BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | ACR 77|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: ACR 77
Author: Swanson (D), et al
Amended: 9/1/09 in Assembly
Vote: 21
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OR FILE
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Read and adopted, 9/1/09
SUBJECT : California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006:
implementation
SOURCE : Coalition for Green Jobs
DIGEST : This resolution urges the Air Resources Board to
meet the statutory requirements of the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by ensuring that its analysis
of specified emission reduction measures include prescribed
components.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law requires the Air Resources Board (ARB):
1. To adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)
limit equivalent to 1990 levels by 2020 and adopt
regulations to achieve maximum technologically feasible
and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.
CONTINUED
ACR 77
Page
2
2. To adopt a "Scoping Plan" for AB 32 implementation by
January 1, 2009, including an evaluation of the total
potential costs and total potential economic and
non-economic benefits to California's economy,
environment, and public health, using the best available
economic models, emission estimation techniques, and
other scientific methods.
3. When adopting AB 32 regulations, to rely upon the best
available economic and scientific information and its
assessment of existing and projected technological
capabilities.
This resolution calls on the ARB to include a sector-based
workforce impact assessment and mitigation plan within its
analysis of the AB 32 Scoping Plan and related rulemaking.
The analysis is required to include (1) an analysis of the
projected employment impacts of the proposed measure by
industry sector in each of the years leading up to 2020,
and beyond, that specifies, in particular, the potential
for green collar jobs to be located in or outside
California, (2) an identification of the types of jobs that
will be created in California, the industry sectors for
which the jobs will be created, and the wage and benefit
levels expected for those jobs, (3) an identification of
the types of jobs, including industry sectors, that may be
lost in California, and (4) a plan for providing California
workers a training program for new green technology jobs
that are different from the traditional jobs in energy,
transportation, and construction.
Comments
According to the author's office, AB 32 (Nunez and Pavley),
Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006, was a landmark piece of
legislation that set the bar high for reducing GHG
emissions in California. However, without appropriate
implementation, AB 32 could eliminate economic
opportunities for some, in the course of providing
opportunities to others.
According to a University of California, Berkley Center for
Labor Research and Education (UCB) report, more
industry-specific and occupational research is greatly
CONTINUED
ACR 77
Page
3
needed to assess the workforce needs of the state's
emerging green economy. In addition, a report by the
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) states that the ARB's
economic analysis has weaknesses that need to be addressed.
In order to direct resources to the proper areas, such as
training, retraining, and education programs that will
provide workers with the skill sets necessary to work in
the jobs created by a new green economy, an accurate
analysis is crucial for policymakers.
The author states that this resolution is not meant to
undermine the provisions of AB 32; it was introduced to
develop a win-win scenario. This resolution simply
encourages ARB to conduct a more comprehensive analysis of
the impact that AB 32 will have on jobs in the state, to
ensure that California is maintaining employment
opportunities and preparing the workforce for the emerging
green economy.
The Scoping Plan . Existing law requires ARB to approve and
implement a framework for California to reduce GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to reach 80 percent
of 1990 GHG emission levels by 2050. In December 2008, ARB
approved the Scoping Plan to begin this work.
This resolution asks for further analysis to be considered
within the Scoping Plan, particularly in the area of its
impact on workforce and the related training needs that may
occur in implementing the programs, fees, and regulations
identified in the Scoping Plan. The additional analysis is
based on recommendations by the by the LAO and the UCB,
which are discussed below. Below is a general summary of
the Scoping Plan including a chart of the proposed emission
reduction actions.
----------------------------------------------------------
|Recommended Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures | 2020 |
| |Reductions |
| | (MMTCO2E) |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|Estimated Reductions from the combination of | 146.7 |
|the Cap-and-Trade Program and complementary | total |
|measures including the 12 items below. | |
| | |
CONTINUED
ACR 77
Page
4
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|1. California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG | 31.7 |
|Standards (Transportation Sector) | |
| Implement Pavley standards | |
| Develop Pavley II light-duty vehicle | |
| standards | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|2. Energy Efficiency (Electricity & |26.3 |
|Commercial and Residential Sectors) | |
| Building and appliance energy | |
| efficiency and conservation | |
| Increase Combined Heat and Power | |
| (CHP) electricity production by 30,000 | |
| Wh | |
| Solar Water Heating (AB 1470 goal) | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|3. Renewables Portfolio Standard (33% by | 21.3 |
|2020) (Electricity Sector) | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|4. Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Transportation | 15 |
|Sector) | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|5. Regional Transportation-Related GHG | 5 |
|Targets | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|6. Vehicle Efficiency Measures | 4.5 |
|(Transportation Sector) | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|7. Goods Movement (Transportation Sector) | 3.7 |
| Ship Electrification at Ports | |
| System-Wide Efficiency Improvements | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|8. Million Solar Roofs (Existing Program | 2.1 |
|Target) (Electricity Sector) | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|9. Heavy/Medium Duty Vehicles | 1.4 |
|(Transportation Sector) | |
| Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG Emission | |
| Reduction (Aerodynamic Efficiency) | |
| Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle | |
| Hybridization | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|10. High Speed Rail (Transportation Sector) | 1.0 |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
CONTINUED
ACR 77
Page
5
|11. Industrial Measurer for sources covered | 0.3 |
|under the cap-and-trade program including | |
|refineries and energy efficiency and | |
|co-benefits audits (various industry sectors) | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|12. Additional reductions necessary to | 34.4 |
|achieve the cap | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|Estimated Reductions from Uncapped Sources as |27.3 total |
| indicated in 1 to 4 below | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|1. High Global Warming Potential Gas | 20.2 |
|Measures (various sectors) | |
| Reduction of Use, Recapture and | |
| Recovery | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|2. Sustainable Forests (Forestry Sector) | 5.0 |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|3. Industrial Sectors not covered under the | 1.1 |
|cap-and-trade program including oil and gas | |
|extraction and transmission | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|4. Recycling & Waste including landfill | 1.0 |
|methane capture (Recycling and Waste Sector) | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|Total Reductions Counted Toward 2020 Targets | 174 total |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
| | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|Other Recommended Measures items 1 to 6 below | 2020 |
| |Reductions |
| | (MMTCO2E) |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|1. State Government Operations | 1-2 |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|2. Local Government Actions and Regional GHG | TBD |
|Target | |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|3. Green Buildings | 26 |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|4. Recycling and Waste including mandatory | 9 |
|commercial recycling | |
CONTINUED
ACR 77
Page
6
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|5. Water Sector Measures | 4.8 |
|----------------------------------------------+-----------|
|6. Methane Capture at Large Dairies | 1 |
|(Agriculture Sector) | |
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
|Source: AB 32 Scoping Plan, ARB, |
|2008 |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------
In implementing this Scoping Plan, ARB forecast a net gain
of $33 billion in economic activity resulting in $7 billion
in additional Gross State Product. In addition, ARB states
that many of the measures in the plan will deliver
significant gains in energy efficiency. ARB believes that
even with the projected increases in per unit energy costs,
that implementation of the actions in the Scoping Plan will
result in annual savings per household of between $400 and
$500 on average by 2020. Similar savings are projected in
the transportation area. It is further stated that the
state's proactive climate change policy will create a
strong incentive for additional private investment.
The Scoping Plan also recommends, and the ARB is currently
in the process of adopting, fees to fund the state's
implementation and administration of AB 32. Existing law
specifies that these fees can be assessed on the sources of
GHG emissions which include, but are not limited to,
producers and importers of transportation fuels,
refineries, cement manufacturers importers of out-of-state
electricity, facilities that combust coal, and natural gas
utilities and pipeline owners and operators.
AB 32 implementation costs are estimated by the ARB to be
$24 million in 2007-08; $32 million in 2008-09; and $39
million in 2009-10 for a total program start-up cost of $95
million through June 30, 2010. ARB's proposed AB 32 budget
for FY 2009-10 includes funding for 177 personnel years for
a variety of boards and departments, 155 of which are
located at ARB. To the extent that the Scoping Plan has
been adequately prepared, the fee schedule and
implementation plans may be inappropriate.
CONTINUED
ACR 77
Page
7
Independent Review of the Scoping Plan . The purpose of the
Scoping Plan is to provide significant background and
policy direction for the state to use in charting a path
toward a lower carbon economy. Questions have arisen about
the current Scoping Plan, however, as to whether ARB has
fully addressed all relevant issues and whether sufficient
care has been taken to choose the most cost-effective,
equitable, and least economically damaging GHG emission
reduction actions. These concerns have been raised by a
number of stakeholders including policy makers,
environmental justice groups, and business and labor
organizations.
Due to this heightened scrutiny, a number of independent
reviews were undertaken of the Scoping Plan. The LAO's
review of the Scoping Plan found, among other things, that
it was inconsistent, incomplete, and contained
"rudimentary" macroeconomic modeling. In conclusion, the
LAO recommended that the Legislature continue its oversight
as the ARB further developed actions related to the Scoping
Plan.
UCB's review found that implementation of AB 32 presents
significant challenges to the state and in the absence of
careful and farsighted implementation strategies California
could lose businesses to other regions in the country and
ultimately result in trading well-paying jobs for new jobs
of lesser quality. In addition, the UCB analysis found
that the selected macroeconomic models were inadequate,
provided inconsistent findings, and were not appropriate
for fully capturing data related to dislocation of workers
within specific industries. While, overall, the report
supports ARB's individual policy recommendations, it
recommends that additional steps be taken to protect
workers who are likely to lose jobs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
incorporating the requested information into the economic
analysis would cost the ARB approximately $3 million in Air
Pollution Control funds.
CONTINUED
ACR 77
Page
8
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/9/09)
Coalition for Green Jobs (source)
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
Building Owners and Managers Association of California
California Apartment Association
California Business Properties Association
California Grocers Association
California Labor Federation
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Coalition of California Utility Workers
County of Madera
International Council of Shopping Centers
National Association of Industrial and Office Properties
State Building and Constructions Trades Council
Western State Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Western States Petroleum Association
TSM:mw 9/9/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED