Global Warming Bill Passes California Legislature; Public Health Benefits
August 31, 2006 Thursday 12:51 AM Eastern Time
SACRAMENTO, Calif. Aug. 31
The California Legislature passed AB 32 (Nunez/Pavley) today, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The American Lung Association of California applauds this action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because of the serious health impacts of global warming.
Numerous studies indicate that increased emissions of air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, as well as elevated smog levels that accompany hotter temperatures will only make health conditions worse. "By passing this bill, we are preventing death and disease from air pollution-caused illnesses, particularly for those individuals suffering from asthma or other lung diseases, as well as heart disease and vector-borne diseases." said Anthony Gerber, MD, assistant professor of medicine at UCSF, and volunteer with the American Lung Association of California.
California already has the worst air quality in the nation, causing serious health problems, including a significant rise in hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular disease, emergency room visits related to asthma attacks, absences from school due to respiratory conditions, and reduced lung function growth in children. According to the California Air Resources Board, the annual health impacts of exceeding state health- based standards for smog and soot include 8,800 premature deaths, 10,200 hospital admissions for lung and heart disease, 340,000 asthma attacks with 3,000 asthma-related emergency room visits, and 4.7 million school absences due to respiratory conditions, including asthma.
"The worst thing we can do is nothing. If we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, public health will be threatened as evidenced on very hot days when emergency room visits rise," said Bonnie Holmes-Gen, assistant vice president of government relations for of the American Lung Association of California. "It is clear that reducing global warming is a vital clean air and public health strategy." Key statewide health and medical organizations agree and have signed a letter in support of AB 32, and more than 100 health professionals signed a similar petition.
AB 32 will create the nation's first statewide cap on global warming pollution, mandating a 25 percent cut in greenhouse gas pollution by 2020, and will establish a tracking system to monitor and enforce compliance with the cap. As evidenced by a recent survey, a majority of California voters believe that California legislators must take measures to reduce the effect of global warming. Additionally, economists find significant job and economic benefits, through the creation of new technologies and new businesses.
This is landmark legislation will not only make a huge contribution to solving the global warming problem, it can also make a big impact on policies and actions throughout the United States and the world. And California residents may all breathe a little easier.
CONTACT: Andy Weisser Vice President Communications American Lung Association of California P.O. Box 16400, Encino, CA 91416-6400 P: 818-703-6444 F: 818-703-6466 http://californialung.org
SOURCE
Monday, December 11, 2006
Industry fights emissions bill
Copyright 2006 Business Press
Business Press (San Bernardino, California)
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service
August 14, 2006 Monday
SECTION: BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL NEWS
ACC-NO: 20060814-BP-EMISSIONS-20060814
LENGTH: 978 words
HEADLINE: Industry fights emissions bill
BYLINE: Corey Washington, The Business Press, San Bernardino, Calif.
BODY:
Aug. 14--Inland Empire manufacturers are joining statewide efforts to defeat proposed legislation that would limit greenhouse gas emissions, which they claim would ramp up production costs.
AB 32, authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions, believed to be a contributing factor in global warming. The legislation, also called the Global Warming Solutions Act, is similar to the Kyoto Accord, an international treaty that places limits on greenhouse gas emissions among companies in more than 163 countries. The state would become the first in the U.S. to adopt such a measure. .
The Global Warming Solutions Act would require greenhouse emissions decrease to 1990 levels by 2020, or more than 16 percent, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
AB 32 was passed by the state Assembly April 11 and the state Senate Environmental Quality Committee approved the bill June 26. The bill requires approval by the full Senate and Gov. Schwarzenegger.
Schwarzenegger has advocated measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Last year, Schwarzenegger signed an executive order to set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and 1990 levels by 2020, similar to AB 32.
Manufacturers are concerned the passage of AB 32 would jack up energy costs and equipment expenses that control or monitor their greenhouse gas emissions.
California Steel Industries in Fontana, a steel-products manufacturer, believes the company "embraces" environmental concerns and takes sufficient measures to control any emissions its facility produces, said Brett Guge, vice president of administration. However, AB 32 has not "scientifically proven" any standards the state adopts would actually curb global warming, he said.
"We're constantly monitoring everything from an environmental standpoint," Guge said.
"At this time, there is nothing that limits us or requires any reporting. We are [only] required to report fuel consumption, which can be converted into greenhouse gas emissions," with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guge said.
The immediate impact of AB 32 is exorbitant energy costs that support the facility's production, Guge said. The bill could cut into the company's profits and significantly affect its employee profit sharing program, he said.
Though Guge is convinced AB 32 could harm California Steel Industries' finances, the company has not performed any cost analysis, he said.
If greenhouse gases "are the cause of global warming, I think a lot of manufacturers would say we need to do something about it, but that has not been the case. One state going in alone doesn't change anything because the manufacturers will move into another state--you've just reduced jobs in California," Guge said.
Guge does not foresee California Steel Industries shifting its operations to another state.
"We will do the right thing. It is just that the right thing hasn't been defined," Guge said.
The California Manufacturers and Technology Association in Sacramento believes AB 32 threatens an industry that generates $250 billion a year in revenue and provides about 1.5 million jobs.
The association believes a thorough study should be compiled and presented before AB 32 is accepted, said Gino Dicaro, spokesman for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
"California is the most efficient industrialized state. [AB 32] shouldn't start in California only, it should start as a national policy to reduce the country's greenhouse gases. If California does anything on its own, there should be an economic safety valve to look at the data after one or two years to see what actual efficiencies we're gaining and how many jobs we're losing. If we do that, we'll be protected from a situation where we gain nothing for limited reductions in global warming," Dicaro said.
The state produced the lowest greenhouse gas emissions among industrialized states in 2000, averaging 10.7 tons per capita, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Indiana produced the highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions with 38.5 tons per capita.
AB 32 would fail to reduce global warming because many other states would not adopt a measure that targets an entire industry and disrupt their economy, Dicaro said.
"There are many arguments out there on both sides of the equation and we're not about to debunk the idea [greenhouse gases] are contributing to global warming," he said.
The Natural Resources Defense Council in New York supports AB 32 and has sponsored the bill since its inception, said Craig Noble, a spokesman at the organization's San Francisco office.
Noble considers manufacturers' fear of losing profits because of AB 32 to be an exaggeration.
Passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act would generate revenue for the state, creating new businesses that are "clean high-tech" and assist existing businesses, Noble claims.
The Climate Action Team, an environmentalists group in Sacramento, compiled a report that suggests the state would gain $4 billion and create 83,000 new jobs if AB 32 could reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The findings were supported by a similar, independent study compiled by University of California at Berkeley.
" In most cases, [environmental initiatives] end up being economic drivers. With AB 32, we expect that if it becomes law, it will spur market change," Noble said.
To see more of The Business Press, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.thebizpress.com. Copyright (c) 2006, The Business Press, San Bernardino, Calif. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2006
Business Press (San Bernardino, California)
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service
August 14, 2006 Monday
SECTION: BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL NEWS
ACC-NO: 20060814-BP-EMISSIONS-20060814
LENGTH: 978 words
HEADLINE: Industry fights emissions bill
BYLINE: Corey Washington, The Business Press, San Bernardino, Calif.
BODY:
Aug. 14--Inland Empire manufacturers are joining statewide efforts to defeat proposed legislation that would limit greenhouse gas emissions, which they claim would ramp up production costs.
AB 32, authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions, believed to be a contributing factor in global warming. The legislation, also called the Global Warming Solutions Act, is similar to the Kyoto Accord, an international treaty that places limits on greenhouse gas emissions among companies in more than 163 countries. The state would become the first in the U.S. to adopt such a measure. .
