| |
Posted May 23, 2008, 3:29 AM
|
|
BANNED
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
|
|
Quote:
Air quality board to fine Bay Area polluters
Kelly Zito, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, May 22, 2008
(05-21) 19:03 PDT -- Jumping ahead of state and federal regulators, the Bay Area air quality district became the first in the nation on Wednesday to impose fees on businesses that pump some of the highest levels of carbon dioxide into the air each year.
The 15-1 vote by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District sets the stage for 2,500 companies and agencies - from supermarkets to gas stations to power plants - to pay 4.4 cents for every metric ton of carbon dioxide they expel, beginning July 1. The top 10 companies combined would pay more than $820,000. The fee for a large share of businesses would be less than $1.
The district took the historic step as federal and state officials mull how and when to reduce the gases that many scientists blame for pushing up the Earth's temperatures and changing weather patterns. As much as the regulation will create a framework for pursuing the biggest carbon polluters in the region, it also provided a chance for the district to make a statement on the speed with which its counterparts in Sacramento and Washington are tackling the problem.
"Someone needs to take a first step, and we're running out of time, when you look at the bay rising 3 feet by 2100 and the devastating effects of climate change," said San Mateo County Supervisor Jerry Hill, the air district chairman. "This is a more expensive proposition if we do nothing."
District officials took pains to emphasize the estimated $1.1 million to be collected annually will pay for collecting and tracking data on greenhouse gases. What's more, individual fees will be too small in most cases to penalize polluters or deter the discharge of carbon dioxide.
However, it was clear the agency has broader aspirations.
"If you reduce emissions, you will reduce the fee. And that is the goal," said Pamela Torliatt, who represents Sonoma County on the 22-member board.
Authority questioned
Representatives of local refineries, among the polluters whose bills would run an additional $200,000 each year, argued that the district has no legal authority to levy such fees and that the anticipated greenhouse gas emission inventory would overlap with similar efforts at the state level.
"It's disconcerting to business and industry, because we don't know who's in charge," said Dennis Bolt, manager of the Bay Area division of the Western States Petroleum Association. "You have too many oars in the water, and in the end a logjam comes down the road. It's not constructive."
The California Air Resources Board is working on measures tied to the landmark California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which aims to slash greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. But so far, the board has not released any proposals. Industry groups contend the local action is premature and will create an ineffective and confusing patchwork effect.
At the national level, there is also no comprehensive plan. Last month, President Bush urged the United States to halt the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. But with no specific mandates or proposed legislation, the announcement was widely seen as having no impact.
Bolt would not say if his group has ruled out the possibility of suing the air district.
The greenhouse gas emissions inventory is of particular concern to both sides, because future rules or fees at the local, state or federal levels will hinge on certain benchmarks. High or low numbers may hurt or help emitters, depending on the program. The Bay Area district's plan calls for local monitoring of emissions; it is unclear whether a state program would rely on local monitoring or on figures provided by the companies.
Before Wednesday's vote, the air district regulated emissions of more than a dozen major pollutants - such as volatile organic compounds, nitrous oxide and particulate matter from fireplaces - by about 10,000 companies. By adding greenhouse gases to the list, the 53-year-old agency singled out 2,500 of those businesses to pay extra fees for releasing carbon dioxide.
More than 50 percent of the Bay Area's carbon emissions come from cars and trucks, which fall outside the agency's purview.
Boulder, Colo., is the only area with a similar emissions fee program. Last year, the city imposed greenhouse gas fees on consumers and businesses to fund global warming education, energy audits and weatherization - but not to track carbon dioxide.
Air board member and Martinez Mayor Mark Ross insists the local board would integrate fees and inventory data with any new state regulations. In fact, the board hopes the Bay Area plan could become a template for similar systems in other regions and the state.
"They wouldn't have to re-create the carbon wheel," Ross said. "It's like we're the pilot project, and we hope the state will eventually adopt it."
District director and Danville Mayor Michael Shimansky opposed the measure. He sees it as a step backward rather than forward. Adding fees to refiners, gas station owners and ultimately drivers could not come at a worse time, he said.
"If you think this fee is going to stay this way for the next 10 years, ... I don't know what to say. It's going to rise and it's going to affect the economy," Shimansky said.
Some of the opponents support a cap-and-trade system. That market-based approach, which appears to have the support of many businesses and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, sets limits on carbon dioxide emissions and allows companies to trade carbon credits based on the amount of production.
Immediate and direct
Health and social services advocates see the fee-based approach as more immediate and direct at a time when weather patterns seem more volatile and detrimental. One air expert pointed to an 18-day stretch in the summer of 2006, when heat-related emergency room visits jumped from a typical 350 to more than 2,500.
"These sort of heat episodes will continue to happen in the context of climate change and global warming," said Shankar Prasad, a fellow with the Coalition for Clean Air. The air quality board's vote "is the first step in the right direction. It's a precedent-setting step, a monumental decision."
E-mail Kelly Zito at kzito@sfchronicle.com.
|
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...MNDN10QD6O.DTL
|
|
|
Linear Mode
