The bill creates the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program to provide continuously appropriated operating and capital assistance for California transit agencies from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The Department of Transportation, working with the State Air Resources Board, must determine eligibility and develop guidelines; the Controller allocates funds by formula consistent with the statute and PUC historic ratios for certain fiscal years.
The program requires recipients to demonstrate greenhouse gas reductions and that funds do not supplant other revenue, prioritizes projects benefiting disadvantaged communities (with a 50% minimum spend for agencies serving those areas), authorizes ongoing funding for fare reduction programs without a time limit, and expands existing transit audits to verify receipt and appropriate expenditure of program money.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a new state program that continuously directs Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund money to transit operations and capital projects, subject to DOT eligibility determinations and guidelines developed with CARB, and allocated by the Controller on a formula basis. It defines eligible uses (service expansion, mode‑share operational spending, zero‑emission buses and infrastructure), establishes reporting and audit requirements, and includes carryover, transfer, and reassignment rules.
Who It Affects
California public transit operators, regional transit agencies, the Department of Transportation, the State Air Resources Board, and the State Controller. Disadvantaged communities and riders receiving fare subsidies are direct beneficiaries; auditors and local compliance teams will face new verification duties.
Why It Matters
This statute channels GGRF dollars directly into transit operations as well as capital, creates durable funding for fare programs and zero‑emission bus deployment, and formalizes measurement and audit processes to tie transit funding to GHG outcomes and equity goals. The mix of formula allocations, waivers, and administrative discretion reshapes how regional transit dollars flow and how accountability is enforced.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill establishes a Low Carbon Transit Operations Program that uses California’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to pay for both operating and capital transit activities designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve mobility, with explicit emphasis on serving disadvantaged communities. Funding is continuously appropriated from the GGRF and distributed by the State Controller according to a statutory formula, but only after the Department of Transportation certifies that a recipient’s proposed expenditures meet program requirements and are currently fundable.
Eligible uses include direct service enhancements (new or expanded bus, rail, waterborne, or intermodal facilities), operational activities that increase transit mode share, and purchases of zero‑emission buses plus the necessary charging/fueling infrastructure. Every expenditure must demonstrably reduce greenhouse gases and must not simply replace another funding source.
DOT and CARB will develop methodologies and reporting templates that recipients must use to justify allocations and show ongoing compliance.A central equity rule requires agencies serving disadvantaged communities to spend at least half of their program dollars on projects that meet the program criteria and benefit those communities; the bill creates specific waivers that treat certain connecting services, fare subsidies and integration technologies, and zero‑emission bus purchases as automatically meeting that equity test. The statute also allows agencies to retain up to four years of their allocation for larger projects, to loan or transfer shares regionally, and to reassign surplus or de‑prioritized allocations to other eligible uses, subject to DOT procedures.Operational continuity gets special treatment: agencies that previously used funds for an eligible operational service can continue to do so if they still show emissions reductions, but agencies using funds for free or reduced‑fare programs are exempt from that limitation and may continue indefinitely once initially approved (with a simplified three‑year administrative notice cycle after the first allocation).
Finally, the existing public transit financial audit under the Mills‑Alquist‑Deddeh Act must now verify receipt and proper use of program funds and be shared with DOT and made available to the Legislature and Controller on request.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Funding for the program is continuously appropriated from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund under Section 39719 of the Health and Safety Code, so allocations are not subject to separate annual appropriations.
The State Controller allocates funds by formula after DOT confirms an agency’s proposed expenditures meet program requirements; for the portion tied to the PUC Section 99314 formula, the Controller must use individual operator ratios established in PUC Section 99314.10 for fiscal years 2019–20 through 2025–26.
For agencies whose service area includes disadvantaged communities, at least 50% of program monies must be spent on projects that meet program rules and benefit those communities, but that 50% floor is waived if funds are spent on connecting services, fare subsidies/integration technology (including student passes), or zero‑emission buses—expenditures the bill deems compliant.
A recipient transit agency may fund a free or reduced fare transit program indefinitely after an initial approved allocation; after that initial approval the agency need not submit a new allocation request for the next three fiscal years, though it must provide documentation and submit required reports.
The bill expands the existing Mills‑Alquist‑Deddeh Act financial audit to verify receipt and proper expenditure of program funds; audited agencies must transmit the audit to DOT, which will make audits available to the Legislature and Controller on request.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program
This subsection establishes the program’s purpose: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve mobility, prioritizing disadvantaged communities. The practical implication is a formal statutory home for directing GGRF resources into both operating and capital transit projects rather than leaving those decisions exclusively to ad hoc budget actions.
Continuous appropriation from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
Funds are continuously appropriated from the GGRF via the Health and Safety Code citation, so allocations do not require a new annual appropriation. That locks a revenue source to the program and reduces annual bargaining over these dollars, but it also makes GGRF commitments to transit more durable and administratively front‑loaded.
Allocation mechanics and historical PUC‑ratio exception
The Controller must distribute funding on a formula basis consistent with the part and Section 39719, but only after DOT determines proposed expenditures meet program rules and that funds are available. A narrow transitional or historical rule instructs the Controller to use operator ratios from PUC Section 99314.10 for the 2019–20 through 2025–26 fiscal years for the portion of funding tied to the PUC formula—an explicit nod to prior distribution patterns that preserves historical shares for that window.
Eligibility: GHG outcomes, non‑supplanting, and permitted uses
Recipients must show each expenditure will reduce greenhouse gases and must certify the funds do not supplant other revenues. The statute lists three categories of eligible spending—service expansion, operational mode‑share activities, and zero‑emission buses and infrastructure—making clear both operating and capital items can qualify, but tying approval to measurable emissions outcomes and anti‑supplanting documentation.
Disadvantaged community spending floor and waivers
Agencies that serve disadvantaged communities must spend at least 50% of their program monies on projects that meet the program criteria and benefit those communities. The bill creates explicit waivers where spending on connecting services, fare subsidies and integration technologies (including student passes), or zero‑emission bus purchases counts as meeting that requirement, and says such expenditures are treated as complying with Section 39713—an administrable but potentially broad definition of equity compliance.
Guidance, APA exemption, and pre‑disbursement requirements
DOT, coordinating with CARB, must develop methodologies and reporting rules for agencies to demonstrate compliance; the APA rulemaking chapter is expressly made inapplicable, so guidelines can be issued without the standard formal rulemaking process. Before disbursement agencies must submit a list of anticipated expense types and the documentation required by DOT/CARB guidelines; capital projects also must show phased funding plans and timing for all sources needed to complete each phase.
Continuation rules and special treatment for fare programs
Operational assistance previously funded may continue if the agency can still show GHG reductions, but free or reduced fare programs are exempt from the continuation test and may be funded indefinitely after initial approval. Once a free/reduced fare program receives its initial allocation, the agency need not file a new allocation request for three fiscal years—only periodic documentation and the reports required by subdivision (s). That creates a streamlined administrative pathway for fare subsidies.
Approval, carryover, transfers, reporting, legal compliance, and audit expansion
DOT, with CARB, determines eligibility and notifies the Controller of approved allocations; agencies may retain an allocation up to four fiscal years, loan or transfer shares within their region under DOT procedures, and request reassignment of surplus or de‑prioritized moneys. Agencies must file annual reports consistent with CARB/DOT procedures, comply with CEQA and civil‑rights obligations (the bill does not alter those laws), and submit audits that now must verify receipt and proper expenditure of program funds; DOT will provide audits to the Legislature and Controller on request.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Transit agencies serving disadvantaged communities — gain a statutory spending floor (50%) and access to both operating and capital GGRF dollars for service expansion, fares, and zero‑emission buses, improving ability to fund equity‑focused projects.
- Riders in low‑income and disadvantaged communities — stand to benefit from prioritized service expansions, fare subsidies (including student passes), and network/fare integration funded under the program.
- Transit agencies investing in zero‑emission fleets — receive explicit funding eligibility for both vehicle purchases and supporting infrastructure, lowering the capital barrier to electrification.
- Regional planners and multi‑agency partnerships — can accept loans or transfers of funding shares within a region, enabling larger coordinated projects or cross‑operator services that a single operator could not fund alone.
- State regulators and data users (DOT/CARB/Legislature) — benefit from standardized methodologies, reporting, and audit verification that improve the state's ability to measure GHG outcomes and equity impacts of transit spending.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Transportation and CARB — must develop methodologies, review documentation, determine eligibility, and coordinate guidelines without following APA rulemaking, increasing administrative workload and requiring technical capacity.
- Small transit operators — may face disproportionate compliance and documentation burdens (GHG demonstration, non‑supplanting proof, phased funding plans, annual reports) that require staff time or consultant costs.
- The State’s budget flexibility — continuous appropriation of GGRF dollars to this program reduces discretionary budget levers for other priorities funded from the same pot.
- Auditors and local finance offices — must expand audit scope under the Mills‑Alquist‑Deddeh Act to verify program receipts and expenditures, increasing audit work and potential for findings that trigger follow‑up.
- Transit agencies not serving disadvantaged communities — face a structural incentive to invest in qualifying waivers or connection projects to meet equity prioritization, which may alter capital and service priorities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between speed/flexibility and targeted accountability: the bill prioritizes quick, durable funding for decarbonizing transit and gives local agencies flexibility to use funds for operations, fares, and capital, but it also relies on administrative guidelines, waivers, and deemed‑compliance rules that can weaken direct, place‑based investments in disadvantaged communities and complicate the reliable measurement of true greenhouse‑gas reductions.
The bill packs several trade‑offs into a compact framework. By making the GGRF appropriation continuous and broadening eligibilities to include operating costs and fare subsidies, it increases the speed and predictability of funding for transit decarbonization, but it also reduces annual budgetary review and legislative discretion over those dollars.
The APA exemption speeds guideline issuance but narrows public notice and formal comment on methodologies that will determine what counts as a GHG reduction or an equity benefit. That combination favors rapid deployment but raises transparency and oversight questions.
The program’s measurement and accountability regime is central but underspecified. DOT and CARB must define how agencies demonstrate emissions reductions and non‑supplanting, yet the bill leaves key methodological choices open—baseline selection, attribution between capital and operating effects, and how to measure mode‑shift impacts.
Those technical choices will materially affect which projects qualify and may create opportunities for inconsistent application across regions. The 50% disadvantaged community floor plus the broad waivers (connecting service, fare subsidies, and bus purchases deemed compliant) introduce a further tension: the statute links equity outcomes to a set of eligible activities, but the waiver language could allow agencies to meet equity targets indirectly rather than by placing service physically within disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Finally, operational permanence for certain uses—most notably the unlimited duration for free or reduced fare programs after initial approval—creates a potential long‑term fiscal commitment without an explicit performance sunset. Carryover, intra‑regional transfers, and reassignment provisions increase flexibility but also allow concentration of funds for larger projects, which can be efficient but may shift resources away from smaller operators or diffuse local priorities.
Implementation will require careful guideline design, robust auditing capacity, and clear documentation standards to keep the program aligned with its climate and equity goals.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.