The Global Warming Solutions Act would require greenhouse emissions decrease to 1990 levels by 2020, or more than 16 percent, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
AB 32 was passed by the state Assembly April 11 and the state Senate Environmental Quality Committee approved the bill June 26. The bill requires approval by the full Senate and Gov. Schwarzenegger.
Schwarzenegger has advocated measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Last year, Schwarzenegger signed an executive order to set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and 1990 levels by 2020, similar to AB 32.
Manufacturers are concerned the passage of AB 32 would jack up energy costs and equipment expenses that control or monitor their greenhouse gas emissions.
California Steel Industries in Fontana, a steel-products manufacturer, believes the company "embraces" environmental concerns and takes sufficient measures to control any emissions its facility produces, said Brett Guge, vice president of administration. However, AB 32 has not "scientifically proven" any standards the state adopts would actually curb global warming, he said.
"We're constantly monitoring everything from an environmental standpoint," Guge said.
"At this time, there is nothing that limits us or requires any reporting. We are [only] required to report fuel consumption, which can be converted into greenhouse gas emissions," with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guge said.
The immediate impact of AB 32 is exorbitant energy costs that support the facility's production, Guge said. The bill could cut into the company's profits and significantly affect its employee profit sharing program, he said.
Though Guge is convinced AB 32 could harm California Steel Industries' finances, the company has not performed any cost analysis, he said.
If greenhouse gases "are the cause of global warming, I think a lot of manufacturers would say we need to do something about it, but that has not been the case. One state going in alone doesn't change anything because the manufacturers will move into another state--you've just reduced jobs in California," Guge said.
Guge does not foresee California Steel Industries shifting its operations to another state.
"We will do the right thing. It is just that the right thing hasn't been defined," Guge said.
The California Manufacturers and Technology Association in Sacramento believes AB 32 threatens an industry that generates $250 billion a year in revenue and provides about 1.5 million jobs.
The association believes a thorough study should be compiled and presented before AB 32 is accepted, said Gino Dicaro, spokesman for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
"California is the most efficient industrialized state. [AB 32] shouldn't start in California only, it should start as a national policy to reduce the country's greenhouse gases. If California does anything on its own, there should be an economic safety valve to look at the data after one or two years to see what actual efficiencies we're gaining and how many jobs we're losing. If we do that, we'll be protected from a situation where we gain nothing for limited reductions in global warming," Dicaro said.
The state produced the lowest greenhouse gas emissions among industrialized states in 2000, averaging 10.7 tons per capita, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Indiana produced the highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions with 38.5 tons per capita.
AB 32 would fail to reduce global warming because many other states would not adopt a measure that targets an entire industry and disrupt their economy, Dicaro said.
"There are many arguments out there on both sides of the equation and we're not about to debunk the idea [greenhouse gases] are contributing to global warming," he said.
The Natural Resources Defense Council in New York supports AB 32 and has sponsored the bill since its inception, said Craig Noble, a spokesman at the organization's San Francisco office.
Noble considers manufacturers' fear of losing profits because of AB 32 to be an exaggeration.
Passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act would generate revenue for the state, creating new businesses that are "clean high-tech" and assist existing businesses, Noble claims.
The Climate Action Team, an environmentalists group in Sacramento, compiled a report that suggests the state would gain $4 billion and create 83,000 new jobs if AB 32 could reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The findings were supported by a similar, independent study compiled by University of California at Berkeley.
" In most cases, [environmental initiatives] end up being economic drivers. With AB 32, we expect that if it becomes law, it will spur market change," Noble said.
To see more of The Business Press, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.thebizpress.com. Copyright (c) 2006, The Business Press, San Bernardino, Calif. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2006
California pulls out ahead of the packwith law to reduce greenhouse gases
Copyright 2006 The Morning Call, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania)
September 4, 2006 Monday
FIFTH EDITION
SECTION: OPINION; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 481 words
HEADLINE: California pulls out ahead of the packwith law to reduce greenhouse gases
BYLINE: The Morning Call
BODY:
California emerged last week as the leading state in the nation to address greenhouse gas emissions with legislative approval of caps on carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was ready to sign the California Global Warming Solutions Act -- a signal from a fellow Republican to the Bush administration that limiting efforts to reduce greenhouse gases to voluntary steps only is an insufficient response to climate change.
California's legislation requires major industries, including utility plants, oil and gas refineries, and cement kilns, to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020. However, businesses will be able to buy, sell and trade emission credits with other companies.
The California Air Resources Board, an 11-member panel appointed by the governor, will identify the "market-based compliance mechanism" that will help the industries comply with the caps. The board will start its work by measuring the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases coming from each major pollution source. Regulators then will set limits for each facility and industry, to take effect in 2012, with emissions decreasing in eight years to 1990 levels.
The legislation also prohibits California from entering long-term contracts with out-of-state utilities that don't reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. But there is a so-called "safety valve": the governor can delay the mandate on emission caps in case of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or other serious emergency.
California has been of particular interest to environmental groups because the most populated state in the nation also is the world's 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The state previously enacted some renewable energy policies and passed a law in 2004 to reduce tail pipe emissions from vehicles.
Now, California is a model for other states that are frustrated by the inaction of federal officials. There are more than 100 climate-related bills pending in Congress -- stuck in limbo -- calling for a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
California also should be a model for other countries. Though most industrialized countries have ratified the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol for reducing emissions of gases from fossil fuels, with the United States an embarrassing exception, the participating countries aren't doing as well as expected. Reuters reported last week that submissions to the U.N. Climate Secretariat in Bonn showed that emissions from 40 industrial nations rose 1.6 percent overall to 17.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2004, compared to 2003.
That data isn't perfect. It includes Turkey, where emissions are rising, but excludes China and India, two big sources of greenhouse gases. But California's initiative is particularly significant, because the United States is the biggest source of greenhouse gases.
NOTES: Only one edition was published on Monday, September 4, 2006 due to the Labor Day holiday.
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2006
All Rights Reserved
Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania)
September 4, 2006 Monday
FIFTH EDITION
SECTION: OPINION; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 481 words
HEADLINE: California pulls out ahead of the packwith law to reduce greenhouse gases
BYLINE: The Morning Call
BODY:
California emerged last week as the leading state in the nation to address greenhouse gas emissions with legislative approval of caps on carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was ready to sign the California Global Warming Solutions Act -- a signal from a fellow Republican to the Bush administration that limiting efforts to reduce greenhouse gases to voluntary steps only is an insufficient response to climate change.
California's legislation requires major industries, including utility plants, oil and gas refineries, and cement kilns, to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020. However, businesses will be able to buy, sell and trade emission credits with other companies.
The California Air Resources Board, an 11-member panel appointed by the governor, will identify the "market-based compliance mechanism" that will help the industries comply with the caps. The board will start its work by measuring the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases coming from each major pollution source. Regulators then will set limits for each facility and industry, to take effect in 2012, with emissions decreasing in eight years to 1990 levels.
The legislation also prohibits California from entering long-term contracts with out-of-state utilities that don't reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. But there is a so-called "safety valve": the governor can delay the mandate on emission caps in case of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or other serious emergency.
California has been of particular interest to environmental groups because the most populated state in the nation also is the world's 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The state previously enacted some renewable energy policies and passed a law in 2004 to reduce tail pipe emissions from vehicles.
Now, California is a model for other states that are frustrated by the inaction of federal officials. There are more than 100 climate-related bills pending in Congress -- stuck in limbo -- calling for a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
California also should be a model for other countries. Though most industrialized countries have ratified the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol for reducing emissions of gases from fossil fuels, with the United States an embarrassing exception, the participating countries aren't doing as well as expected. Reuters reported last week that submissions to the U.N. Climate Secretariat in Bonn showed that emissions from 40 industrial nations rose 1.6 percent overall to 17.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2004, compared to 2003.
