Existing law requires each gas corporation to develop a plan for the safe and reliable operation of its Public Utilities Commission-regulated gas pipeline facility. Existing law requires the commission and gas corporation to provide opportunities for meaningful, substantial, and ongoing participation by the gas corporation workforce in the development and implementation of the plan, with the objective of developing an industrywide culture of safety that will minimize accidents, explosions, fires, and dangerous conditions for the protection of the public and the gas corporation workforce.

Existing law requires each gas corporation to develop a plan for the safe and reliable operation of its Public Utilities Commission-regulated gas pipeline facility. Existing law requires the commission and gas corporation to provide opportunities for meaningful, substantial, and ongoing participation by the gas corporation workforce in the development and implementation of the plan, with the objective of developing an industrywide culture of safety that will minimize accidents, explosions, fires, and dangerous conditions for the protection of the public and the gas corporation workforce.

Existing law establishes the Governors Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) to serve the Governor as the lead entity for economic strategy and the marketing of California on issues relating to business development, private sector investment, and economic growth. Existing law authorizes GO-Biz, among other things, to make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on new state policies and to provide data, information, and assistance, as specified.

This bill would require GO-Biz to identify industries and companies that are developing sustainable aviation projects and technologies, as specified, and develop a program to incentivize the production and expansion of those industries and companies in the state. create a stakeholder group, as provided, to identify and pursue opportunities to attract and develop sustainable aviation fuel production and infrastructure in the state to help reach the goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in California, as specified.

The State Aeronautics Act governs aeronautics in the state for the purpose of furthering and protecting the public interest in aviation and aeronautical progress through identified means. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. A violation of the State Aeronautics Act is a crime.

This bill would require, as part of an update to its general plan or sustainability plan, or if no plan exists, on or before June 1, 2024, 2025, each public or private airport that has more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community to submit a report to the State Air Resources Board (state board), for review and approval, as specified, on the regulations, incentives, or other measures the airport is deploying or facilitating to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from its operations, as specified. The bill would require, upon approval of a report by report, as specified, the state board, GO-Biz to provide technical assistance to support qualifying airports, as provided. board to notify GO-Biz, as provided.

Because a violation of these certain provisions of this bill would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The State Aeronautics Act governs aeronautics in the state for the purpose of furthering and protecting the public interest in aviation and aeronautical progress through identified means. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. A violation of the State Aeronautics Act is a crime.

This bill would require, as part of an update to its general plan or sustainability plan, or if no plan exists, on or before June 1, 2024, each public or private airport that has more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community to submit a report to the State Air Resources Board (state board), for review and approval, as specified, on the regulations, incentives, or other measures the airport is deploying or facilitating to achieve net zero net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from its operations, as specified. The bill would require each public or private airport that has more than 50,000 annual takeoffs of private flights in a disadvantaged community to report to the relevant air quality management district on its efforts to mitigate environmental justice, air quality, and other impacts on neighboring communities. The bill would also require the State Air Resources Board and other agencies as necessary to consider adopting regulations to address deficiencies in the regulations, incentives, measures, and efforts described in those reports. The bill would require, upon approval of a report by the state board, GO-Biz to provide technical assistance to support qualifying airports, as provided.

Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The State Aeronautics Act governs aeronautics in the state for the purpose of furthering and protecting the public interest in aviation and aeronautical progress through identified means. Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation to adopt, administer, and enforce rules and regulations for the administration of the act. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. A violation of the act State Aeronautics Act is a crime.

This bill would require, as part of an update to its general plan or sustainability plan, or if no plan exists, on or before June 1, 2024, each public or private airport that has more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community to report to the department and the State Air Resources Board the regulations, incentives, or other measures the airport is deploying or facilitating to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from its operations, as specified. The bill would require each public or private airport that has a high volume of more than 50,000 annual takeoffs of private flights with low passenger capacity in a disadvantaged community to report to the department and to the relevant air quality management district on its efforts to mitigate environmental justice, air quality, and other impacts on neighboring communities. The bill would also require the department, in coordination with the State Air Resources Board and other agencies as necessary, necessary to consider adopting regulations to address deficiencies in the regulations, incentives, measures, and efforts described in those reports.

Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The State Aeronautics Act governs aeronautics in the state for the purpose of furthering and protecting the public interest in aviation and aeronautical progress through identified means. Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation to adopt, administer, and enforce rules and regulations for the administration of the act. A violation of the act is a crime.

This bill would prohibit a private or charter flight from departing an airport with less than 50% of its passenger capacity filled unless the flight is verified to be carbon neutral. The bill would require a private or charter flight that violates that prohibition to be subject to a passenger capacity deficiency penalty. require, as part of an update to its general plan or sustainability plan, or if no plan exists, on or before June 1, 2024, each public or private airport to report to the department and the State Air Resources Board the regulations, incentives, or other measures the airport is deploying or facilitating to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from its operations, as specified. The bill would require each public or private airport that has a high volume of private flights with low passenger capacity in a disadvantaged community to report to the department and to the relevant air quality management district on its efforts to mitigate environmental justice, air quality, and other impacts on neighboring communities. The bill would also require the department, in coordination with the State Air Resources Board and other agencies as necessary, to consider adopting regulations to address deficiencies in the regulations, incentives, measures, and efforts described in those reports.

Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The State Aeronautics Act governs aeronautics in the state for the purpose of furthering and protecting the public interest in aviation and aeronautical progress through identified means. A violation of the act is a crime.

This bill would prohibit a private or charter flight from departing an airport with less than 50% of its passenger capacity filled unless the flight is verified to be carbon neutral. The bill would require a private or charter flight that violates that prohibition to be subject to a passenger capacity deficiency penalty.

Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 720

Author:(Durazo)

As Amended Ver:August 19, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires a gas corporation to notify all employee organizations representing the gas corporation's employees' labor interests whenever the corporation files a formal application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) or the CPUC, on its own motion, opens a formal proceeding to which a gas corporation is a party.

Major Provisions

1. Requires that whenever the CPUC, on its own motion, opens a formal proceeding to which a gas corporation is a party, the gas corporation shall notify all employee organizations representing the gas corporation's employees' labor interests within three days of the gas corporation's receipt of service for the proceeding
2. Authorizes the CPUC to grant party status to the employee organizations after those organizations have filed a motion for party status and would require the CPUC to allow those organizations to file a notice of intent to claim intervenor compensation after they have been granted party status.

COMMENTS

Current Law. Under existing law each gas investor-owned utility (IOU) is required to develop a plan for the safe and reliable operation of its commission-regulated gas pipeline "facility," subject to approval, modification and adequate funding by the CPUC. The law also directs the CPUC to review and accept, modify or reject each such plan, and to require each gas IOU to periodically review and update the plan, which the CPUC is also to review and accept, modify or reject at regular intervals. Additionally, current law directs the CPUC, and each gas IOU, to provide opportunities for meaningful, substantial and ongoing participation by the gas IOU workforce in the development and implementation of the safety plan, with the objective of developing an industrywide culture of safety.

Aliso Canyon Leak and CPUC Investigation. In October 2015, a natural gas leak from a gas storage well was discovered at the Southern California Gas' (SoCalGas') Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility located in northeastern Los Angeles County. The CPUC opened a safety investigation proceeding in June 2019 to determine whether the organizational culture and governance of SoCal Gas and its parent company, Sempra Energy, prioritizes safety. The CPUC sent notice of the proceeding to its listserve. The Utility Workers Local Union No. 132 (Local 132), which represents more than 3,200 SoCalGas employees, contends that it was notified by neither the CPUC nor SoCal Gas about this gas safety proceeding, and only learned of it in November 2023, at which time it applied to the CPUC for party status. As such, this bill seeks to ensure an employee organization of a gas IOU is not similarly unaware of future gas safety proceedings.

According to the Author

According to the author, "SB 720 requires the CPUC to notify and grant party status and party rights to employee organizations representing a gas corporation’s workforce at each stage of a safety-related proceeding. As the current SoCalGas Safety Culture Investigation enters Phase 2, holding a new prehearing conference will enable the Union to help the parties develop concrete solutions to these and other problems that jeopardize gas safety at SoCalGas."

Arguments in Support

The sponsor of the bill, the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) Local 132 state that, "SB 720 simply clarifies that employee organizations representing a gas corporations' workforce receive notice and meaningful opportunity to participate in safety-related proceedings for this investigation and investigations going forward. It will also facilitate the union's participation in the second phase of the Safety Culture Investigation, which is expected to take place later this year or early next year."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, the CPUC shall incur minor costs, if any.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 30-8-2

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener

NO: Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Roth

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 9-0-6

YES: Friedman, Vince Fong, Juan Carrillo, Davies, Hart, Jackson, Stephanie Nguyen, Ward, Wicks

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarez, Berman, Gipson, Kalra, Sanchez, Wallis

ASM UTILITIES AND ENERGY: 15-0-1

YES: Petrie-Norris, Bauer-Kahan, Calderon, Chen, Friedman, Hart, Holden, Joe Patterson, Reyes, Santiago, Schiavo, Ting, Wallis, Wood, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jim Patterson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 10-4-1

YES: Friedman, Alvarez, Berman, Juan Carrillo, Gipson, Hart, Jackson, Kalra, Ward, Wicks

NO: Vince Fong, Davies, Sanchez, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Stephanie Nguyen

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 7-4-4

YES: Friedman, Juan Carrillo, Gipson, Hart, Kalra, Lowenthal, Wicks

NO: Vince Fong, Davies, Sanchez, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Berman, Jackson, Stephanie Nguyen, Ward

UPDATED

VERSION: August 19, 2024

CONSULTANT: Lina V. Malova / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0004118

Date of Hearing: August 7, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 720

Author:(Durazo) – As Amended Ver:July 3, 2024

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to notify gas corporation employee organizations of proceedings regarding gas corporation safety and grant party status to those organizations.

Specifically, applicable to all safety-related proceedings that are open as of January 1, 2025, this bill requires the CPUC, whenever it opens a proceeding related directly or indirectly to gas corporation safety, to notify all employee organizations representing the gas corporation’s employees and to grant party status to those organizations before the first prehearing conference. Similarly, the bill requires the CPUC, if it conducts a phase, track or other part of a safety-related proceeding subsequent to the initial phase, track or part, to conduct a new prehearing conference and to notify all employee organizations representing the gas corporation’s employees.

FISCAL EFFECT:

The CPUC asserts it will face one-time costs of $3 million to contract with a consultant who would assist the CPUC in developing and implementing a self-registration portal for affected employee organizations to register for formal notice of gas safety-related proceedings (Public Utilities Commission Utilities Reimbursement Account (PUCURA).

The CPUC notes it does not regulate employee organizations; nor does it have a master list of such organizations and cannot compel employee organizations to provide information directly. For this reason, the CPUC concludes the self-registration portal is the most effective way to comply with this bill, as it would allow employees to identify their own organizations, maintain updated contact information and opt in, or out, of becoming parties to proceedings.

That said, the CPUC regulates only a small number of natural gas corporations (also known as investor-owned gas utilities, or IOUs), and the number of employee organizations at each IOU is limited. It seems CPUC could satisfy the requirements of this bill through use of existing, accessible technology, such as email and service lists (listservs), regularly updated, that is much less costly than development of a database.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author intends this bill to ensure organizations that represent IOU workers are aware of, and able to participate in, the CPUC’s gas safety, and safety-related, proceedings, so as to “help the parties develop concrete solutions to…problems that jeopardize gas safety.”
2. Background. The CPUC uses, among other things, a quasi-judicial process known as proceedings to oversee and regulate IOU rates and service. To fully participate in a CPUC proceeding, a person or entity must apply for, and be granted by the CPUC, “party status.” The CPUC describes a party to a proceeding, in summary, as a person or entity that actively participates in a proceeding, to represent entities unable to represent their own voices before the commission, by providing information CPUC decisionmakers may consider that they might not otherwise consider.

In some cases, the CPUC may grant compensation to a party to a proceeding if the CPUC finds, in response to the party’s request, that the party has made “a substantial contribution” to the proceeding and the party experienced “significant financial hardship” as a result of participation in the proceeding. Party status does not automatically result in compensation, and compensation awards vary.

Existing law requires each gas IOU to develop a plan for the safe and reliable operation of its commission-regulated gas pipeline “facility,” subject to approval, modification and adequate funding by the CPUC. The law directs the CPUC to review and accept, modify or reject each such plan, and to require each gas IOU to periodically review and update the plan, which the CPUC is also to review and accept, modify or reject at regular intervals. In addition, existing law directs the CPUC, and each gas IOU, to provide opportunities for meaningful, substantial and ongoing participation by the gas IOU workforce in the development and implementation of the safety plan, with the objective of developing an industrywide culture of safety that will minimize accidents, explosions, fires and dangerous conditions for the protection of the public and the gas corporation workforce.

Following the massive, prolonged leak of natural gas from Southern California Gas’s (SoCal Gas’s) underground storage facility at Aliso Canyon in 2015, the CPUC opened a safety investigation proceeding in 2019 to determine whether the organizational culture and governance of SoCal Gas and its parent company, Sempra Energy, prioritizes safety. The CPUC sent notice of the proceeding to its listserve. The Utility Workers Local Union No. 132 (Local 132), which represents more than 3,200 SoCalGas employees, contends it was notified by neither the CPUC nor SoCal Gas about this gas safety proceeding, and only learned of it in November 2023, at which time it applied to the CPUC for party status. This bill is to ensure an employee organization of a gas IOU is not similarly unaware of future gas safety proceedings.

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 1, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND ENERGY

Cottie Petrie-Norris, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 720

Author:(Durazo) – As Amended Ver:June 10, 2024

SENATE VOTE: 30-8

SUBJECT: Gas corporations: safety culture investigations: employee organization participation

SUMMARY: Requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to facilitate the participation of an employee organization with party status in safety culture investigation proceedings related to gas corporations that are opened between January 1, 2023, and January 1, 2025 by the CPUC.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires each gas corporation to develop a plan for the safe and reliable operation of its CPUC-regulated gas pipeline facility. (Public Utilities Code § 961(b) (1))
2. Requires the CPUC and gas corporation to provide opportunities for meaningful, substantial, and ongoing participation by the gas corporation workforce in the development and implementation of the plan, with the objective of developing an industrywide culture of safety that will minimize accidents, explosions, fires, and dangerous conditions for the protection of the public and the gas corporation workforce. (Public Utilities Code § 961 (e))
3. Requires the CPUC to administer a safety enforcement program for gas and electrical corporations, which must include monitoring, data tracking and analysis, investigation, and the issuance of citations. The goal of this program is to improve gas and electrical system safety through the enforcement of relevant laws and regulations. (Public Utilities Code §1702.5)
4. Defines "compensation" to mean payments for all or part, as determined by the CPUC, of reasonable advocate's fees, reasonable expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs of preparation for and participation in a proceeding, and includes the fees and costs of obtaining an award, as specified, and of obtaining judicial review, if any. (Public Utilities Code §1802 (a))

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has been significantly changed with recently adopted amendments, such that its prior fiscal analysis no longer applies. This bill is keyed fiscal and will be referred to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal review.

BACKGROUND:

Aliso Canyon Leak and CPUC Investigation — On October 23, 2015, a natural gas leak from a gas storage well (“SS-25”) was discovered at the Southern California Gas’ (SoCalGas’) Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility located in northeastern Los Angeles County.^[1] The facility is the largest underground natural gas storage facility in the western United States. The SS-25 well, originally drilled in 1953 and converted to natural gas storage service in 1973, is located uphill from, and approximately 1.25 miles from homes in the Porter Ranch community. After nearly four months of several attempts to “kill” the well, the SS-25 leak was declared stopped on February 18, 2016 following a successful kill attempt using a newly-drilled relief well.^[2] The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimated that 109,000 metric tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) and short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP), were emitted into the atmosphere from the leak.^[3]

The leak received extensive news coverage, and is considered one of the largest leaks of its kind. The SS-25 leak caused severe disruption in the surrounding communities. Over 8,000 households relocated at some point during the leak, and thousands of health and odor complaints were received by regulators.^[4] As a result, in June, 2019, the CPUC opened an investigation to determine whether the organizational culture and governance of SoCalGas and its parent company, Sempra Energy, “prioritize safety and adequately direct resources to promote accountability and achieve safety performance goals, standards and improvements.”^[5]

Advancing Safety Culture and Governance – Pursuant to Section 961 of the Public Utilities Code, the CPUC is required to provide opportunities for meaningful, and substantial, and ongoing participation by a gas corporation workforce with the goal of developing an industrywide culture of safety in order to minimize accidents and any dangerous condition. This directive aligns with SB 1371 (Leno, Chapter 525, Statutes of 2014) which expressed the intent for gas utility worker employee organizations to provide their specialized expertise each time the CPUC considers regulations and practices are needed to ensure gas system safety in California.

CPUC Intervenor Compensation – The Intervenor Compensation program at the CPUC, which compensates parties for their contributions, is intended to ensure that individuals or groups that represents the interests of utility ratepayers have the financial resources to bring their concerns and interests to the commission. The CPUC initiated the program in 1981 and state law was enacted in 1984 to govern the program. According to state law, intervenors that participate in CPUC proceedings involving utilities, such as electric, gas, and water utilities, must request compensation for the costs associated with that participation. Within their request, an intervenor must file a notice of intent to claim compensation that indicates the planned extent and estimated costs of the intervenor’s planned participation in a proceeding. Additionally, intervenors must show “significant financial hardship” to receive compensation, by submitting documents demonstrating that the intervenor could not afford to participate without undue hardship. Public utilities generally pay these intervenor compensation awards from the amounts they collect from their ratepayers.

Set Timelines – Pursuant to Section 1804 of the Public Utilities Code, an intervenor planning to seek compensation for participating in a CPUC proceeding “shall, within 30 days after the prehearing conference is held, file and serve all parties to the proceeding a notice of intent to claim compensation.” The section further states that, “In cases where the schedule would not reasonably allow parties to identify issues within the timeframe set forth above, or where new issues emerge subsequent to the time set for filing, the commission may determine an appropriate procedure for accepting new or revised notices of intent.”

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “SB 720 requires the CPUC to notify and grant party status and party rights to employee organizations representing a gas corporation’s workforce at each stage of a safety-related proceeding. As the current SoCalGas Safety Culture Investigation enters Phase 2, holding a new prehearing conference will enable the Union to help the parties develop concrete solutions to these and other problems that jeopardize gas safety at SoCalGas.”
2. Sequence of Events. As alluded in the background, the CPUC opened a safety investigation proceeding following the Aliso Canyon leak incident in June 2019, to determine whether the organizational culture and governance of SoCal Gas and its parent company, Sempra Energy, “prioritize safety”. Pursuant to Section 961 of the Public Utilities Code, the CPUC sent the order instituting the investigation to its service lists.

However, the Utility Workers Local Union No. 132 (Local 132), which represents more than 3,200 SoCalGas employees, contend that they were neither notified by the CPUC nor SoCal Gas about this safety investigation proceeding. Local 132 claimed that they learned of this proceeding in November 2023. By this time, the proceeding’s prehearing conference had already been held in March 2022. Nevertheless, In December 2023, Local 132 moved to apply for party status and were granted party status on the same day.

