or less to inflation.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “California has some of the most severely polluted regions for smog and particulate matter – especially in the Central Valley and South Coast Air Basin.
   
   “Poor air quality has had devastating effect on my community and many others around the state.
   
   “In addition, my own communities have been subject to repeated exposure to toxic pollutants, including lead, arsenic and hexavalent chromium.
   
   “AB 617 balances the global focus and flexibility of the cap and trade extension with real measures that will improve air quality in our communities.
   
   “The bill addresses air pollution from the large facilities in cap and trade, other stationary sources, and mobile sources through a series of measures:
   
   * Improved monitoring and reporting of criteria and toxic air pollutant emissions.
   
   * Identification of high-priority communities and implementation of emission reduction programs in those communities addressing both stationary and mobile sources.
   
   * Expedited retrofit of pollution control equipment at large industrial facilities by 2023, resulting in positive investments in industrial facilities that will reduce pollution, produce jobs, and not limit production.
   
   * Increased civil and criminal penalties for air pollution violations, adjusting strict liability penalty limits which have not been increased since 1975 and required inflation adjustment for all penalty limits going forward.
   
   “The bill includes targets, deadlines, and enforcement that will reduce air pollution, as well as improved monitoring, data collection, and transparency that will support more effective air quality programs going forward.”
   
2. In the future. There are a number of clarifying changes that the Legislature may wish to address in a cleanup bill in the near future.
   
   Section 1 of AB 617 requires ARB, in consultation with the local air districts, to establish a uniform, statewide system for stationary sources to report their annual emissions of criteria pollutants and TACs, and other information, as specified. The bill, however, does not provide a date by which this work needs to be completed.
   
   In the future, the Legislature may wish to specify a date for the system to be implemented.
   
   Section 2 of AB 617 requires local air districts, on or before January 1, 2019, to adopt an expedited schedule to implement BARCT requirement for sources covered by the cap-and-trade program adopted pursuant to AB 32, with priority given to facilities based on the length of time since their last permit update. The bill, however, does not require local air districts to update or increase their existing BARCT requirements, so this measure only speeds up what was already going to happen. Moreover, language is missing from subdivision (c) in Section 2 that separates the adoption of the expedited schedule from the timeline for implementing that schedule.
   
   In the future, the Legislature may wish to clarify the discretion local air districts have over implementing BARCT under this bill, and that while the expedited schedule needs to be adopted by January 1, 2019, the implementation of BARCT pursuant to that schedule must be completed as soon as feasible, but no later than December 31, 2023.
   
   Section 3 of the bill creates a clearinghouse for BACT and BARCT control technology for the control of criteria pollutants and TACs, and requires local air districts to use the information in the clearinghouse when updating their BACT determinations. Section 3 also subjects the activities in the section to an annual appropriation by ARB.
   
   In the future, the Legislature may wish to clarify that local air districts must also consult the clearinghouse when updating their BARCT requirements. The Legislature, having control of the state budget, may also wish to consider whether it is appropriate for the Legislature to appropriate moneys for these purposes annually or whether the polluters should pay for these activities through the local air districts fee authority established by this bill.
   
   Section 7 of AB 617 defines nonattainment pollutant and then fails to use the term.
   
   In the future, the Legislature may wish to clean up this section of code.
   
   Section 7 of AB 617 misidentifies a report on the availability and effectiveness of TAC and criteria air pollutant advanced sensing monitoring technologies and existing community air monitoring systems, as well as the need for and benefits of establishing additional community air monitoring systems as a “monitoring plan.” AB 617 then requires the use of the “monitoring plan” to develop an actual monitoring plan.
   
   In the future, the Legislature may wish to correct this.
   
   Section 7 of AB 617 requires ARB to publish data from community air monitoring systems on its Internet Web site. The data generated by these systems, however, can require special software to open and take a trained scientist to read and interpret. Furthermore, there is no funding source for the monitoring systems identified in the bill.
   
   In the future, the Legislature may wish to clarify that the data generated by these systems shall be provided to the public in a publicly accessible and understandable format and that the funding to pay for the monitoring systems needs to come from regulated entities (consistent with California’s principle of “polluter pays”) and not some other source of state funding.
   
   Sections 7 and 8 make use of the phrase “exposure burden” in reference to criteria pollution and TACs, but it is not clear how exposure burden differs from exposure.
   
   In the future, the Legislature may wish to clarify the difference between exposure and exposure burden.
   
   Section 8 requires ARB to select “locations around the state for preparation of community emissions reduction programs” and to “select additional locations annually thereafter, as appropriate.” The bill, however, only requires ARB to update the statewide strategy once every five years, so it is unclear what could be gained by having ARB attempt to select additional locations annually.
   
   In the future, the Legislature may wish to harmonize the selection of new locations to the updates of the statewide strategy.
   
   Section 8 of AB 617 goes on at length regarding community emissions reduction programs. It is entirely unclear, however, how these programs would differ in any substantial way from traditional regulation by local air districts and ARB because the bill does not provide any metrics for what these programs should be designed to accomplish.
   
   In the future, the Legislature may wish to clarify the difference between traditional state and local regulation and community emissions reduction programs; substantiate the need for, and benefit of, such programs; and provide clear metrics about what these programs are expected to accomplish.
   

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 398 (E. Garcia) would extend the cap-and-trade program established pursuant to AB 32, with modifications, and is a part of a two-bill package on extending the cap-and-trade program. AB 617 is the companion measure to AB 398. AB 398 is pending hearing in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 151 (Burke, Cooper) establishes the Compliance Offsets Protocol Task Force for the purpose of providing guidance to ARB for new offset protocols under a market-based compliance mechanism with a priority on the development of new urban offset protocols and a multitiered incentive system for compliance offset credits. AB 151 is pending on the Assembly Floor.

AB 378 (C. Garcia, Holden, E. Garcia) would have authorized ARB to utilize market-based compliance mechanisms through December 31, 2030 and integrated specified air quality performance requirements into the program, including no-trade zones or facility-specific declining GHG emissions limits, and prohibits facilities that do not meet the specified air quality standards from being allocated allowances. AB 378 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.

AB 1647 (Muratsuchi, 2017) will require the installation and maintenance of air quality monitors at the refinery fence-line and in the community, and require that the governing agency publicly report the readings from the monitors in real-time, if feasible for the governing agency. AB 1647 is pending on the Senate Floor.

SB 32 (Pavley, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016) requires ARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by December 31, 2030.

AB 32 (Núñez, Pavley, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006) establishes the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires ARB to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions that cause global warming in order to reduce emissions of GHG, as specified.

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

American Lung Association in California

California Interfaith Power & Light

California League of Conservation Voters

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition

Clean Energy

Coalition for Sustainable Cement Manufacturing & Environment

Environmental Defense Fund

Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California

Natural Resources Defense Council

NextGen California

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO

The Nature Conservancy

Union of Concerned Scientists

1 Individual

OPPOSITION:

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

Communities for a Better Environment

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

South Coast Air Quality Management District

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to the American Lung Association in California:

The American Lung Association in California urges support for a critical two-bill package to accelerate California’s clean air and climate leadership - AB 617 (E. Garcia, C. Garcia and Santiago) and AB 398 (E. Garcia). These bills will help move our state forward to meet our 2030 climate target while improving air quality in the most impacted communities throughout California.

Local air quality and climate pollution must be tackled at the same time, and these bills provide the tools to make this happen, particularly in disadvantaged communities. AB 617 brings new tools to suffering communities including air pollution penalty enhancements, enhanced community monitoring, new deadlines for updating industrial sources with control technologies and new local planning efforts focused on cumulative emissions from mobile and stationary sources. These are much needed, long overdue tools that will hold regulators and industry accountable for emissions in local communities.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

According to the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment:

[AB 617] does not meaningfully reform air quality policy sufficient to ensure protection of communities adversely affected by Cap and Trade. Section 8 of the bill includes the Community Emission Reduction Program which would provide significant protections if the bill specified communities for inclusion, mandated specific reductions in specific pollutants to achieve health-based standards, required the reductions by a specific date, and allowed communities the capacities to enforce program requirements when air districts and the Air Resources Board fail to meaningfully enforce Program requirements. Because the bill requires none of this certainty, we must oppose given the decades of neglect by air districts and by the Air Resources Board. The current air quality crisis in California is due in large part to a regulatory system and institutions that allow pollution, that yield to the political pressures of polluters, and has not resulted in equitable or just environmental conditions across California. Allowing air districts and the Air Resources Board to implement and enforce the Community Emission Reduction Program at their sole discretion continues, and does not reform, inadequate air quality policy in California.

Section 2 of the bill offers considerable promise to ensure emissions reductions at Cap and Trade Sources. However, Section 2 leaves far too much discretion in the hands of air districts to determine Best Available Retrofit Control Technology. Section 2 continues to rely on pollution trading programs as a part of BARCT, which includes the failed RECLAIM program in the South Coast Air Basin. Fifty-one selective catalytic reductions systems (SCRs) would have been installed at refineries as Best Available Retrofit Control Technology, but the South Coast AQMD opted for less stringent reductions through the RECLAIM program.

-- END --

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 617 (

Author:Gomez) – As Amended Ver:April 18, 2017

SUBJECT: English learners: school district and school advisory committees: pupil members

SUMMARY: Authorizes school district and school site advisory committees on programs and services for English learners (ELACs and DELACs) to each include a student member who is an English learner.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires that parent advisory committees in existence pursuant to statutes or regulations as of January 1, 1979 continue as prescribed by the appropriate law or regulation in effect as of January 1, 1979, subsequent to the termination of funding.
2. Existing regulations require DELACs to be established in each school district with more than 50 English learners in attendance, and require ELACs to be established in each school with more than 20 English learners in attendance. (5 CCR § 11308)
3. Existing regulations require parents or guardians of English learners to elect the parent members of the ELAC, and require that parents be provided the opportunity to vote in the election.
4. Existing regulations require that each ELAC have the opportunity to elect at least one member to the DELAC, except that school districts with more than 30 school advisory committees may use a system of proportional or regional representation.
5. Existing regulations require DELACs to advise the school district governing board on at least the following tasks:
6. development of a district master plan for education programs and services for English learners
7. conducting of a district wide needs assessment on a school-by-school basis
8. establishment of district program, goals, and objectives for programs and services for English learners
9. development of a plan to ensure compliance with any applicable teacher and/or teacher aide requirements
10. administration of the annual language census
11. review and comment on the school district reclassification procedures
12. review and comment on the written notifications required to be sent to parents and guardians
13. Existing regulations require school districts to provide all members of ELACs and DELACs with appropriate training materials and training which will assist them in carrying out their responsibilities.
14. Requires governing boards of school districts to establish English learner parent advisory committees for the purpose of advising the school district on the implementation of Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs), if the enrollment of the school districts includes at least 15 percent English learners and the school districts enroll at least 50 pupils who are English learners. (EC 52063)

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has been keyed non-fiscal by the Office of Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. The author’s office states: “While ELACs can contain membership from a diverse range of stakeholders, the students for whom these committees are developing goals and policies may not be given a seat at the table.

The desire of pupils to take an active role in the direction of their school’s curriculum should not be underestimated, as students represented 17% of the total 1,177 respondents to Los Angeles Unified School District’s 2015-16 LCAP survey. As the second largest school district in the United States, the significant participation of students in the Los Angeles Unified School district survey should be understood as a desire to participate.”

Which ELAC? Current law and regulations authorize two kinds of English learner advisory committee. One kind of ELAC advises the school and the DELAC on a range of services for English learner, as specified above. The other type of English learner advisory committee advises specifically on the implementation of the LCAP. This bill applies to the former kind of ELAC.

Election and rights of a student member. Existing regulations require parents or guardians of English learners to elect the parent members of the ELAC, and require that parents be provided the opportunity to vote in the election. This bill does not indicate whether a student member would be elected, or whether student would have the same voting rights granted to parents.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California School Boards Association

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087