SB 661 rewrites how jet-fuel tax revenue is split and how the state Aeronautics Account is allocated. The bill requires that 50% of tax revenue from jet fuel sold at a California airport stay with that airport for operations, capital, maintenance, and other aviation infrastructure, while the remaining 50% flows into the Aeronautics Account and is reallocated under new percentage formulas.
The change reweights funding across general aviation, hub and nonhub commercial airports, establishes a targeted grant program for nonhub commercial airports with under 300,000 annual enplanements, creates a dedicated aviation education grant pot with priority groups, and caps administrative spending. The statutory findings emphasize Bakersfield/Kern County and direct legislative intent toward expanding air service and incentives, but the binding changes in law are limited to the new revenue split and allocation rules in the Public Utilities Code.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires airports to retain 50% of jet-fuel tax revenue collected at their site for airport-related uses and deposits the other 50% into the Aeronautics Account. It modifies the Division of Aeronautics’ annual allocation percentages—shifting shares among general aviation, hub tiers, nonhub airports, targeted nonhub grants, aviation education, and other state aviation programs—and limits administrative costs to no more than 5%.
Who It Affects
Local airport governing authorities (which would receive direct retained revenue), the Division of Aeronautics (which must carry out a new allocation formula), nonhub commercial airports with under 300,000 enplanements (eligible for targeted grants), and aviation education providers and students (through a new grants priority).
Why It Matters
This creates a durable revenue stream for airports that sell jet fuel, changing incentives for local investment and airport planning, while altering how state aviation dollars are distributed—potentially shifting funds away from some hub and nonhub recipients toward targeted grants and education priorities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 661 inserts a new section into the Public Utilities Code that changes two linked funding rules. First, it directs that half of the tax revenue raised from jet fuel sold at a given California airport remains at that airport and may be used by the airport’s governing authority for operations, capital projects, maintenance, and other aviation infrastructure needs so long as uses align with applicable federal and state rules.
Second, the bill sends the other half into the State’s Aeronautics Account, then prescribes a new formula the Division of Aeronautics must follow when allocating those pooled funds.
The allocation formula increases or reallocates percentage shares across categories: a larger share for qualifying general aviation airports, revised shares for large, medium and small hub commercial airports and for nonhub commercial airports, and creation of a discrete grant pool for nonhub commercial airports with fewer than 300,000 enplanements. That nonhub grant program is expressly focused on attracting and expanding air service through incentives, marketing, studies, route analysis, and consultant services, and it directs that priority be given to nonhub airports located in cities with populations greater than 400,000—language that points to Kern County’s Meadows Field.SB 661 also creates or expands a grants line for aviation education—scholarships and training with priority for underrepresented students, women, veterans, and low-income persons—and increases the allocation for other state aviation programs.
The statute caps the Division of Aeronautics’ administrative take at 5% of the account and makes any unused administration money distributable pro rata back into the other categories. Finally, the bill ties those allocations to existing procedural rules in Sections 21686–21688 of the Public Utilities Code, and the findings emphasize legislative intent to encourage local investment, partnerships, and environmental evaluation, although the findings themselves do not by law create a new task force or grant program beyond the allocations spelled out in the new statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires that 50% of jet-fuel tax revenue collected at a California airport be retained locally and used only for airport operations, capital improvements, maintenance, and aviation infrastructure consistent with federal and state regulations.
The remaining 50% is deposited into the Aeronautics Account and is allocated annually under a new formula that reassigns percentage shares among general aviation, hub tiers, nonhub airports, targeted nonhub grants, aviation education, and other state aviation programs.
SB 661 creates a dedicated grant pool (15% of the Aeronautics Account under the bill’s text) for nonhub commercial airports with fewer than 300,000 annual enplanements to attract and expand air service, with priority for nonhub airports in cities of more than 400,000 people.
The bill increases the aviation-education allocation to 5% of the Aeronautics Account and requires that those grants prioritize underrepresented students, women, veterans, and low-income persons for scholarships and training.
The Division of Aeronautics may use up to 5% of the Aeronautics Account for administrative costs, and any unused portion of that administrative cap must be reallocated pro rata to the other allocation categories.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and legislative intent focused on Kern County and Meadows Field
This section records the Legislature’s factual findings about Bakersfield/Kern County’s growth, economic profile, and need for expanded air service, and sets out a nonbinding intent to facilitate investments, partnerships, incentives, and a statewide advisory approach to expand flights. Practically, this language signals policy priorities—targeting economic development, job creation, and equity in underserved areas—but does not itself create enforceable programs beyond informing statutory interpretation.
Local retention of 50% of jet-fuel tax revenue
The statute directs that half of the tax collected on jet fuel at a given airport be retained by that airport’s governing authority. Those retained funds are restricted to aviation-related uses: operations, capital improvements, maintenance, and infrastructure. This creates a direct revenue stream for airports that sell jet fuel, shifting a portion of revenue away from statewide pooling and toward local control—subject to federal and state constraints on allowable uses.
