AB 844 (Grayson) — Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy (April 27, 2021)
Summary
Analysis of AB 844 (Grayson) for the April 27, 2021 hearing of the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy, Sabrina Cervantes, Chair. The subject is a Green Empowerment Zone for the Northern Waterfront area of the Counties of Contra Costa and Solano. It states that the bill authorizes the Zone to build upon the regional concentration of highly skilled energy industry workers by prioritizing access to tax incentives, grants, loan programs, workforce training programs, and private sector investment in the renewable energy sector. Suggested amendments are in Comment 5; registered support and opposition both read None on File.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“AB 844 (Grayson) — Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy (April 27, 2021).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2021-04-27-ab-844-jede-analysis-c2c6ec415d/
, SHA-256 92be2253f767b2cf9e46bbf39ef7e4379cf3f7ddec498eaf89a6c4aa4c45b30c.Full text
AB 844
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2021
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ECONOMY
Sabrina Cervantes, Chair
AB 844 (Grayson) – As Amended April 20, 2021
SUBJECT: Green Empowerment Zone for the Northern Waterfront area of the Counties of Contra Costa
and Solano
POLICY FRAME: As California continues to take steps to reach necessary climate goals, the state must
adopt integrated policies that also ensure inclusive economic progress while achieving those greenhouse
gas (GHG) emission reductions. By offering businesses and workers a rational pathway toward a more
vibrant, creative, and successful economy, the state can mitigate the impacts of such an unprecedented
economic transition.
Over the past few years, there has come to be a general consensus among scientists that 2030 is a decisive
end point by which global average temperature rise will remain at below 2C. For policy makers, this has
meant an acceleration of actions, including some previously earmarked for 2035 and beyond.
In addition to rejoining the Paris Agreement, President Biden announced a US GHG reduction target of
50-52% by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. California Governor Newsom made his own climate
announcements on April 23, 2021, in which he called for the initiation of a regulatory action to end the
issuance of new permits for hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) by January 2024. He also directed the
California Air Resources Board to evaluate how to phase out oil extraction by 2045. These
announcements expand on state policies implemented through a September 2020 executive order, which
called for an end to fracking and acceleration of the state’s transition away from gasoline-powered cars
and trucks and reduce demand for fossil fuels.
There has long been a call for the state to get ahead for these climate directives by taking concreate
actions to pre-emptively engage workers, businesses, and communities who will be directly impacted by
the transition to a lower carbon economy. Some have referred to the policies as fostering a “just
transition” policy agenda. The Assembly Jobs Committee, which has previously headed a hearing on the
issue, uses the term "just transition” to refer to intentional actions and investments that result in new
economic opportunities, sustainable business enterprises, vibrant communities, and viable career
pathways for those potentially displaced, disenfranchised, or otherwise impacted by climate change.
While climate change is an environmental problem, its solutions are rooted in economic and social
change. AB 844 proposes the establishment of a new state and regional partnership to assist East Bay
communities located at the epicenter of this transition.
The analysis includes information on the challenges of a just transition, a profile on cleantech businesses,
and a closer look at wages and benefits of green jobs. There is no known opposition to this bill.
Suggested amendments are included in Comment 5.
SUMMARY: AB 844 authorized the establishment of the Green Empowerment Zone for the Northern
Waterfront area of the Counties of Contra Costa and Solano (Green Empowerment Zone) for the purpose
of building upon the comparative advantage provided by the regional concentration of highly skilled
energy industry workers by prioritizing access to tax incentives, grants, loan programs, workforce training
programs, and private sector investment in the renewable energy sector. Specifically, this bill:
AB 844
Page 2
1) Authorizes the establishment of the Green Empowerment Zone for the Northern Waterfront area of
the Counties of Contra Costa and Solano, which may include certain cities and counties upon the
adoption of a resolution by the legislative body of each city and county that states the intent of the city
or county to participate in the Green Empowerment Zone.
a) Specifies that the following cities may join the Green Empowerment Zone: Antioch, Benicia,
Brentwood, Concord, Hercules, Martinez, Oakley, Pittsburg, Suisun, and Vallejo.
b) Specifies that the counties of Contra Costa and Solano may join the Green empowerment Zone.
c) Authorizes the Green Empowerment Zone board to vote to include additional jurisdictions within
its membership.
