BILL ANALYSIS
ACR 143
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
ACR 143 (Hagman) - As Introduced: March 8, 2010
SUBJECT : Pollution: Environmental Protection Agency.
SUMMARY : Resolves that the California Legislature supports
federal Senate Joint Resolution 26 to prevent the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from acting independently
to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant.
EXISTING STATE LAW : pursuant to the California Global Warming
Solutions Act (AB 32), requires ARB to adopt a statewide
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limit equivalent to 1990 levels
by 2020 and to adopt rules and regulations to achieve maximum
technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission
reductions. The ARB classifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW establishes that greenhouse gases are air
pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and that the EPA
Administrator has the power to determine whether or not
emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is
too uncertain to make a reasoned decision, pursuant to a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling in 2007 (Massachusetts v. EPA).
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : In April 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled
that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act
in the verdict of Massachusetts v. EPA. This ruling included
that the EPA Administrator can decide whether or not emissions
from greenhouse gases emitted from new motor vehicle use causes,
or contributes to, air pollution that may endanger public health
or welfare, or, whether the science behind the issue is too
uncertain to make a reasoned decision.
In April 2009, the EPA declared that CO2 gas is a pollutant that
endangers human health or welfare under the Clean Air Act. At
that time, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson released a rationale
statement that the total body of scientific evidence
compellingly supports the hypothesis that greenhouse gases
ACR 143
Page 2
threaten public health and welfare. As part of her decision,
the Administrator considered the scientific evidence concerning
current and projected future effects of climate change, as well
as examining the potential risks and impacts of greenhouse gases
on public health and welfare in the U.S. In addition, the
Administrator considered the health risk factors for Americans
from greenhouse gases emitted both within and outside of the
U.S. Once the EPA has included a new pollutant under the Clean
Air Act, it must then develop and enforce regulations to protect
the general public from exposure to it.
In January 2010, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), along
with 35 other Republicans and 3 Democrats, invoked the
Congressional Review Act (CRA) (Public Law 104-121) in an
attempt to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under
the Clean Air Act by introducing Senate Joint Resolution 26 (SJR
26). This particular CRA is still under review and has not been
resolved. CRAs give federal legislators an option to review
every new federal regulation issued by the government agencies
and, by passage of a joint resolution, overrule a regulation.
CRAs can only be used to overturn regulations that are major
rules that have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million
or more; major price increases; or other "significant adverse
effects" on the economy, as determined by the White House Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). However, the
EPA's decision to classify CO2 as a greenhouse gas was approved
by the OIRA prior to its announcement. In addition, all CRAs
must be signed by the President of the United States in order to
be valid, and President Obama also approved the EPAs declaration
of CO2 gas as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
Conflict with existing state law. In 2006, AB 32 was enacted to
require ARB to adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent
to 1990 levels by 2020. ARB is responsible for adopting
regulations to achieve this limit, and sources of GHGs are
required to monitor and report their emissions to the ARB
pursuant to those regulations. AB 32 defines CO2 as a GHG. In
addition, AB 32 gives the Governor the authority to postpone the
implementation of its regulations if the circumstances are
justified.
The author predicts that the EPA's adoption and implementation
of regulations restricting CO2 emissions will have serious
financial and economic implications for California. However,
most existing economic studies suggest minimal effects, such as
ACR 143
Page 3
relatively high employment growth in "green jobs," and the past
few years have seen significant venture capital investments in
clean technology sectors in the U.S., most of which has been
invested within California.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
American Lung Association in California
Breathe California
California Interfaith Power and Light
California League of Conservation Voters
Center for Resource Solutions
Climate Protection Campaign
Coalition for Clean Air
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Environmental Defense Fund
Global Green USA
Pacific Forest Trust
Planning and Conservation League
TransForm
Union of Concerned Scientists
Analysis Prepared by : Jessica Westbrook / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092