• In mid-February 2024, Local 132 filed a late notice of intent (NOI) to seek intervenor compensation for their participation in the Aliso Canyon proceeding. Since this was beyond 30 days after the proceeding’s prehearing conference, this case had to be arbitrated by an Administrative Law Judge.
• In late February 2024, the Administrative Law Judge denied Local 132’s motion on procedural grounds, ruling that pursuant to Section 1804, subdivision (a)(1), “not being aware of the proceeding is not a valid reason for filing notice of intent more than 30 days after the prehearing conference.” However, the author and sponsors contend that the organization’s lack of awareness about the proceeding was due to CPUC “failure” to notify them. They point to Public Utilities Code section 1711, subdivision (a) which provides: “Where feasible and appropriate, except for adjudication cases, before determining the scope of the proceeding, the commission shall seek the participation of those who are likely to be affected, including those who are likely to benefit from, and those who are potentially subject to, a decision in that proceeding.”

As such, the lack of notification, necessitates creation of due-process procedures at the CPUC as this measure provides.

1. Need for Amendments. The committee has only had the opportunity to hear perspectives from the author and sponsors and not the CPUC. Without the full picture, the committee maintains hesitations about making conclusions regarding determinations by Administrative Law Judge until further information is provided to the committee. As such the committee recommends modifying the language in subdivision (c) of legislative intent section.

The current language of this measure requires the CPUC to facilitate the participation of an employee organization with party status in safety culture investigation proceedings related to gas corporations that are opened between January 1, 2023, and January 1, 2025 by the CPUC. However, given the judge’s procedural motion, the committee wishes to amend this legislation to require that whenever the CPUC opens a proceeding related to a gas corporation safety, it shall notify all employee organizations representing the gas corporation’s employees and shall grant party status to those organizations prior to the first prehearing conference.

The CPUC is expected to conduct other phases of safety-related proceeding in the near future. As such, the committee wishes to include language that subsequent to an initial phase of a safety related hearing the CPUC shall conduct a new prehearing conference and shall notify all employee organizations representing the gas corporation’s employees.

1. Prior Legislation

SB 801 (Stern) made several requirements of energy utilities serving ratepayers in the Los Angeles Basin to support energy reliability where it has been affected by reductions in storage gas capacity and gas deliverability resulting from the 2015 leak at the Aliso Canyon storage facility, operated by SoCalGas. Also established the Aliso Canyon Recovery Account. Status: Chapter 814, Statutes of 2017.

SB 1416 (Bradford, 2020) would have established criminal penalties for individuals convicted of assaulting or battering a utility worker while the utility worker is in the commission of their job. The bill died in the Senate Rules Committee.

SB 513 (Bradford, 2017) would have established criminal penalties for individuals convicted of assaulting or battering a utility worker while the worker is in the commission of their job. The bill was vetoed.

SB 380 (Pavley) established specifics governing the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility-testing criteria, requirements to be met prior to re-starting injections at the facility, and required a CPUC proceeding to examine the feasibility of shutting down or minimizing the use of the facility due to the 2015 gas leak. Status: Chapter 14, Statutes of 2016.

SB 888 (Allen) directed how penalty funds assessed for the Aliso Canyon gas leak would be expended, and required climate change impacts from gas storage facility leaks be fully offset. Status: Chapter 536, Statutes of 2016.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file.

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Lina V. Malova / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083

1. California Public Utilities Commission, “ALISO CANYON WELL FAILURE,” https://cpuc.ca.gov/aliso. ↑

2. CARB, “Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Leak”; https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/aliso-canyon-natural-gas-leak ↑

3. Stanley Young, CARB Press Release, “Álison Canyon leak emitted 109,000 metric tons of methane,” October 21, 2016; https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/aliso-canyon-leak-emitted-109000-metric-tons-methane#:~:text=CARB%20staff%20estimated%20a%20range,ensure%20full%20and%20complete%20mitigation. ↑

4. County of Los Angeles Public Health, “Aliso Canyon Disaster Health Research Study”; http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/healthresearch/background.htm ↑

5. I.19-06-014 ↑

Date of Hearing: July 5, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Laura Friedman, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 720

Author:(Stern) – As Amended Ver:June 19, 2023

SENATE VOTE: 30-8

SUBJECT: Aviation: airports: report: emissions: GO-Biz

SUMMARY: Requires airports in disadvantaged communities to submit a net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) report to the State Air Resources Board (CARB) for approval, and requires the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) to provide technical assistance to airports in their pursuit of net-zero GHG emissions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires public and private airports, with more than 50,000 annual takeoffs, located in a disadvantaged community to submit a report to CARB, for review and approval, on the regulations, incentives or other measures that the airport is deploying to achieve net-zero GHG emissions (net-zero report).
2. Requires airports to resubmit the net-zero report within 120 days if CARB deems the original report to be insufficient.
3. Requires CARB to coordinate with the relevant air quality management district to create a public process with the objective of creating a net-zero report that can be approved, if a report has not been approved.
4. Requires CARB to inform GO-Biz upon approval of the report.
5. Requires GO-Biz to provide technical assistance to support airports in their pursuit of net-zero GHG emissions, including but not limited to sustainable aviation projects and infrastructure.
6. Requires GO-Biz to identify industries and companies that are developing sustainable aviation projects and technologies, and incentivize the production and expansion of those industries and companies in the state.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes CARB’s responsibility to review efforts to control emissions from a wide array of motor sources, as they affect air quality. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) 39500)
2. Requires that CARB reduce GHG emissions to at least 40% below 1990 levels, no later than December 31, 2030 and to develop a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost effective reductions in GHGs. (HSC 38500)
3. Requires, pursuant to SB 32 (Pavley), Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016 that CARB ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. (HSC 38566)
4. Provides, pursuant to the California Climate Crisis Act (AB 1279 (Muratsuchi), Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022) that it is the policy of the state to do both of the following:
5. Achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible but no later than 2045; and,
6. Ensure that by 2045, GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85% below 1990 levels.
7. Recognizes that the federal government regulates the operation of aircraft and controls the use of airways (Public Utilities Code (PUC) 21240, 2010)
8. Finds and declares that local and regional authorities have the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources, other than emissions from motor vehicles. (HSC 40000)
9. Establishes GO-Biz to serve the Governor as the lead entity for economic strategy and the marketing of California on issues relating to business development, private sector investment, and economic growth. (Government Code 12096.2)
10. Defines disadvantaged communities as areas disproportionally affected by environmental pollution that can lead to negative public health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. (HSC 39711)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. CARB estimates ongoing costs of about $260,000 annually (Cost of Implementation Account [COIA]) to assess community impacts of aircraft emissions, coordinate with state agencies and local air districts, evaluate mitigation programs, and acquire private aircraft activity data, among other things.
2. Since this fiscal assessment, substantial provisions have been added to the bill which would likely increase costs.

COMMENTS: California airports are a source of air and noise pollution. Aircraft jet engines emit a mix of CO₂, water vapor, oxides of nitrogen (NO_x), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide, and other pollutants. 90% of emissions from a flight happen at altitudes above 3,000 feet, with only 10% being released during taxiing, takeoff, and landing. These emissions can damage the human respiratory tract and increase a person’s susceptibility to respiratory infections and asthma. In addition, property values can decrease due to air and noise pollution, which can directly affect those looking to move elsewhere.

Concerns about air pollution emissions from airports tend to be greatest when the airports are used frequently and are located in residential areas. This can be the case with smaller airports that provide public and private, but not commercial service. For example, residents who live near the Van Nuys Airport recently have voiced concerns about noise and claim the airport is causing pollution in the area. This airport is one of the busiest of its kind in the nation.

Intrastate flights (flights who have their origin and destination in California) account for approximately 1.1% of the statewide covered GHG emissions, according to CARB’s GHG emission inventory. In CARB’s 2022 scoping plan update, keeping in mind the state’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal, the plan called for the state’s aviation fuel demand to be met by 20% zero emission technologies, and the majority of the remainder by lower-emission sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). The plan did not list strategies for how the ambitious goals could be achieved.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 directs the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish air pollution standards for aircraft exhaust. States are preempted from adopting or enforcing any standard respecting aircraft or aircraft engine emissions unless such standard is identical to the EPA's standards. Because of this federal pre-emption in regulating aircraft emissions, CARB has focused its efforts on reducing GHG emissions from airport ground support equipment by requiring electrification and reducing emissions from transit vehicles, such as shuttle buses. CARB also works closely with local agencies and airport operators to develop actions to reduce pollution in and around airports. To mitigate and decrease aviation-activity related emissions, CARB’s 2020 Mobile Source Strategy suggests 1) developing strict criteria and GHG standards for aircraft engines, and 2) establishing clean visit, clean fuel, and zero-emission on-ground operation requirements for aircrafts.

Air districts regulate stationary source air pollutant emissions. There are 35 local Air Pollution Control Districts (APCD) and Air Quality Management Districts that regulate stationary sources of air pollution in California. Air districts are responsible for regional air quality planning, monitoring, and stationary source and facility permitting. CARB and air districts in the state have expressed concern about the NO_x emissions associated with aircraft, and other primarily federally regulated sources—sources that the state is federally pre-empted from regulating. The South Coast Air Quality Management District estimates that roughly half the region’s NO_x emissions come from a source that the state does not have jurisdiction over. South Coast has entered into voluntary memorandums of understanding with five airports in its jurisdiction to help meet federal air quality standards by implementing facility-based mobile source measures at airports, targeting ground aviation sources that are not federally pre-empted.

GO-Biz leads the state’s efforts in job growth and economic development and extends grant programs and tax reliefs to different industries in the state, including: film and television, agriculture, clean energy and biomass production, tourism, zero emission vehicles, among others. At this time, GO-Biz does not have a role assisting economic development of the airports targeted in this bill.

Sustainable aviation projects and infrastructure. Sustainable aviation projects may include SAF and related production, distribution, fueling, storage infrastructure, renewable electricity, renewable hydrogen, battery storage, as well as airport operations and equipment upgrades that facilitate emissions reductions. SAF is aircraft biofuel that has similar properties to conventional jet fuel. It can be produced from renewable carbon-rich materials such as biomass, municipal solid waste, agricultural residues, forestry residues, oils, fats, greases, sugars, and alcohol. SAF, however, is roughly five times more expensive than conventional jet fuel, even after state and federal policy credits. Nevertheless, on a life cycle basis, SAF has roughly 80% lower emissions than conventional fuel, which could result in lower local emissions of harmful compounds around airports during take-off and landing.

The U.S Department of Energy is working with the U.S Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, and other federal government agencies to develop a strategy to scale up new technologies to produce SAF on a commercial scale, reaching 35 billion gallons per year by 2050, with a near-term goal of 3 gallons per year by 2030.

Airports covered by this bill. The public or private airports that have more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community, as defined in the bill, would include: Van Nuys Airport (VNY), Oakland International Airport (OAK), Hayward Executive Airport (HWD), San Jose Mineta International Airport (SJC), Gillespie Field (SEE), and Fresno Yosemite International Airport (FAT).

Staff comments:

Airports in residential areas with a high number of take-offs and landings are more likely to have negative impacts on nearby residents, than airports in rural areas or those surrounded by other commercial businesses. While, this bill has merit in trying to reduce the amount of local criteria pollutants and climate forcing GHGs produced by airport-related activity from public or private airports that have more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community, this bill’s strategies to address the problem are unlikely to result in the desired outcomes.

CARB’s role is inconsistent with federal pre-emption. This bill requires public or private airports that have more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community to submit a report to CARB for approval of the efforts the airport is undertaking to achieve net-zero GHG emissions. It is unclear what findings would lead CARB to not approve an airport’s net-zero report and what authority CARB would have to effect change from an insufficient report.

Air quality management districts not appropriate entity to work with CARB. This bill gives air districts a role in helping airports achieve a net-zero emissions report. Specifically, if CARB determines that a net-zero report is insufficient CARB must coordinate with the relevant air quality management district to initiate a public process to discuss options for achieving an approvable report. However, under current law, air districts do not play a role in regulating GHG emissions from mobile sources, so it does not make sense to have them assist CARB in identifying options for airports to achieve net-zero compliance.

Bill may unintentionally target some low-emitting airports and misses larger airports with greater emissions. Earlier versions of this bill were clearly intended to address the disruptive, and environmentally harmful, activity of private jets in residential communities. For example, the Van Nuys airport is a general aviation airport that has no commercial service, but is the busiest aviation unit in the nation with more than 300,000 take-offs and landings in 2021. The airport faced a backlash late last year with celebrities racking up trips of less than 50 miles.

However, the bill also would apply to some airports that may not have much to report on regarding their emissions. This would unintentionally create extra workload for that airport. (See opposition comments below). For example, one of the covered airports, FAT, is a joint military-public airport that is home to several military, law enforcement, firefighting, and medical air units, and may require special consideration of its operations during emergencies. In addition, this bill does not address the largest airports in the state which have the greatest emissions.

GO-Biz likely not best entity to help advance sustainable aviation projects. Recent amendments to this bill require GO-Biz to identify industries and companies that are developing sustainable aviation projects and technologies and develop a program to incentivize the production and expansion of those industries and companies in the state. This would be a new task for GO-Biz, and it is uncertain whether GO-Biz is the appropriate entity to perform these activities. Other lead, or coordinating, entities could include the Department of Transportation through its Division of Aeronautics, CARB through its role of administering the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, or even the California Energy Commission if sustainable aviation projects is to include electrification.

Reconsideration: This bill failed passage in this committee on June 26^th. The author has proposed amendments in an effort to find a path forward for this bill. The amendments would require GO-Biz to create a stakeholder group related to SAF production and infrastructure. The GHG reporting requirements would remain in this bill, with changes to allow airports to use existing plans to meet compliance. The exact amendments to the current version of the bill, with additions underlined and deletions strikethrough, are as follows:

BEGIN AMENDMENTS

SECTION 1. Article 17 (commencing with Section 12100.180) is added to Chapter 1.6 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, to read:

Article 17. Sustainable Aviation

12100.180. The (a) (1) The office shall identify industries and companies that are developing sustainable aviation projects and technologies and develop a program to incentivize the production and expansion of those industries and companies in the state. create a stakeholder group to identify and pursue opportunities to attract and develop sustainable aviation fuel production and infrastructure in the state to help reach the goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in California.

(2) The stakeholder group shall consist of representatives of all of the following:

(A) Airports.

(B) Commercial airlines.

(C) Airport infrastructure providers and investors.

(D) General aviation aircraft operators.

(E) Commercial air cargo.

(F) Sustainable aviation fuel producers.

(b) Collaboration between the office and stakeholders shall include both of the following:

(1) Production and infrastructure, including all of the following:

(A) Research and development needs.

(B) Production expansion needs.

(C) Potential sites for conversion or construction of sustainable aviation fuel production facilities.

(D) Infrastructure needs on airport and off airport.

(E) Options for expedited permitting requirements for conversion or construction of facilities to produce sustainable aviation fuel.

(2) Financing, including all of the following:

(A) Eligibility standards.

(B) Grant and loan programs that could be provided or created.

(C) Federal funding options for production, research and development, and infrastructure.

(D) Opportunities to attract private investment.

SEC. 2. Section 21669.7 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read:

21669.7. (a) (1) As part of an update to its general plan or sustainability plan, or if no plan exists, on or before June 1, 2024, 2025, each public or private airport that has more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community, as defined in Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code, shall submit a report to the State Air Resources Board, for review and approval, on the regulations, incentives, or other measures the airport is deploying or facilitating to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, in accordance with applicable greenhouse gas regulations or protocols, for all emissions, including scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions, from its operations. approval on its scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions.

(2) A net-zero greenhouse gas emissions report submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) that is deemed insufficient by the state board shall be resubmitted within 120 days. To the extent that the state board cannot approve a report, in whole or in part, the state board shall coordinate with the relevant air quality management district to initiate a public process to discuss options for achieving a report that can be approved.

(3) To comply with paragraph (1), an airport may use existing plans or reports on greenhouse gas emissions, including net-zero, carbon neutrality, climate, or sustainability plans, or reporting pursuant to federal Clean Air Act requirements, and third-party data, including emissions data required by the state board to comply with the Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulations or other applicable greenhouse gas regulations.

(b) Upon approval of a report pursuant to subdivision (a), or the approval of a report submitted by any other airport that opts into the State Air Resources Board approval process in subdivision (a), the state board shall inform notify the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz). GO-Biz shall provide technical assistance to support qualifying airports and their affiliated aviation infrastructure providers, commercial airlines, business aircraft operators, and commercial air cargo network operators in their pursuit of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, including, but not limited to, sustainable aviation projects and infrastructure. (GO-Biz), in order to inform the prioritization of assistance provided under Article 17 (commencing with Section 12100.180) of Chapter 1.6 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school

district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

END AMENDMENTS

According to the author, “Though aviation only accounts for approximately 1% of the state’s GHG emissions, California has very little information on the subject of aviation and private aviation and little evidence that steps are being taken to prevent its negative air pollution and GHG emission impacts, particularly in disadvantaged communities. By requiring the largest airports in disadvantaged communities to report on their scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions and plans to decrease them, we give CARB the necessary tools to better understand the long term plans that airports have to do their part in achieving our statewide goal of net zero emissions by 2045. .

The bill simultaneously lays the groundwork to make California a hub for industries and companies that are innovating in the space of sustainable aviation. Bringing GO-Biz into the fold, [this bill] requires the identification of these types of businesses and the creation of incentives for their development and growth in California. The bill also extends Go-Biz’s support to airports and their affiliates in their pursuit of net zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

In support the Center for Biological Diversity writes, “By collecting data on the efforts airports make to address GHG emissions, we can better understand the limitations and barriers that exist in the pursuit of sustainable air travel. This can provide key information to identify which systems and programs will successfully reduce the negative environmental impacts of flying. For example, the Center for Biological Diversity has emphasized the need for standards that drive fuel efficiency improvements and electrification—including improving air traffic operations at airports, minimizing engine idling time on runways, and charging differential landing fees.”

In opposition the California Airports Council writes, “The bill creates a new reporting requirement for airports to report to CARB on topics that have been addressed in recent years. This bill does not move the needle for airports at all. The new June 19^th language that applies the reporting requirements to airports with 50,000 private takeoffs annually in a disadvantaged community is poorly thought out. It is unclear just how many airports this will capture. It will likely be about 15 to 25. Many of these airports do not have shuttle operations and some have only a handful of airfield ground service equipment. Those with larger numbers of ground service equipment are already electric, such as the Long Beach Airport and the Sonoma County Airport. This leaves these airports with little to no report regarding efforts to reach net zero operations.”

Double referral: This bill is double referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and will be heard by that Committee as it relates to issues under its jurisdiction.

Related and previous legislation: SB 800 (Caballero) of this Session requires Caltrans to establish the Advanced Air Mobility and Aviation Electrification Committee (committee), in coordination with the Office of Planning and Research and CARB, and requires the committee to assess, among other things, pathways for feasible implementation of electrification goes for the aviation industry. SB 800 is pending in this committee.

