California landmark global-warming law under fire
Aug 15 - San Jose Mercury News
A November ballot measure that would suspend California's landmark
global-warming law could also end up rolling back some of the state's
other sweeping environmental standards _ including rules that require
utilities to generate a third of their electricity from renewable
sources and programs requiring oil refineries to make cleaner-burning
fuels.
How broadly courts might interpret Proposition 23 is setting off alarm
bells among Silicon Valley executives and environmental groups.
"If we don't go forward with 33 percent renewable standard for
California's energy supply, we undercut all those companies and
entrepreneurs creating jobs in solar, wind, biofuels and other renewable
forms of energy," said Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley
Leadership Group, a San Jose organization that represents more than 200
companies and which opposes Proposition 23.
"We're saying let's take a U-turn to yesterday and be totally dependent
on fossil fuels, rather than California leading the way to a renewable
economy," Guardino said.
Last month, the non-partisan state Legislative Analyst's Office
issued an analysis of Proposition 23 in which it said that the 33
percent renewable electricity standard and the state's "low carbon fuel"
regulations would be suspended if the measure passes. The Yes on 23
campaign says it agrees with that interpretation.
But environmental groups say considerably more could be suspended _ 60
state regulations, including rules to reduce smog from ships, certain
chemicals in air conditioners and even a 2002 state law that requires
auto makers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent on new cars by
2016.
"Every measure to reduce greenhouse gases in California is at risk,"
said attorney Tom Adams, chairman of the California League of
Conservation Voters. "All the regulations California has adopted for a
clean energy future could be invalidated."
Supporters of Proposition 23, which so far has been largely funded by
oil companies Tesoro and Valero, acknowledge the measure would suspend
several state regulations. Most notably is the proposed "cap and trade"
plan by the California Air Resources Board, which requires oil
refineries, cement kilns, power plants and other large sources of
greenhouse gases to limit their emissions of carbon dioxide and other
gases that the majority of the world's climate scientists say are
warming the planet.
But the measure's supporters disagree with environmentalists on its
breadth.
"Is Prop. 23 going to result in all these horrible things the other side
is saying? The answer is no," said Anita Mangels, a spokeswoman for the
Yes on 23 campaign.
The two main rules that would be suspended, Mangels agreed, are Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2009 executive order requiring Pacific Gas &
Electric and other utilities to produce 33 percent of their electricity
from renewable sources by 2020, and the state's "low carbon fuels
standard," an executive order Schwarzenegger signed in 2007 requiring
oil companies to reduce the carbon content of their fuel 10 percent by
2020.
"Solar is one of the most heavily subsidized renewables at many levels,"
she added. "It is going to go on with or without Prop 23."
How many of California's environmental rules could be blocked by
Proposition 23 depends on how broadly its ballot language is read.
Simply put, the measure would suspend AB 32, a law Schwarzenegger signed
in 2006, that requires California to cut greenhouse gas emissions to
1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of about 15 percent from current
amounts.
The law would be suspended until unemployment falls below 5.5 percent
for a year. It is now 12.3 percent.
To comply with AB 32, the state Air Resources Board has drafted a
document known as the "scoping plan." It contains 69 measures _ some
which are separate laws, some passed as administrative regulations, and
some yet to be approved.
Billions of dollars could hinge on one part of Proposition 23. It says
"no state agency shall propose, promulgate, or adopt any regulation
implementing (AB 32) and any regulation adopted prior to the effective
date of this measure shall be void and unenforceable until such time as
suspension is lifted."
Environmentalists say that means potentially any one of the more than 60
rules and laws that the air board is counting on to meet the global
warming target could be tossed out.
One, for example, is a rule the air board passed in 2007 requiring large
ships to shut down their engines and plug into the electric grid at
port. The goal was to reduce diesel soot in towns such as Long Beach and
Oakland where it has been linked to high asthma rates. But the rule also
would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is counted by the air board
toward the plan implementing AB 32.
So would it be suspended?
Mangels said no, because it was written under authority of smog laws,
not AB 32.
Last month, the Legislative Analyst's Office weighed in. It said state
regulations passed under the authority of AB 32 would be suspended, but
separate laws would not. Rules that would be suspended include the 33
percent renewable electricity standard, but not a 20 percent renewable
standard because it had been signed into law. Also not suspended would
be the "Pavley Bill," a 2002 law reducing greenhouse emissions from
autos, the LAO said.
The LAO didn't mention the ship rule or dozens of others in the AB 32
plan.
"We're going to see a lot of litigation," said attorney Alex Jackson,
with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's going to get very
messy."
___
(c) 2010, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).
Visit MercuryNews.com, the World Wide Web site of the Mercury News, at
http://www.mercurynews.com.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
(c) 2010,
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services To subscribe or visit go to:
www.mcclatchy.com/
|