2) Requires the Green Empowerment Zone to be governed by a board of directors, which includes:
a) Twelve local government directors, one from each of the cities and counties participating in the
zone. Each city and county shall select one representative who shall serve a two-year term.
b) Five large employer directors located within one or more cities or counties within the Green
Empowerment Zone. Each of the five largest private employers within the area of the Green
Empowerment Zone shall select a representative who will serve a two-year term. Employer size
shall be based upon data from the local workforce board.
c) Four state government directors who each shall be a resident of the Green Empowerment Zone,
and who also serve on one of the following state agencies or commissions: The State Air
Resources Board, The California Transportation Commission, The California Workforce
Development Board, The California Energy Commission. Each board or commission shall select
a representative to the Green Empowerment Zone who shall serve a two-year term.
d) Five small business and economic development directors who shall represent existing economic
and business development organizations that serve the cities and counties within the Green
Empowerment Zone. These small business and economic development representatives shall be
nominated by the Association of Bay Area Governments and confirmed by the board to serve two-
year terms.
e) Five directors from universities, laboratories, and foundations with specialized expertise and
knowledge of green energy who shall, upon agreement by the regents, be nominated by the Office
of the President of the University of California and confirmed by the board.
f) Five directors representing the five largest private sector organized labor organizations whose
membership works in the Green Empowerment Zone. Each union shall select its own
representative to the Green Empowerment Zone board who shall each serve a two-year term.
g) Every member of the Legislature and of the United States Congress that represents a city within
the Green Empowerment Zone is an ex officio voting member of the board of directors.
3) Requires the board chair and two deputy chairs to be selected by a majority vote of the board. The
chair and deputy chairs will serve two-year terms. An individual may serve as chair or deputy chair
more than once, however, they shall not serve consecutive terms. The chair and deputy chairs shall be
chosen from among the following:
a) One member shall be a member of the Legislature who represents the Green Empowerment Zone.
AB 844
Page 3
b) One member shall be a representative from a local agency in a city or county within the Green
Empowerment Zone.
c) One member shall be a representative whose residence and place of employment is within one or
more of the cities or counties within the Green Empowerment Zone.
4) Requires the Green Empowerment Zone to have an executive board comprised of the chair, deputy
chairs, and up to seven members of the board of directors selected by a majority vote of the board of
directors.
5) Tasks the Green Empowerment Zone with the following duties:
a) Identification of projects and programs that will best utilize public dollars and most quickly
improve the economic vitality of the Northern Waterfront area of the Counties of Contra Costa
and Solano, especially those that leverage federal, state, local, and private sector resources in a
coordinated effort to address the just transition to a clean energy economy.
b) Work with members of the state’s congressional delegation and federal official, including any
relevant federal interagency task force, to gain federal support for projects identified by the zone
as critical to the region‘s energy economy.
c) Partner with the University of California, the California State University, community colleges, and
the state’s other research and educational institutions, as well as private foundations, to provide
guidance, advice, and encouragement in support of studies of particular interest and importance to
the energy industry in the Northern Waterfront area of the Counties of Contra Costa and Solano.
d) Review state policies and regulations to ensure they are fair and appropriate for the state’s diverse
geographic regions, including the Northern Waterfront area of the Counties of Contra Costa and
Solano, and determine whether alternative approaches can accomplish goals in less costly ways.
e) Make recommendations to the Governor that would improve the economic well-being of the
region and the quality of life of its residents.
6) Requires the Green Empowerment Zone to produce a report each year that includes recommendations
for action by the Legislature, and state departments and agencies, and the progress of the zone that
includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
a) The number of jobs gained and lost in each sector of the economy.
b) The average wage of the jobs gained in each sector of the economy.
c) The number and types of grants solicited and received by, or on behalf of, the zone.
d) The type and amount of workforce training conducted in the zone, as specified.
