Open Letter to the California Air Resources Board

I am writing to ask that you act now to protect California businesses from unnecessary harm resulting from the planned auction of emission allowances under AB 32. The auction, as now planned, exposes many California businesses to extraordinary costs that will put them at an unfair competitive disadvantage, encourage them to move their operations to other states or nations, and put California jobs at risk.

The action I am asking you to take – to provide additional transition assistance to California businesses -- will in no way deter or diminish the effectiveness of the cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. I ask that you direct CARB’s staff to take this action now. California businesses need certainty that they will not face unsustainable costs in the future so that they can make plans to invest in California.

Allowing businesses to participate in the cap and trade program without also requiring them to unnecessarily purchase emission allowances will protect California businesses and jobs while still meeting the goals of AB 32.

Please act now to protect California workers and the California economy.

To have your company listed on the letter please fill out the form below. Your name, email address and zip code will NOT be listed on the letter.

Your name, email address and zip code will NOT be listed on the letter.

Company Name:

Name:

Email:

Zip Code:

Current Supporters

Metal Finishing Association of Southern California
AAA Plating & Inspection, Inc.
Access Business Group LLC
Allen Gill Construction, Inc.
Allied Biomedical
Ambrit Industries
American Licorice Company
Arco
Bill Welch Portable Welding
Bishop-Wisecarver Corporation
Brinderson
Brusa Insurance
California Custom Fruits & Flavors, Inc.
Chevron
CP Kelco
Crow Financial Services
Ed Pink Racing Engines
Enhanced Vision
Environmetal Recovery Services, Inc
Executive Forums - Inland Empire
Fabcor
fisher industrial real estate
Gelzone, Inc.
General Dynamics NASSCO
Gorilla's Polishing & Plating Corp
Great American Packaging, Inc.
Guardian Industries Corp.
Guittard Chocolate Co.
H & H Specialties, Inc.
Heaton & Associates, Inc.
horny
Implantech Associates, Inc.
International Paper
J.R. Simplot Company
JET Coatings, Inc.
Jim Miille
KAS Engineering
KCB Towers
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
Lansco Engineering
Lilac Farm Management, Inc
Mainland Prodocts Inc
McCrometer, Inc
Melco Engineering LLC
Nu Design Inc
Nucor Steel Kingman LLC
NWI Insurance Solutions
PACIFIC METALS GROUP LLC
patrik
Perfection Machine & Tool Works
Planetary Machine and Engineering Inc.
PMCS, Inc.
PRC DeSoto International/Sierracin Corporation
Printing Industries of Califonria
Roto-lite Inc
ROYAL RANGE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
Santa Clara Plating Co., Inc.
Sarmento's fabrication inc.
Sasol Wax North America Corporation
Schoenstein & Co., Est. 1877
Scicon Technologies Corporation
Searles Valley Minerals
Seldon Brusa Insurance Agency
Sheffield Platers Inc
Sign Age Identity Systems, Inc.
Solar Turbines
Southland Manufacturing, Inc.
Sparling Instruments, LLC
Straight Line Steering
Terra Furniture Inc
Trinity steel corporation
Unicorn Cabinets, Inc.
USS-POSCO Industries
USS-POSCO Industries
Valentine's Concrete Products Inc.
Valley Chrome Plating
Verco Decking
Verco Decking Inc.
Verco Decking Inc. @ Nucor Division
Verco Decking, Inc
Verco Decking, Inc.
Vista Metals Corp.
Wellness Express Healthcare, Inc.
Wesley Inspections. Ltd

Cost impacts of California's AB 32

AB 32 Report

Click here to download the executive summary of the AB 32 Report.
Click here to download the full AB 32 Report.

(snapshots from the report)

Investment Survey

Click here to download the excutive summary of the Investment Survey.
Click here to download the full Investment Survey.

(snapshots from the survey)

Climate change costs media coverage

- Group Says AB 32 WIll Cost San Diego Millions (1 minute audio)

- Negative Impacts of State's Climate Change Policies

Climate change costs in the News

Press Release

Study: Families and state's economy to pay dearly for global warming policies June 28, 2012 In 2020 families will pay annual hidden tax of $2,500, state and local annual lost revenues to hit $7.4 billion Sacramento, CA -- California families will be forced to pay $2,500 annually and lose $900 in earnings per year by 2020 as a result of the California Global Warming Solutions Act, according to a study released today. The costs to families will start to mount immediately in 2013. Losses to employers and the state's economy will be counted in the billions. "These policies will create a large but hidden tax on families and will add new burdens to a fragile state economy" said Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA). "This new tax is not what we need while Californians struggle to find jobs, meet mortgage payments and maintain a reasonable quality of life." The Act, also known as Assembly Bill 32, has spawned a complex regulatory scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 was passed in 2006 to establish a statewide cap on emissions judged to be responsible for climate change. The study of the fiscal impacts of the regulatory program was conducted by Andrew Chang and Company and was commissioned by CMTA. The study also shows that by 2020, California will have 262,000 fewer jobs, 5.6 percent less gross state product and $7.4 billion less in annual local and state tax revenues. These figures were reached based on an "optimistic" scenario, where costs for each policy are assumed to be at the low end of a range of expected costs and the environmental goals are achieved. It assumes plentiful low carbon fuel with limited demand outside of California, 2.5 percent energy efficiency improvements and a significant reduction in vehicle miles traveled. When less optimistic projections are used, the costs are staggering. In the study's "high case" scenario, families pay $4,500 in annual costs and California receives $38.8 billion less in local and state tax revenues by 2020. Even in the rosiest of scenarios, the “low case”, families still pay $1,300 in annual costs and California loses $15.8 billion in local and state tax revenues. These impacts are particularly worrisome when considered in light of other recent trends. Although California had hoped to be at the forefront of a national movement when it passed AB 32 in 2006, it remains the only state with a cap on emissions and no federal program is on the horizon. "This poses great risks to manufacturers and other firms competing in regional and global markets," Stewart said. "Current data shows that California already is lagging the nation in new manufacturing investment because of other cost pressures and uncertainties. The Legislature must use this critical data to get control of AB 32 costs." For small businesses, the threat may be even greater. "For the past five years, small business owners have been concerned about their ability to operate under the potential costs of a complicated AB 32 regulatory scheme," said the National Federation of Independent Business/California Executive Director John Kabateck. "This comprehensive report tells us that small business will get hit from all sides. Consumers will have less money to buy our products, employers will be forced to purchase more affordable products outside of California, and our own energy costs will make it nearly impossible to stay in business.” The report also details case studies on the cost impacts on local government by using publicly available data. Under the “optimistic” scenario, California’s local governments will lose $1.9 billion in revenues by 2020 and face an additional annual cost increase of $2.3 billion in 2020. “Municipalities are struggling everywhere in California,” said Diamond Bar mayor Ling Ling Chang. “This is a double hit in both lost revenues and substantial new costs. I’m in favor of greenhouse gas reductions but there must be a cheaper way to do this.” Our schools will be forced to adjust too. Under the “optimistic scenario”, the Los Angeles Unified School District will face cumulative costs of $27.3 million with an annual impact of $5.5 million in 2020. This study, titled Fiscal and Economic Impact of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, uses data from publicly available sources in a comprehensive appendix. The report and other information is available in full at www.cmta.net.

Case Studies

San Diego case study: download | press release
Sacramento & LAUSD case study: download | press release
State case study: download
Food processors case study: download
Hospital case study: download<-->

Critical findings presentation

Click here for a slide presentation on AB 32 critical findings.