Brown: Extend cap-and-trade program
SACRAMENTO » Amid furious negotiations over a bill to extend California’s cap- and-trade program through 2030, Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday made a rare appearance before a Senate committee, imploring the legislators to approve the proposal.
“This is the most important vote of your life,” the governor told them.
Lawmakers originally had hoped to vote Thursday night on Assembly Bill 398 and a companion air- quality measure, but legislative leaders announced Wednesday that they would delay the vote until Monday — widely seen as an indication that it didn’t yet have the support of the required two-thirds of legislators in the Senate and Assembly.
The proposal was hashed out by the governor, top lawmakers and interest groups behind closed doors. Since it was un- veiled late Monday night, it has drawn fire from some grassroots environmental groups, which say it gives far too many concessions to Big Oil, as well as from local air quality districts that would lose their authority to directly regulate carbon emissions outside of the capand-trade program.
lt also has critics on the right. On Thursday, 11 of 13 Senate Republicans signed a letter in opposition, citing concerns about
the rushed timeline and increased gas and energy costs.
In cap and trade, industries essentially pay to pollute, acquiring permits for each ton of carbon they emit into the atmosphere under an ever- lowering cap. Some of those permits, or “allowances,” are given to industry for free, as a way to keep the businesses in the state, while others are traded or purchased at auction. The total number of permits goes down as the cap lowers. Industry also can comply, in part, by investing in carbon- offset projects such as urban forests.
Brown said that the alternative to cap and trade — direct regulation by the California Air Resources Board — would be far more costly for businesses and constituents.
“That is not the way to go,” he said. “The way to go is the most efficient, elegant program in the whole world. Don’t throw this thing out.”
The California Chamber of Commerce — the same group that sued the state over the existing program, calling it an illegal tax — on Thursday came out in favor of the proposal, as did numerous business groups.
“The balanced, well- designed cap- and-trade program in AB 398 is essential to reducing the costs of California’s greenhouse gas reduction goals established last year in SB 32,” chamber President Allan Zaremberg said in a statement, referring to a law passed last year to require the state to cut its carbon emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
“AB 398 will provide the least costly path to achieving our climate goals by extending cap and trade to 2030,” Zaremberg said. “The measure will help California maintain a healthy economy that produces well- paid, middleclass jobs.”
Mainstream environmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund also support the proposal, though the hearing room on Thursday was packed with environmentalists concerned that the bill doesn’t go far enough.
AB 398, introduced by Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, D- Coachella, and the air- quality proposal, Assembly Bill 617, from Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D- Bell Gardens, both passed out of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee Thursday on a 5-2, party-line vote.
Committee Chairman Bob Wieckowski, D- Fremont, told reporters afterward that he would support the legislation on the Senate f loor. Earlier this year, Wieckowski introduced another cap-andtrade extension proposal, Senate Bill 775, which unlike AB 398 would have given Californians a large portion of the auction proceeds, a “climate dividend,” to offset higher en- ergy and gas costs passed on from the affected industries.
It also would have eliminated the issuance of free permits.
In a somewhat tepid endorsement of the new proposal Thursday afternoon, the senator said his top priority was to extend the cap and trade.
“Although I would prefer a much more robust cap-and-trade program as spelled out in SB 775,” he wrote, “the governor’s proposal attempts to move us forward to 2030.”