Pavley revs up support for tailpipe emissions bill

Pavley revs
up support
for tailpipe emissions bill

FIGHTING FOR WHAT SHE BELIEVES IN--State Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (at left in cutout) is proposing a bill that would set higher standards for vehicles in California. AB-1058 would reduce, Pavley said, greenhouse emissions from cars, trucks and SUVs. The bill has been attacked by lobbyists in the automotive industry who claim it will escalate fuel taxes and limit consumer choices to buy SUVs in California.

The proposed California legislation that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks badly needs a tuneup, opponents say, but the criticism has stalled in some circles. And according to its author, the bill now has enough support to pass.

"We’re still working on the bill, but there’s a very good chance it will pass," said state Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (D-Woodland Hills). "We’ve made some amendments to take care of some of the concerns."

Pavley’s proposed bill, AB-1058, would make California the first state to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from passenger vehicles, a suspected cause of global warming.

It passed both houses by narrow margins, but must return to the Assembly for final approval by September before reaching the desk of Gov. Gray Davis.

MICHAEL COONS/The Acorn

AB-1058 would require the state’s Air Resources Board (ARB) to impose regulations by 2006 reducing the emission of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. The regulations, though not spelled out, would apply to cars and light trucks in the model year 2009 or later.

The bill’s sponsor, Bluewater Network, points to a recent United Nations environmental report predicting a rise of up to 10.4 degrees in the Earth’s temperature over the next century. The group said California is home to 0.5 percent of the world’s population, yet emits nearly 7 percent of global CO2 emissions.

According to industry reports, passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles (SUVs), are responsible for about 40 percent of the total greenhouse gas pollution in California.

Greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, absorb heat from the sun and create a warm blanket around the Earth that leads to global warming, according to scientists.

The past decade was the warmest on record in the last 140 years, according to the bill’s supporters. They say the impacts of global warming include a reduction in the Sierra snowpack that could lead to water shortages.

Pavley said the bill has been tweaked to make sure the ARB doesn’t outlaw any type of motor vehicle, including the gas-hungry, but popular SUVs, and that no economic hardships would be placed on vehicle owners.

Still, opponents charge that AB-1058 will force higher gasoline taxes and lower speed limits, among other downsides.

"They’re making claims that are without fact," Pavley said."The ARB has no legal authority to add taxes.

"What this bill doesn’t do compared to European nations is it doesn’t require any set reductions, percentages over a certain period of time," she said.

The opponents––mostly a coalition of automobile manufacturers and dealers––also fear the bill would limit consumer choices and raise higher vehicle costs.

"It’s supposed to be modest and cost effective," Pavley said. "It won’t limit consumer choices. It may enhance them. Ford, for example, has an SUV hybrid coming out this fall that will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but could get up to 50 miles per gallon as hybrid vehicle."

The Automobile Club of Southern California initially opposed the bill, but later changed its opinion to "neutral," said Paul Gonzales, an AAA spokesperson.

"We did send a letter of concern at the time because it was our feeling that the bill as constituted left too much discretion to the ARB," Gonzales said, "but there have been some changes and we’re waiting to see what it looks like after it comes through the legislative process."

Opponents to Pavley’s bill contend the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy law (CAFE) and the Clean Air Act prohibit state action on carbon dioxide regulation.

The opponents say CO2 regulation is equivalent to fuel economy regulation, which comes under CAFE jurisdiction, and because CO2 doesn’t create localized pollution problems, it should be ineligible for state control.

Michael Kenny, the ARB executive officer, confirmed with Pavley in a recent letter that the ARB has no authority to regulate fuel economy. Kenny did point out, however, that another Assembly bill, AB-2076, calls for the ARB and the California Energy Commission to study ways of reducing the state’s petroleum dependence.

That bill is still in draft form, Kenny said.