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