Assemblyman Henry Perea argues that AB8 will improve air quality and ensure investment in clean technology by extending and funding incentive programs designed to assist operators of heavy-duty trucks in modernizing fleets and replacing high polluting engines for more fuel-efficient, better performing engines for their vehicles.
On the other hand, Assemblywoman Diane Harkey warns that the public should be highly skeptical of a $2.3 billion tax that assures (but does not guarantee) regulatory relief. She argues that the $20 per vehicle annual cost is small, but the burden of paying more for an ineffective state government doesn’t ever seem to end.
Argument In Favor
Clean Air: Why Legislators Should Vote Yes
By Assemblyman Henry Perea
Air pollution is not waiting, and neither can we. What can California do to change the fact that it has some of the worst air quality in the nation? I introduced Assembly Bill 8 to improve air quality and ensure investment in clean technology.
While California’s clean air, clean vehicle, and emission reduction mandates are essential to improving air quality and public health, they lay a heavy burden on businesses across the state. These businesses are required to bear the demands of meeting regulations that require them to retrofit or replace older, dirtier engines to achieve emission reductions that would not otherwise occur. It is imperative that California continue to extend and fund incentive programs designed to assist operators of heavy- duty trucks in modernizing fleets and replacing high polluting engines for more fuel-efficient, better performing engines for their vehicles. These incentive programs provide funding to support compliance with federal and state air quality standards and ensure investment in clean fuel technology.
In order to ensure the success of businesses impacted by the state’s air quality mandates, we must partner with them and share the costs of the transition to clean fuel vehicles. Casey Diaz, the owner of a Madera trucking company stated in a recent article in the Fresno Bee, “Cleaning the Valley Air Requires Teamwork”:
“Without some way to share these costs, trucking firms like the one my father built would never make it to the next generation. And, because trucks are involved in virtually every product you use or buy, increasing the cost of trucking increases the cost of everything consumers purchase.”
I agree with him. It is clear to me that businesses are committed to meeting state air quality mandates and want to play a vital role in making California’s air cleaner.
Cleaning the Central Valley air requires long term solutions. According to a 2010 Central Valley Health Policy Institute report, the San Joaquin Valley remains one of the worst air quality regions in the nation, ozone levels continue to exceed federal one-hour and eight-hour standards, and recent data on smog emissions show the Valley leads the nation with the most days of polluted air. In 2010, California had all ten of the most polluted counties in the nation. Of these counties, four were in the Valley. Despite significant improvements in emission reductions and the toughest air regulations, we cannot improve air quality and public health and achieve our clean air goals without incentives and investments to accelerate the transition to a cleaner transportation sector. A recent study found that the economic benefits for the Valley region meeting air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter would top $6 billion per year in reduced health, missed work and school, and premature death. This amount is equivalent to a payment of $1,600 per person per year. As the state works to comply with these mandates, California’s clean transportation and air quality investment programs are set to expire in 2014 and 2015.
AB 8 would extend the sunset dates of various clean air and alternative fuels and vehicle programs, and the related fees and surcharges, under the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) to December 31, 2024. Without extension of these programs, businesses would be left to meet the costly demands of these regulations on their own. The result could be disastrous for some businesses and their employees. While it is clear these programs have already resulted in significant air quality and public health benefits, the job has just begun.
Specifically AB 8, extends the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, which provides funds to local air districts to upgrade car, truck, and other engines to cleaner alternatives; the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (AB 118), which authorizes a vehicle registration fee to fund the program; and AB 923, which increased the vehicle registration fee for vehicles registered in specified areas in the state and increased the Tire Recycling Fee to fund air emissions reduction activities. Reauthorizing these programs would help California meet its clean air, clean vehicle, and emission reductions mandates, and for businesses to get the help they need in complying with these mandates. Since the programs were established, the state has been able to deploy over 29,000 technology vehicles and equipment, included 1,500 natural gas trucks. AB 118 has also trained 5,700 people through workforce training programs on clean transportation sector jobs. Because of the investments California has made in these programs, the state has been able to attract over $105 million in federal funding and $600 million in private sector investments.
AB 8 would provide California a long-term transportation plan that achieves the use of cleaner more efficient transportation technologies while meeting federal and state clean air mandates. It is my goal to extend these programs to continue California’s investments in improving air quality and public health, and also to continue the pivotal partnership with businesses to ensure the pathway to success.
###
Henry T. Perea represents the 31st Assembly District which includes the Central Valley communities of Caruthers, Coalinga, Firebaugh, Fowler, Huron, Kingsburg, Kerman, Laton, Lanare, Mendota, Orange Cove, Parlier, Riverdale, Reedley, Sanger, San Joaquin, Selma and the city of Fresno.
Argument Against
Return Of The Car Tax And Why Legislators Should Say No
Assemblywoman Diane Harkey
The “Car Tax” is back but may be on life support. Assembly Bill 8, a “gut and amend” bill that failed during the final hours of last year’s session, would increase or extend $2.3 billion of fees on car owners until 2024 – an eight year extension from the original expiration date of 2016. The bill was set for hearing earlier this month, suggesting that the necessary number of votes (in this case 2/3, or 54 votes in the Assembly) had been lined up to ensure passage. Curiously, the hearing has now been put off until April.
The bill extends a number of fees, most notably for tires, vehicles and boats. Your tax dollars under AB 8 will go towards building a hydrogen highway, AB 32 (global warming law) programs, emission reduction programs and alternative fuel programs.
Do you need a hydrogen highway? Does a state with nearly 10% unemployment and the highest taxed state in the nation need more taxes? With AB 8, the estimated cost to the taxpayer would be $20 per car annually. Sounds like a small amount, but the burden of paying more for an ineffective state government doesn’t ever seem to end.
There are rarely any “new” bill ideas in the Capitol, most are recycled ideas from years past, and AB 8 is no exception. Last August, a very similar measure failed to muster enough votes and when the clock struck midnight, the measure died with the two year session. Now the car tax is back calling to mind Vince Lombardi’s famous line, “We didn’t lose the game, we just ran out of time.”
Legislators will now have another chance to vote, and believe it or not, the vote is tough for many in rural districts. Last year, the agricultural and trucking industries were being besieged by the Air Resources Board (ARB) for more requirements to reduce emissions by retrofitting equipment and complying with strict diesel regulations. Members from rural districts supported the legislation for this very reason. Both industries continue to have concerns that ARB regulations will kill jobs in their sectors.
Everyone wants clean air and a better environment, but AB 8 and ARB policy ignores the huge leaps we have made in cleaner fuels and more efficient machinery. In the case of the trucking industry, ARB retrofitting mandates for some companies will be so high that a vehicles trade-in value will be valueless, effectively driving the trade-in value and the company’s investment down to zero.
The public should be highly skeptical of a $2.3 billion tax that assures (but does not guarantee) regulatory relief. The bill presents a false choice, and history has shown that promises of regulatory or business relief can be yanked away with a simple majority vote while the taxes remain in place.
Californians in all areas should implore their representatives to reject this blanket tax increase. Outside of the state Capitol most people would say they are already paying enough, and they know a bait and switch when they see one.