BILL ANALYSIS
SB 104
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 104
AUTHOR: Oropeza
AMENDED: April 13, 2009
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 27, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT
SUMMARY :
Existing law , under the California Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006 (CGWSA):
1) Requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to
determine the 1990 statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
level and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is
equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020. ARB must
adopt regulations for reporting and verification of GHG
emissions, monitoring and compliance with the program, and
achieving GHG emission reductions from sources or
categories of sources by January 1, 2011, to be operative
on January 1, 2012, subject to certain requirements.
(Health and Safety Code 38500 et seq.).
2) Contains definitions for certain terms, and defines
"greenhouse gases" to include carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and
sulfur hexafluoride.
This bill :
1) Adds "nitrogen trifluoride" under the definition of
"greenhouse gases," as well as any other gas designated as
a GHG by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change and any amendments and protocols.
2) Provides that GHG emission limits and emission reduction
measures are not required to be adopted by the ARB by
January 1, 2011, for a GHG designated by the United Nations
SB 104
Page 2
Framework Convention on Climate Change and any amendments
and protocols.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . While AB 32 (Nunez/Pavley) Chapter 488,
Statutes of 2006, "used the same definition of GHGs that
were negotiated in the [Kyoto] Protocol in the 1990s." The
author cites two 2008 studies regarding nitrogen
trifluoride (NF3) and notes that NF3 "was not widely used
in the 1990s when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, and
until these two studies were released many in science,
industry and government believed that NF3 was a harmless
replacement to other damaging gases used by industries."
According to the author, studies found that NF3 has a global
warming potential 17,000 times greater than CO2, persists
in the atmosphere 550 years, and is used in the manufacture
of several consumer items, including photovoltaic solar
panels, LCD television screens, and microprocessors.
2) AB 32 analysis cited concerns over GHG definition . The AB
32 Committee analysis for the June 26, 2006, hearing
addressed the concern over the GHG definition in that bill
(Comment #3 "Defining Greenhouse Gases"):
"Although GHGs are regularly defined in accordance with five
to six gases, there are other recognized contaminants that
affect climate change (e.g., carbon black, and other
chemicals, substances, and gases). Because of the
long-life of certain contaminants on the atmosphere, a
broadened definition may be especially important for making
early changes that may affect the atmosphere for decades to
come.
Indeed, Jim Hansen, who is among the world's foremost
climatologists, has recently concluded that the 'total
forcing by non-CO 2 GHGs equals that of CO 2,' and that the
climate changes to date has been caused mainly by non-CO 2
pollutants, not CO 2.
It is recommended that the definition of greenhouse gases be
SB 104
Page 3
expanded with a fuller listing of an array of contaminants
having an impact on climate [that] are inventoried and
regulated, including those non-Kyoto contaminants having a
potential to contribute to climate change."
AB 32 was not amended to address Committee analysis Comment
#3.
3) Legislators request clarification . A letter from Senate
President Pro Tem Perata and Speaker Nunez dated September
7, 2006 (after passage of AB 32), to the ARB Chairman
Robert Sawyer regarding contributory pollutants and GHG
legislation focused on the legislators' "interest in the
so-called 'non-Kyoto' or 'contributory' pollutants and
their effect on global climate change." According to those
legislators, "Scientific information suggests that these
contributory pollutants may have a more immediate and
detrimental effect on climate warming than previously
thought" and "research seems to suggest that the state
needs to redouble its efforts to regulate contributory
pollutants in order to reduce their negative effects on
public health and global warming."
The letter noted that staff discussions indicated an
understanding that "most, if not all, of these pollutants
are already regulated by the [ARB] as criteria pollutants
or toxic air contaminants" and requested: a) clarification
of the role of contributory pollutants in the climate
change debate, b) an outline of ARB's regulatory
jurisdiction over contributory pollutants, and c) advice on
any needed changes in law that might be necessary to
strengthen ARB's authority over these pollutants.
In Sawyer's response to the three questions: a) non-Kyoto
pollutants "typically have not been included in GHG
reduction efforts due to scientific uncertainty and
complexity regarding magnitude, direction of climate change
effect (warming or cooling) and their life span in the
atmosphere;" b) "most non-Kyoto pollutants come under [ARB]
authority aimed at smog forming or toxic emissions" and
"air districts are directly responsible for permitting and
enforcement activities related to criteria and toxic
SB 104
Page 4
pollutants from stationary sources;" and c) "it is unclear
what the appropriate course of action is and, by extension,
whether any additional authority is necessary" and "[the
ARB] will include scientifically sound consideration of
non-Kyoto pollutants in ARB's decision-making process."
4) Clarification needed . Amendments are needed to: a) ensure
that SB 104 does not limit ARB's authority to designate
other GHGs, and b) specify a time period for the ARB to
adopt GHG emission limits and reduction measures after new
GHGs have been designated (i.e., less than two years).
SOURCE : Senator Oropeza
SUPPORT : American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO; Sierra
Club California, Union of Concerned Scientists
OPPOSITION : None on file