BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 333
                                                                  Page 1

          Date of Hearing:  June 27, 2011

                       ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                                Wesley Chesbro, Chair
                      AB 333 (Grove) - As Amended:  May 11, 2011
           
          SUBJECT  :  California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006:  cap 
          and trade program

           SUMMARY  :  Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to report to 
          the Legislature by July 31, 2011 on the readiness of its 
          proposed cap and trade program to begin January 1, 2012.  
          Authorizes ARB to delay cap and trade implementation up to one 
          year.  Requires ARB to report annually on the status of the cap 
          and trade program until 2016.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Requires ARB, pursuant to AB 32, to adopt a statewide 
            greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limit equivalent to 1990 levels 
            by 2020 and adopt regulations to achieve maximum 
            technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission 
            reductions.

          2)Authorizes ARB to permit the use of market-based compliance 
            mechanisms to comply with GHG reduction regulations, to be 
            adopted by 2011 and operative by 2012, under limited 
            circumstances once specified conditions are met.

           THIS BILL  :

          1)Contains findings regarding the cap and trade program adopted 
            by ARB pursuant to AB 32.

          2)Requires ARB to make findings and submit a status report to 
            the Legislature by July 31, 2011 on the readiness of the cap 
            and trade program to begin January 1, 2012.  The report is 
            required to address 15 specified issues listed in the bill 
            that mirror issues ARB itself requested its executive officer 
            to report on when it approved the cap and trade program in 
            December 2010.

          3)Authorizes ARB to commence the cap and trade program after 
            January 1, 2012, but not later than January 1, 2013, if ARB 
            finds that an adjustment to the start date is appropriate to 








                                                                  AB 333
                                                                  Page 2

            ensure successful implementation.

          4)Requires ARB to thereafter provide an annual cap and trade 
            status report to the Legislature until 2016.

          5)Contains an urgency clause.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown

           COMMENTS  : 

           1)Background.   The AB 32 Scoping Plan is a description of the 
            specific measures ARB and others must take to meet the 
            objective of AB 32:  Reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 
            levels by 2020.  The reduction measures identified in the 
            Scoping Plan must be proposed, reviewed, and adopted as 
            individual regulations by January 1, 2011, to become operative 
            beginning on January 1, 2012.

            According to recently revised estimates from ARB, a total 
            reduction of 80 million metric tons (MMT), or 16 percent 
            compared to business as usual, is necessary to achieve the 
            2020 limit.  Approximately 78 percent of the reductions will 
            be achieved through identified "regulatory" measures.  ARB 
            proposes to achieve the balance of reductions necessary to 
            meet the 2020 limit (approximately 18 MMT) through a cap and 
            trade program.  

            In December 2010, ARB adopted a proposed cap and trade program 
            that would apply to an estimated 600 regulated entities 
            engaged in stationary combustion, cement manufacturing, 
            cogeneration, petroleum refining, hydrogen production, 
            aluminum production, facility operators calcining carbonates, 
            CO2 supplier or transfer recipient, electricity generation, 
            glass production, iron and steel production, lime production, 
            natural gas transmission and distribution, nitric acid 
            production, oil and gas extraction field operation, production 
            of industrial gases, pulp and paper production, soda ash 
            production, electricity deliverers, transportation fuel 
            deliverers, and natural gas deliverers.

            In a cap and trade program, a limit, or cap is put on the 
            amount of pollutants (GHGs) that can be emitted.  Each 
            allowance equals one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent.  
            The total number of allowances created is equal to the cap set 








                                                                  AB 333
                                                                  Page 3

            for cumulative emissions from all the covered sectors.  These 
            allowances may be auctioned and/or freely given to companies 
            or other groups.  In addition to allowances, emissions 
            reductions from sources that are outside the cap coverage, 
            called offsets, could be authorized.  This would allow 
            emissions in the capped sectors to exceed the allowances 
            issued.  After initial distribution of allowances-or in the 
            use of offsets-compliance instruments may be traded among 
            entities.  At the end of each compliance period, covered 
            entities are required to turn in, or surrender, enough 
            compliance instruments to match their emissions during this 
            time period.  

            Although slated for final adoption later this year and 
            implementation beginning in 2012, ARB's proposed cap and trade 
            program has been sidetracked by a recent court ruling in a 
            lawsuit alleging deficiencies in ARB's CEQA analysis.  On May 
            20, the San Francisco Superior Court, in Association of 
            Irritated Residents, et al v. ARB, ruled that ARB had failed 
            to comply with CEQA in adopting its AB 32 Scoping Plan and 
            enjoining any further cap and trade rulemaking until ARB 
            remedies its CEQA analysis.  The court found that ARB's 
            discussion of alternatives was inadequate and that ARB 
            improperly approved the Scoping Plan prior to completing its 
            environmental review.  On June 13, ARB released a revised 
            alternatives analysis intended to comply with the Superior 
            Court ruling, which is scheduled for board consideration in 
            August.  ARB has also appealed the ruling.

           2)ARB has committed to report on issues listed in the bill.   The 
            issues this bill asks ARB to report on are drawn from 
            Resolution 10-42, adopted by ARB when it approved the proposed 
            cap and trade program in December 2010.  These issues were 
            included in the ARB resolution because they were raised by 
            stakeholders and/or board members during the rulemaking 
            process.  The resolution directs the executive officer to 
            report to the board no later than July 31, 2011.  According to 
            ARB, staff will present a status report per the resolution at 
            the August 24 board meeting.  The report will likely consist 
            of a slide presentation, which may be accompanied by a staff 
            report, and will be published on ARB's website.

           3)Must cap and trade begin on January 1, 2012?   In two 
            provisions, AB 32 suggests that its regulations will be 
            operative beginning January 1, 2012.  In particular, the 








                                                                  AB 333
                                                                  Page 4

            provision authorizing cap and trade says ARB "may adopt a 
            regulation?applicable from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 
            2020?" (Health and Safety Code Section 38562(c))  Because this 
            provision authorizes, but doesn't require, cap and trade, it 
            can't be read to require cap and trade to begin January 1, 
            2012.  However, if ARB proceeds to final adoption of a cap and 
            trade regulation, the provision suggests the regulation must 
            be "applicable" beginning January 1, 2012.  The meaning of 
            "applicable," and the scope of the regulation, is subject to 
            the interpretation and discretion of ARB.  

           4)"Delay" authority may instead commit ARB to cap and trade.   
            The provision in this bill that's posed as giving ARB 
            flexibility to delay implementation of cap and trade may in 
            fact limit ARB's ability to not proceed with cap and trade.  
            Proposed Section 38598.5(b) (on page 4, line 13 of the bill) 
            reads:

               If the state board finds in the status report to the 
               Legislature pursuant to subdivision (a) that an adjustment 
               to the start date for the cap-and-trade program is 
               appropriate to ensure successful implementation of 
               cap-and-trade regulation, the state board may commence the 
               cap-and-trade program after January 1, 2012, but no later 
               than January 1, 2013. (emphasis added)

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support 
           
          California Grocers Association
          California Independent Petroleum Association
          California League of Food Processors
          California Manufacturers & Technology Association
          California Metals Coalition
          Chemical Industry Council of California
          Consumer Specialty Products Association
          Western States Petroleum Association

           Opposition 
           
          None on file

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :  Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 








                                                                  AB 333
                                                                  Page 5

          319-2092