Capitol Alert

The go-to source for news on California policy and politics

California bill to delay cap-and-trade expansion finished for year

08/25/2014 12:10 PM

10/07/2014 8:33 PM

Avoiding an election-year legislative debate over how California’s cap-and-trade program could affect gasoline prices, the leader of the state Senate has sidelined a bill that would have delayed a key aspect of California’s landmark emissions law.

Several years have passed since California enacted AB 32, a 2006 law meant to reduce heat-trapping emissions and which requires industries to purchase permits for the carbon they pump into the air. But transportation fuels such as gasoline have not yet come under the program. That is scheduled to change in January, prompting moderate Democrats and an oil industry-funded campaign to warn about a spike in prices and argue for a delay.

Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno, warned that the change would hurt residents of inland districts where unemployment hovers above the state average and long commutes are commonplace. His Assembly Bill 69 would have delayed bringing transportation fuels under the cap-and-trade program. Numerous moderate Democrats signed a letter supporting the concept.

Democratic leaders and environmentalist allies pushed back, saying California must stay the course if the law is to achieve its purpose of curtailing the emissions blamed for global warming. Now Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, has all but ensured the change will proceed as planned, saying in a letter to Perea that AB 69 will not receive a hearing before the Aug. 31 end of the legislative session.

“I share your concern about the costs of combating carbon emissions. But the cost of doing nothing is much greater,” the letter reads.

Even if AB 69 had received a hearing, the bill faced long odds in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Perea has acknowledged that dynamic and said he sought to prompt discussion that could inform consumers about potentially higher prices come January.

“I’m disappointed that we couldn’t, at the minimum, get a hearing,” Perea said Monday in an interview, “because I think that the public was looking for a debate and I was hoping that a hearing would serve as an opportunity for everybody to weigh in.”

Capitol Alert staff

Amy Chance
Political editor
achance@sacbee.com
@Amy_Chance

Dan Smith
Capitol bureau chief
smith@sacbee.com
@DanielSnowSmith

Jim Miller
California policy and politics
Capitol Alert editor
jmiller@sacbee.com
@jimmiller2

David Siders
Brown administration
dsiders@sacbee.com
@davidsiders

Christopher Cadelago
California politics and health care
ccadelago@sacbee.com
@ccadelago

Laurel Rosenhall
Legislature, lobbying, higher education
lrosenhall@sacbee.com
@LaurelRosenhall

Jeremy B. White
Legislature
jwhite@sacbee.com
@capitolalert

Alexei Koseff
Insider Edition editor
akoseff@sacbee.com
@akoseff

 

Join the Discussion

The Sacramento Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Terms of Service