ARTICLE
Cap and Trade Dollars Do they make a difference for Santa Cruz? A hotly disputed agreement to extend California’s cap-and-trade program to 2030 partly reflects the power shift under way in the Legislature in which moderate, business-friendly Democrats are increasingly flexing their political muscle. It also shows the lobbying clout of the petroleum industry and divisions within the environmental community. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a highly respected tech policy association and a Chamber partner has been following this issue closely since its inception several years ago. The Leadership Group has taken a major role in moving the legislative process forward to ensure its passage by putting numbers to the economic impact on the program. The negotiated compromise between lawmakers, environmentalists, business interests, oil companies and Gov. Brown’s administration continues California’s cap-and-trade effort a decade past the 2020 expiration date. That is a goal sought by Brown, who uses California as an example to the international community of an effective program curbing climate-changing greenhouse gases. Governor Brown has made it one of his pillar issues that, if successful, will be part of his legacy. But nothing is ever certain in the topsy-turvy political gamesmanship in our State Capitol, even when the Legislature is controlled by one party — Democrats. The moderate Democrats, mostly from the central valley, have a different approach to this legislation. And in all instances in Sacramento when it comes to funds there is a battle between winners and losers, usually the deciding line is the North vs. South where a cost and benefit analysis determines how a legislator votes. Why is this important to Santa Cruz County? In an effort to emphasize the benefits that each area of the state receives from the Cap N Trade dollars, the Leadership Group conducted some research using state data collection to compile this region by region. Here is what we’ve learned for Cap and Trade funds allocated from 2013-2017 in Santa Cruz. Click Here for full Cap and Trade PDF The California system — known as a “market-based mechanism” as opposed to top-down government regulations — includes auctions for companies to buy, sell and trade credits that allow them to continue operating while they gradually cut back on their greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels. The program has produced about $3.4 billion in proceeds to the state distributed by the Legislature, according to the Air Resources Board, which administers the auctions. But the proposed extension, a two-bill package, changes the existing system. It calls for large numbers of free credits to be distributed through the decade, which critics contend imperils the ability of the state to meet its 2030 emission goals, 40 percent below 1990 levels, according to Diane Takvorian of the Environmental Health Coalition, a member of the Air Resources Board. The administration disputed her characterization of the program, and said the free allowances actually are reduced 40 percent under the latest legislation, which ensures that California will meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals. It eliminates a roughly $120-$150 “fire prevention fee” on many rural properties, a controversial fee that has been used to help defray the costs of firefighting. It authorizes state regulators to place price caps on credits to help businesses meet the costs, and it also exempts electric utilities from sales and use of taxes on equipment purchases. It also bars local air districts from regulating some emissions of entities outside the market-based system, and cuts back on the locals’ authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions “This a direct attack on proposed refinery emission reductions measures by 20 percent. Refineries,” Takvorian added, “are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases.” Opponents of the current legislation options noted that efforts to expand the ARB board’s membership’s earlier legislation — AB 197 of 2016 — to provide representation for communities hit especially hard by pollution would be unraveled. But other environmentalists said that, overall, the package was a good one. They noted that it contains provisions for updating antiquated equipment and limits the companies’ ability to pay for so-called “offsets” — tree groves for example — to within California’s boundaries. There are provisions in the accompanying bill to target air pollution in areas in neighborhoods with dirty air. “The concessions to industry are bitter pills, but on balance the package ensures our emissions limits are enforceable against polluters and secures critical gains to improve air quality for millions of Californians,” said Alex Jackson, the legal director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s California climate project. “The world is watching for California to chart a path through the climate denial and obstruction coming from the White House – and California is yet again poised to deliver,” he added in a written statement. To emerge from the Legislature, the package will need two-thirds votes in both houses. While it may seem like a game of chess in Sacramento between industry, environmentalist, north vs. south and the moderate Democrats somewhere in the mix — understanding the benefits to our small coastal region in term of real dollars can make an impact. As Yogi Berra would say, the game isn’t over until it is over.