AB 1322 (Rivas of 2022) would have required CARB to develop a plan to incentivize sustainable aviation fuel. AB 1322 was vetoed by Governor Newsom on the grounds that there are already opportunities for credit generation from sustainable aviation fuel production under the state’s low carbon fuel standard. AB 1322 was vetoed by Governor Newsom.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Center for Biological Diversity
Coalition for Clean Air

Opposition

Association of California Airports
California Airports Council

Analysis Prepared by: Sebastian Aguilar Tinajero, Christine Casey / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093

Date of Hearing: June 26, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Laura Friedman, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 720

Author:(Stern) – As Amended Ver:June 19, 2023

SENATE VOTE: 30-8

SUBJECT: Aviation: airports: report: emissions

SUMMARY: Requires airports in disadvantaged communities to submit a net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) report to the State Air Resources Board (CARB) for approval, and requires the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) to provide technical assistance to airports in their pursuit of net-zero GHG emissions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires public and private airports, with more than 50,000 annual takeoffs, located in a disadvantaged community to submit a report to CARB, for review and approval, on the regulations, incentives or other measures that the airport is deploying to achieve net-zero GHG emissions (net-zero report).
2. Requires airports to resubmit the net-zero report within 120 days if CARB deems the original report to be insufficient.
3. Requires CARB to coordinate with the relevant air quality management district to create a public process with the objective of creating a net-zero report that can be approved, if a report has not been approved.
4. Requires CARB to inform GO-Biz upon approval of the report.
5. Requires GO-Biz to provide technical assistance to support airports in their pursuit of net-zero GHG emissions, including but not limited to sustainable aviation projects and infrastructure.
6. Requires GO-Biz to identify industries and companies that are developing sustainable aviation projects and technologies, and incentivize the production and expansion of those industries and companies in the state.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes CARB’s responsibility to review efforts to control emissions from a wide array of motor sources, as they affect air quality. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) 39500)
2. Requires that CARB reduce GHG emissions to at least 40% below 1990 levels, no later than December 31, 2030 and to develop a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost effective reductions in GHGs. (HSC 38500)
3. Requires, pursuant to SB 32 (Pavley), Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016 that CARB ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. (HSC 38566)
4. Provides, pursuant to the California Climate Crisis Act (AB 1279 (Muratsuchi), Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022) that it is the policy of the state to do both of the following:
5. Achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible but no later than 2045; and,
6. Ensure that by 2045, GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85% below 1990 levels.
7. Recognizes that the federal government regulates the operation of aircraft and controls the use of airways (Public Utilities Code (PUC) 21240, 2010)
8. Finds and declares that local and regional authorities have the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources, other than emissions from motor vehicles. (HSC 40000)
9. Establishes GO-Biz to serve the Governor as the lead entity for economic strategy and the marketing of California on issues relating to business development, private sector investment, and economic growth. (Government Code 12096.2)
10. Defines disadvantaged communities as areas disproportionally affected by environmental pollution that can lead to negative public health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. (HSC 39711)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• CARB estimates ongoing costs of about $260,000 annually (Cost of Implementation Account [COIA]) to assess community impacts of aircraft emissions, coordinate with state agencies and local air districts, evaluate mitigation programs, and acquire private aircraft activity data, among other things.
• Since this fiscal assessment, substantial provisions have been added to the bill which would likely increase costs.

COMMENTS:

California airports are a source of air and noise pollution. Aircraft jet engines emit a mix of CO₂, water vapor, oxides of nitrogen (NO_x), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide, and other pollutants. 90% of emissions from a flight happen at altitudes above 3,000 feet, with only 10% being released during taxiing, takeoff, and landing. These emissions can damage the human respiratory tract and increase a person’s susceptibility to respiratory infections and asthma. In addition, property values can decrease due to air and noise pollution, which can directly affect those looking to move elsewhere.

Concerns about air pollution emissions from airports tend to be greatest when the airports are used frequently and are located in residential areas. This can be the case with smaller airports that provide public and private, but not commercial service. For example, residents who live near the Van Nuys Airport recently have voiced concerns about noise and claim the airport is causing pollution in the area. This airport is one of the busiest of its kind in the nation.

Intrastate flights (flights who have their origin and destination in California) account for approximately 1.1% of the statewide covered GHG emissions, according to CARB’s GHG emission inventory. In CARB’s 2022 scoping plan update, keeping in mind the state’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal, the plan called for the state’s aviation fuel demand to be met by 20% zero emission technologies, and the majority of the remainder by lower-emission sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). The plan did not list strategies for how the ambitious goals could be achieved.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 directs the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish air pollution standards for aircraft exhaust. States are preempted from adopting or enforcing any standard respecting aircraft or aircraft engine emissions unless such standard is identical to the EPA's standards. Because of this federal pre-emption in regulating aircraft emissions, CARB has focused its efforts on reducing GHG emissions from airport ground support equipment by requiring electrification and reducing emissions from transit vehicles, such as shuttle buses. CARB also works closely with local agencies and airport operators to develop actions to reduce pollution in and around airports. To mitigate and decrease aviation-activity related emissions, CARB’s 2020 Mobile Source Strategy suggests 1) developing strict criteria and GHG standards for aircraft engines, and 2) establishing clean visit, clean fuel, and zero-emission on-ground operation requirements for aircrafts.

Air districts regulate stationary source air pollutant emissions. There are 35 local Air Pollution Control Districts (APCD) and Air Quality Management Districts that regulate stationary sources of air pollution in California. Air districts are responsible for regional air quality planning, monitoring, and stationary source and facility permitting. CARB and air districts in the state have expressed concern about the NO_x emissions associated with aircraft, and other primarily federally regulated sources—sources that the state is federally pre-empted from regulating. The South Coast Air Quality Management District estimates that roughly half the region’s NO_x emissions come from a source that the state does not have jurisdiction over. South Coast has entered into voluntary memorandums of understanding with five airports in its jurisdiction to help meet federal air quality standards by implementing facility-based mobile source measures at airports, targeting ground aviation sources that are not federally pre-empted.

GO-Biz leads the state’s efforts in job growth and economic development and extends grant programs and tax reliefs to different industries in the state, including: film and television, agriculture, clean energy and biomass production, tourism, zero emission vehicles, among others. At this time, GO-Biz does not have a role assisting economic development of the airports targeted in this bill.

Sustainable aviation projects and infrastructure. Sustainable aviation projects may include SAF and related production, distribution, fueling, storage infrastructure, renewable electricity, renewable hydrogen, battery storage, as well as airport operations and equipment upgrades that facilitate emissions reductions. SAF is aircraft biofuel that has similar properties to conventional jet fuel. It can be produced from renewable carbon-rich materials such as biomass, municipal solid waste, agricultural residues, forestry residues, oils, fats, greases, sugars, and alcohol. SAF, however, is roughly five times more expensive than conventional jet fuel, even after state and federal policy credits. Nevertheless, on a life cycle basis, SAF has roughly 80% lower emissions than conventional fuel, which could result in lower local emissions of harmful compounds around airports during take-off and landing.

The U.S Department of Energy is working with the U.S Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, and other federal government agencies to develop a strategy to scale up new technologies to produce SAF on a commercial scale, reaching 35 billion gallons per year by 2050, with a near-term goal of 3 gallons per year by 2030.

Airports covered by this bill. The public or private airports that have more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community, as defined in the bill, would include: Van Nuys Airport (VNY), Oakland International Airport (OAK), Hayward Executive Airport (HWD), San Jose Mineta International Airport (SJC), Gillespie Field (SEE), and Fresno Yosemite International Airport (FAT).

Staff comments:

Airports in residential areas with a high number of take-offs and landings are more likely to have negative impacts on nearby residents, than airports in rural areas or those surrounded by other commercial businesses. While, this bill has merit in trying to reduce the amount of local criteria pollutants and climate forcing GHGs produced by airport-related activity from public or private airports that have more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community, this bill’s strategies to address the problem are unlikely to result in the desired outcomes.

CARB’s role is inconsistent with federal pre-emption. This bill requires public or private airports that have more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community to submit a report to CARB for approval of the efforts the airport is undertaking to achieve net-zero GHG emissions. It is unclear what findings would lead CARB to not approve an airport’s net-zero report and what authority CARB would have to effect change from an insufficient report.

Air quality management districts not appropriate entity to work with CARB. This bill gives air districts a role in helping airports achieve a net-zero emissions report. Specifically, if CARB determines that a net-zero report is insufficient CARB must coordinate with the relevant air quality management district to initiate a public process to discuss options for achieving an approvable report. However, under current law, air districts do not play a role in regulating GHG emissions from mobile sources, so it does not make sense to have them assist CARB in identifying options for airports to achieve net-zero compliance.

Bill may unintentionally target some low-emitting airports and misses larger airports with greater emissions. Earlier versions of this bill were clearly intended to address the disruptive, and environmentally harmful, activity of private jets in residential communities. For example, the Van Nuys airport is a general aviation airport that has no commercial service, but is the busiest aviation unit in the nation with more than 300,000 take-offs and landings in 2021. The airport faced a backlash late last year with celebrities racking up trips of less than 50 miles.

However, the bill also would apply to some airports that may not have much to report on regarding their emissions. This would unintentionally create extra workload for that airport. (See opposition comments below). For example, one of the covered airports, FAT, is a joint military-public airport that is home to several military, law enforcement, firefighting, and medical air units, and may require special consideration of its operations during emergencies. In addition, this bill does not address the largest airports in the state which have the greatest emissions.

GO-Biz likely not best entity to help advance sustainable aviation projects. Recent amendments to this bill require GO-Biz to identify industries and companies that are developing sustainable aviation projects and technologies and develop a program to incentivize the production and expansion of those industries and companies in the state. This would be a new task for GO-Biz, and it is uncertain whether GO-Biz is the appropriate entity to perform these activities. Other lead, or coordinating, entities could include the Department of Transportation through its Division of Aeronautics, CARB through its role of administering the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, or even the California Energy Commission if sustainable aviation projects is to include electrification.

According to the author, “Though aviation only accounts for approximately 1% of the state’s GHG emissions, California has very little information on the subject of aviation and private aviation and little evidence that steps are being taken to prevent its negative air pollution and GHG emission impacts, particularly in disadvantaged communities. By requiring the largest airports in disadvantaged communities to report on their scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions and plans to decrease them, we give CARB the necessary tools to better understand the long term plans that airports have to do their part in achieving our statewide goal of net zero emissions by 2045. .

