Theory meets reality on California's carbon cap-and-trade programPosted by Gino DiCaro, Vice President, Communications on Aug. 16, 2012
Theory met reality on Tuesday at a Senate informational hearing on California's carbon cap-and-trade program that is set to start with an auction in November 2012. Craig Anderson from Solar Turbines, an industrial gas turbine manufacturer with 4,000 employees in San Diego, testified that the soon-to-be-fully-implemented cap-and-trade program is the most significant threat to his company's growth.
"I can say without hesitation that AB 32 is viewed by our company leaders as not only the most significant environmental regulation we have faced in California, but also the greatest threat to the growth of our business in California," said Anderson.
You can view Anderson's full testimony here (5:45 min).
Following are more real world impacts from employer testimony on Tuesday. These are companies that, as you'll see in their video remarks, are already some of the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Mona Schuman with Pacific Coast Producers
View testimony here (5:49)
Ryan Modlin with Owens-Illinois
"It costs us 30 percent more already for us to do business in California than anywhere else in the United States. Under this program, it will add a couple million dollars at $20 per ton."
View testimony here (8:49)
Rob Joyce with Guardian Industries
"Compliance costs associated with cap-and-trade regulation will likely erode the competitiveness of flat glass manufacturers in California without providing a meaningful incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
View testimony here (7:49)
Key questioning and testimony also came from Sen. Rod Wright (Committee chairman), Sen. Michael Rubio, Sen. Bob Dutton, LAO's Tiffany Roberts, CMTA's Dorothy Rothrock, Insulation Manufacturers' Angus Crane, WSPA's Cathy Reheis-Boyd, NFIB's John Kabateck, CLFP's John Larrea, and a Gallo glass worker and representative. (click names for video).
Collectively the hearing's appeal to the California Air Resources Board was to freely allocate emission allowances up to the cap, for all industries, for all eight years of the program. There is no reason to do otherwise. California will still reach its goals and companies will still be forced to reduce to their capped benchmark. (Here is a chart to show how the current auction will charge the food processing industry beyond the cap over the next eight years).
The cap-and-trade concerns reached far beyond employers and workers this month too. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Philip Moeller wrote a letter last week to Gov. Jerry Brown asking him to
View the complete letter here.
It's now CARB's turn, before it is too late, to get realistic about making this program work for California's economy and environment.
0 comments | Post your comment
California's cap-and-trade needs to be well-designed to protect manufacturersPosted by Gino DiCaro, Vice President, Communications on Aug. 17, 2011
California has lost a third of its manufacturing sector and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) continues to try to implement the state's AB 32 carbon reduction program in a cost-effective manner. The rest of the country has lost a large portion of its manufacturing as well, but at least temporarily given up on mandatory carbon reductions.
0 comments | Post your comment
In closing hours of Governor's bill signing period, two economy-busters loom and require a vetoPosted by Gino DiCaro, Vice President, Communications on Sept. 30, 2010
Up against tonight's midnight deadline to sign or veto all bills, the outcome of two specific bills could make or break Schwarzenegger's legacy of commitment to our economy. If the bills become law, they stand to send big signals to private sector job creators that California is not interested in their ability to compete and grow jobs.
AB 569 provides special treatment for a few unionized industries and fixes 'meal and rest' regulations for only a select few, leaving a large majority of our private workforce and employers without help. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature would likely end any chance for a comprehensive fix. On the flip side, his veto would signal the state's commitment to denying special treatment for unions and growing jobs in all industries. See recent CMTA opinion HERE.
0 comments | Post your comment
'Cool Cars' embodies Sacramento's 'bumbling, well-intentioned, paternalistic nonsense'Posted by Gino DiCaro, Vice President, Communications on Feb. 23, 2010
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is looking to finalize its "Cool Cars" policy this Thursday, once again putting regulation before reason and imposing knee jerk command-and-control mandates with no regard for economic impacts and, in this case, public safety.
**** Since this blog was written I have been corrected by CARB that it is not on the agenda for Thursday. But no doubt folks are still showing up to testify in the public comment period on the issue *****
Here's the nickel tour:
CARB originally tried to ban dark colored vehicles. That didn't fly with the public, auto dealers, manufacturers and anyone else who breathes in California. Whew.
Policies like this require extensive research to ensure proper benefit with the least amount of economic burden. Over the past few months important information and data on these two fronts has emerged from the Wireless Association and the Auto Alliance that prove that the proposed "Cool Cars" policy creates:
Even when presented with these problems and new information on better alternatives, CARB is still unwilling to budge and provide any flexibility or necessary changes in the regulation.
Tags: 2 million jobs AB 32 California Air Resources Board CARB Cool Cars greenhouse gas emmissions regulatory campaign
2 comments | Post your comment
Poll: AB 32's glaring weakness -- CA-only costsPosted by Gino DiCaro, Vice President, Communications on Jan. 21, 2010
EMC Research released a follow-up poll today to the one they did a year ago on Californian's attitudes toward AB 32 and the state's desire to go it alone.
The state's greenhouse reduction program is not a freebie. Large costs foisted on an unemployment-riddled state economy and increased industry electricity rates already 95 percent higher than western competitor states are not affordable at this time, if ever. The above poll numbers, 600,000 lost manufacturing jobs since 2001, 12.3% unemployment, and the electricity rates below provide some of the most rational context for the AB 32 policy debate. In other words, how can we implement the program so it doesn't hurt the state's economy and jobs, and in a manner that gets the whole country to help reduce global warming emissions?
1 comments | Post your comment
View next 5 entries