That data isn't perfect. It includes Turkey, where emissions are rising, but excludes China and India, two big sources of greenhouse gases. But California's initiative is particularly significant, because the United States is the biggest source of greenhouse gases.
NOTES: Only one edition was published on Monday, September 4, 2006 due to the Labor Day holiday.
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2006
A Law to Cut Emissions? Deal With It
The New York Times
A Law to Cut Emissions? Deal With It
October 21, 2006 Saturday
By JANE L. LEVERE
In August, Peter A. Darbee, chairman, chief executive and president of PG&E, owner of Pacific Gas and Electric, broke rank with his peers by supporting a measure in California that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are widely blamed for global warming. Mr. Darbee discussed his decision and other initiatives in an interview on a recent visit to New York. Following are excerpts:
Q. Why do you support California's Global Warming Solutions Act, which will require utilities and other companies to make their operations even more energy efficient?
A. I dove into the issue with our senior team more deeply than other executives. We engaged in a process of scientific inquiry. Out of that we developed a conviction that the earth is warming, that mankind's responsible and the need to take action is now. I've always been one who's been driven by my conscience as to what is the right thing to do. And we came to the conclusion that that was the right thing to do.
Secondly, the thought was, as a leader, what you want to do is anticipate trends in the business environment and then position a company optimally within that context.
Rather than sitting there and denying that global warming is a problem and climate change is a problem, my reaction was to accept it and to go with the flow to understand the trend, and then say, how can I position PG&E to deal with that challenge, and then how can I turn a challenge into an opportunity.
Q. What do you say to critics who contend that this bill will make California's economy less competitive?
A. In the past, California has stepped out and been a leader on environmental legislation, and its economy has continued to grow probably faster than the average state economy in the United States. California will find a way to continue to grow, notwithstanding this piece of legislation.
Q. How can California and companies based there achieve the goals mandated by the bill?
A. Take a look at Fetzer winery as an example. Ninety-five percent of their waste they can keep on-premise and reuse, 5 percent they ship off, and that is a dramatic reduction. When I went there, their whole building was constructed with energy-efficiency in mind. The walls are pretty thick, and if you look up at the skylights, they have windows that open up at night and let the cool air in, cool down the place. The cool air goes into the walls, and then they close those skylights in the morning, and then they put reflector material up to reflect the heat. They have essentially very little need for air-conditioning at all, because the energy that was lost from the walls is then reabsorbed during the course of the day.
Q. Your ''SmartMeter'' program will allow customers to take advantage of electricity prices that will vary by season and time of day. What percentage of your customers do you estimate will use it?
A. We anticipate 15 percent to 20 percent of our customers will sign up for the program voluntarily, but this could go as high as 30 percent to 40 percent, depending on the level of customer satisfaction and the impact of the marketing strategy that will highlight customer benefits.
Q. How prevalent are such programs in the United States?
A. There are some, but they're limited programs; this would be the first really large-scale deployment, ours will be 10 million meters. We've done a trial with about 5,000 meters, and then beginning in 2007, we'll deploy on a large-scale basis and it will take four years to get 10 million meters in. We've taken the leadership role in California; assuming that it is successful, I believe it will spread across the U.S.
Q. You have completed the nuclear reactor technology program at M.I.T. What is this program and what has it prepared you for?
A. It is a monthlong course, which is designed for utility executives that have involvement with nuclear reactors. The idea is not to teach you to run one; what it does is give you a pretty good understanding of how a nuclear reactor works, the extreme importance of safety to your employees and the public, it gives you an idea of the things that can go wrong in a nuclear reactor, and it gives you the capability that as you're interacting with the people that operate the nuclear reactor, that you can be more effective in managing them, understanding of the facility. We have two nuclear reactors in San Luis Obispo.
SOURCE
A Law to Cut Emissions? Deal With It
October 21, 2006 Saturday
By JANE L. LEVERE
In August, Peter A. Darbee, chairman, chief executive and president of PG&E, owner of Pacific Gas and Electric, broke rank with his peers by supporting a measure in California that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are widely blamed for global warming. Mr. Darbee discussed his decision and other initiatives in an interview on a recent visit to New York. Following are excerpts:
Q. Why do you support California's Global Warming Solutions Act, which will require utilities and other companies to make their operations even more energy efficient?
A. I dove into the issue with our senior team more deeply than other executives. We engaged in a process of scientific inquiry. Out of that we developed a conviction that the earth is warming, that mankind's responsible and the need to take action is now. I've always been one who's been driven by my conscience as to what is the right thing to do. And we came to the conclusion that that was the right thing to do.
Secondly, the thought was, as a leader, what you want to do is anticipate trends in the business environment and then position a company optimally within that context.
Rather than sitting there and denying that global warming is a problem and climate change is a problem, my reaction was to accept it and to go with the flow to understand the trend, and then say, how can I position PG&E to deal with that challenge, and then how can I turn a challenge into an opportunity.
Q. What do you say to critics who contend that this bill will make California's economy less competitive?
A. In the past, California has stepped out and been a leader on environmental legislation, and its economy has continued to grow probably faster than the average state economy in the United States. California will find a way to continue to grow, notwithstanding this piece of legislation.
Q. How can California and companies based there achieve the goals mandated by the bill?
A. Take a look at Fetzer winery as an example. Ninety-five percent of their waste they can keep on-premise and reuse, 5 percent they ship off, and that is a dramatic reduction. When I went there, their whole building was constructed with energy-efficiency in mind. The walls are pretty thick, and if you look up at the skylights, they have windows that open up at night and let the cool air in, cool down the place. The cool air goes into the walls, and then they close those skylights in the morning, and then they put reflector material up to reflect the heat. They have essentially very little need for air-conditioning at all, because the energy that was lost from the walls is then reabsorbed during the course of the day.
Q. Your ''SmartMeter'' program will allow customers to take advantage of electricity prices that will vary by season and time of day. What percentage of your customers do you estimate will use it?
A. We anticipate 15 percent to 20 percent of our customers will sign up for the program voluntarily, but this could go as high as 30 percent to 40 percent, depending on the level of customer satisfaction and the impact of the marketing strategy that will highlight customer benefits.
Q. How prevalent are such programs in the United States?
A. There are some, but they're limited programs; this would be the first really large-scale deployment, ours will be 10 million meters. We've done a trial with about 5,000 meters, and then beginning in 2007, we'll deploy on a large-scale basis and it will take four years to get 10 million meters in. We've taken the leadership role in California; assuming that it is successful, I believe it will spread across the U.S.
Q. You have completed the nuclear reactor technology program at M.I.T. What is this program and what has it prepared you for?
A. It is a monthlong course, which is designed for utility executives that have involvement with nuclear reactors. The idea is not to teach you to run one; what it does is give you a pretty good understanding of how a nuclear reactor works, the extreme importance of safety to your employees and the public, it gives you an idea of the things that can go wrong in a nuclear reactor, and it gives you the capability that as you're interacting with the people that operate the nuclear reactor, that you can be more effective in managing them, understanding of the facility. We have two nuclear reactors in San Luis Obispo.
SOURCE
United States: Climate Change: California Global Warming Solutions Act Of 2006
Copyright 2006 Mondaq Ltd.
All Rights Reserved
Mondaq Business Briefing
September 7, 2006
LENGTH: 1752 words
HEADLINE: United States: Climate Change: California Global Warming Solutions Act Of 2006
BYLINE: By Michael Barr, Tim Wright, William R. Huss, Peter H. Wyckoff, David R. Farabee and Kevin M. Fong
BODY:
Yesterday, on the last day of its two-year session, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 32, the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006." Passage by the Legislature followed an "historic agreement" between the legislative leadership and Governor Schwarzenegger. The Governor is now expected to sign the bill into law during September. Once signed, the bill will become effective on January 1, 2007 and will establish the first comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory program in the United States. The California program will directly regulate GHG emissions from most industries in California and will affect business and the economy throughout California, the nation and the entire globe.
The bill does not contain elaborate findings on the nature or scope of global climate change. The bill assumes that GHG reductions are necessary and beneficial.
Unlike nearly all other environmental laws, the bill does not contain detailed control measures. Instead, the bill establishes a statewide "greenhouse gas emissions limit" measured in tons of carbon dioxide equivalents during a given year. The level of the limit must be "equivalent" to the statewide GHG emissions level in 1990. To make this approach work, by January 1, 2008, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) must "determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emission level was in 1990," based on the ARB's evaluation of the "best available scientific, technological, and economic information on greenhouse gas emissions." The ARB must then develop an implementation program to achieve the limit by 2020, and must adopt GHG control measures "to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions from sources or categories of sources."
The bill's GHG emissions limit remains in place until otherwise amended or successfully appealed. It is widely assumed that levels of statewide GHG emissions must be reduced by approximately 25% to achieve the AB32 greenhouse gas limit, but it is impossible to determine that number until the ARB performs its highly complex - and possibly highly uncertain and contentious - re-creation of 1990 GHG emission levels. The bill requires ARB to determine GHG emissions both inside and outside of California, considerably complicating ARB's task.
Here is a brief timetable of the major ARB actions required by the bill.
Key AB32 Implementation Dates
On or Before:
Action
June 30, 2007 (9 months)1
ARB must list discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures. [new H&SC Para. 38560.5(a)]
January 1, 2008 (15 months)1
*
ARB must determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is "equivalent" to that level, to be achieved by 2020. [new H&SC Para. 38550]
*
*
ARB must adopt regulations to require the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. [new H&SC Para. 3853
*
January 1, 2009 (2 years)2
ARB must prepare and approve a "Scoping Plan, as that term is understood by the [ARB]" for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions from sources or categories of sources of GHG by 2020. [new H&SC Para. 38561(a)]
January 1, 2010 (3 years)2
ARB must adopt regulations to implement the measures identified on the June 30, 2007 list of discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures. [new H&SC Para. 38560.5(b)]
January 1, 2011 (4 years)2
*
ARB must adopt GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures by regulation to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions in furtherance of achieving the statewide GHG emissions limit. [new H&SC Para. 38562(a)]
*
ARB may adopt a regulation establishing a system of market-based declining annual aggregate emission limits for sources or categories of sources that emit GHG emissions, applicable from 01/01/2012 - 12/31/2020, inclusive. [new H&SC Para. 3856
*
January 1, 2012 (5 years)2
Operative date of GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures to be adopted by ARB by 01/01/2011. [new H&SC Para. 38562(a)]
Every 5 years after 01/01/2009 - first update due by January 1, 2014
ARB must update its "Scoping Plan" for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions of GHG emissions at least once every five years. [new H&SC Para. 38561(h)]
2020
Date for achievement of statewide GHG emissions limit [new H&SC Para. 38550]
The State of California has already started to take steps which should assist ARB to meet this timetable. For example, the Governor's Climate Action Team prepared a comprehensive "Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature" dated March 2006.3 This Report describes over 40 measures to achieve GHG emissions reductions in California. In AB32, the Legislature expressed its intent that the Climate Action Team (CAT) established by the Governor continue its role in coordinating overall climate policy in California.
From the initial CAT list of measures developed to date, it is clear that AB32 can have dramatic and farreaching effects on individual facilities of all kinds in California, on broad categories of industries in California and on the entire economy of California and perhaps the nation. In just one example of the bill's scope, the bill provides special requirements for utilities and energy facilities under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. The bill assigns to California the emissions of GHG "from the generation of electricity delivered to and consumed in California, accounting for transmission and distribution line losses, whether the electricity is generated in state or imported." Thus, GHG emissions from coal-fired or gas-fired powerplants located outside of California throughout the West - and even in Canada or Mexico - may be attributed to California's GHG emissions inventory.
To attempt to moderate the economic impacts of the program, this bill includes several key provisions:
*
GHG emissions reduction measures must be "cost-effective." "Cost-effectiveness" is defined to mean "the cost per unit of reduced emissions of greenhouse gases adjusted for its global warming potential." Very significantly, however, the bill does not include a cost cap.
*
*
At the Governor's request, the bill includes a provision allowing the Governor to defer deadlines for compliance with individual regulations year by year in the event of "extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic events, or threat of significant economic harm." The Governor can also declare emergencies resulting from the program, as Governor Davis did during the California energy crisis of 2001.
*
*
Again at the Governor's request, the bill includes market-based compliance mechanisms. ARB may, but is not required to, include market-based compliance mechanisms in its GHG control regulations. However, the bill also includes significant limitations and hurdles which may limit the vlaue of market-based GHG compliance mechanisms in California.
*
*
The bill requires the ARB to adopt methods for quantifying "voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions." The ARB must also identify opportunities from "all verifiable and enforceable voluntary actions."
*
*
The bill requires the ARB to take into account the relative contribution of different sources and source categories to statewide GHG emissions and must "recommend a de minimis threshold of greenhouse gas emissions below which emission reduction requirements will not apply."
*
*
The bill requires the ARB to appoint an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to advise ARB on research and development opportunities, including funding, partnership, technology transfer, investment, and incentive opportunities. However, it is not clear how ARB can or must use the Committee's advice to achieve "the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions."
*
The bill contains explicit savings clauses. For example, the bill does not affect any state agency's existing authority to require GHG emission reductions, and public agencies are not relieved of their duty to comply with applicable Federal law. Also, the bill explicitly states that nothing in the bill "shall limit or expand the existing authority of any [local or regional air pollution control or air quality management] district." The Legislature contemplates legal challenges to the bill and provides that its provisions are "severable."
Despite the scope and importance of the bill, it leaves much unsaid. It delegates an unprecedented level of discretion to a state agency (ARB) to determine the goals of the program, the means of achieving those goals, and even the penalties for failing to do so. The bill does not assure that the ARB has adequate additional resources to accomplish all of its tasks on time, with adequate public input, and in compliance with the "cost-effectiveness" and other requirements of the bill. The bill authorizes the ARB to impose fees on GHG sources. According to early estimates of costs to establish this new program, the ARB may need 100 new employees and $10-20 million in budget resources during the current fiscal year alone.
Conclusion
It is now clear that California is committed to establishing a major GHG emission reduction program which will ramp up and take effect over the next few years. However, in its haste to pass this legislation, the state threatens to repeat its electric deregulation debacle of 2001. One long-time California political pundit characterizes AB32 as "political symbolism with consequences."4 It is unclear whether AB32 will fail like California's electric deregulation program or, instead, will succeed in "developing a market-based system that makes California a world leader in the effort to reduce carbon emissions."5
Live Link
State of California Climate Action Team Report
Footnotes
1. From October 1, 2006.
2. From January 1, 2007 effective date.
3.See http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/index.html.
4. Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee, August 30, 2006.
5. Governor Schwarzenegger, Press Release, August 30, 2006.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your
specific circumstances.
