Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Fee Authority topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LAO and stakeholders urge caution on broad CARB fee authority; board argues polluter‑pays model would relieve taxpayers
Summary
CARB proposed trailer‑bill language to authorize regulatory fee collection from regulated entities to recover the costs of regulation; the Legislative Analyst’s Office and multiple industry and association witnesses opposed the broad delegation and urged narrower, transparent, legislative authorization.
The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 heard testimony and public comment on a proposed trailer‑bill that would authorize the California Air Resources Board to assess regulatory fees on regulated entities to recover reasonable costs of developing, implementing and enforcing regulations.
Ajay Mangat (filling in for CARB) described a process in which CARB designs regulatory work with an expected fee included in the regulatory package and then brings a budget change proposal (BCP) to the Legislature for authority to collect and spend the fee. CARB cited a recent judicial ruling that restricted its ability to collect fees included in a TRU (transport refrigeration unit) regulation and argued that broader fee authority is necessary because traditional funding sources—such as the Motor Vehicle Account and the Air Pollution Control Fund—are overburdened.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the broad trailer language, describing it as an overly wide delegation of the Legislature’s fiscal power and urging narrower, targeted fee authorities instead. The LAO and several stakeholders said fee imposition is a core legislative power and that broad, open‑ended delegated authority would be difficult for the Legislature to evaluate and control.
Multiple industry associations (trucking, manufacturing, farming groups) and some environmental organizations testified in public comment. Many opposed broad delegated fee authority and asked for either a more narrowly tailored fee mechanism or direct legislative enactment of fees for specific programs. Other commenters—particularly health and environmental organizations—argued polluters should bear the costs of regulation and supported authorities that would let CARB recover regulatory costs from regulated industries. The subcommittee did not adopt the trailer bill language at the hearing.
