| |
Funding for implementation of AB 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is facing an uncertain future as the budget deficit looms and while Governor Schwarzenegger has yet to provide the historic legislation long-term funding. AB 32 seeks to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Currently, funding for AB 32 implementation relies mainly on special funds which are short-term sources of funding and which face future budget constraints.
Despite a directive from the legislature, the administration has not produced a funding plan for AB 32 implementation in this budget year that is both long-term and stable. The Legislative Analyst’s Office, in response to the Governor’s inaction, recommended that the Legislature “defer action on the departmental budgets for AB 32, pending the administration’s adoption of a sustainable, long-term funding plan that provides a stable, dedicated funding source for the program.” Currently, the Governor’s budget proposes a $32 million loan from the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund, which repays consumers who recycle bottles and cans, to the Air Pollution Control Fund, which provides the money for AB 32 implementation activities.
There have been calls from Democrats and environmental groups to impose fees on known greenhouse gas polluters, such as power plants and oil refineries, as a source of funding for AB 32 implementation. However, officials from the California Air Resources Board claim that it would be imprudent to impose new fees now when their implementation plan for which programs and regulations would be needed to meet the goals of AB 32 is not complete. A draft of the plan is scheduled to be released in June and must be completed by January 2009.
The “wait-and-see” attitude of the administration and the board regarding funding is not conducive to the goals of AB 32 nor the urgency of the challenge we are facing in combating greenhouse gas emissions.year cuts to reduce spending.
|
|
