The PCL Insider: News From The Capitol

KEY BILLS HANG IN THE BALANCE DURING FINAL WEEK OF SESSION – "MACRO POLITICS" AT WORK

Only three days remain in the 2006 legislative session. When the dust clears Friday morning, we'll know which bills are headed to the Governor's desk and which have been left for another year.

We could report on the myriad of policy details that are flying back and forth at the Capitol in these last hours, because scores of important bills are still in play. Instead, we thought it would be useful to step back and comment on some of the larger forces at work in Sacramento. We've chosen two key bills to give you a glimpse into the effects of California "Macro Politics" on important environmental legislation.

First Specimen: AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez and Assembly Member Fran Pavley, AB 32 would require California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020, making our state the first in the nation to set a statewide limit on global warming pollution.

AB 32 has rightfully risen to the top of the environmental priority list at the Capitol this year, through a highly coordinated effort that has involved legislative leadership and public interest advocates, including PCL. Members of the Legislature and the public interest community are not alone in wanting to do something significant about the changing climate. Global warming has become a personal issue for the Governor, too. Last year, in fact, Governor Schwarzenegger signed an Executive Order establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and convening a Climate Action Team to determine how best to meet those targets. So, with legislative leaders and the Governor concerned, and with public interest advocates working hard (and with genuine public support for effective action) what's the problem with AB 32?

The problem (a "political" problem, not a "policy" problem) is the strong resistance of a segment of the business community to the kind of mandates that AB 32 would impose. Unfortunately, Governor Schwarzenegger has threatened to use his veto powers if the authors refuse to make substantial amendments, essentially capitulating to those business interests. The amendments include a wide open "safety valve" provision to allow the emission reduction program to be suspended, a change in the governance of the program that would put the Governor's appointees in charge, and a requirement that the program "mandate" the use of emission trading, which may have negative impacts on environmental justice communities (the bill currently "permits" but does not "require" such a trading program).

Governor Schwarzenegger has always received substantial financial support from the development and business community, including from the industries that would be regulated by AB 32, and it seems clear that the Governor's "sticking points" on the bill, as listed above, reflect the concerns of this business constituency. While being careful not to oppose AB 32 (since there is such strong public support for action), the Governor is urging amendments that can deliver something to the businesses that oppose the whole concept of mandated reductions in global warming pollution. In other words, the Governor is trying to "satisfy," or at least placate, both sides in a policy debate that really requires a fundamental choice: is California going to mandate the reduction of global warming pollution, or not? There are lots of ways to achieve reductions, but opening up loopholes  - sending a message that we're not really that serious about doing what needs to be done - is not going to achieve the policy goals.

"Macro Politics," where different political interests collide, always seem to come down to this kind of situation. AB 32 is emblematic: do the Legislature and the Governor listen to the people of California, who overwhelmingly want reductions in global warming pollution, or do they heed the interests of those businesses which would be regulated? Faced with this choice, "Macro Politics" often tries to have it "both ways," and that's a prescription for policy failure. 

Luckily, leaders in the Legislature are firmly on the side of a strong AB 32, and the Governor has bucked his business backers before. We're feeling optimistic at this point, because we think that this tug of war will ultimately be resolved in favor of the public interest, and the "have it both ways" effort will be rejected. But that will happen if – and only if – we all keep up the pressure on the Governor. (Help us by calling the Governor's office at 916 445 2841, stating your strong support for an AB 32 without loopholes).

Second Specimen: AB 1899, authored by Assembly Member Lois Wolk, would require that there be real 100-year flood protection in place, and a plan to achieve 200-year flood protection, before approval of developments in deep flood plains in the Central Valley. More and more homes and businesses are being approved in areas that will very likely flood in the next severe storm, putting lives and property at risk and increasing the financial vulnerability of the state of California, which will likely have to reimburse homeowners for flood damages. Currently, there are no requirements to ensure that these at-risk areas will ever have adequate flood protection, and development in such areas is proceeding at a rapid pace.

PCL and our allies have been advocating strongly for AB 1899 over the past eight months, and the road has not been easy. Several of the components of AB 1899 were removed along the way to win broader support. Now, at the end of the session, things have come to a standstill. Last Tuesday, AB 1899, along with the rest of the Assembly package of surviving flood bills, was declared "dead" by Senate leader Don Perata, citing too little consensus on the bills' future. Today, on the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we continue to work for a compromise solution.

Here's the "Macro Politics." Once again, it's the public interest versus the opposition of those who would be constrained or regulated. In this case, the main opponent of AB 1899 is the Building Industry Association of California (the BIA). The BIA is absolutely opposed to the idea of waiting for adequate flood protection before the bulldozers roll, even if future residents could be under three or more feet of water in a disaster. Waiting for public safety means deferring profits. As in the case of AB 32, Governor Schwarzenegger is currently supporting the position of the BIA over the interests of the public. He has presented a list of proposed amendments that would essentially "gut" the bill, allowing building in floodplains to continue for two decades before real flood protection targets would be implemented. But there's a difference here. While legislative leaders such as Assembly Member Wolk and Assembly Speaker Nuñez have been working hard to pass bills that prevent flood disasters (and thus to put legislation on the Governor's desk, so he will have to make a very public decision between the developers and the public interest), many others in the Legislature seem to be willing to look the other way. That's not the same situation we have with AB 32, where the Legislature is "hanging tough" for a strong policy. We can't be as optimistic about AB 1899 as we are about AB 32, because both the Legislature and the Governor seem susceptible, at this point, to the business interests that oppose the legislation.

Clearly, we need the sort of leadership on AB 1899 that we have seen on AB 32, leadership that stands strong to protect the interests of the public, and the state of California. Without that kind of leadership, Californians will be facing a Katrina-type disaster. The question is only how soon.

(You can help PCL pass AB 1899 by contacting your own State Senator, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, urging the Senate to Pass AB 1899 with strong public safety provisions. To get involved in AB 1899, click here and send an email to your Senator and Assembly Member).