[August 6, 2010 / No. 1090]

Brown, Whitman and AB 32

A July survey from the Public Policy Institute of California has some bad news for Meg Whitman.

Whitman, who is running against Jerry Brown for the governor's seat, wants to suspend California's greenhouse-gas law, AB 32, for a year to study its effect on the economy.

But it's not clear that Californians view the law as the job-killer Whitman has portrayed. According to the Public Policy Institute survey of 2,502 adult residents, more than 67 percent favor AB 32. When asked whether the government should take action right away on global warming or wait until the economy improves, 53 percent favored immediate action and 42 percent wanted to wait.

"The lingering effect of the recession and a continuing state budget crisis haven't changed Californians' overall view of AB 32," said Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO.

If the poll is a reasonable proxy for the November election, the numbers could be bad for Whitman when one considers the makeup of California's electorate. Sixty-three percent of Democrats believe California should act now to curb emissions, according to the PPIC survey. About the same percentage of Republicans prefer to wait. But Republicans account for only 30 percent of registered voters in the state, versus 42 percent for Democrats.

Among independents, who account for 20 percent of voters, 55 percent favor taking action right away on greenhouse gases.

To bolster her erroneous claim that AB 32 would cost jobs, Whitman cites studies by two faculty members at California State University-Sacramento that found the measure would hurt small businesses. The Legislative Analyst's Office found those studies "useless" and "highly unreliable." Whitman also relies on the contention that since AB 32 was signed, the state's unemployment numbers have risen. Everyone knows this is dishonest, as the mortgage and investment-banking meltdown caused nearly all the damage.

Jerry Brown has called support for AB 32 one of the key differences between himself and Whitman. Strategists agree. "As undecided voters put together who they are going to vote for, this issue is one of two or three -- along with jobs and education -- that will help make the difference," Barbara O'Connor, director emeritus of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at Sacramento State, told the Contra Costa Times.

Outside of suspending AB 32, Whitman wants to amend the California Environmental Quality Act so projects aren't stalled. She supports the 33 percent renewables portfolio standard; has proposed tax credits for businesses that create green jobs; and wants to increase the R&D tax credit to 20 percent from 15 percent.

She also wants to take a "new look at nuclear energy." But not only are nuclear power plants expensive -- $10,000/kW or more according to some estimates -- but there's a state law on the books prohibiting their construction until the federal government designates a permanent nuclear waste repository.

It could make sense to do away with some parts of AB 32. As others have pointed out, even without a climate bill the United States could switch coal power plants to natural gas and reduce emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels, though California would still need to act to curb vehicle emissions and smog as well as to mitigate petroleum dependency -- all of which are contained in AB 32.

Whitman's problem is not so much her dislike of AB 32, but that she hasn't come up with an alternative plan for dealing with greenhouse-gas emissions. There's absolutely nothing in her "plan" that suggests how the state will deal with the most critical environmental issue of the century. This is also a year in which environmental issues will weigh heavily on voters' minds, given the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

As for Brown's energy platform, he wants to build 12,000 MW of local electricity generation (such as solar photovoltaics) and 8,000 MW of large-scale renewables with necessary transmission lines. He's proposed placing solar PV projects up to 20 MW in size alongside state highways.

Brown has bemoaned the long lead times for transmission siting and fought the Bush administration on California's right to regulate tailpipe emissions. He also supports the 33 percent RPS.

I think the election will ultimately come down to jobs, followed by education and the environment. Both candidates will have to explain how they're going to create jobs and fix education while bringing the state budget under control. Good luck with that.

But even if Whitman comes out slightly ahead on jobs, her stance on AB 32 could really hurt. Recall that Arnold Schwarzenegger, a political outsider, was voted in largely on the promise he would be a "green" Republican. Brown will surely brand Whitman as an enemy of the environment, and because she lacks a plan for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, the criticism would be fair [Chris Raphael].

Bottom Lines is excerpted from Energy NewsData's California Energy Markets publication. If you aren't a current subscriber, see for yourself how NewsData reporters put events in an accurate and meaningful context -- request a sample of California Energy Markets.

Please contact webmaster@newsdata.com with questions or comments about this site. Contact the editor if you have questions or comments about California Energy Markets content.