State leads the way in climate-change rules
David R. Baker,Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writers
Sunday, June 28, 2009
When California passed sweeping laws to fight global warming nearly three years ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state politicians hoped the move would force a reluctant federal government to act.
They got their wish.
The landmark climate-change bill approved Friday by the House of Representatives copies whole chapters from California's global warming playbook. Its limits on greenhouse gas emissions are similar to those in the state. So is the method for cutting emissions, a complex system called cap and trade.
In addition, the bill's emphasis on energy efficiency, especially in new buildings, is pure California, and its limits on new coal-burning power plants parallel California's.
"California's fingerprints are all over it," said Carl Zichella, regional director for the Sierra Club. "You look at the major components of this legislation and you see the leadership California has provided over the last eight years."
It's no accident. Los Angeles Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman co-wrote the bill. San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, corralled the votes to pass it. Rep. Mary Bono Mack of Palm Springs was one of only eight Republicans to vote for the bill, sealing its victory.
"I'm sure she's been under a lot of pressure," her fellow Energy and Commerce Committee member, Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, said after the vote. "(But) she has a lot of new energy technology in her district, and she understands where that can create jobs."
Critical role
McNerney, whose background is in generating wind energy, said the California congressional delegation played a critical role in the passage of the bill.
"I wouldn't want to say we were setting the agenda; we're offering a lot of leadership and doing a lot of the heavy lifting," he said. "We wouldn't have gotten this done without the delegation."
The California connection hasn't been lost on the bill's opponents, either.
"As goes California, so goes the nation," warned an editorial from the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Nowhere is this adage truer than in environmental policy, thanks to Democrats' eagerness to impose the Golden State's radical eco-agenda on all Americans."
California isn't the only state with global warming programs. Many states, tired of waiting for federal action, have drafted policies to cut carbon dioxide emissions, although California was the first to write that goal into law.
Twenty-four states are developing cap-and-trade systems, most of them working in regional blocks that cover the West, the Midwest and the Northeast. The House bill's other lead author, Rep. Ed Markey, hails from Massachusetts.
Renewable power
Two dozen states also require their utilities to use more renewable power, setting minimum limits that electric utilities must meet or beat by specific dates. California law, for example, requires all utilities to get 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by the end of 2010.
That's the toughest such standard in the nation, illustrating another reason the federal legislation takes cues from California. In general, California has adopted regulations on greenhouse gases, renewable power and energy efficiency faster than the rest of the nation and the rules here tend to be tougher than they are elsewhere.
"We've set the highest standards, we've had the most aggressive program and we've blazed the way," Zichella said.
Many Californians who have pushed hard for federal legislation on climate change worry that the House bill is too weak. But Peter Darbee, chief executive officer of Pacific Gas and Electric Co., said the system it would create to cut greenhouse gas emissions could be honed and improved once it wins approval.
"My own view is that we need to get a basic platform in place, and it's important we do so sooner rather than later," said Darbee, who spent part of last week in Washington lobbying for the House bill. "Then when we have it in place, we can see how it works. We may see that it performs exactly as projected, which most things don't."
Suspending some programs
If the House bill, called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, survives the Senate, it would suspend some of the state climate-change programs but leave most of them running.
For example, the bill would set a minimum requirement for the renewable power each state must use - about 15 percent by the year 2020. But states with more stringent standards, such as California, would be able to enforce their higher limits.
"It doesn't say, 'Oh, California should dial back,' " said Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the former head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "It certainly will not trump the more aggressive (states)."
There is one key exception. The bill would suspend for five years all state-run cap-and-trade systems. Cap-and-trade systems set a declining limit on greenhouse gas emissions and then force companies to buy and sell credits to emit specific amounts of gas.
California plans to start a cap-and-trade system in 2012, creating a carbon dioxide market that would include six other Western states and four Canadian provinces. Mary Nichols, head of the California agency charged with creating the market, said the state would push forward despite the federal bill. That way, California and its neighbors may be able to influence the rules of the proposed federal carbon market.
"For the time being, it's extremely important for all concerned that we continue to work on these issues because we've already seen how much our willingness to get out there and address these issues has benefited the nation as a whole," said Nichols, who chairs the California Air Resources Board.
Different goals
As outlined in the House bill, the federal cap-and-trade system would cut greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005's levels by the year 2020, while California's proposed system would cut roughly 15 percent. By 2050, the federal system would slash emissions more than 80 percent, compared with 83 percent under California's system.
There are other similarities. The House bill would require new buildings to be 30 percent more energy-efficient in 2012 and 50 percent more efficient by 2016. California has set, and continuously tightened, energy-efficiency standards for new buildings since the 1970s.
Under the federal plan, strict emission limits would be placed on new power plants burning coal. By 2020, all new coal plants would have to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent. From now to 2020, new coal plants would have to slash their emissions by 50 percent. Coal plants would not be able to comply with such limits without capturing emissions and storing them underground, experts say.
Stricter rules
California, by comparison, simply forbids new coal plants unless they reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to the level of a power plant burning natural gas.
Perhaps most critically, the House bill would not prevent states from exploring other ways to fight climate change, allowing them to continue innovating.
"This is the bright spot ... this bill does not take away their authority to impose regulations or policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Danielle Fugere, Western Regional Program Director of Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that opposed the bill as too weak. "You'll see continued motion in the East Coast and the West Coast."
sfgate.com |