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
101 West Broadway
Suite 1800
San Diego
CA 92101-8219
UNITED STATES
Fax: 619236 1995
E-mail:
lisa.christensen@pillsburylaw.com
URL:
www.pillsburylaw.com
(c) Mondaq Ltd, 2006 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com
LOAD-DATE: September 11, 2006
All Rights Reserved
Mondaq Business Briefing
September 7, 2006
LENGTH: 1752 words
HEADLINE: United States: Climate Change: California Global Warming Solutions Act Of 2006
BYLINE: By Michael Barr, Tim Wright, William R. Huss, Peter H. Wyckoff, David R. Farabee and Kevin M. Fong
BODY:
Yesterday, on the last day of its two-year session, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 32, the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006." Passage by the Legislature followed an "historic agreement" between the legislative leadership and Governor Schwarzenegger. The Governor is now expected to sign the bill into law during September. Once signed, the bill will become effective on January 1, 2007 and will establish the first comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory program in the United States. The California program will directly regulate GHG emissions from most industries in California and will affect business and the economy throughout California, the nation and the entire globe.
The bill does not contain elaborate findings on the nature or scope of global climate change. The bill assumes that GHG reductions are necessary and beneficial.
Unlike nearly all other environmental laws, the bill does not contain detailed control measures. Instead, the bill establishes a statewide "greenhouse gas emissions limit" measured in tons of carbon dioxide equivalents during a given year. The level of the limit must be "equivalent" to the statewide GHG emissions level in 1990. To make this approach work, by January 1, 2008, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) must "determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emission level was in 1990," based on the ARB's evaluation of the "best available scientific, technological, and economic information on greenhouse gas emissions." The ARB must then develop an implementation program to achieve the limit by 2020, and must adopt GHG control measures "to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions from sources or categories of sources."
The bill's GHG emissions limit remains in place until otherwise amended or successfully appealed. It is widely assumed that levels of statewide GHG emissions must be reduced by approximately 25% to achieve the AB32 greenhouse gas limit, but it is impossible to determine that number until the ARB performs its highly complex - and possibly highly uncertain and contentious - re-creation of 1990 GHG emission levels. The bill requires ARB to determine GHG emissions both inside and outside of California, considerably complicating ARB's task.
Here is a brief timetable of the major ARB actions required by the bill.
Key AB32 Implementation Dates
On or Before:
Action
June 30, 2007 (9 months)1
ARB must list discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures. [new H&SC Para. 38560.5(a)]
January 1, 2008 (15 months)1
*
ARB must determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is "equivalent" to that level, to be achieved by 2020. [new H&SC Para. 38550]
*
*
ARB must adopt regulations to require the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. [new H&SC Para. 3853
*
January 1, 2009 (2 years)2
ARB must prepare and approve a "Scoping Plan, as that term is understood by the [ARB]" for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions from sources or categories of sources of GHG by 2020. [new H&SC Para. 38561(a)]
January 1, 2010 (3 years)2
ARB must adopt regulations to implement the measures identified on the June 30, 2007 list of discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures. [new H&SC Para. 38560.5(b)]
January 1, 2011 (4 years)2
*
ARB must adopt GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures by regulation to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions in furtherance of achieving the statewide GHG emissions limit. [new H&SC Para. 38562(a)]
*
ARB may adopt a regulation establishing a system of market-based declining annual aggregate emission limits for sources or categories of sources that emit GHG emissions, applicable from 01/01/2012 - 12/31/2020, inclusive. [new H&SC Para. 3856
*
January 1, 2012 (5 years)2
Operative date of GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures to be adopted by ARB by 01/01/2011. [new H&SC Para. 38562(a)]
Every 5 years after 01/01/2009 - first update due by January 1, 2014
ARB must update its "Scoping Plan" for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions of GHG emissions at least once every five years. [new H&SC Para. 38561(h)]
2020
Date for achievement of statewide GHG emissions limit [new H&SC Para. 38550]
The State of California has already started to take steps which should assist ARB to meet this timetable. For example, the Governor's Climate Action Team prepared a comprehensive "Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature" dated March 2006.3 This Report describes over 40 measures to achieve GHG emissions reductions in California. In AB32, the Legislature expressed its intent that the Climate Action Team (CAT) established by the Governor continue its role in coordinating overall climate policy in California.
From the initial CAT list of measures developed to date, it is clear that AB32 can have dramatic and farreaching effects on individual facilities of all kinds in California, on broad categories of industries in California and on the entire economy of California and perhaps the nation. In just one example of the bill's scope, the bill provides special requirements for utilities and energy facilities under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. The bill assigns to California the emissions of GHG "from the generation of electricity delivered to and consumed in California, accounting for transmission and distribution line losses, whether the electricity is generated in state or imported." Thus, GHG emissions from coal-fired or gas-fired powerplants located outside of California throughout the West - and even in Canada or Mexico - may be attributed to California's GHG emissions inventory.
To attempt to moderate the economic impacts of the program, this bill includes several key provisions:
*
GHG emissions reduction measures must be "cost-effective." "Cost-effectiveness" is defined to mean "the cost per unit of reduced emissions of greenhouse gases adjusted for its global warming potential." Very significantly, however, the bill does not include a cost cap.
*
*
At the Governor's request, the bill includes a provision allowing the Governor to defer deadlines for compliance with individual regulations year by year in the event of "extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic events, or threat of significant economic harm." The Governor can also declare emergencies resulting from the program, as Governor Davis did during the California energy crisis of 2001.
*
*
Again at the Governor's request, the bill includes market-based compliance mechanisms. ARB may, but is not required to, include market-based compliance mechanisms in its GHG control regulations. However, the bill also includes significant limitations and hurdles which may limit the vlaue of market-based GHG compliance mechanisms in California.
*
*
The bill requires the ARB to adopt methods for quantifying "voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions." The ARB must also identify opportunities from "all verifiable and enforceable voluntary actions."
*
*
The bill requires the ARB to take into account the relative contribution of different sources and source categories to statewide GHG emissions and must "recommend a de minimis threshold of greenhouse gas emissions below which emission reduction requirements will not apply."
*
*
The bill requires the ARB to appoint an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to advise ARB on research and development opportunities, including funding, partnership, technology transfer, investment, and incentive opportunities. However, it is not clear how ARB can or must use the Committee's advice to achieve "the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions."
*
The bill contains explicit savings clauses. For example, the bill does not affect any state agency's existing authority to require GHG emission reductions, and public agencies are not relieved of their duty to comply with applicable Federal law. Also, the bill explicitly states that nothing in the bill "shall limit or expand the existing authority of any [local or regional air pollution control or air quality management] district." The Legislature contemplates legal challenges to the bill and provides that its provisions are "severable."
Despite the scope and importance of the bill, it leaves much unsaid. It delegates an unprecedented level of discretion to a state agency (ARB) to determine the goals of the program, the means of achieving those goals, and even the penalties for failing to do so. The bill does not assure that the ARB has adequate additional resources to accomplish all of its tasks on time, with adequate public input, and in compliance with the "cost-effectiveness" and other requirements of the bill. The bill authorizes the ARB to impose fees on GHG sources. According to early estimates of costs to establish this new program, the ARB may need 100 new employees and $10-20 million in budget resources during the current fiscal year alone.
Conclusion
It is now clear that California is committed to establishing a major GHG emission reduction program which will ramp up and take effect over the next few years. However, in its haste to pass this legislation, the state threatens to repeat its electric deregulation debacle of 2001. One long-time California political pundit characterizes AB32 as "political symbolism with consequences."4 It is unclear whether AB32 will fail like California's electric deregulation program or, instead, will succeed in "developing a market-based system that makes California a world leader in the effort to reduce carbon emissions."5
Live Link
State of California Climate Action Team Report
Footnotes
1. From October 1, 2006.
2. From January 1, 2007 effective date.
3.See http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/index.html.
4. Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee, August 30, 2006.
5. Governor Schwarzenegger, Press Release, August 30, 2006.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your
specific circumstances.
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
101 West Broadway
Suite 1800
San Diego
CA 92101-8219
UNITED STATES
Fax: 619236 1995
E-mail:
lisa.christensen@pillsburylaw.com
URL:
www.pillsburylaw.com
(c) Mondaq Ltd, 2006 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com
LOAD-DATE: September 11, 2006
Pro: 'Green' strategy can generate greenbacks galore for Calif. economy
Copyright 2006 The Salt Lake Tribune
All Rights Reserved
The Salt Lake Tribune
September 14, 2006 Thursday
SECTION: OPINION; Columnists
LENGTH: 729 words
HEADLINE: Pro: 'Green' strategy can generate greenbacks galore for Calif. economy
BYLINE: By Wayne Madsen
BODY:
(The writer is addressing the question, "Will California's new limits on greenhouse gas emissions help the state's economy and reduce global warming?")
WASHINGTON - A "green economy" represents the best of two disparate worlds - safeguarding the environment while creating a new industrial base resulting in economic growth and prosperity.
And the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, passed by Democratic and Republican legislators and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, takes a huge step in bringing California into line with the emission caps and greenhouse gas reductions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol.
Despite claims to the contrary, the nation's first sweeping carbon curbs law - far from hurting California's huge economy - will provide a boost to its burgeoning "green business" sector. Other states should consider following suit.
California, as the world's 12th-largest greenhouse gas polluter, simply bypassed the foot-dragging Bush administration in adopting its own environmental policy in line with reigning international standards.
The state is set to cap its carbon-dioxide emissions by 2020 at 1990 levels - an eyebrow-raising 25 percent reduction. Mandatory reductions come into effect in 2012. Under the new law, the California Air Resources Board will monitor greenhouse gas emissions and set policies for carbon credit trading.
Although there is an opt-out clause in the California law if an economic crisis is declared, the new emissions mandates provide an impetus for eco-friendly, profit-making businesses.
Creating what likely will be the world's largest "green industrial" base will spur the construction of power plants that do not burn environmentally-destructive coal and oil.
Clean-burning natural gas utilities will be among the first to get a much-needed economic boost from the new law. Under the act, natural gas-powered plants that emit less pollution can sell "carbon credits" or "carbon permits" to more pollution-intensive coal and oil-burning plants that will be more expensive to clean up.
Already, the Chicago Climate Exchange, the first greenhouse credit trading market in North America, is seeing business pick up in the trading of credits by companies that are voluntarily participating in the program. California's law is spurring other states to adopt similar measures and will pump even more cash into Chicago's exchange and perhaps create other eco-commodity trading centers in the United States.
California provides numerous incentives for businesses to go green and, so far, the program has been successful. Many environmentally conscious customers opt to do business with green-certified companies. Venture capitalists, seeing the potential for huge profits in the growth of less-polluting industries, championed the global warming bill's passage.
The new law also will provide a kick-start for the renewable energy industry, including solar, wind and geothermal power generation. There will be incentives to develop cleaner fuels, such as those containing ethanol and other cleaner-burning ingredients.
A University of California at Berkeley study concluded the California law will pump as much as $74 billion into the state's economy and create 89,000 jobs by 2020 - creating, in effect, a boom that rivals the state's original Gold Rush.
And California's new green industries may find lucrative overseas markets for eco-friendly technologies with China and India looming as potential cash-rich customers - a development that should dramatically slow America' skyrocketing trade-deficit.
California's mammoth power-generating industry also is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The technology it develops to meet that objective holds promise of becoming a lucrative cash crop as well.
However, new ideas on eco-friendly energy initiatives are not popular with many obstinate oil industry and chamber of commerce leaders - individuals, who, under the Bush-Cheney administration, all too often have become pampered fat cats.
The tide is finally turning against the corporate naysayers who've repeatedly sabotage the drive to produce a cleaner, healthier planet.
California - always a global trendsetter - now has found one trend that transcends surfboards and Barbie Dolls and just may eventually save Mother Earth.
---
Wayne Madsen is a contributing writer for the liberal Online Journal http://www.onlinejournal.com.
LOAD-DATE: September 15, 2006
All Rights Reserved
The Salt Lake Tribune
September 14, 2006 Thursday
SECTION: OPINION; Columnists
LENGTH: 729 words
HEADLINE: Pro: 'Green' strategy can generate greenbacks galore for Calif. economy
BYLINE: By Wayne Madsen
BODY:
(The writer is addressing the question, "Will California's new limits on greenhouse gas emissions help the state's economy and reduce global warming?")
WASHINGTON - A "green economy" represents the best of two disparate worlds - safeguarding the environment while creating a new industrial base resulting in economic growth and prosperity.
And the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, passed by Democratic and Republican legislators and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, takes a huge step in bringing California into line with the emission caps and greenhouse gas reductions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol.
Despite claims to the contrary, the nation's first sweeping carbon curbs law - far from hurting California's huge economy - will provide a boost to its burgeoning "green business" sector. Other states should consider following suit.
California, as the world's 12th-largest greenhouse gas polluter, simply bypassed the foot-dragging Bush administration in adopting its own environmental policy in line with reigning international standards.
The state is set to cap its carbon-dioxide emissions by 2020 at 1990 levels - an eyebrow-raising 25 percent reduction. Mandatory reductions come into effect in 2012. Under the new law, the California Air Resources Board will monitor greenhouse gas emissions and set policies for carbon credit trading.
Although there is an opt-out clause in the California law if an economic crisis is declared, the new emissions mandates provide an impetus for eco-friendly, profit-making businesses.
Creating what likely will be the world's largest "green industrial" base will spur the construction of power plants that do not burn environmentally-destructive coal and oil.
Clean-burning natural gas utilities will be among the first to get a much-needed economic boost from the new law. Under the act, natural gas-powered plants that emit less pollution can sell "carbon credits" or "carbon permits" to more pollution-intensive coal and oil-burning plants that will be more expensive to clean up.
Already, the Chicago Climate Exchange, the first greenhouse credit trading market in North America, is seeing business pick up in the trading of credits by companies that are voluntarily participating in the program. California's law is spurring other states to adopt similar measures and will pump even more cash into Chicago's exchange and perhaps create other eco-commodity trading centers in the United States.
California provides numerous incentives for businesses to go green and, so far, the program has been successful. Many environmentally conscious customers opt to do business with green-certified companies. Venture capitalists, seeing the potential for huge profits in the growth of less-polluting industries, championed the global warming bill's passage.
The new law also will provide a kick-start for the renewable energy industry, including solar, wind and geothermal power generation. There will be incentives to develop cleaner fuels, such as those containing ethanol and other cleaner-burning ingredients.
A University of California at Berkeley study concluded the California law will pump as much as $74 billion into the state's economy and create 89,000 jobs by 2020 - creating, in effect, a boom that rivals the state's original Gold Rush.
And California's new green industries may find lucrative overseas markets for eco-friendly technologies with China and India looming as potential cash-rich customers - a development that should dramatically slow America' skyrocketing trade-deficit.
California's mammoth power-generating industry also is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The technology it develops to meet that objective holds promise of becoming a lucrative cash crop as well.
However, new ideas on eco-friendly energy initiatives are not popular with many obstinate oil industry and chamber of commerce leaders - individuals, who, under the Bush-Cheney administration, all too often have become pampered fat cats.
The tide is finally turning against the corporate naysayers who've repeatedly sabotage the drive to produce a cleaner, healthier planet.
