Fuel user fee: vehicle fees.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 31 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 31.
You're tracking SB 31
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 31 — Fuel user fee: vehicle fees.
Last action — From Assembly without further action.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2009-2010, 3rd Special Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
(1) Existing law imposes a levy of $0.18 per gallon on motor vehicle fuel, commonly referred to as gasoline, and on diesel fuel, the revenues from which are deposited in the Motor Vehicle Fuel Account in the Transportation Tax Fund. Under Article XIX of the California Constitution, the portion of these revenues that is derived from use in motor vehicles upon public streets and highways is restricted for expenditure on streets and highways and for certain mass transit guideway purposes. The Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges. This bill would, commencing on and after October 1, 2009, impose a user fee, as defined, of $0.18 cents per gallon of fuel, as defined, purchased by a user, as defined. The bill would also require a supplier or retailer to be licensed with the board, as specified. The bill would require a retailer to collect the user fee from each user, at the time the fuel is sold to the user, and would require the user fee to be precollected by a supplier, as specified. This bill would require revenues from the fee and related penalties to be deposited in the Motor Vehicle Fuel Account in the Transportation Tax Fund, which would be continued in existence as the Transportation Revenue Fund, and would limit the expenditure of the money deposited in the fund to specified purposes, consistent with the requirements under law for a user fee of this nature. The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to administer the user fees as specified, and would require the fee to be collected pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Fee Collection Procedures Law. This bill would also impose other related provisions. This bill would also require certain certificates issued related to the fee to be signed under penalty of perjury, and would make certain acts related to exemption certificates a misdemeanor. Because this bill would expand the scope of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, and would create additional crimes, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law establishes as base fee amounts certain driver's license and identification card fees imposed by the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to specified provisions of the Vehicle Code. Existing law requires, on January 1 of every year, the department to adjust those base fee amounts by increasing each fee in an amount equal to the increase in the California Consumer Price Index for the prior year, as calculated by the Department of Finance, with amounts equal to or greater than $0.50 rounded to the next highest whole dollar. Existing law also provides that a statutory increase to the fees is deemed to be a change to the base fee. This bill would include within this scheme specified fee provisions applicable to restricted firefighter licenses and commercial driver's licenses and would increase, on and after October 1, 2009, or the effective date of this act, whichever is later, the amount of these and other fees subject to this scheme. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (4) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on December 19, 2008. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on December 19, 2008, pursuant to the California Constitution.
Bill Text
- Amended 06/29/09 - Amended Senate Current pdf June 29, 2009
- Introduced 04/13/09 - Introduced pdf April 13, 2009
- SB31 View text html
Action History
-
From Assembly without further action.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 23. Noes 16. Page 189.) To Assembly.
-
Senate Rule 29.3 suspended. (Ayes 23. Noes 13. Page 183.)
-
Placed on third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 23. Noes 14. Page 193.)
-
(Ayes 25. Noes 12. Page 182.)
-
Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.
-
Read third time. Amended. (Ayes 23. Noes 13. Page 181.)
-
Read second time. To third reading.
-
Placed on second reading file.
-
Withdrawn from committee.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS.
Sponsors
- Ducheny · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Ducheny
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 21 | 13 | 0 | 3 |
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 24 | 14 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 59% | 34% | 0% | 7% |
How each member voted (41)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Wyland | — | Nay |
| Cogdill | — | Nay |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Correa | — | Not Voting |
| Cox | — | Nay |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Denham | — | Nay |
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Cedillo | — | Yea |
| Negrete | — | Yea |
| Florez | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Nay |
| Huff | — | Nay |
| Ducheny | — | Yea |
| Dutton | — | Nay |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| McLeod | — | Yea |
| Alquist | — | Yea |
| Ashburn | — | Nay |
| Oropeza | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Romero | — | Yea |
| Simitian | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Wiggins | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Not Voting |
| Aanestad | — | Not Voting |
| Benoit | — | Nay |
| Harman | — | Nay |
| Hollingsworth | — | Nay |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| Maldonado | — | Nay |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Nay |
| Wright | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Lowenthal, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Strickland, Tony | Republican | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 20 | 15 | 0 | 2 |
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 23 | 16 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 56% | 39% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (41)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Wyland | — | Nay |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Denham | — | Nay |
| Florez | — | Yea |
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Cedillo | — | Yea |
| Ducheny | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Alquist | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Nay |
| Negrete | — | Not Voting |
| Cogdill | — | Nay |
| Correa | — | Nay |
| Cox | — | Nay |
| Hollingsworth | — | Nay |
| McLeod | — | Not Voting |
| Aanestad | — | Nay |
| Ashburn | — | Nay |
| Benoit | — | Nay |
| Dutton | — | Nay |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Romero | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Nay |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Wright | — | Yea |
| Harman | — | Nay |
| Huff | — | Nay |
| Maldonado | — | Nay |
| Oropeza | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Simitian | — | Yea |
| Wiggins | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Lowenthal, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Strickland, Tony | Republican | Nay |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 31 do?
- (1) Existing law imposes a levy of $0.18 per gallon on motor vehicle fuel, commonly referred to as gasoline, and on diesel fuel, the revenues from which are deposited in the Motor Vehicle Fuel Account in the Transportation Tax Fund. Under Article XIX of the California Constitution, the portion of these revenues that is derived from use in motor vehicles upon public streets and highways is restricted for expenditure on streets and highways and for certain mass transit guideway purposes. The Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges. This bill would, commencing on and after October 1, 2009, impose a user fee, as defined, of $0.18 cents per gallon of fuel, as defined, purchased by a user, as defined. The bill would also require a supplier or retailer to be licensed with the board, as specified. The bill would require a retailer to collect the user fee from each user, at the time the fuel is sold to the user, and would require the user fee to be precollected by a supplier, as specified. This bill would require revenues from the fee and related penalties to be deposited in the Motor Vehicle Fuel Account in the Transportation Tax Fund, which would be continued in existence as the Transportation Revenue Fund, and would limit the expenditure of the money deposited in the fund to specified purposes, consistent with the requirements under law for a user fee of this nature. The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to administer the user fees as specified, and would require the fee to be collected pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Fee Collection Procedures Law. This bill would also impose other related provisions. This bill would also require certain certificates issued related to the fee to be signed under penalty of perjury, and would make certain acts related to exemption certificates a misdemeanor. Because this bill would expand the scope of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, and would create additional crimes, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law establishes as base fee amounts certain driver's license and identification card fees imposed by the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to specified provisions of the Vehicle Code. Existing law requires, on January 1 of every year, the department to adjust those base fee amounts by increasing each fee in an amount equal to the increase in the California Consumer Price Index for the prior year, as calculated by the Department of Finance, with amounts equal to or greater than $0.50 rounded to the next highest whole dollar. Existing law also provides that a statutory increase to the fees is deemed to be a change to the base fee. This bill would include within this scheme specified fee provisions applicable to restricted firefighter licenses and commercial driver's licenses and would increase, on and after October 1, 2009, or the effective date of this act, whichever is later, the amount of these and other fees subject to this scheme. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (4) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on December 19, 2008. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on December 19, 2008, pursuant to the California Constitution.
- Who sponsors SB 31?
- SB 31 is sponsored by Ducheny.
- What is the current status of SB 31?
- This bill died with 2009-2010, 3rd Special Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 31?
- Track SB 31 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 31
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 31
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →