AB 32, California’s landmark global warming regulation legislation, is now a couple of years old. Mary Nichols and the California Air Resources Board is working to create a reasonable proposal to begin the regulation of greenhouse gases. The system they have been discussing as of late, a modified cap and trade system, is far from perfect, but it is a pretty good start.

Yet, that doesn’t mean that AB 32 is out of the woods. Far from it. As shown from the recent Copenhagen conference, we as global community have a long way to go to agree on any meaningful change. And sometimes, you just have to accept that some will be leaders. California should be such a leader. Of course, being a leader carries risk, but it also presents great opportunity.  As a leader in green tech, we will be poised to start selling this stuff around the world as adoption becomes more widespread.

Recently, Asm. Dan Logue from North-eastern California, decided that he wanted to pretty much repeal AB 32. Logue’s AB 118 would pretty much do that.  You can find a letter opposing the measure sent to Natural Resources Chair Nancy Skinner over the flip.

But, AB 118 was pretty much a campaign tactic from the moment it was inserted into another bill via “gut and amend.”  Nearly identical language now appears in an initiative that will go out for circulation on January 26, sponsored by Tom McClintock and Ted Costa, the founder of the recall Davis campaign. They even have a 1990s-era website.

We cannot assume that such an effort will be easily turned aside. If the campaign can get some right-wing cash in the bank and go out with paid signature gatherers, this could end up being a rather high profile item on the November ballot.

Meanwhile, on the GOP primary campaign trail, Whitman and Poizner are climbing over each other about who hates AB 32 more.  We have to assume that if either is elected, they will immediately suspend AB 32, and we will be back to square one.  So, the opponents of AB 32 really have two cracks at the apple. One in the form of the initiative if it qualifies, the other in the race for governor.

It’s just one more reason to oppose a Whitman candidacy.

UPDATE by Robert: From what I am hearing, the anti-AB 32 initiative is likely to make the November ballot. November 2010 is going to make November 2005 look like the preseason.

January 7, 2010

Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner,

Chair

Assembly Committee on Natural

Resources

1020 N Street, Room 164

Sacramento, CA 95814

RE:  AB 118 (Logue)

– OPPOSE

Dear Chair Skinner and Members

of the Committee:

We write on behalf of the undersigned

public interest organizations, representing a million Californians,

to request your “no” vote on AB 118 by Assemblyman Logue when

it comes before you.  Not only would AB 118 jeopardize public health

and the environment, it would impose economic harm at a time when California

is already struggling to regain our financial footing.  

Campaign tactic –

This bill, gutted and amended just this week, is part of a statewide

campaign to stymie California’s economic recovery and deny workers

the opportunity to benefit from the emerging new energy economy.  

Mr. Logue, along with Rep. Tom McClintock¹ and the association

founded by Paul Gann, have filed an initiative nearly identical to AB

118 with the California Attorney General’s office with the intention

of circulating it for signatures to qualify for the November 2010 general

election (see campaign website at www.suspendab32.org).

Disrupts business investment

– Suspension of AB 32, the State’s landmark Global Warming Solutions

Act of 2006, which enjoys broad bipartisan support, would cause economic

distress and create an uncertain business environment for thousands

of California employers who have played by the rules by investing in

clean technology, setting up training programs, retooling equipment

and taking other actions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and stimulate

the economy.

Wastes scarce private and

public dollars – The California Air Resources Board (CARB), the

agency responsible for implementing AB 32, has worked diligently to

meet the deadlines set forth in AB 32, taking care to “evaluate the

total potential costs and total potential economic

…

benefits of the plan

for reducing greenhouse gasses to California’s economy …

using the best available economic models

… and the potential for adverse effects on small businesses

(sections CA Health and Safety Code sections 38560.5(d)(e) (emphasis

added).  Imposing a sporadic “suspension” would upend scarce

private and public investments.  

Reverses economic efficiencies

– While we all know that global economic conditions have taken a

toll on our national and state economies, here in California, we have

an unparalleled record of generating economic profit while controlling

pollution because we have been doing both for the last 35 years.  

State energy policies have saved California households $56 billion from

1972-2006.²

Reduces California’s competitiveness

– California already boasts five of the nation’s top 10 cities

for clean tech investment (San Jose, Berkeley, Pasadena, San Francisco

and San Diego).  In 2008, U.S. California-based companies received

approximately 40 percent of total US clean tech venture investments.³  

Increases costs

– When it comes to climate change, the most expensive thing we can do

is nothing and the second most expensive option is to delay action.

The annual economic impacts of climate-induced damage in California’s

energy sector will range from $2.7 billion in the low warming scenario

to $6.3 billion in the high warming scenario. Overall, $21 billion in

energy assets are at risk.⁴

California continues to make

history as an economic and environmental innovator.  AB 118 would

impose economic harm, damage public health and threaten California’s

competitive advantage as a first actor in the global race to a clean

energy economy.  We respectfully urge you to vote “no”

on AB 118.  Thank you for your careful consideration of our views.

Sincerely,