7) Requires the Green Empowerment Zone to annually post, by January 1 of each year, the prescribed
annual report on its internet website and submit a letter to the Legislature informing the Legislature
that the report has been posted. The first annual report shall be posted on January 1, 2023.
8) Provides that the Legislature has found and declares that a special statute is necessary, and that a
general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the
California Constitution because of the unique circumstances and challenges relating to economic
development in the County of Contra Costa. Costa and Solano County.
AB 844
Page 4
EXISTING LAW:
1) Enacts the California Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires the California Air Resources
Board (ARB) to determine the 1990 statewide GHG emissions level and approve a statewide GHG
emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020, and to adopt GHG emission
reduction measures by regulation and set certain requirements in adopting the regulations.
2) 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. Among other duties, GO-Biz is authorized to make recommendations to the Governor and
the Legislature on new state policies, programs, and actions, or amendments to existing programs in
order to advance statewide economic goals, respond to emerging economic problems, and ensure that
all state policies and programs conform to the state economic and business development goals.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS & CONTEXT:
1) California Challenges in Providing a Just Transition: As California continues to reduce emissions
to reach the necessary climate goals in SB 32, the state must also adopt integrated policies that support
both economic growth and GHG reduction. By offering businesses and workers a rational pathway
toward a vibrant, creative, and successful economy, California can mitigate the impacts of such an
unprecedented economic transition. Historically it was believed that greater economic growth was
directly correlated to higher emission and pollution levels. California’s success is dependent upon
challenging that conception.
It will, however, take new and more inclusive thinking. How often has the California Air Resources
Board presented a chart “clearly demonstrating” that California is successfully decarbonizing the state
economy. The chart often looks like the one to the right, which calculates the ratio of tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent per million dollars in gross state product. These charts, the public is told, provide
evidence that state is on the right path and should continue to invest in the development of green collar
businesses and jobs through the development and integration of cleaner technologies.
Collectively, these calculations
miss the other parts of the
economic equation where poverty
rates in California remain well
above the national average, and,
under supplemental poverty
calculations, the people in
California endure the highest
poverty rates in the US. Today,
low-income and an increasing
number of middle-income
households struggle to put food
on the table while being forced to
pay significant percentages of
their incomes on housing and
utilities.
AB 844
Page 5
One driver of this growing inequality lies with how the state’s economic growth and higher
productivity is being accomplished. The simultaneous transition to automation and digitalization
drives up overall productivity. Higher productivity and expanding global markets further support
significant increases in California GDP.
The productivity dividend has not, however, yielded an equitable increase in wealth for most
Californians. Over the past several decades and especially since the Great Recession, income has
become more concentrated among the state's most wealthy, while wages and incomes for the working
class have stagnated. Between 1979 and 2017, earnings for the top 0.1% of households increased by
343.2%, as compared to the earnings of the bottom 90% of households which experienced an increase
of only 22.2%. This is particularly troubling for even the most pro-growth advocates, because
multiple studies have shown that income inequality has a measurable drag on the length and breadth
of economic growth.
As California rightfully transitions to a lower carbon economy, impacted communities, from Long
Beach, to Kern County, to the East Bay, are asking important questions about the economic future of
their workers and businesses. Addressing these equity questions and concerns is paramount to
California realizing a “just transition”. In a just transition, the rights of displaced workers as well as
the ability of communities impacted by climate change and pollution reduction policies can come
together to access green and other collar jobs and business opportunities. Up until now, the state has
taken very limited steps in recognizing and addressing the real costs of this economic transition.
AB 844 proposes the establishment of a Green Empowerment Zone to help the communities that will
be most directly impacted by the state’s necessary, but challenging, shift to a lower carbon economy.
The author’s intent is to harness the collective strength and ingeniously of a region that has been a
dominant player in the old energy sector and break new ground to become a leader in the lower carbon
economy.
2) Helping Communities become Investment Ready: The geographic targeting of economic and
community development programs is based on the development principle that focusing significant
incentives and other resources to lower income communities allows these communities to more
effectively compete for new businesses, retain existing businesses, and stop or slow the spiraling
effects of poverty and unemployment. Geographically targeted approaches to economic and
community development are designed to result in increased tax revenues, higher rates of private
investment, less reliance on public health and social services, and lower public safety costs.
