By David McCoard
Late in the evening of July 17, the California Legislature passed a bill to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program with the goal of reducing greenhouse gases and controlling climate change. The Sierra Club, along with a number of environmental-justice organizations, opposed the extension because it gave too much to the oil industry. Specifically, the Sierra Club’s strong opposition was based on three elements:
- The extension prevents local air districts from imposing regulations to lower carbon dioxide emissions from facilities that are also covered by the cap-and-trade program (such as oil refineries). It is unclear whether local air districts can regulate emissions of other deadly air contaminants if those regulations indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
- The extension allows cap-and-trade revenue to be spent back-filling revenue lost because of a new manufacturing-tax exemption and the suspension of a fire-prevention fee. The lost revenues could add up to as much as $3.5 billion over a decade. This is money that instead could be invested in near-term greenhouse gas emission reductions to help avoid the worst effects of climate change.
- The manufacturing-tax exemption was also broadened to include a range of electricity generation the Sierra Club opposes, including fossil fuels.
Here’s more on the first element of our opposition:
Damaging provision with local implications
The oil industry lobbied hard for the provision that prevents local air districts from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, which has further complicated the passage of a cap on refinery emissions of greenhouse gases here in the Bay Area.
Advocates have been pushing for years for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) to cap refinery-wide emissions via proposed Regulation 12, Rule 16, but it has been repeatedly delayed and weakened due to the oil industry’s consistently strong pressure. This rule would limit greenhouse gas emissions from each refinery based on its historic emissions.
Because greenhouse gases are released from refineries alongside toxins and other dangerous pollution, a cap on greenhouse gases would provide much-needed relief to communities exposed to unhealthy air and prevent refineries from bringing in dirtier grades crude of crude oil.
Local emission cap can and should move forward
The cap-and-trade provision prohibiting regional air boards from implementing carbon-dioxide-reduction regulations should not preempt the passage of the Air District’s Rule 12-16. Rule 12-16 would cap, not reduce, refinery emissions — that is, its intent is to prevent the rise in emissions rather than lowering existing emissions.
Nevertheless, the Air District wants to delay a final vote on Rule 12-16 in order to get definitive interpretation from state agencies on the wording and actual intent of the bill. The Air District staff has been very cautious, apparently not wanting to chance legal trouble from oil interests like the Western States Petroleum Association, state agencies, or others.
We urge the Air District to stop delaying and act boldly by approving an effective local emissions cap. Finishing our work with Rule 12-16 will give us the opportunity to continue working together in developing much-needed protections from deadly air pollution.
The coalition of activists working to pass refinery emission caps meets on Thursdays in Richmond. To get involved, email Bay Chapter energy committee co-chairs David McCoard and Luis Amezcua.
Photo: the 2012 Chevron Richmond refinery fire, courtesy Stephen Schiller via Flickr.