Posted on 07/13/2006 9:21:50 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Behind the scenes in the Capitol, the wrangling over the unprecedented two-pronged plan to attack global warming is intense. Two major pieces of legislation have been amended several times--one was completely rewritten in April--and the bills have ricocheted separately from committee to committee. The bills' torturous paths partly stem from parliamentary maneuvers by supporters to keep the proposal alive.
Watched closely by the nation and a skeptical California business community, the Legislature's Democratic leadership is crafting landmark legislation to cut greenhouse-gas emissions over the next 14 years from factories, power plants, construction sites, cement companies, and even dry-cleaning shops.
It is shaping up as a classic dispute between environmentalists and business--a political fight that is all but certain to come to a head during the last moments of this year's legislative session. Environmentalists, citing scientific evidence of global warming, believe the time is right for the new legislation. And just for good measure, there's a bit of tension between the Senate and the Assembly Democratic leadership as well.
"Philosophically, there is strong agreement across the board in the environmental community that it is going to take everything we've got to curb global warming. That means we need to have a system, properly designed. That's where we've been going from the very first day," said Karen Douglas of Environmental Defense.
California has about 0.6 percent of the world's population but emits about 1.4 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. The state emits about 6.2 percent of the nation's emissions, although it accounts for about 12 percent of the national population.
Some staffers and outside experts familiar with the issue believe it is the most significant legislation this year in the Capitol, eclipsing even the cable-telephone deregulation bill. "I think in some ways that this is much more important, and will have a greater impact," one legislative staffer said.
The latest plan comes two years after California ordered a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles by 2016--a law that has served as a model for the nation. "It's not just in the U.S., it's even in the international community that this is one of the few things that the U.S. is actually doing to deal with greenhouse gases. This [the latest proposal] is the other half of that," said Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, head of the Senate Natural Resources Committee.
One part--the best known--is authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills. It would gradually roll back greenhouse gas-emissions by the year 2010 to what they were in 2000. By 2020, the emissions would be cut by 25 percent to what they were in 1990.
Now known generally as the "Núñez bill," despite the fact that Pavley first introduced the measure, it would be put into effect through regulations written by the Air Resources Board. The bill has cleared the Assembly, and now awaits action in the Senate, where it has been reworked, The printed version of the bill will be available after August 7, after lawmakers return from their summer recess.
But the journey of AB 32 has been arduous at times. After emerging from the Assembly, the bill went to the Rules Committee, then to Environmental Quality. The Senate Energy Committee, headed by Sen. Martha Escutia, D-Commerce, sought to get hold of the bill, where it likely would have been killed, according to staffers in both houses. References to 'electricity providers' were removed from the bill, thus taking the bill out of the Energy Committee's jurisdiction. The bill, back in Rules, now faces the Appropriations Committee, where it is likely to be approved.
"If this was a deliberate attempt to avoid a hearing before Senate Energy, I would be very disappointed," said Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, the vice chair of the committee and a critic of the legislation. "If that's the case, maybe that speaks to the merits of the bill."
Núñez's bill would set up a system to cut emissions through both improved technology and changes in the marketplace. The ARB, through regulations, would set up pollution limits over time and companies would try to meet them. Those sites that do meet or surpass the limits would get credits, and they could bank them, or sell or trade them to other companies that are in violation. The idea is to provide incentives to cut emissions and meet the overall reductions ordered by the bill. Over time, as new companies form and technology improves, emissions would be cut further.
Business interests, who have opposed limits on greenhouse-gas emissions in the past, are skeptical of Núñez's bill, in part because of doubts about global warming and in part because of fears that interfering with the marketplace will backfire.
"It is foolish to adopt a policy to reduce emissions but only moves those emissions elsewhere for no benefit to the planet," Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, wrote in a June 8 article.
Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, vice chairman of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, agreed.
"It puts our economy in such a vulnerable position," Runner said. "It just comes down to the issue of plain old competitiveness. Manufacturing will have to change what it does, and the temptation will be there once again for companies to move somewhere different. It could affect gas prices. We already have a refining shortage, and this is going to ask California to do something that nobody else in the United States does."
The other, less publicized, major piece of environmental legislation is SB 1368 by Senate leader Don Perata, which sets carbon-emission limits specifically for power plants.
Perata's bill requires the California Energy Commission to set limits on greenhouse-gas emissions. It requires the Public Utilities Commission to make sure that plants that exceeded the limits would be barred from negotiating long-term power contracts from the state. Perata's bill, also reworked, is in the Assembly. So far, the two bills are separate, but there is a sense in both houses that they will be combined in some fashion before the end of the session.
The Perata bill's supporters include environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense, but also Pacific Gas and Electric, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Planning and Conservation League.
But, as with Núñez's bill, manufacturing interests are strongly opposed.
Perhaps 40 percent of California's electricity comes from plants that "would be unable to meet a greenhouse-gas performance standard" said Dominic F. DiMare, a Chamber of Commerce lobbyist and representative of a coalition opposed to Perata's bill. Energy prices will rise, competitiveness will drop and the economy will suffer, DiMare said in a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Environmentalists believe the differences between the two camps can be resolved. "In terms of momentum, we've got 31 Assembly co-authors and 11 Senate co-authors. If there are technical issues, they can be worked out," she said.
Runner was not convinced.
"It will not do a darn thing to deal with global warming but, for us, the whole concept is that California may do something that will hurt its economy. Part of the scheme," he added, "is to jam the governor with it."
What makes Runner think the Guber is inclined to veto this?
Wake up, turkeys! The globe has been warming out of the last ice age for 15-20,000 years; it'll start cooling again when it's damned good and ready. There's not a thing you or anyone else can do about it.
I won't believe the greenies are serious until they SERIESLY start talking about Nuclear Power.
And in doing so produces about 10% of the world's food. Go ask China why they are emitting 30% of the world's greenhouse gases to produce plastic junk for Wal-Mart. ;)
Global warming would come to a standstill if all of those DC hot air bags WOULD JUST SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!!!
Actually, Walmart has the least amount of Chinese plastic junk on their shelves than most other retailers.
But, carry on with the union Walmart bashing deception.
As for CA and their enviro- wacko legislations, Let them drive all business and industry out of the state. It's only a matter of time before California ceases to be the most populous state and producer of 10% of the worlds food. It will become another pathetic welfare state simular to New Orleans.
"The state emits about 6.2 percent of the nation's emissions, although it accounts for about 12 percent of the national population."
Would this be because California imports a large portion of its electricity from other states? (Essentially, exporting their emission problem to the states doing the generation.)
Say what you will about statistics; but you can get statistics to say whatever you want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.