The bill simultaneously lays the groundwork to make California a hub for industries and companies that are innovating in the space of sustainable aviation. Bringing GO-Biz into the fold, [this bill] requires the identification of these types of businesses and the creation of incentives for their development and growth in California. The bill also extends Go-Biz’s support to airports and their affiliates in their pursuit of net zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

In support of an earlier version of this bill the Coalition for Clean Air writes, “By collecting data on the efforts that all public and private airports are making toward carbon neutrality, we can better understand the limitations and barriers that exist in the pursuit of sustainable air travel. [This bill] would also give our agencies key information to identify systems and programs that are successfully reducing the negative environmental impacts of flying. The bill also acknowledges the disparate impacts of private air travel on environmental justice communities by requiring enhanced reporting on air quality protections and precautions being taken to safeguard our states most vulnerable communities.”

In opposition the California Airports Council writes, “The bill creates a new reporting requirement for airports to report to CARB on topics that have been addressed in recent years. This bill does not move the needle for airports at all. The new June 19^th language that applies the reporting requirements to airports with 50,000 private takeoffs annually in a disadvantaged community is poorly thought out. It is unclear just how many airports this will capture. It will likely be about 15 to 25. Many of these airports do not have shuttle operations and some have only a handful of airfield ground service equipment. Those with larger numbers of ground service equipment are already electric, such as the Long Beach Airport and the Sonoma County Airport. This leaves these airports with little to no report regarding efforts to reach net zero operations.”

Double referral: This bill is double referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and will be heard by that Committee as it relates to issues under its jurisdiction.

Related and previous legislation: SB 800 (Caballero) of this Session requires Caltrans to establish the Advanced Air Mobility and Aviation Electrification Committee (committee), in coordination with the Office of Planning and Research and CARB, and requires the committee to assess, among other things, pathways for feasible implementation of electrification goes for the aviation industry. SB 800 is pending in this committee.

AB 1322 (Rivas of 2022) would have required CARB to develop a plan to incentivize sustainable aviation fuel. AB 1322 was vetoed by Governor Newsom on the grounds that there are already opportunities for credit generation from sustainable aviation fuel production under the state’s low carbon fuel standard. AB 1322 was vetoed by Governor Newsom.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Center for Biological Diversity
Coalition for Clean Air

Opposition

Association of California Airports
California Airports Council

Analysis Prepared by: Sebastian Aguilar Tinajero, Chris Casey / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 720

Author: Stern (D)

Amended: 5/2/23

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 11-4, 4/11/23

AYES: Gonzalez, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Cortese, Dodd, Limón, McGuire, Newman, Umberg, Wahab

NOES: Niello, Dahle, Nguyen, Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakespear

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/26/23

AYES: Allen, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar, Skinner

NOES: Dahle, Jones

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 4-2, 5/18/23

AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Wahab, Wiener

NOES: Jones, Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bradford

SUBJECT: Aviation: airports: report: emissions

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires airports to report specified information regarding their operations to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and requires CARB to consider adopting regulations to address certain issues identified in those reports.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes CARB as the air pollution control agency in California and requires CARB to control emissions from a wide array of mobile sources. (Health and Safety Code HSC §39500 et seq.)
2. Requires CARB to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030. ( HSC §38566)
3. Recognizes the authority of the federal government to regulate the operation of aircraft and to control the use of the airways. (Public Utilities Code §21240)
   

This bill:

1. Requires each public or private airport that has more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community to report to CARB the regulations, incentives, or other measures the airport is deploying or facilitating to achieve net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in accordance with applicable GHG regulations or protocols, for all emissions, including scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions, from its operations.
   
2. Requires each public or private airport that has more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community, as defined, to report to the relevant air quality management district on its efforts to mitigate environmental justice, air quality, and other impacts on neighboring communities.
   
3. Requires CARB, in conjunction with and other state agencies, to consider adopting regulations to address deficiencies in the items identified above.
   
4. Permits costs associated with implementing this bill to be recovered from specified funds, if appropriated by the Legislature.

Background

1. California’s airports. California has 241 airports ranging in size from major international airports, like Los Angeles International, to local airfields used solely for firefighting. California also has several hundred heliports. These airports can be significant sources of noise and air pollution, which can in turn depress property values around the airport. As a result, the people living near (and thus directly affected by) the pollution from airports may often be unable to move elsewhere.
   
2. California’s aviation emissions. Aircraft jet engines emit a mixture of CO2, water vapor, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide, and other pollutants. Of these, 90% of the emissions from a flight occur at altitudes above 3,000’, with only 10% being released during taxiing, takeoff, and landing. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the total jet fuel consumption in California in 2020 was 59,442,000 barrels or roughly 2.5 billion gallons.
   
   According to CARB’s GHG emission inventory, intrastate (that is, when a flight’s origin and destination are both within California) flights account for roughly 1.1% of statewide covered GHG emissions. Given the small contribution to overall state GHG emissions, aviation was not mentioned in the 2017 scoping plan update.
   
   In the 2022 scoping plan update, aviation was briefly contemplated as a source of potential emission (and petroleum demand) reductions. In service of the state’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal, the 2022 scoping plan update called for the state’s aviation fuel demand to be met by 20% zero-emission technologies, and the majority of the remainder by sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). The plan contained no strategies for how those incredibly ambitious goals could be met.
   
3. Federally preempted emissions. Aircraft emissions contribute to California’s air pollution problem. CARB focuses on reducing emissions from airport ground support equipment and transit vehicles, and works closely with local agencies and airport operators to develop innovative actions to cut pollution in and around airports. CARB also works with national and international entities, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), on tighter aircraft standards for smog-causing pollution and GHGs.
   
   CARB and the air districts have expressed increasing concern about the NOx emissions associated with aircraft, locomotives, and other primarily federally regulated sources – sources the state is federally pre-empted from regulating. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) estimates this year roughly half of the region’s NOx emissions will come from a source the state does not have primary regulatory jurisdiction over.
   
   Aviation contributes 9% of the NOx emissions in that estimate, and the industry is contemplated in CARB’s 2020 Mobile Source Strategy (MSS) as a venue for reducing emissions. The MSS suggested actions to be taken could include 1) developing more stringent criteria and GHG standards for aircraft engines; and 2) establishing clean visit, clean fuel, and zero-emission on-ground operation requirements for aircraft.
   
   Ultimately, these regulations are largely the purview of the U.S. EPA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Nevertheless, CARB has stated it will continue to work closely with U.S. EPA and other federal agencies on these proposed concepts to ensure they achieve the needed emissions reductions for meeting national ambient air quality standards and support the development of future state implementation plans. While regulatory action at the federal and international level will help drive the introduction of cleaner technologies, fuels, and fueling infrastructure, their emissions reductions rely on the pace of natural fleet turnover, which is not always sufficient to meet California’s immediate near-term needs.
   
   Historically, the U.S. EPA has adopted aviation emission standards that have simply met the performance of existing engines. If more aggressive standards were set by the U.S. EPA, it may require improving the technology to meet those standards. CARB has urged the U.S. EPA to strengthen the standards.
   
4. Ground operations are another story. CARB can, and has, regulated the sources at airports that it does have primary jurisdiction over. In 2019, CARB adopted a rule that required fixed route airport shuttles serving the state’s 13 largest airports to transition to 100 percent zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The regulation applies to public and private shuttle fleets that service parking facilities, rental car agencies, and hotels.
   
   With almost 1,000 airport shuttles in operation, the regulation is expected to reduce GHG emissions by at least 500,000 metric tons, with a beneficial economic impact for shuttle fleets owners of an estimated $30 million in reduced fuel and maintenance costs.
   
5. CARB’s strategies to reduce aviation emissions. As part of the 2020 MSS, CARB made recommendations for how aviation emissions could be reduced. Those included:
   1. Improving the current air traffic operation during landing and takeoff;
   2. Reducing the usage of auxiliary power units;
   3. Accelerating aircraft turnover; and
   4. Advancing engine technology.
      

Altogether (and without making any assumptions about further technology development or accelerated turnover), CARB estimated implementing these strategies could achieve a roughly 23% reduction in NOx emissions. While these are valuable insights from CARB, the responsibility for promulgating and enforcing most of these regulatory efforts still falls squarely on the shoulders of the federal government.

1. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). SAF is a “drop in” replacement for conventional jet fuels; it is blended with conventional jet fuel and handled with the same conventional jet fuel infrastructure. It can be produced from renewable, carbon-rich materials such as biomass, municipal solid waste (MSW), oils, fats, sugars, or alcohol. Given the technology is still relatively immature and being developed, SAF is roughly five times more expensive than conventional jet fuel, even after factoring in state and federal policy credits. However, on a life cycle basis, it has roughly 80% lower associated emissions than conventional fuel.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “In the United States, there are an estimated 18,000 private jets, and private jet flights now account for a quarter of all flights, approximately twice their pre-pandemic share, according to aviation consultancy WINGX.
   
   “ARGUS international reports that California ranks third in business aviation flights per state with 212,267 flights in 2020 comprising 9.5% of the U.S. total.
   
   “Private jets produce 5 to 14 times more pollution per passenger than commercial planes and 50 times more pollution than high speed rail trains. An average private jet burns around 5,000 gallons of fuel per hour. That’s the equivalent of about 400 passenger cars in the same time.
   
   “Though aviation only accounts for approx. 1% of the state’s GHG emissions (per CARB’s 2016 Statewide GHG inventory). California has very little information on the subject of aviation and private aviation and little evidence that steps are being taken to prevent its negative air pollution and GHG emission impacts, particularly in disadvantaged communities. We are hopeful that this legislation can enable CARB have a better picture of the issue and what their regulatory role in this space can/should be.”
   
2. More emissions data. You cannot solve (or regulate) a problem you do not know about. Based on the amendments noted above, this bill is now focused primarily on having specific airports report more data to CARB about their emissions. While it is unclear exactly what CARB could do with that information without being preempted by the federal government, at least we can know the size of the problem.
   