Deposit of remaining revenue into the Aeronautics Account and new allocation mandate
The other 50% is deposited into the State Transportation Fund’s Aeronautics Account and the Division of Aeronautics must allocate those dollars annually according to the percentages listed in the bill. The statute alters the share assigned to general aviation airports, hub categories, nonhub commercial airports, a targeted nonhub grant program, aviation education, and other state aviation programs—effectively reordering funding priorities at the state level and requiring administrative redistributions within the Division’s annual budget process.
Reweighting of hub-tier and nonhub shares
The bill specifies new percentage splits for large, medium, and small hub commercial airports and nonhub commercial airports (as defined by FAA categories). Those changes change relative funding flows among airports that previously relied heavily on Aeronautics Account allocations. Practically, airports in different FAA categories will see predictable increases or decreases in their proportional share of pooled state funds, creating winners and losers depending on the final distribution of available dollars.
Targeted grants for nonhub commercial airports under 300,000 enplanements
The statute carves out a grant pool intended specifically to attract and expand air service at smaller nonhub commercial airports that report fewer than 300,000 enplanements annually. Eligible expenditures include incentives, marketing, passenger studies, route analysis, and consultant work. The bill instructs that priority be given to such airports located in cities of more than 400,000 people—language that operationally steers preference toward places like Bakersfield and raises targeted economic-development focus.
Aviation education grants, other state aviation programs, and admin cap
SB 661 increases the share reserved for aviation education grants (explicitly allowing scholarships and training, with priorities for underrepresented groups) and raises the allocation for 'other state aviation programs.' It also caps the Division of Aeronautics’ administrative take at no more than 5% of the account, with any unused administrative allocation redistributed pro rata across the other categories. Finally, the bill makes allocations subject to existing procedural sections (21686–21688), anchoring implementation in current Division processes.
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
- Airports that sell jet fuel: Each such airport receives 50% of the jet-fuel tax collected on-site, providing an immediate, discretionary revenue stream for operations, capital projects, and maintenance that can be deployed without waiting for state allocations.
- Nonhub commercial airports with <300,000 enplanements: These airports become eligible for a dedicated grants pot focused on attracting and expanding air service—funds for incentives, marketing, route analysis, and consultants increase their capacity to recruit carriers.
- Students and training providers in aviation: The expansion of the aviation-education allocation and its prioritization of underrepresented students, women, veterans, and low-income persons creates scholarship and program funding opportunities for workforce development.
- Local economies (e.g., Kern County industries): Improved airport finances and targeted service-expansion grants make it easier to grow flight schedules, which supports hospitality, logistics, agriculture, and health-care connectivity and can spur regional economic development.
- Airport governing authorities: With clearer, locally retained revenue and expanded grant opportunities, local airport boards gain more fiscal control and political leverage to pursue capital projects and service incentives.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Aeronautics Account recipients who lose relative share: Airports and programs that previously received a larger share of pooled Aeronautics funds may see reduced allocations because half of jet-fuel tax revenue will bypass the pool and the pool itself is reweighted.
- Division of Aeronautics/Caltrans staffing and implementation budget: The Division must administer a new formula, new targeted grant programs, and priority rules, increasing program complexity and likely requiring new procedures and oversight capacity.
- State-level aviation priorities and other transportation programs: Redirecting revenue from pooled allocation to local retention shifts fiscal capacity away from statewide projects and may force reprioritization within the transportation budget.
- Environmental regulators and local communities: Increased incentives to expand flights and air service may raise local environmental and noise concerns, imposing potential mitigation costs on airport operators and local governments.
- Smaller airports that do not sell jet fuel or do not meet the 300,000-enplanement threshold: Those airports gain less from local retention and may be ineligible for the targeted nonhub grant pool, creating uneven benefit distribution.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma SB 661 poses is whether to prioritize local fiscal control and targeted regional economic development by letting airports keep half of jet-fuel tax receipts, or to preserve a centralized, statewide funding pool that smooths resources across diverse airports and supports broader, coordinated aviation and transportation priorities—each choice advances legitimate goals but limits the other.
SB 661 creates a stark trade in fiscal design: it gives airports that sell jet fuel predictable local revenue in exchange for shrinking the pool of state-controlled aviation funds and reordering statewide priorities. That trade raises several implementation questions.
First, federal revenue-use rules (FAA) constrain how airports can spend local tax-derived dollars; airports and the Division will need to reconcile retained local revenues with federal grant assurances to avoid jeopardizing federal funding. Second, the bill’s text contains multiple numeric edits and overlapping clause numbering that could generate interpretive disputes—clarity will be required to determine the final percentage splits and grant amounts when dollars are available.
The bill’s prioritization language for nonhub grants—favoring airports in cities with populations over 400,000—targets Bakersfield explicitly, which suits the bill’s findings but risks creating perceived geographic favoritism elsewhere in the state. There is also a tension between economic-development goals and California’s climate and sustainability objectives: incentives to expand air service work at cross-purposes with state decarbonization targets unless the statute’s promise to evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts results in concrete offset, efficiency, or modal-shift strategies.
Finally, revenue volatility is a practical risk; jet-fuel tax receipts fluctuate with flight activity and fuel prices, which means both local-retained shares and the Aeronautics Account could vary year to year, complicating long-term planning for capital projects and grant programs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.