CalChamber, Business Leaders: Legislature Has Waited Too Late to Extend Cap-and-Trade
California business leaders expressed disappointment yesterday that no comprehensive, economically viable plan to extend California’s cap-and-trade climate program has emerged at the State Capitol.
In a coalition news release, the organizations — representing a wide array of the state’s economic sectors — urged lawmakers to reject any last-minute, hastily written proposals.
The statement urged the Legislature to abandon its efforts until there’s time to develop a robust and responsible plan.
It’s been almost five months since state leaders promised to reauthorize the state’s landmark climate law, a statute that’s sought to carefully balance economic impacts with environmental accomplishments. But there was never any comprehensive legislation evaluated through the policy committee process in either legislative house. Key stakeholders were not consulted.
Even dismal results from the state’s quarterly auction of carbon allowances — producing far less revenue for environmental programs — did not spark an effort to work on the program’s next chapter fully and thoroughly.
“We are deeply disappointed by the inaction and inability to seize the moment and secure our shared future,” said California Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Jennifer Barrera. “For months, we have heard promises that issues affecting California’s affordability were at the top of the list. But this vital issue will have to wait. No proposal is better than a bad proposal.”
The following business groups also offered comment on the lack of progress on cap-and-trade:
Lance Hastings, President and CEO, California Manufacturers & Technology Association: “California’s 34,000 manufacturers work hard to keep goods affordable, but poorly crafted policies drive up costs, and families will end up paying more. There’s no rush on Cap-and-Trade this year. Waiting allows for a transparent process that leads to better outcomes for all Californians.”
Jodie Muller, President, Western States Petroleum Association: “This effort does not represent progress toward a workable solution, rather it is a major reversal for both affordability and stabilization of the oil and gas industry. With the state already experiencing leakage in real time with two announced refinery closures, this deal does nothing to create the kind of investor certainty that is necessary to ensure a reliable, affordable fuel supply for California and our neighboring states.”
Emily Rooney, President, Agricultural Council of California: “Ag Council’s been actively engaged on cap and trade, and we were hopeful a reauthorization was within reach that emphasizes affordability for our farmer-owned businesses, which also benefits California consumers. Unfortunately, we are not there, and we are nearly out of time. It is hard to envision how the unveiling of a brand-new solution, outside of a ‘clean reauthorization’ could be workable at this late date.”
Tim Carmichael, President and CEO, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance: “CCEEB has long supported California’s cap-and-trade program as the foundation of the state’s climate policy. A rushed deal that raises costs for working Californians and job-creating industries should not move forward.”
CalChamber issued the statement in association with the following:
- Agricultural Council of California
- Agriculture Energy Consumers Association
- Association of Equipment Manufacturers
- California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB)
- California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association
- California Fresh Fruit Association
- California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA)
- California Manufacturers & Technology Association
- California Poultry Federation
- Coalition for Sustainable Cement Manufacturing & Environment (CSCME)
- Western Growers Association
- Western Plant Health
- Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)
- Western Tree Nut Association