   SB 720 specifically requires scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions reporting from the included airports. These could likely include:
   
   1. Scope 1 - emissions owned and controlled by the airport operator, such as energy generation and airport vehicles.
   2. Scope 2 - emissions from the off-site generation of energy purchased by the airport operator.
   3. Scope 3 - emissions are those owned and controlled by airport tenants and other stakeholders including:
      1. Aircraft activity in airport area;
      2. Airline and other tenant vehicles, ground service equipment (GSE) and energy usage; and
      3. Ground access vehicles (GAV) for staff and passengers including buses and trains.
         

Accurate reporting on all these emission sources could be challenging for airports, but due to the amendments narrowing the bill to airports with a higher volume of private takeoffs, these requirements will only apply to the largest airports in the state.

1. Environmental justice. Efforts to mitigate impacts on nearby communities can and should be part of airports’ operations plans. While many potential solutions are not the airports’ responsibility (developing zero-emission aircraft technology, bringing down the cost of SAF, etc.), it will be good to learn what steps are being taken.
   
   One could imagine better-resourced airports that may have been the subject of community involvement on environmental justice topics could even have best practices in place already that smaller airports do not. If the required reporting in this bill leads to more California airports adopting economical, pollution-reducing practices, that would be a win for some pollution-burdened communities.
2. Opposition. Opponents estimate that 10 – 20 airports will be impacted by this bill. They are concerned about the additional reporting requirement.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, CARB estimates ongoing costs of about $260,000 annually (Cost of Implementation Account [COIA]) to assess community impacts of aircraft emissions, coordinate with state agencies and local air districts, evaluate mitigation programs, and acquire private aircraft activity data, among other things.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/18/23)

Center for Biological Diversity
Coalition for Clean Air

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/18/23)

Association of California Airports
California Airports Council
National Air Transportation Association

Prepared by: Randy Chinn / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121

5/20/23 13:05:35

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 720 (Stern) - Aviation: airports: report: emissions

Bill Summary:

This bill would require airports with more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community to report specified information regarding their operations to the California Air Resources Board (ARB), and require ARB to consider adopting regulations to address certain issues identified in those reports.

Fiscal Impact:

• ARB estimates ongoing costs of about $260,000 annually (Cost of Implementation Account [COIA]) to assess community impacts of aircraft emissions, coordinate with state agencies and local air districts, evaluate mitigation programs, and acquire private aircraft activity data, among other things.

Background:

California has 241 airports ranging in size from major international airports, like Los Angeles International, to local airfields used solely for firefighting. California also has several hundred heliports. These airports can be significant sources of noise and air pollution, which can in turn depress property values around the airport.

California’s aviation emissions. Aircraft jet engines emit a mixture of CO2, water vapor, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide, and other pollutants. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2020 the total jet fuel consumption in California was 59,442,000 barrels or roughly 2.5 billion gallons.

According to CARB’s GHG emission inventory, intrastate (that is, when a flight’s origin and destination are both within California) flights account for roughly 1.1% of statewide covered GHG emissions. Given the small contribution to overall state GHG emissions, aviation was not mentioned in the 2017 scoping plan update.

In the 2022 scoping plan update, aviation was briefly contemplated as a source of potential emission (and petroleum demand) reductions. In service of the state’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal, the 2022 scoping plan update called for the state’s aviation fuel demand to be met by 20% zero-emission technologies, and the majority of the remainder by sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). The plan contained no strategies for how those incredibly ambitious goals could be met.

Federally preempted emissions. Federal law limits states’ authority to regulate the operation of airplanes. While the author’s concern may be well-considered, the state does not have authority to do what he wishes, at least with regard to aircraft. As California’s air quality regulator, CARB advocates at federal agencies for stronger aircraft standards for smog-causing pollution and greenhouse gases. CARB has some authority to regulate airport operations and has done so with ground support equipment and airport transit vehicles at airports.

CARB’s strategies to reduce aviation emissions. As part of the 2020 MSS, CARB made recommendations for how aviation emissions could be reduced. Those included:

• Improving the current air traffic operation during landing and takeoff;
• Reducing the usage of auxiliary power units;
• Accelerating aircraft turnover; and
• Advancing engine technology.
  

Altogether (and without making any assumptions about further technology development or accelerated turnover), CARB estimated implementing these strategies could achieve a roughly 23% reduction in NOx emissions. While these are valuable insights from CARB, the responsibility for promulgating and enforcing most of these regulatory efforts still falls squarely on the shoulders of the federal government.

Proposed Law:

This bill would require airports with more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community to report specified information regarding their operations to ARB, and require ARB to consider adopting regulations to address certain issues identified in those reports. Specifically, this bill would:

1. Require each public or private airport with more than 50,000 annual takeoffs in a disadvantaged community to report to ARB on the regulations, incentives, or other measures the airport is deploying or facilitating to achieve net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in accordance with applicable GHG regulations or protocols, for all emissions, including scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions, from its operations.
   
2. Require ARB and other state agencies as necessary to consider adopting regulations to address deficiencies in the items identified above.
   
3. Permit costs associated with implementing this bill to be recovered from specified funds, if appropriated by the Legislature.

Related Legislation:

AB 1322 (R. Rivas, 2021) set targets for SAF production in the state. AB 1322 was vetoed by the Governor.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB 720

SUBJECT: Aviation: airports: report: emissions

DIGEST: This bill requires airports to report specified information regarding their operations to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and requires CARB to consider adopting regulations to address certain issues identified in those reports.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes CARB as the air pollution control agency in California and requires CARB to control emissions from a wide array of mobile sources. (Health and Safety Code HSC §39500 et seq.)
2. Requires CARB to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030. ( HSC §38566)
3. Recognizes the authority of the federal government to regulate the operation of aircraft and to control the use of the airways. (Public Utilities Code §21240)
   

This bill:

1. Requires each public or private airport to report to Caltrans and CARB the regulations, incentives, or other measures the airport is deploying or facilitating to achieve net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in accordance with applicable GHG regulations or protocols, for all emissions, including scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions, from its operations.
   
2. Requires each public or private airport that has a high volume of private flights with low passenger capacity in a disadvantaged community, as defined, to report to Caltrans and the relevant air quality management district on its efforts to mitigate environmental justice, air quality, and other impacts on neighboring communities.
   
3. Requires Caltrans, in coordination with CARB and other state agencies, to consider adopting regulations to address deficiencies in the items identified above.
   
4. Permits costs associated with implementing this bill to be recovered from specified funds, if appropriated by the Legislature.
   

Background

1. California’s airports. California has 241 airports ranging in size from major international airports, like Los Angeles International, to local airfields used solely for firefighting. California also has several hundred heliports. These airports can be significant sources of noise and air pollution, which can in turn depress property values around the airport. As a result, the people living near (and thus directly affected by) the pollution from airports may often be unable to move elsewhere.
   
2. California’s aviation emissions. Aircraft jet engines emit a mixture of CO2, water vapor, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide, and other pollutants. Of these, 90% of the emissions from a flight occur at altitudes above 3,000’, with only 10% being released during taxiing, takeoff, and landing. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2020 the total jet fuel consumption in California was 59,442,000 barrels or roughly 2.5 billion gallons.
   
   According to CARB’s GHG emission inventory, intrastate (that is, when a flight’s origin and destination are both within California) flights account for roughly 1.1% of statewide covered GHG emissions. Given the small contribution to overall state GHG emissions, aviation was not mentioned in the 2017 scoping plan update.
   
   In the 2022 scoping plan update, aviation was briefly contemplated as a source of potential emission (and petroleum demand) reductions. In service of the state’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal, the 2022 scoping plan update called for the state’s aviation fuel demand to be met by 20% zero-emission technologies, and the majority of the remainder by sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). The plan contained no strategies for how those incredibly ambitious goals could be met.
   
3. Federally preempted emissions. Aircraft emissions contribute to California’s air pollution problem. CARB focuses on reducing emissions from airport ground support equipment and transit vehicles, and works closely with local agencies and airport operators to develop innovative actions to cut pollution in and around airports. CARB also works with national and international entities, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), on tighter aircraft standards for smog-causing pollution and GHGs.
   
   CARB, and the air districts have expressed increasing concern about the NOx emissions associated with aircraft, locomotives, and other primarily federally regulated sources – sources the state is federally pre-empted from regulating. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) estimates this year roughly half of the region’s NOx emissions will come from a source the state does not have primary regulatory jurisdiction over.
   
   Aviation contributes 9% of the NOx emissions in that estimate, and the industry is contemplated in CARB’s 2020 Mobile Source Strategy (MSS) as a venue for reducing emissions. The MSS suggested actions to be taken could include 1) developing more stringent criteria and GHG standards for aircraft engines; and 2) establishing clean visit, clean fuel, and zero-emission on-ground operation requirements for aircraft.
   
   Ultimately, these regulations are largely the purview of the U.S. EPA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Nevertheless, CARB has stated it will continue to work closely with U.S. EPA and other federal agencies on these proposed concepts to ensure they achieve the needed emissions reductions for meeting national ambient air quality standards and support the development of future state implementation plans. While regulatory action at the federal and international level will help drive the introduction of cleaner technologies, fuels, and fueling infrastructure, their emissions reductions rely on the pace of natural fleet turnover, which is not always sufficient to meet California’s immediate near-term needs.
   
   Historically, the U.S. EPA has adopted aviation emission standards that have simply met the performance of existing engines. If more aggressive standards were set by the U.S. EPA, it may require improving the technology to meet those standards. CARB has urged the U.S. EPA to strengthen the standards.
   
4. Ground operations are another story. CARB can, and has, regulated the sources at airports that it does have primary jurisdiction over. In 2019, CARB adopted a rule that required fixed route airport shuttles serving the state’s 13 largest airports to transition to 100 percent zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The regulation applies to public and private shuttle fleets that service parking facilities, rental car agencies, and hotels.
   
   With almost 1,000 airport shuttles in operation, the regulation is expected to reduce GHG emissions by at least 500,000 metric tons, with a beneficial economic impact for shuttle fleets owners of an estimated $30 million in reduced fuel and maintenance costs.
   