Cap and Trade Dollars Do they make a difference for Santa Cruz?
A hotly disputed agreement to extend California’s cap-and-trade program to 2030 partly reflects the power shift under way in the Legislature in which moderate, business-friendly Democrats are increasingly flexing their political muscle.
It also shows the lobbying clout of the petroleum industry and divisions within the environmental community.
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a highly respected tech policy association and a Chamber partner has been following this issue closely since its inception several years ago.
The Leadership Group has taken a major role in moving the legislative process forward to ensure its passage by putting numbers to the economic impact on the program.
The negotiated compromise between lawmakers, environmentalists, business interests, oil companies and Gov. Brown’s administration continues California’s cap-and-trade effort a decade past the 2020 expiration date. That is a goal sought by Brown, who uses California as an example to the international community of an effective program curbing climate-changing greenhouse gases.
Governor Brown has made it one of his pillar issues that, if successful, will be part of his legacy. But nothing is ever certain in the topsy-turvy political gamesmanship in our State Capitol, even when the Legislature is controlled by one party — Democrats. The moderate Democrats, mostly from the central valley, have a different approach to this legislation. And in all instances in Sacramento when it comes to funds there is a battle between winners and losers, usually the deciding line is the North vs. South where a cost and benefit analysis determines how a legislator votes.
Why is this important to Santa Cruz County? In an effort to emphasize the benefits that each area of the state receives from the Cap N Trade dollars, the Leadership Group conducted some research using state data collection to compile this region by region. Here is what we’ve learned for Cap and Trade funds allocated from 2013-2017 in Santa Cruz.
Click Here for full Cap and Trade PDF
The California system — known as a “market-based mechanism” as opposed to top-down government regulations — includes auctions for companies to buy, sell and trade credits that allow them to continue operating while they gradually cut back on their greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels. The program has produced about $3.4 billion in proceeds to the state distributed by the Legislature, according to the Air Resources Board, which administers the auctions.
But the proposed extension, a two-bill package, changes the existing system.
It calls for large numbers of free credits to be distributed through the decade, which critics contend imperils the ability of the state to meet its 2030 emission goals, 40 percent below 1990 levels, according to Diane Takvorian of the Environmental Health Coalition, a member of the Air Resources Board.
The administration disputed her characterization of the program, and said the free allowances actually are reduced 40 percent under the latest legislation, which ensures that California will meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals.
It eliminates a roughly $120-$150 “fire prevention fee” on many rural properties, a controversial fee that has been used to help defray the costs of firefighting. It authorizes state regulators to place price caps on credits to help businesses meet the costs, and it also exempts electric utilities from sales and use of taxes on equipment purchases.
It also bars local air districts from regulating some emissions of entities outside the market-based system, and cuts back on the locals’ authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions
“This a direct attack on proposed refinery emission reductions measures by 20 percent. Refineries,” Takvorian added, “are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases.”
Opponents of the current legislation options noted that efforts to expand the ARB board’s membership’s earlier legislation — AB 197 of 2016 — to provide representation for communities hit especially hard by pollution would be unraveled.
But other environmentalists said that, overall, the package was a good one. They noted that it contains provisions for updating antiquated equipment and limits the companies’ ability to pay for so-called “offsets” — tree groves for example — to within California’s boundaries.
There are provisions in the accompanying bill to target air pollution in areas in neighborhoods with dirty air. “The concessions to industry are bitter pills, but on balance the package ensures our emissions limits are enforceable against polluters and secures critical gains to improve air quality for millions of Californians,” said Alex Jackson, the legal director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s California climate project. “The world is watching for California to chart a path through the climate denial and obstruction coming from the White House – and California is yet again poised to deliver,” he added in a written statement.
To emerge from the Legislature, the package will need two-thirds votes in both houses.
While it may seem like a game of chess in Sacramento between industry, environmentalist, north vs. south and the moderate Democrats somewhere in the mix — understanding the benefits to our small coastal region in term of real dollars can make an impact.
As Yogi Berra would say, the game isn’t over until it is over.