California's climate change program: lessons for the nation.

• Jurisdiction: United States
• Date: 22 December 2009
• Author: Nichols, Mary D.

1. INTRODUCTION II. THE IMPERATIVE OF STATE CLIMATE ACTION A. Exercise of a State's Police Powers to Protect Public Health and Its Natural Resources B. Exercise of the State's Policy Prerogative: Laboratory of Democracy C. Future National Climate Policy Framework: A Federal-State-Local Partnership III. CALIFORNIA'S MODEL OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT: LEADERSHIP, CROSS-AGENCY ENGAGEMENT, AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT A. Consistent Leadership B. Efforts by California's State Agency Climate Action Team C. Stakeholders: Local Governmental Agencies, Industry, NGOs and Individuals IV. MULTIPLE CHALLENGES, MULTIPLE TOOLS A. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Climate Change Executive Orders B. California's Assembly Bill 32 Framework: Markets and Mandates C. California's Upcoming Development of a Cap-and-Trade Program V. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY EXAMPLE: TRANSPORTATION SECTOR A. California's Passenger Vehicles Greenhouse Gas Regulation: The Parley Standards B. California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard C. Senate Bill 375: Land Use, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Greenhouse Gas Reductions Through Incentives VI. CALIFORNIA'S HARD-WON CLIMATE CHANGE LESSONS FOR THE NATION A. Demonstrate Clear and Determined Leadership B. Act Now C. Set a Specific, Declining Emissions Cap D. Engage Government and the Private Sector at All Levels and in All "Silos". E. Federal Policy Must Engage the Effort of Stakeholders and Citizens from Across the Political and Economic Spectrum I.

   INTRODUCTION

   Climate change is a real and urgent threat to our communities, our states and our nation. California, like many other states, is already experiencing its impacts. Over the past 100 years, the Golden State has seen a seven-inch rise in sea level, eroding our coastal communities and threatening critical infrastructure. (1) In the winter, more of our precipitation now falls as rain rather than snow, leading to less water availability in the critical spring and summer months--an impact that threatens one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world and a pillar of the nation's export economy. (2) Climate change is also a major factor in California's longer and more severe wildfire season--an impact dramatically illustrated in 2008 when over 1 million acres burned and air quality monitors were overwhelmed in efforts to measure record-breaking levels of particulate matter. And these effects are merely a preview.

   It is predicted that without major efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, in this century California will see an additional one- to two-foot rise in sea levels, a doubling in the frequency of drought years, a 55 percent increase of large forest fires and a 75 percent loss in California's snowpack, our state's biggest natural reservoir. (3) These threats are mirrored around our nation and around the globe. I emphasize them to underscore my contention that the nation must follow California's lead by taking swift, decisive and comprehensive action to address climate change.

   Not only is climate change an urgent and dire threat, it is also a complex one. The combustion of fossil fuels is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, but by no means the only one. Sources as diverse as agriculture, forestry and industrial processes also contribute to climate change. Cutting emissions from these sources will require a multifaceted response that includes a variety of regulatory, market-based and voluntary actions undertaken at all levels of government, industry and society. And, like the diversity of sources that contribute to climate change, the opportunities to reduce emissions--and the economic opportunities to create new, clean technologies--vary between different industries, regions and individuals.

   California has responded quickly and decisively to the threat of climate change with a comprehensive set of actions to cut emissions and transition our economy to one driven by clean, efficient and sustainable energy sources. Like the rest of the world, we have a long way to go, but we have already faced many of the difficult issues that the nation must face in developing a program that is both effective and cost-effective. While we don't pretend to have all the answers for a federal climate policy, we do have many lessons to share. And indeed, many of the programs that California and its partners in other states have pioneered will remain critical tools in the constellation of policies we use to tackle this urgent threat.

   In this article, I will describe the comprehensive approach that California is taking to address climate change. In doing so, I hope to underscore the need for a national response that is similarly comprehensive and that taps into efforts at all levels and in all sectors of our society.

2. THE IMPERATIVE OF STATE CLIMATE ACTION

   1. Exercise of a State's Police Powers to Protect Public Health and Its Natural Resources

      A fundamental role of the fifty sovereign states and of the federal government is to protect the public health and welfare of their citizens and safeguard their natural resources. In Assembly Bill 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the legislature's findings list the serious threats of global warming "to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California" as well as "the detrimental effects on some of California's largest industries. ..." (4) These threats are real and significant. Not only are heat deaths in California's hot, interior valleys expected to rise, but heat-related deaths in coastal areas from temperature spikes will also occur at a higher rate since residents in these regions are unaccustomed to heat episodes and less likely to have air conditioning. (5) Air quality will decline with increased ozone exposures linked to global warming (6) and with increased particulate matter from wildfires. (7) Water supply disruptions, early springtime flooding that may overwhelm levees and sewage treatment plants, and late summer water shortages are also anticipated. (8) This partial list of direct, adverse public health impacts parallels the widespread projected harms to California's natural resources and marine and terrestrial ecosystems. (9)

      California's response to this crisis has been to propose, adopt and implement a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs and enhance public health. This response is a classic exercise of a state's historic police powers to respond to the threats triggered by global warming.

   2. Exercise of the State's Policy Prerogative: Laboratory of Democracy

      Some have claimed that because greenhouse gases are dispersed evenly throughout the globe's atmosphere, California is not addressing its local air concerns and has launched itself on a futile and expensive mission. Not so. California is taking significant steps to cut its share of emissions and is providing a national and international model as the legislature intended. (10) In discussing climate change, the United States Supreme Court noted in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency: "Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop. They instead whittle away at them over time, refining their preferred approach as circumstances change and as they develop a more-nuanced understanding of how best to proceed." (11) The Supreme Court rejected the U.S.

      Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) claim that "curtailing motor-vehicle emissions would reflect 'an inefficient, piecemeal approach to address the climate change issue'" and served as a valid reason not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles. (12) In contrast, California adopted its Clean Car program (13) as a first step and is exploring and adopting other options for further action in a comprehensive, reasoned manner.

      In 1932, during the depths of the Depression, the Supreme Court struck down an Oklahoma. statute that regulated the manufacture and distribution of ice. (14) In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brandeis offered a detailed explanation of the State of Oklahoma's efforts to assure that its citizens, particularly those who were poor or who resided in rural areas, would have access to ice at a fair price in order to preserve food for individual use and to transport dairy products and other perishable items from its farms. (15) Oklahoma's effort to regulate ice manufacture was through a license, essentially a monopoly blessed by a certificate of public convenience and necessity and similar to a public utility company providing electricity. (16) Although the goal was to eliminate unbridled competition to control potential overabundance, this approach was not uniformly viewed as one that would be successful and could have very well worsened the problem. (17) Justice Brandeis' dissent recognized the risk that Oklahoma chose, criticized the majority opinion that struck down Oklahoma's statute, and observed: "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory: and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." (18)

      By embarking on a comprehensive, economy-wide reduction of greenhouse gases, California is addressing public health and welfare threats in a systematic manner for its citizens and serving its long-standing role as a laboratory for air pollution control. While there are upfront costs to controlling greenhouse gases, standards and programs to catalyze new technology and energy efficiency will save consumers money over the long term--money that can be spent and invested in our state's economy--and promote new California green jobs and technologies. California's courageous experiment is proceeding full bore and already reaping benefits.

      Of course, California...