A central component of the state partnership model codified in AB 844 is its potential to assist at-risk
communities in stopping the downward spiral of economic dislocation and (re)build communities with
economic and social promise. In the last decade, there has been a renewed interest by institutional
investors in identifying communities which have turned the corner and now represent unique
economic opportunities. These communities are sometimes referred to by investors as emerging
domestic markets (EDMs).
EDMs are people, places, or business enterprises with growth potential that face capital constraints,
due to systematic undervaluation as a result of imperfect market information. While not every
neighborhood in California is ready for private sector investment, many neighborhoods can become
investment ready through effective partnerships between the nonprofit, private, and public sectors.
AB 844
Page 6
The demographics of EDMs include minority- and women-owned firms, urban and rural
communities, companies which serve low-to-moderate-income populations, and other small and
medium-sized businesses. The surge in investor interest is driven, in part, by the recognition of the
changing demographics in the US which are resulting in a significant increase in minority purchasing
power and business development by minority-owned firms.
Both the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State
Teachers Retirement System adopted EDM investment goals for their entire portfolios. Under its
California Initiative, which began in 2001 and focuses on historically underserved areas, CalPERS has
directed and invested over $1 billion companies primarily located in California.
Most recent data from CalPERS (June 2019) found that the fund held $34 billion (9%) of the Total
Fund in California investments. Pacific Community Ventures (PVC) estimated that CalPERS’ active
private markets investments in California supported $19.9 billion in total economic activity across the
state. This activity benefits not only businesses and projects receiving allocated capital from
CalPERS, but also suppliers, workers, and the public sector broadly through tax revenues. 169,600
California jobs were supported through CalPERS investment activity during the report period.
Taking a closer look at private equity, PVC estimates that approximately 80% of these investments
were in areas of higher minority representation in their population. Chart 1 shows PCV’s estimates of
CalPERS 2019 investments in areas categorized as high unemployment, rural, high minority, low and
moderate income, and limited capital access.
Chart 1 - CalPERS Private Equity Investments in California (June 30, 2019)
Percentage of investments Percentage of dollars
High Unemployment Areas 5% 6%
Rural Areas 8% 18%
High Minority Areas 80% 75%
Low and Moderate Income Areas 27% 34%
Limited Capital Access Areas 14% 3%
Source: CalPERS for California 2019
Climate change presents a systemic risk to investment portfolios, which is changing the way that large
investors are looking at EDMs and other areas for investment. There is an increasingly well
documented body of research on the physical risks of climate change to an institutional investors’
portfolio, such as wildfires, extreme weather, sea-level rise, and drought. In addition to this there are
risks to real estate, infrastructure, and disruption to portfolio companies' supply chains and operations.
There are also transition risks to large portfolios. According to a CalPERS report, this “includes shifts
in policies, technologies, industries, and customers, due to changed climate norms or movement
toward a lower-carbon economy [that] can affect the financial success of existing business models and
industries.”
Assisting communities and regions remain investable by successfully navigating the potential
downside of climate transition is a challenge. California, however, has no other similar program that
could possibly outpace the volume of investments large institutional investors can make. Adopting
policies and programs that support investment by institutional investors is sound economic policy.
3) Opportunities in the Lower Carbon Economy: California’s clean energy and technology economy
encompasses a broad range of products and services, touching upon multiple industry sectors. This
includes clean technologies such as alternative energy generation, wastewater treatment, and the
AB 844
Page 7
production of environmentally-friendly consumer products. Although some of these industries are
very different, they all use innovative technologies, products, and services that have environmental
benefits.
Growth within the cleantech industry is driven by two separate but convergent factors. One,
continuing advances in technologies research methods, manufacturing, and communications that
lower the cost of environmentally sensitive technologies; and two, an increasing number of consumers
and businesses are looking for ways to reduce energy costs, increase clean water supply, and meet
new environmental regulatory requirements at the local, state, and global levels. Governments, in
turn, have adopted new regulatory frameworks that require greater use of recyclable materials, higher
percentages of renewable energy, and lower levels of air pollution and GHG emissions.
