At the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV), we often know early on what bills will be contentious in the legislature. We plan ahead and work on securing votes of legislators who are on the fence. But at other times, good bills seem to be sailing through. This was the case with SB 582, which would establish a commuter benefit pilot program. Unfortunately though, the key word here is "was".
The pilot program would allow metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and local air districts to jointly adopt a regional commute benefit requirement. Employers in these regions would have the following options:
- Give employees the option to pay for their transit, vanpooling or bicycling expenses with pre-tax dollars, as currently allowed by federal law;
- Offer employees a transit or vanpool subsidy up to $75 per month;
- Provide employees with a free shuttle or vanpool operated by or for the employer.
What's great about commuter benefits is that they benefit both employees and employers, especially if employers choose the first option. As someone who has participated in commuter benefit programs as an employee and administered a program for a non-profit I used to work for, I can attest that allowing employees to pay for transit expenses with pre-tax dollars saves money for employers and employees.
Sounds pretty non-controversial, right?
Well, it was at first. Republican Senator Bill Emmerson introduced the bill early this year and it quickly earned bi-partisan support. The Senate passed the bill in May with a 36-2 vote.
SB 582 continued to sail along in the Assembly. As late as June 20th, there was no registered opposition to the bill, which made sense to us since the bill doesn't cost the state or employers any funds and helps reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gasses related to transportation.
But at the last moment, as the bill was headed to the Assembly floor, the California Chamber of Commerce and California Taxpayers Association came out against the bill. Yes, the Chamber, which is supposed to support business interests, and the Taxpayers Association, which is supposed to support taxpayer interests, came out against a bill that would save businesses money and cost nothing to taxpayers!
