Schwarzenegger proposes changes to bill seeking to cut emissions (wants another state board created)

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is seeking changes to a bill that would make California the first state in the nation to cap greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources, a move that could put him in a difficult political position if Democrats object to his amendments.

Schwarzenegger has championed policies to combat global warming and has tried to position the state as the first in the nation to limit emissions that are widely blamed for contributing to global warming.

But Democrats fear Schwarzenegger's requested changes could undermine the effectiveness of the Assembly bill, which would limit emissions from businesses such as power plants and oil refineries.

Both sides agree on the basic framework of the bill notably the timelines and goals of reducing emissions but differ over how to accomplish state targets.

Among the stickiest amendments is a proposal being circulated this week by the administration that would create a board composed of agency heads within the governor's administration. It would have the power to implement a plan that sets emission caps, authority that in the bill is given to the state Air Resources Bill.

It's an idea Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, said would give governance authority to an "inherently biased" panel of agency heads accountable only to the governor.

"You need some expertise on climate change on that board, not just agency people," said bill co-author Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills.

Pavley wrote the 2002 law that required the state Air Resources Board to draft regulations curbing greenhouse gas emissions from autos.

California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Linda Adams defended the proposed amendment, saying the board would have the expertise and time that the Air Resources Board lacks. She also noted that those agency leaders must be confirmed by the Senate.

"What we are proposing makes the bill stronger and workable," Adams said. "There's too much at stake not to have a bill that's workable."

Failure to do so could put Schwarzenegger in a tight spot. He would have to consider vetoing a major piece of environmental legislation in a re-election year.

It's a delicate balance for the governor, who has made global warming a key issue since he signed an executive order last June calling for a reduction in the state's emission of greenhouse gases. He said the state should cut emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Many scientists believe greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere, altering weather patterns, shrinking wildlife habitat and raising sea levels around the globe.

In California, state experts say the warmer weather would melt the Sierra snowpack earlier, lead to flooding in the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay area, and threaten the state's water supply.

Schwarzenegger's high-profile statements about global warming have won the praise of environmental groups and Democrats. The issue also is popular with voters. A 2005 survey by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that up to 80 percent of the public supported caps on pollutants.

At the same time, the Republican governor has to maintain support among his conservative base. That includes business leaders who warn that emission caps could drive industries out of California and threaten power supplies.

The California Chamber of Commerce opposes the measure. Jeanne Cain, the chamber's senior vice president, said Schwarzenegger's proposed amendments do nothing to allay the organization's concerns.

"Imposing California-only restrictions will drive jobs and businesses to other states and countries as electricity and gasoline prices soar," Cain said. "And it wont do anything to solve this global issue because businesses will take their emissions with them."

In an effort to reach out to business leaders, Adams held a meeting last week that included executives from British Petroleum PLC, Royal Dutch Shell, PG&E, DuPont, Southern California Edison and the Hewlett-Packard Co.

The Schwarzenegger amendments seek to offer businesses some comfort, starting with the proposed creation of the executive board. It would have the power to delay emission caps if they are found to harm the state economy, public health or environment, or if the technology to implement the caps is inadequate. The governor's changes also would create a market-based system for emission trading.

"I think he's trying to get some legislation through without alienating the business community," said Lawrence Giventer, a professor of politics and public administration at California State University, Stanislaus.

While Democrats agree that some "safety valves" should be written into the bill, emission caps only should be delayed under extraordinary circumstances.

"I don't want to create an offramp that you could drive a train through," Nunez said.

The Assembly has approved the emission-cap bill, but administration officials and lawmakers say it remains a work in progress. At least one more Senate committee is scheduled to examine the bill before it moves to the Senate floor for a vote.

Schwarzenegger's Democratic opponent in this year's gubernatorial race, state Treasurer Phil Angelides, said the governor's latest proposals "would effectively render the legislation meaningless."

"The governor came out with a plan and very aggressive targets, and the governor is serious about achieving these goals," she said.

CA: Panel proposed to handle global-warming plan (Climate Action Board "to the rescue"?)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1668532/posts

Here we go again! More trying to "out-liberal" the liberals. Is this leadership? No -- it is sick politics. Now we again are working hard to come up with another reason why businesses should KEEP MOVING OUT of California.

Nice move morons. Only in my state, California. The golden touch of liberalism -- just keeps on going.

"Among the stickiest amendments is a proposal being circulated this week by the administration that would create a board composed of agency heads within the governor's administration. It would have the power to implement a plan that sets emission caps, authority that in the bill is given to the state Air Resources Bill."

If the California political climate is such that some legislation on this issue will, with enough "bi-partisan" support, get passed in the short term, in-spite of our, or anyone's principled objections (and I'm not saying it is), then Arnold's idea, with regard to the board composed of various state agency heads, at least allows for a mechanism by which a balance between state economic goals and environmental goals can be worked out.

...Arnold's idea, with regard to the board composed of various state agency heads, at least allows for a mechanism by which a balance between state economic goals and environmental goals can be worked out.

With the Democrats and Greens currently heading most all of the top State agencies (under a Republican administration), I see no hope for "balance" of any kind. With a Democrat Governor, it could be worse.

AB 32 should be strongly opposed, in any form.

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.