Addressing climate change, in particular, requires a range of products and services for increasing
building efficiency, upgrading electricity generation, delivery and management, and advanced
transportation and fuel production. These technologies are continually evolving, as illustrated in the
chart below, which was adapted from a chart developed by the Cleantech San Diego.
Examples of Cleantech Businesses Agriculture are Bio-based materials, farm efficiency technologies,
micro-irrigation systems, bioremediation, and non-toxic cleaners and natural pesticides, air and
environment air purification products and air filtration systems; energy efficient HVAC, universal gas
detectors, multi-pollutant controls, and fuel additives to increase efficiency and reduce toxic
emissions. Materials include Biodegradable materials derived from seed proteins, micro-fluidics
technology for conducting biochemical reactions, nanomaterials, composite materials, thermal
regulating fibers and fabrics, environmentally friendly solvents, nanotechnology components for
electronics, sensor applications and energy storage, electro-chromic glass, and thermoelectric
materials.
Examples of Cleantech and “Green” Businesses
Agriculture Bio-based materials; farm efficiency technologies; micro-irrigation systems; bio-
remediation; and non-toxic cleaners and natural pesticides.
Air & Air purification products and air filtration systems; energy efficient HVAC; universal gas
Environment detectors; multi-pollutant controls; and fuel additives to increase efficiency and reduce toxic
emissions.
Materials Biodegradable materials derived from seed proteins; micro-fluidics technology for
conducting biochemical reactions; nano-materials; composite materials; thermal regulating
fibers and fabrics; environmentally-friendly solvents; nano-technology components for
electronics, sensor applications and energy storage; electro-chromic glass; and
thermoelectric materials.
Energy Energy Efficiency: Energy management systems; systems that improve output of power
generating plants; intelligent metering; solid state micro refrigeration; control technology for
HVAC systems; and automated energy conservation networks.
Energy Generation: Distributed and renewable energy and conversion, including wind,
solar/photovoltaic (PV), hydro/marine, biofuels, fuel cells, gasification technologies for
biomass, and flywheel power systems.
Energy Infrastructure: Wireless networks to utilities for advanced metering; power quality
monitoring and outage management; integrated electronic systems for the management of
distributed power; and demand response and energy management software.
Energy Storage: Batteries, e.g. thin film and rechargeable; power quality regulation;
flywheels; and electro-textiles.
AB 844
Page 8
Manufacturing and Advanced packaging; natural chemistry; sensors; smart construction materials; business
Industrial process and data flow mapping tools; precision manufacturing instruments & fault detectors;
and chemical management services.
Recycling & Waste Recycling technologies; waste treatment; internet marketplace for materials; hazardous
waste remediation; and bio-mimetic technology for advance metals separation and
extraction.
Transportation Hybrid vehicle technology; lighter materials for cars; smart logistics software; car-sharing;
and temperature pressure sensors to improve transportation fuel efficiency; telecommuting.
Water & Water recycling and ultra-filtration systems (e.g. UV membrane & ion exchange systems);
Wastewater sensors and automation systems; and water utility sub-metering technology; desalination
equipment.
Source: Cleantech San Diego
According to a report published by the Advanced Energy Economy, Electrifying California:
Economic Potential of Growing Electric Transportation, there are 3,900 electric transportation-related
California businesses dispersed across 55 of its 58 counties. The report stated that employment in
electric transportation (ET) is expected to nearly double by 2024 to an estimated 68,000 workers as
demand for electric vehicles (EV) and EV charging infrastructure grows. Other key findings from the
report:
California is the leading state for ET-related activity, with concentrations of ET workers are
located in the Bay Area (specifically Alameda County), Capital Region, and Southern California,
plus San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Riverside, and Yolo counties.
California employs an estimated 35,000 ET-related workers and is projected to add another 33,000
jobs by 2024.