5. CARB’s strategies to reduce aviation emissions. As part of the 2020 MSS, CARB made recommendations for how aviation emissions could be reduced. Those included:
   1. Improving the current air traffic operation during landing and takeoff;
   2. Reducing the usage of auxiliary power units;
   3. Accelerating aircraft turnover; and
   4. Advancing engine technology.
      

Altogether (and without making any assumptions about further technology development or accelerated turnover), CARB estimated implementing these strategies could achieve a roughly 23% reduction in NOx emissions. While these are valuable insights from CARB, the responsibility for promulgating and enforcing most of these regulatory efforts still falls squarely on the shoulders of the federal government.

1. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). SAF is a “drop in” replacement for conventional jet fuels; it is blended with conventional jet fuel and handled with the same conventional jet fuel infrastructure. It can be produced from renewable, carbon-rich materials such as biomass, municipal solid waste (MSW), oils, fats, sugars, or alcohol. Given the technology is still relatively immature and being developed, SAF is roughly five times more expensive than conventional jet fuel, even after factoring in state and federal policy credits. However, on a life cycle basis, it has roughly 80% lower associated emissions than conventional fuel.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “In the United States, there are an estimated 18,000 private jets, and private jet flights now account for a quarter of all flights, approximately twice their pre-pandemic share, according to aviation consultancy WINGX.
   
   “ARGUS international reports that California ranks third in business aviation flights per state with 212,267 flights in 2020 comprising 9.5% of the U.S. total.
   
   “Private jets produce 5 to 14 times more pollution per passenger than commercial planes and 50 times more pollution than high speed rail trains. An average private jet burns around 5,000 gallons of fuel per hour. That’s the equivalent of about 400 passenger cars in the same time.
   
   “Though aviation only accounts for approx 1% of the state’s GHG emissions (per CARB’s 2016 Statewide GHG inventory). California has very little information on the subject of aviation and private aviation and little evidence that steps are being taken to prevent its negative air pollution and GHG emission impacts, particularly in disadvantaged communities. We are hopeful that this legislation can enable CARB have a better picture of the issue and what their regulatory role in this space can/should be.”
   
2. Commitment in Senate Transportation. In the 4/11/2023 Senate Transportation Committee hearing, the presenter of SB 720 (on behalf of the author) committed to taking amendments to narrow the scope of the bill and remove Caltrans from it. Due to timing constraints, those amendments will be adopted, should the committee approve this bill, as part of the motion on the bill today.

The amendments will:

• 1. Limit the scope of the bill to public or private airports that have at least 50,000 private flight takeoffs annually in a disadvantaged community, as defined; and
  2. Remove Caltrans from being required to consider adopting regulations.
     

1. More emissions data. You cannot solve (or regulate) a problem you do not know about. Based on the amendments noted above, this bill is now focused primarily on having specific airports report more data to CARB about their emissions. While it is unclear exactly what CARB could do with that information without being preempted by the federal government, at least we can know the size of the problem.
   
   SB 720 specifically requires scope 1, 2, and 3 emission reporting from the included airports. These could likely include:
   
   1. Scope 1 - emissions owned and controlled by the airport operator, such as energy generation and airport vehicles.
   2. Scope 2 - emissions from the off-site generation of energy purchased by the airport operator.
   3. Scope 3 - emissions are those owned and controlled by airport tenants and other stakeholders including:
      1. Aircraft activity in airport area;
      2. Airline and other tenant vehicles, ground service equipment (GSE) and energy usage; and
      3. Ground access vehicles (GAV) for staff and passengers including buses and trains.
         

Accurate reporting on all these emission sources could be challenging for airports, but due to the amendments narrowing the bill to airports with a higher volume of private takeoffs, these requirements will only apply to the largest airports in the state.

1. Environmental justice. Efforts to mitigate impacts on nearby communities can and should be part of airports’ operations plans. While many potential solutions are not the airports’ responsibility (developing zero-emission aircraft technology, bringing down the cost of SAF, etc.), it will be good to learn what steps are being taken.
   
   One could imagine better-resourced airports that may have been the subject of community involvement on environmental justice topics could even have best practices in place already that smaller airports do not. If the required reporting in this bill leads to more California airports adopting economical, pollution-reducing practices, that would be a win for some pollution-burdened communities.
   

DOUBLE REFERRAL:

This bill was heard by the Senate Transportation Committee on April 11, 2023, where it was approved on an 11-4 vote.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1322 (R. Rivas, 2021) set targets for SAF production in the state. AB 1322 was vetoed by the Governor.

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

Center for Biological Diversity
Coalition for Clean Air

OPPOSITION:

Association of California Airports
California Airports Council

National Air Transportation Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to the Coalition for Clean Air, “By collecting data on the efforts that all public and private airports are making toward carbon neutrality, we can better understand the limitations and barriers that exist in the pursuit of sustainable air travel. SB 720 would also give our agencies key information to identify systems and programs that are successfully reducing the negative environmental impacts of flying. The bill also acknowledges the disparate impacts of private air travel on environmental justice communities by requiring enhanced reporting on air quality protections and precautions being taken to safeguard our state’s most vulnerable communities.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

According to the California Airports Council, “The California Airports Council is opposed to the current language in SB 720, as amended March 30, 2023. The bill creates a new reporting requirement for airports to report to the Department of Transportation and the ARB on topics that have been addressed in recent years.

There are three primary sources of emissions at airports:

1. Aircraft. Federal law preempts individual state regulation of aircraft emissions. Where the state can reduce the impact of aircraft emissions is through support of increased production of Sustainable Aviation Fuel within the state.
2. Shuttle Buses. The ARB adopted a mandatory electric airport shuttle bus regulation in 2017. This regulation already carries a reporting requirement on progress towards conversion of airport shuttle fleets to electric.
3. Ground Service Equipment. Much of the ground service equipment (GSE) in use in California is already electric. Southwest Airlines, our state’s largest airline by market share, electrified the majority of their ground service equipment over a decade ago. The California Airports Council has worked extensively with the ARB and provided substantial GSE technical data to the Board. To date, the ARB has not elected to pursue a regulatory process on airport GSE.”

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Lena Gonzalez, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 4/11/2023

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill requires 1) airports to report to Caltrans and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on their efforts to achieve net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; 2) airports with high volumes of low capacity private flights in disadvantaged communities shall also report their efforts to mitigate harms to those communities; and 3) Caltrans shall consider adopting regulations on airports to address their deficiencies in reducing GHG emissions and mitigating environmental harms.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as the air pollution control agency in California and requires CARB to control emissions from a wide array of mobile sources. (Health and Safety Code Section 39500 et seq.)
2. Requires CARB to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030. (Health and Safety Code Section 38566)
3. Recognizes the authority of the federal government to regulate the operation of aircraft and to control the use of the airways. (Public Utilities Code Section 21240)
4. Requires Caltrans to encourage, foster, and assist in the development of aeronautics in this state and encourage the establishment of airports and air navigation facilities. (Public Utilities Code Section 21241)
5. Authorizes Caltrans to establish regulations and procedures and establish minimum standards consistent with and clearly within the scope of federal legislation governing aeronautics. (Public Utilities Code Section 21243)
6. Authorizes Caltrans to issue airport site approval permits. (Public Utilities Code Section 21662)

Existing federal law prohibits a state from enacting or enforcing a law relating to the price, route or service of an air carrier. (49 USC 41713)

This bill:

1. Requires airports to report to Caltrans and CARB the regulations, incentives, or other measures the airport is deploying or facilitating to achieve net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
2. Requires airports with a high volume of private flights and low passenger capacity located in disadvantaged communities to report to Caltrans and CARB on its efforts to mitigate environmental justice, air quality, and other impacts on neighboring communities.
3. Requires Caltrans, in coordination with CARB, to consider adopting regulations to address deficiencies in the airports’ efforts to reduce GHG emissions or mitigate their environmental justice or air quality impacts.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author has introduced this bill to incentivize using appropriate sized planes for the passenger’s needs and combining flights where possible.
2. Background. California has 241 airports ranging in size from major international airports like Los Angeles International to local airfields used solely for firefighting. California also has several hundred heliports.
3. No Authority. Federal law limits states’ authority to regulate the operation of airplanes. While the author’s concern may be well-considered, the state does not have authority to do what he wishes, at least with regard to aircraft. As California’s air quality regulator, CARB advocates at federal agencies for stronger aircraft standards for smog-causing pollution and greenhouse gases. CARB has some authority to regulate airport operations and has done so with ground support equipment and airport transit vehicles at airports.
4. Bad Fit. Caltrans helps with airport land use planning, publishing the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook which establishes statewide guidelines for airport land use compatible planning. It also conducts airport safety and permit compliance inspections. But Caltrans is not a regulatory agency. It does not have the personnel, expertise or processes to establish regulations on GHG emissions. The development of regulations to reduce GHG and improve air quality is better housed at CARB or the local air quality management districts who are already charged with that responsibility.
5. Don’t Be Selfish. The intent of the bill is to discourage the inefficient use of private planes by ensuring they didn’t fly only fractionally full. This became an issue as some celebrities unwisely overshared their extravagant flying habits. Disapproval and shame was the result. This bill addresses the issue by requiring airports located in disadvantaged communities with a high volume of private flights that are only partially filled to report on their efforts to mitigate their environmental harm. This raises an enforcement question as airports may not know how full a given airplane is. And while casual overuse of airplanes may seem offensive or selfish, it is not a huge greenhouse gas emission problem. CARB’s 2020 emission inventory notes that aviation, which includes commercial and private aircraft, produces just 0.8% of California’s GHG emissions.

Related Legislation:

AB 1322 (Rivas; 2022) – This bill would have required CARB to develop a plan to incentivize sustainable aviation fuel. This bill was vetoed by Governor Newsom.

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

Unknown.

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, April 5, 2023.)

SUPPORT:

None received.

OPPOSITION:

Association of California Airports

California Airports Council

National Air Transportation Association

-- END --