News
Major new cuts eyed for greenhouse gases
The power plant in El Segundo, Calif. (Photo: Don Solomon, via Shutterstock)Nearly a decade after California’s landmark law curbing greenhouse gases was signed, a key author of AB 32 wants to dramatically boost the crackdown on climate-changing carbon emissions over the next 35 years.
The principal author of that legislation, Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, has introduced a new bill, SB 32, requiring greenhouse gases to be cut to 80 percent below the 1990 levels by 2050. The plan would come under the jurisdiction of the Air Resources Board.
California current law requires the emissions to be cut to 1990 levels by 2020. The law was signed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, in 2006, following years of discussion. The measure passed the Legislature mostly along partisan lines, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposing. The final law carried the name of then-Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, although Pavley was its original author. The final Assembly vote can be seen here, while the Senate vote is here.
The new bill increases the targets set by AB 32 and, like the latter, is all but certain to draw national attention. The new bill remains in its formative stages and is the subject of negotiations in the Capitol.
SB 32 sets 2050 as the final target date and would authorize state air quality regulators to establish interim benchmarks in 2030 and 2040 to make sure the reductions are actually taking place.
The new bill by Pavley, who served in the Assembly at the time the original legislation was signed, also requires the state to adopt policies that further the goals of cutting greenhouse gases.
Gov. Brown has not taken a position on the bill, although he has publicly stated that curbing greenhouse gases is a priority for his administration. The series of environmental legislation, including proposals from the Senate leadership to reduce dependency on oil, expand the use of power from renewable energy and improve insulation in buildings.
“While we generally do not comment on pending legislation, we continue to support strong, sustained action on climate change,” Brown spokesman Evan Westrup wrote in an email.
—
Ed’s Note: Adds word “mostly” in 3rd graf to make it clear that vote on AB 32 was mostly along partisan lines, but not completely partisan.
Want to see more stories like this? Sign up for The Roundup, the free daily newsletter about California politics from the editors of Capitol Weekly. Stay up to date on the news you need to know.
Sign up below, then look for a confirmation email in your inbox.
State Rep. Shirley Horton (R) who voted in favor of AB 32 would be surprised to hear she is now considered a Democrat. In fact, the bill had bipartisan support in the legislature.
Thanks for your comment. I’ve changed the copy to reflect that the vote was mostly along partisan lines. Here’s the link to the final Assembly vote on the bill … http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_vote_20060831_0405PM_asm_floor.html — John Howard
True, though it appears she was the only Reep in favor — and Nicole Parra was the one Democratic “No” vote. The Senate was strictly party-line. I guess, technically that’s bi-partisan, but only in the absolute narrowest sense of the word.
Note that Pavley and other Democrats push, push, push electric car sales in CA but the main source of power in the US is coal fired power plants and a big chunk of nuclear plant infusion as well. So, electric cars are really “coal cars” or “nuke cars” and that is NEVER factored into the carbon offsets, legislation, or state and federal incentives and subsidies to the car industries and the morons who buy these cars.
In addition, the electric cars PAY NO TAXES at the pump to repair roads, ride in the diamond commuter lanes, etc,, even though they create wear and tear on the roads and infrastructure.
This is because Tom Steyers, a “green” hedgefund billionaire, owns the President and the Democratic party in this state. Every time he pushes a solar bill, electric car bill, or other “green” legislation, the cash register goes “cha-ching” in the background. Enviros and greenies want to FEEL that they have a positive impact on the world but the reality of whether or not that is truly so, is something they care little about. Steyers plays all the enviros as he makes more and more money pushing “green” bills that do nothing to change the world around us.
Very good reason to shift from a “gas tax” to “road tolling” or VMT charges for all motor vehicles.
Most of the wear and tear on the highways is caused by heavy trucks, which do more damage than 10K cars, and deeper damage b/c of the weight. They need to be charged for the damage they cause, but, of course, they will start bleating “higher consumer prices!!” A better solution would be to analyze the routes where trucks could be replaced with much more efficient freight rail.
Agreed. The wear and tear on roads should be the criteria vs. so-called “green” cars. Since trucks are hauling goods, they can then pass along the cost to consumers through higher prices. Businesses never eat the pass along costs and neither should they.
keenplanner – Are you completely unaware of the HVUT? The tax imposed on heavy vechicles to compensate for the wear & tear large trucks cause on our roads??? You also clearly aren’t aware of the staggering amount of damage caused by large SUVs which are almost entirely driven by average consumer citizens, as opposed to those large trucks which deliver your goods to your homes & business. But thanks for the big laugh you gave me when you suggested substituting trains for those trucks. That’s hilarious. I don’t know what made me laugh harder, the idea that a train can pull up to your house, or your apparent complete lack of awareness of the size of tax subsidies that keep those train transports running – and let’s not even mention the staggering loss of production trains cost some communities as a result of tracks being at grade & causing massive traffic backup. Oh, and how about train pollution? Never mind. For a “keenplanner”, you didn’t plan that argument out too well.
By 2050 close to all electricity will be generated from renewable sources – – Here’s the path to that event: http://populationalert.org/GlobalWarming/CA_NY_Renewable_Energy.htm
Not true. The west coast does not use coal (<1%) and nuclear less than 10%. It is mostly natural gas, so what you are saying doesn't make sense.
You can expect a WIFI Odometer sooner than later – when by 2050 EVERY vehicle will be electric ! http://populationalert.org/GlobalWarming/wind_solar.htm