ET activity accounted for $4.5 billion in Gross State Product (GSP), about equivalent to the GSP
contributions of industries like General Automotive Repair, Semiconductor Machinery
Manufacturing, and Breweries.
A range of occupations and skill sets are needed for ET work in California, and as well as
significant and growing workforce in Adjacent and Support Industries. Support industries include
Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing and Other Electronic Component
Manufacturing.
There are several training and education programs geared toward ET workforce development,
including courses on the design, development, manufacture, repair, and installation of ET charging
infrastructure. The state would benefit from expanding access to training and education for
younger, underrepresented workers and those in rural and central valley regions.
While environmental needs- such as climate change- drive clean technologies, so go other factors
impacting businesses, including digitization, automation, lack of a skilled workforce, and access to
expanding global markets.
4) Questions Raised over Green Jobs Wages and Benefits: With growing regulatory demands and the
Governor’s announcement to accelerate the state’s transition away from gasoline-powered cars and
trucks and reduce demand for fossil fuels, there has been greater scrutiny of the quality of “green
jobs.” The State Building and Construction Trades Council of California released a study in October
2002, Would Green Jobs Offset Oil Industry Jobs Lost from a Phase-Out of Oil and Gas Production?
questioning the validity of many of the broad public statements about wages and benefits of green
jobs.
AB 844
Page 9
The report begins by pointing out the significance of the oil and gas (O&G) production industry,
generating over $20 billion in economic output, 55,000 jobs and $1.7 billion in state and local tax and
fee revenues. The report questions whether “job losses stemming from O&G production cutbacks will
be replaced by green jobs as state and local governments mandate increasing reliance on renewable
energy.” Key findings from the report include the following.
Green jobs pay less. Significant pay differentials exist across a range of occupations between the
green and O&G industries. We estimate that average pay rates in green jobs, as defined by federal
and California agencies, are between 30% and 45% lower than the average pay rate for oil and gas
industry jobs in comparable counties. Working-class families facing the elimination of oil-
industry and allied construction jobs, many held by union members, would be particularly
vulnerable to major reductions in pay and benefits, even after going through job retraining
programs. The green “replacement” jobs may also be part-time or temporary, with less stability
than industrial jobs in oil and natural gas production.
Many green jobs are in traditional sectors, not novel technologies. While some green jobs are
directly tied to advances in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, the majority are
reclassified jobs that have been part of the California economy for decades. These include jobs in
sales, construction, transportation, product distribution and maintenance, as well as in government
agencies. These reclassified jobs have long been tied to general economic conditions, as opposed
to new developments in the green energy technologies.
Many green jobs would be negatively affected by a phase-out of O&G production. Given that
most green jobs are tied to the general health of the state’s economy, they would be negatively
affected by policies phasing out O&G production and mandating a shift to more expensive and
less-reliable renewable energy. This is because both policies would depress economic growth in
California, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley and Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, and
increase the state’s already high cost of living across California.
Green manufacturing would be unlikely to replace O&G production jobs for blue-collar
workers. Proponents of a phase-out claim that blue-collar workers forced out of oil and gas
production by government action could simply find work in subsidized green manufacturing jobs;
however, most renewable equipment is produced outside of California and, more generally,
California manufacturing jobs have declined by nearly one-third over the past three decades
because of the state’s high costs, taxes and constantly changing regulatory requirements. We
would expect these trends to intensify under expanded renewable energy mandates due to higher
costs for energy and reliability challenges.
Given these factors, the report concludes, “it is unlikely that the growth in green jobs would replace
either the quantity or quality of oil and gas industry jobs, or the overall economic contribution lost
through a phase-out of O&G production.”
5) Proposed Amendments: Below is a list of amendments the committee members may wish to review
when considering the bill.
a) Add directors to the governing board who represent workforce development and education.
b) Remove the requirement that either the chair or vice chairs be a Member of the Legislature.
c) Prohibit the board directors from being compensated for their service on the board.
d) Add conflict of interest provisions for members of the board of directors.
