August 19, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Air Board May Have It Right On Cap And Trade:

From the moment AB 32 and its mandate for greenhouse gas reductions passed in 2006, conservative opponents and climate change deniers have vilified it as an economic suicide pact for California.

But that may not be so, in part because of how the cap and trade system for lowering emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is now working.

What’s more, no one expected this to be a big state moneymaker back when current Democratic state Sen. Fran Pavley and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger were pushing it.

But it’s turning out to be just that, in about the amounts the current state budget proposal figured on – unless the state Chamber of Commerce succeeds in a current legal challenge to the law’s fund-raising side.

One question that lawsuit raises is just what to do with the more than $140 million raised in the first two state auctions of air pollution permits that are key to the system of gradually reducing limits (caps) on emissions. Spend it for the kind of green projects outlined in the law or set it aside in case the chamber wins? So far, Gov. Jerry Brown is coming down on the side of spending the money, but that’s not final.

This was designed all along to let some companies keep polluting while overall statewide levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases slowly sink to 1990 levels. Only companies that emit more than 25,000 tons of CO2 yearly are covered. So far, more than 260 are involved in the program, from oil refineries and power companies to dairies and large corporate farms.

All those outfits last November were given 90 percent of the pollution allowances they would need to continue operating at current emission levels for the next few years. (Each allowance, or permit, lets the owner emit one metric ton of CO2). Any that reduce greenhouse gases by just 10 percent, then, will have no further expenses for years to come.

The pollution permit auctions are only about the other 10 percent that most of the big companies involved will need.

There is strict secrecy about who’s bidding how much, too, the ARB claiming that’s so companies can freely bid on the allowances and reveal to no one but the ARB what they think it will cost them to clean up. Future planning will be based on those numbers. As in most auctions, the highest bidder wins, getting the permits it wants. The next highest bidders also get theirs, a process that continues until all available allowances are gone.

Everyone getting allowances in the auction pays for them at the lowest winning bid level, but never less than $10 per credit. In short, these auctions minimize what the state takes in, rather than maximize it, while still giving the permits significant value. The idea, says ARB spokesman Stanley Young, is to help fight climate change by delivering the most greenhouse gas reductions at the least cost.

Brown’s tentative 2013-14 budget forecasts the auctions will bring in about $400 million by the middle of next year.

Testimony at three hearings staged around the state over the last few months might help Brown decide where to put the money.

For sure, he can’t use it just to help balance the budget. AB32 requires it be spent on projects that reduce CO2. Because cars and trucks are the biggest CO2 producers in California, anything that helps take some of them off the road may qualify for funding.

So carbon permit auction money could be used, for one example, to help pay off bonds for the state’s nascent bullet train. Or to install solar panels. Or to improve energy efficiency in homes, offices and industrial plants. But probably not for education, roads or parks.

As for cap and trade itself, no company actually has to account for its allowances until November 2014. Polluting businesses meanwhile can buy or trade for credits given to other firms last fall or bought by them since. That’s supposed to make it profitable for companies originally given pollution allowances to cut their emissions, then sell or trade some of those they got. That’s the “trade” in cap and trade.

Only time will tell if all this will work without costing jobs and profits, especially for businesses using older equipment.

Already, the University of California has said its spending on pollution permits may reach $28 million yearly before 2018, equivalent to the cost of educating 2,800 students at an average of $10,000. No one is saying whether that will that force some students out or cause fee increases.

The bottom line: The first impression is that the air board probably has gotten this program right. It’s too soon to be sure whether it will work better than clumsy cap and trade systems previously tried in Europe and several Northeastern states. But the fact most businesses paid nothing for 90 percent of their pollution allowances is a real positive.

in Opinion
Related Posts

Column: Time to Crack Down on Vacant Homes’ Owners

August 12, 2022

August 12, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist ​​There is no doubt California has a housing shortage. That’s fact even in the wake of...

OpED: Santa Monica Police Officers Association on Downtown Presence

August 12, 2022

August 12, 2022

By The Santa Monica Police Officers Association Recently, there has been increased public dialogue around the topic of crime and...

Review: A Santa Monica Restaurant’s New Happy Hour is Top-Notch

August 10, 2022

August 10, 2022

By Dolores Quintana Birdie G’s in Santa Monica has a new Happy Hour and it is something special. For one...

SMa.r.t. Column: Ode to the Future of My City

August 8, 2022

August 8, 2022

How sad it is to journey to Santa Monica and I can’t find it.The open blue sky hides behind canyon...

SMa.r.t. Column: Why Native Gardens?

July 22, 2022

July 22, 2022

Voltaire said it best at the end of his 1759 novel  Candide: “We must cultivate our own garden”. This simple...

SMa.r.t. Column: We’re All Wet – Not!

July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Don’t you think that if you heard, or read, statements from controlling government agencies that said you were threatened by...

Affordability Answer: A New Tax on Housing Speculators?

July 8, 2022

July 8, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist The TV commercials and online ads are fast becoming ubiquitous: “We’ll buy your house as is,”...

SMar.t. Column: Has the Promenade Turned a Corner?

July 8, 2022

July 8, 2022

In large complex systems with dynamically balanced forces, it’s paradoxically often hard to tell when something has actually happened, For...

Column: Groundwater Law Has Not Stopped Subsidence

July 1, 2022

July 1, 2022

By Tom Elias Drive almost any road in the vast San Joaquin Valley and you’ll see irrigation pipes standing up...

SMa.r.t. Column: It’s Time to Look at the Facts of Santa Monica’s Housing History

June 30, 2022

June 30, 2022

The Narrative: Santa Monica’s decades-long housing construction “shortage”  The Narrative endlessly repeats the refrain that for decades Santa Monica has...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Mansionization of Santa Monica

June 17, 2022

June 17, 2022

Editor’s note: This column originally appeared in print in 2016.  In the 1980s, Santa Monica’s single family zoning code was...

OP-Ed Response to DTSM Board Chair Barry Snell and Plea to City Council Regarding Safety Ambassadors and Ambassador Program

June 14, 2022

June 14, 2022

I am responding to the OP-ED (dated June 7, 2022, Santa Monica Mirror) by City-appointed DTSM Board Member and now...

SMa.r.t. Column: Wheeling Electrically

June 9, 2022

June 9, 2022

A recent weekend visit to Dana Point, on the Orange County coastline, revealed a curious scene: dozens, if not hundreds...

Population Loss: New Era or Pandemic Glitch?

June 3, 2022

June 3, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist The numbers suggest a major change is underway in California. It would take a Nostradamus to...