Calif. statewide container fee bill delayed again
California State Sen. Alan Lowenthal's on-again, off-again bill seeking to impose a statewide $30-per-TEU container fee appears to be off again.
Last month, the Long Beach Democrat indicated he had set a personal deadline of June 30 to bring his SB974 bill to the Legislature floor for two final votes. However, the senator's self-imposed deadline came and went with no action on the bill.
Lowenthal's office is now predicting the bill will come before the Legislature no later than Aug. 31.
The Legislature, which breaks for its summer recess Thursday, will not reconvene until Aug. 4.
The SB974 bill, which would impose the per-TEU fee on containers moving through the ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Oakland, is projected to raise $400 million to $500 million annually for goods movement infrastructure and environmental projects throughout the state. Under terms of the bill, the per-TEU container fee would be borne by beneficial cargo owners.
The bill now requires only a full Assembly vote and a concurrence vote by the Senate to pass the Legislature and head to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office. It is not expected to encounter any difficulty in passing either house. The governor, while opposing Lowenthal's bill in the past, indicated earlier this year he would support a statewide fee. Schwarzenegger is expected to sign the bill if it reaches his desk.
SB974, the third incarnation of Lowenthal's statewide container fee proposal, has appeared and disappeared several times over the past year. Last September, the legislation was shelved after Schwarzenegger threatened a veto. The move was also seen at the time as an effort to allow the Southern California ports more time to impose their own local container taxes, which both have since done.
In February, the bill was again removed from inactive status and placed on the Assembly agenda, though no action was taken on it. Lowenthal has since added a detailed list to the bill specifying more than 140 projects that the collected funds could be used for.
Additional amendments are also under consideration for inclusion into the bill, including a request by the Port of Oakland to exempt cargo moving through the port from Lowenthal's fee if Oakland officials impose their own local container tax.
If the bill is not approved before the end of the legislative session later this year, the bill may have to be reintroduced by Lowenthal next year and begin the entire voting and approval process from square one.
Calif. statewide container fee bill delayed again