California - always a global trendsetter - now has found one trend that transcends surfboards and Barbie Dolls and just may eventually save Mother Earth.
---
Wayne Madsen is a contributing writer for the liberal Online Journal http://www.onlinejournal.com.
LOAD-DATE: September 15, 2006
Global warming bill tops lawmakers' summer agenda.
Copyright 2006 Environment and Energy Publishing, LLC
Greenwire
June 26, 2006 Monday
SECTION: SPOTLIGHT Vol. 10 No. 9
LENGTH: 1571 words
HEADLINE: CALIFORNIA: Global warming bill tops lawmakers' summer agenda
BODY:
Arthur O'Donnell, special to Greenwire
Legislative deadlines and continued delays to finalizing a $130 billion state budget package are driving California lawmakers into a frenzy of activity this week in Sacramento.
The session's marquee bill is the "California Global Warming Solutions Act," which reflects and expands on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) policy for cutting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Committees in the Assembly and Senate face a Friday deadline to take up measures that have been passed by the opposite house, and July 7 is supposed to be the last day of business before a monthlong summer recess. However, if a budget is not passed by that date, lawmakers may be called into special session.
Committee meetings this week are packed with energy and environmental measures that deal with a range of issues from soot and greenhouse-gas emissions to toxic materials and volatile energy prices. Last-minute deals and amendments abound as bill sponsors struggle to keep proposals alive or move provisions from defeated measures into other vehicles. As is common in the Capitol during this period, there is no guarantee that a surviving measure will resemble its original contents.
A prime example is A.B. 457, the gasoline-price anti-gouging bill introduced this month by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D). The bill passed the Assembly last year as a state pension reform bill; but it has been gutted and amended three times -- covering such disparate issues as nonprofit fundraising and train-automobile collisions -- before being taken over and rewritten by Nunez.
Besides gasoline, A.B. 457 could also apply price controls to a range of commodities and fuels used in transportation or power generation, including coal, ethanol and natural gas, following the declaration of a state of emergency by the governor. It also covers all points on the fuel supply chain, from production and refining to distribution and retail sales.
Because of all the changes and its possible impacts on interstate commerce, the bill was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for vetting this week. Even if A.B. 457 survives in the Senate, it would need to be sent back to the Assembly for concurrence before the end of the session in September. Global warming, toxics, perchlorate
The global-warming bill, A.B. 32, would require reporting of emissions by utilities and industry, establish a baseline emissions inventory, and direct the Air Resources Board and other agencies to set firm dates for significant reductions.
After A.B. 32 passed the Assembly and was delivered to the Senate, it was substantially amended to try to resolve opposition from business groups, by allowing industry and stakeholder involvement in the regulatory process and by adding language that the rules must "minimize costs and maximize benefits" for the economy.
The air board must incorporate industry and community input to set interim emissions limits that phase in beginning in 2012, with deeper cuts to CO2 expected in 2015. The Senate's Environmental Quality Committee will take up A.B. 32 today.
Also on the committee's agenda is A.B. 2202, which would prohibit the sale of electronic plug-in or battery-operated devices that contain heavy metals and other hazardous materials as defined by European Union standards.
While current law calls for phase-out of hazardous waste in electrical components, this bill would set 2010 as a deadline for the state ban. The California Manufacturers & Technology Association and retailer groups oppose the bill on the grounds that it will drive up costs and interfere with interstate commerce.
Less controversial is A.B. 492, which would have originally required that companies handling perchlorate-tainted materials to register and file business plans with state toxics control agencies. The perchlorate sections of the measure were gutted earlier this month, and its original author has abandoned the bill. The amended measure now loosens some insurance requirements for companies seeking state compensation for cleanup of underground petroleum storage tank leaks.
Also, A.B. 289, a bill that would have required manufacturers to conduct expensive tests on bioaccumulation patterns of thousands of chemicals used in their processes, was recently scaled down to allow state agencies to request such information from manufacturers. But it gives companies up to a year to comply with requests and sets up a process for treating the provided data as a trade secret. Cross-border fee on electricity
The Senate Energy Committee this week will take up A.B. 2338, which would impose a tenth-of-a cent per kilowatt-hour fee on electricity imported from Mexico. The cross-border import fee would be used to mitigate air-quality effects of power plants that were built without meeting state requirements for "best-available" emission control technologies.
Energy committee chair Martha Escutia (D) at a hearing last week insisted that the bill be amended to extend the import fee to power from Arizona and Nevada as well. But when no other committee member would move it to a vote, A.B. 2338 was rescheduled to this week.
Although the session featured many water-related bills, including several dealing with the threatened Bay Delta system and levee reconstruction, most of the measures were superceded by the $4 billion water-bond bill A.B. 140, already signed into law, that will be part of the huge infrastructure bond initiative package this fall.
One water measure that finally made it through the Assembly for consideration in the Senate Natural Resources Committee this week is A.B. 2208, albeit in a watered-down version. Originally meant to clarify state policy that the beneficiaries of new water projects and upgrades should bear the full cost, and specify user fees to do so, the bill now tells the Department of Water Resources to report on recommendations for applying user fees.
It also states that "transportation, power transmission and recreation" interests also benefit from an improved levee system-signaling an attempt by the author to spread out the pain of potential user fees, which have been vehemently opposed by water agencies and agricultural groups. Assembly takes up air-pollution bills
On the other side of the Capitol building, the Assembly Natural Resources Committee today will take up two controversial air-pollution bills. S.B. 1252 is aimed at counteracting the possibility that the U.S. EPA will exempt rural areas from federal regulation of fine particulate matter, leaving states to enforce limits.
California is the only state with ambient air quality standards for PM 10 and fine particulates PM 2.5, noted a legislative analyst. This bill would allow the Air Resources Board to impose additional civil penalties of up to $25,000 for violations of state soot-control standards. Agricultural groups, including the Wine Institute, say that existing state penalties are already burdensome and this measure is "redundant, unnecessary and punitive."
In addition, the committee will hear S.B. 1205, the "Children's Breathing Rights Act." This bill also faces strong opposition from business interests because it increases fines for violations of pollution limits from non-vehicular sources to $10,000 per incident (from $1,000), and to $50,000 for pollution from stationary sources required to have an operating permit under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act (up from $10,000). It also applies a $100,000 fine to "serious violators," defined as anyone who purposely disconnects or dismantles monitoring devices or who makes false statements in connection with obtaining a permit.
The bill would have required that 10 percent of all fines and penalties be deposited into a "Children's Breathing Rights Fund," but it was amended to authorize local air districts to direct a portion of fines or settlements into the fund. S.B. 1205 also requires the state air board to maintain an Internet site documenting pollution violations and mandates that local districts provide data to the state regarding such violations.
Finally, the major Senate bill of this two-year session, S.B. 1, the "Million Solar Roofs" bill appears to be languishing on the floor of the Assembly. Amended more than a dozen times since it was introduced in December 2004, the bill now more closely reflects the California Solar Initiative policy endorsed by the California Public Utilities Commission earlier this year. However, it would cap at $3.2 billion the costs of programs to add 3,000 MW of solar power by 2017, and it requires full participation by public-power utilities. The bill prohibits the CPUC from using any of the funds to support solar research and development projects. It also alters CPUC policies regarding "net metering" sales of excess solar energy to utilities.
While it no longer guarantees union wages for solar installers, the issue that nearly killed the bill last year, S.B. 1 would change state contractor-licensing rules to ensure that installers are certified to work on solar units.
S.B. 1 was repeatedly scheduled this month for an Assembly floor vote, but it has been sidetracked by budget issues, lack of support from Assembly Republicans and strong opposition by the CPUC. Action on the bill may be deferred until after the summer recess as its author tries to secure more votes.
O'Donnell is an independent energy and environmental writer in San Francisco.
LOAD-DATE: June 26, 2006
Greenwire
June 26, 2006 Monday
SECTION: SPOTLIGHT Vol. 10 No. 9
LENGTH: 1571 words
HEADLINE: CALIFORNIA: Global warming bill tops lawmakers' summer agenda
BODY:
Arthur O'Donnell, special to Greenwire
Legislative deadlines and continued delays to finalizing a $130 billion state budget package are driving California lawmakers into a frenzy of activity this week in Sacramento.
The session's marquee bill is the "California Global Warming Solutions Act," which reflects and expands on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) policy for cutting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Committees in the Assembly and Senate face a Friday deadline to take up measures that have been passed by the opposite house, and July 7 is supposed to be the last day of business before a monthlong summer recess. However, if a budget is not passed by that date, lawmakers may be called into special session.
Committee meetings this week are packed with energy and environmental measures that deal with a range of issues from soot and greenhouse-gas emissions to toxic materials and volatile energy prices. Last-minute deals and amendments abound as bill sponsors struggle to keep proposals alive or move provisions from defeated measures into other vehicles. As is common in the Capitol during this period, there is no guarantee that a surviving measure will resemble its original contents.
A prime example is A.B. 457, the gasoline-price anti-gouging bill introduced this month by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D). The bill passed the Assembly last year as a state pension reform bill; but it has been gutted and amended three times -- covering such disparate issues as nonprofit fundraising and train-automobile collisions -- before being taken over and rewritten by Nunez.
Besides gasoline, A.B. 457 could also apply price controls to a range of commodities and fuels used in transportation or power generation, including coal, ethanol and natural gas, following the declaration of a state of emergency by the governor. It also covers all points on the fuel supply chain, from production and refining to distribution and retail sales.
Because of all the changes and its possible impacts on interstate commerce, the bill was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for vetting this week. Even if A.B. 457 survives in the Senate, it would need to be sent back to the Assembly for concurrence before the end of the session in September. Global warming, toxics, perchlorate
The global-warming bill, A.B. 32, would require reporting of emissions by utilities and industry, establish a baseline emissions inventory, and direct the Air Resources Board and other agencies to set firm dates for significant reductions.
After A.B. 32 passed the Assembly and was delivered to the Senate, it was substantially amended to try to resolve opposition from business groups, by allowing industry and stakeholder involvement in the regulatory process and by adding language that the rules must "minimize costs and maximize benefits" for the economy.
The air board must incorporate industry and community input to set interim emissions limits that phase in beginning in 2012, with deeper cuts to CO2 expected in 2015. The Senate's Environmental Quality Committee will take up A.B. 32 today.
Also on the committee's agenda is A.B. 2202, which would prohibit the sale of electronic plug-in or battery-operated devices that contain heavy metals and other hazardous materials as defined by European Union standards.
While current law calls for phase-out of hazardous waste in electrical components, this bill would set 2010 as a deadline for the state ban. The California Manufacturers & Technology Association and retailer groups oppose the bill on the grounds that it will drive up costs and interfere with interstate commerce.
Less controversial is A.B. 492, which would have originally required that companies handling perchlorate-tainted materials to register and file business plans with state toxics control agencies. The perchlorate sections of the measure were gutted earlier this month, and its original author has abandoned the bill. The amended measure now loosens some insurance requirements for companies seeking state compensation for cleanup of underground petroleum storage tank leaks.
Also, A.B. 289, a bill that would have required manufacturers to conduct expensive tests on bioaccumulation patterns of thousands of chemicals used in their processes, was recently scaled down to allow state agencies to request such information from manufacturers. But it gives companies up to a year to comply with requests and sets up a process for treating the provided data as a trade secret. Cross-border fee on electricity
The Senate Energy Committee this week will take up A.B. 2338, which would impose a tenth-of-a cent per kilowatt-hour fee on electricity imported from Mexico. The cross-border import fee would be used to mitigate air-quality effects of power plants that were built without meeting state requirements for "best-available" emission control technologies.
Energy committee chair Martha Escutia (D) at a hearing last week insisted that the bill be amended to extend the import fee to power from Arizona and Nevada as well. But when no other committee member would move it to a vote, A.B. 2338 was rescheduled to this week.
Although the session featured many water-related bills, including several dealing with the threatened Bay Delta system and levee reconstruction, most of the measures were superceded by the $4 billion water-bond bill A.B. 140, already signed into law, that will be part of the huge infrastructure bond initiative package this fall.
One water measure that finally made it through the Assembly for consideration in the Senate Natural Resources Committee this week is A.B. 2208, albeit in a watered-down version. Originally meant to clarify state policy that the beneficiaries of new water projects and upgrades should bear the full cost, and specify user fees to do so, the bill now tells the Department of Water Resources to report on recommendations for applying user fees.
It also states that "transportation, power transmission and recreation" interests also benefit from an improved levee system-signaling an attempt by the author to spread out the pain of potential user fees, which have been vehemently opposed by water agencies and agricultural groups. Assembly takes up air-pollution bills
On the other side of the Capitol building, the Assembly Natural Resources Committee today will take up two controversial air-pollution bills. S.B. 1252 is aimed at counteracting the possibility that the U.S. EPA will exempt rural areas from federal regulation of fine particulate matter, leaving states to enforce limits.
California is the only state with ambient air quality standards for PM 10 and fine particulates PM 2.5, noted a legislative analyst. This bill would allow the Air Resources Board to impose additional civil penalties of up to $25,000 for violations of state soot-control standards. Agricultural groups, including the Wine Institute, say that existing state penalties are already burdensome and this measure is "redundant, unnecessary and punitive."
In addition, the committee will hear S.B. 1205, the "Children's Breathing Rights Act." This bill also faces strong opposition from business interests because it increases fines for violations of pollution limits from non-vehicular sources to $10,000 per incident (from $1,000), and to $50,000 for pollution from stationary sources required to have an operating permit under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act (up from $10,000). It also applies a $100,000 fine to "serious violators," defined as anyone who purposely disconnects or dismantles monitoring devices or who makes false statements in connection with obtaining a permit.
The bill would have required that 10 percent of all fines and penalties be deposited into a "Children's Breathing Rights Fund," but it was amended to authorize local air districts to direct a portion of fines or settlements into the fund. S.B. 1205 also requires the state air board to maintain an Internet site documenting pollution violations and mandates that local districts provide data to the state regarding such violations.
Finally, the major Senate bill of this two-year session, S.B. 1, the "Million Solar Roofs" bill appears to be languishing on the floor of the Assembly. Amended more than a dozen times since it was introduced in December 2004, the bill now more closely reflects the California Solar Initiative policy endorsed by the California Public Utilities Commission earlier this year. However, it would cap at $3.2 billion the costs of programs to add 3,000 MW of solar power by 2017, and it requires full participation by public-power utilities. The bill prohibits the CPUC from using any of the funds to support solar research and development projects. It also alters CPUC policies regarding "net metering" sales of excess solar energy to utilities.
While it no longer guarantees union wages for solar installers, the issue that nearly killed the bill last year, S.B. 1 would change state contractor-licensing rules to ensure that installers are certified to work on solar units.
S.B. 1 was repeatedly scheduled this month for an Assembly floor vote, but it has been sidetracked by budget issues, lack of support from Assembly Republicans and strong opposition by the CPUC. Action on the bill may be deferred until after the summer recess as its author tries to secure more votes.
O'Donnell is an independent energy and environmental writer in San Francisco.
LOAD-DATE: June 26, 2006
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)