The European Union's and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative's recent experiences with carbon trading, and the EPA’s attempts to impose adequate SO2 emission limits within the framework of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, have made it clear that caps and standards cannot be solely relied upon to motivate sufficient emission reductions. Supplementary policies are required to maintain stable regulatory incentives and to fully exploit the potential of technology advances and economies of scale to the benefit of environmental goals.

This principle was clearly recognized by the California legislature when, in 2006, it passed the state’s landmark AB 32 measure. AB 32 requires the California’s Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt and implement regulations that will at least reduce statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the 1990 level by the year 2020. But it does not stop there.  Section 38560 of the statute further requires ARB to seek maximum reduction of GHG emissions to the extent that such additional reductions are technologically feasible and cost-effective. This latter requirement sets an important precedent for other states, the federal government, and international efforts to address climate change.

Unfortunately, ARB has been focusing its AB 32 implementation strategy exclusively on the minimal requirement of the 2020 limit, while ignoring the broader maximum-reduction mandate. In view of the increasingly grim evidence of climate science, this minimalist approach to climate regulation, adopted on a global scale, poses a grave danger to the climate system and to the welfare of future generations.

The consequence of ARB's weak interpretation of AB 32 is illustrated by California's vehicle emission reduction program. ARB's economic analysis underlying its AB 32 implementation plan indicates that there is significant unrealized potential for cost-effective reductions in vehicle emissions, and ARB is exploring regulatory options for achieving such further reductions. But under the current plan, any impact of such reductions would be offset by greater emission allowances in other sectors, resulting in no net decrease in statewide emissions.

Section 38560 of AB 32 specifically directs ARB to “adopt rules and regulations … to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions …”. WELC has been working with our partners to secure ARB’s compliance with this mandate according to the legislative intent.

In November 2008, in a letter to the ARB, WELC attorney Dan Galpern challenged ARB’s disregard of the maximum-reduction mandate.  In February 2009, we initiated a dialogue with legislators, urging the legislature to underscore the original and proper intent of AB 32, so that in ARB’s development of implementing regulations maximum reductions in GHG emissions are in fact achieved. And in a recent letter to ARB, Galpern pointed out the conflict between ARB’s AB 32 implementation plan and Section 38560, in the context of transportation policy.

WELC believes the principle codified in Section 38560 of AB 32 is essential, not only for the effectiveness of the California program but also for other jurisdictions – including the nation as a whole. But if California’s lead agency proceeds to adopt final regulations implementing AB 32 as if Section 38560 does not exist, then the maximum-reduction mandate may be deemed hollow and likely not emulated elsewhere.

Click here to read AB 32 (pdf).

Click here to read ARB's Plan to Implement AB 32.

Click here to visit ARB's Climate Change Page.

Click here to read WELC’s November 2008 letter to ARB challenging ARB’s disregard of the maximum-reduction mandate (pdf).

Click here to read WELC’s February 2009 memorandum to legislators seeking action to ensure that ARB’s rules achieve maximum emission reductions (pdf).

Click here to read analyst Ken Johnson’s policy brief on ARB’s Strategy for Passenger Vehicle Regulation Under AB 32 (pdf).

Click here to read WELC’s March 2009 letter to ARB on vehicle emission regulation and AB 32 (pdf).

Click here to read WELC’s May 2009 letter to Senator Fran Pavley on requesting consistency of ARB’s implementation plan with the statutory requirements and intent of AB 32. (pdf).