AB 844
Page 10
e) Prohibit a member of the board of directors from using the name of the Green Empowerment Zone
on any letterhead, business card, or identification badge except to the extent that the person is
authorized to do so by the zone.
f) Sunset the authority to operate the Green empower Zone on December 31, 2027
6) Related Legislation: Below is a list of bills from the current and prior sessions.
a) AB 27 (Parra) California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley: This bill would have codified
the establishment and operation of an up to 64-member California Partnership for the San Joaquin
Valley for the purpose of improving the economic, social, and environmental conditions of the
San Joaquin Valley. Status: Held on the Suspense File of the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations, 2008.
b) AB 31 (Parra) California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley: This bill would have created
a 24-member California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley for the purpose of coordinating
and improving state and federal efforts in the SJV, in concert with locally led efforts to improve
the living standards and overall economic performance of the region. Status: Died on the Senate
Floor, August 2006.
c) AB 639 (Cervantes) Port Infrastructure Financing: This bill establishes a process by which a
harbor agency can monetize the future financial value of installing and operating a port using
technology and processes that result in the reduction of mobile source emissions. This valuation
could be used to request funding from the state, the repayment of which occurs through the
economic impact of the project, including the payment of state taxes and fees. Status: Pending in
the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy.
d) AB 821 (O’Donnell) Trade Corridor Enhancement Account and California Port Efficiency
Program: This bill establishes the California Port Efficiency Program and authorizes grant
funding for projects that most effectively improve velocity, throughput, and reliability of port
operations, including the deployment of digital industrial infrastructure to facilitate and streamline
the exchange of data between supply chain participants, and projects designed to reduce truck visit
times. Funding for these projects will come from moneys in the Trade Corridor Enhancement
Account. Status: Pending in the Assembly Committee on Transportation.
e) AB 1171 (Arambula and Salas) California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley: This bill
codifies the Partnership, a public/private partnership established for the purpose of collaboratively
undertaking activities to improve the economic vitality of the SJV. Status: Pending in the
Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy.
f) AB 1606 (Arambula) Emerging Domestic Market Strategy: This bill would have required the
Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing to establish a statewide partnership with
business and industry to develop a strategy to increase private investment in California with a
special emphasis on new investments in emerging domestic markets. The bill also would have
centralized the state’s existing economic development programs with the Economic Strategy
Panel, in order to improve their coordination and impact on California communities. Status:
Vetoed by the Governor, October 2007.
g) AB 1274 (Arambula, Salas) California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley: This bill
codifies the Partnership, a public/private partnership established for the purpose of collaboratively
undertaking activities to improve the economic vitality of the SJV. Status: Held in the Senate
Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development.
AB 844
Page 11
h) SB 765 (Ridley-Thomas) California Partnership for Urban Communities: This bill would have
established the California Partnership for Urban Communities for the purpose of coordinating
existing state and federal efforts designed to assist at-risk communities through locally led efforts.
Status: Died due to inaction on the Assembly Floor, 2008.
i) AB 3015 (Caballero) Zero Emission and Near-Zero Emission Cargo Handling Equipment:
This bill would have required the California Air Resources Board (ARB), by June 30, 2023 to
develop a technical report with respect to the feasibility of transitioning to zero emission and near-
zero emission cargo handling equipment. The bill requires the State Transportation Agency, when
developing the 2024 state freight plan, to consider ARB’s technical report and address the
development of freight-related infrastructure to support the introduction of zero emission and near-
zero emission cargo-handling equipment at seaports and railyards. Status: Died in the Assembly
Committee on Appropriations, 2018.
j) SB 63 (Hall) Seaport Infrastructure Districts: This bill authorizes cities and counties to establish
Seaport Infrastructure Financing Districts and allows these districts to finance certain port or
harbor facilities, as specified. Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter 793, Statutes of 2015.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on File
Opposition
None on File
Analysis Prepared by: Toni Symonds / J., E.D., & E. / (916) 319-2090
File and source
- File
- 2021-04-27_ab-844-jede-analysis.pdf
- Size
- 411,919 bytes
- SHA-256
- 92be2253f767b2cf9e46bbf39ef7e4379cf3f7ddec498eaf89a6c4aa4c45b30c
- Original
- No public link identified.