The History of Schwarzenegger, AB 32, and Global Warming

The LAO report called the Governor out for trying to undo specifically negotiated provisions of AB 32--especially the one that was requested by environmental groups and the Speaker--that the Air Resources Board (ARB) be charged with primary enforcement of its provisions because they did not trust the Governor if he had direct control over those in charge of it. This is just part of what the LAO said in the report:

The budget proposal, in effect, attempts to establish a policy-making role for the Secretary in implementing AB 32—a role that the administration proposed when the Legislature was considering AB 32. In the final version of AB 32, the Legislature eliminated the Secretary’s policy-making role from the bill and, for purposes of implementing the act, it limited the Secretary’s role to coordination and specifically assigned policy-related decision-making authority to ARB. [pp. B-56 and 57, LAO Report on Resources Agency.]

On April 4, 2006 when the Speaker of the Assembly was announcing with co-author Fran Pavley that AB 32 was his highest priority for the year, Governor Schwarzenegger was not yet ready to accept the recommendations of his own committee of advisers. The Wall Street Journal had run an article that a spokesperson for the Governor had declined to say whether he would support a mandatory state global warming cap. We reported that:

The announcement came the same day that the Governor’s “Climate Action Team” released its report making recommendations to the Governor. A draft of their report had been prepared in December but was delayed until today. The Governor is free to accept or reject its suggestions. The Wall Street Journal described the Governor’s position as follows:

A spokesman for Mr. Schwarzenegger declined to say whether the governor would support a mandatory state global-warming-emissions cap. The governor will be assessing how the state should confront global warming as he reviews the study group's report, the spokesman said.

The greatest commitment so far from the Governor was given by his spokesperson, Bill Maile, who said that the administration had not yet reviewed the bill but that the Governor had enjoyed a spirit of cooperation” on climate change with the Democratic leadership.

Then, on April 12, 2006 we reported on Governor's go slow approach :

Well, yesterday, with hoopla and fanfare and against a backdrop of huge photos of the Sierras, our Governor uttered the lofty rhetoric that California should lead the nation on greenhouse gases and at the same time said we need to move slowly. He is now being called a “Jekyll and Hyde" on the issue by surprised environmentalists who the day before had lauded him. The reporter wrote”Schwarzenegger, who wants to balance the concerns of business with his desire to take action during an election year on a hot issue, is in the middle.”

In this same article it is said that the Governor “thought we should start without caps” and “work toward implementing a so-called cap and trade system.”

The Contra Costa Times quoted the Governor as saying "I think we should try without the cap and then, after 2010, then we see if we meet the goals." Wait until 2010? The Governor will be out of office by then.

In the Oakland Tribune article "Governor backpedals on emissions,” Bill Magavern of the Sierra Club is quoted as saying “What we're hearing today is a lot of talk and no action.” Karen Douglas, director of the California Climate Initiative for Environmental Defense "We think a cap is essential and needs to be put into law now, even if it is not implemented now.To get industry to be serious about how does this work, we think there needs to be a commitment to a cap right now."

Also on April 12, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article: "Governor: Go slow in fight on warming--He wants to protect industries while addressing global problem".

July 27,2007, we wrote of the new PPIC poll showing strong public support on AB 32.

At that time, the Capitol Weekly had reported in an article, "Governor seeks changes to greenhouse bill":

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, hoping to dramatically rewrite landmark legislation to curb global warming, wants to make an end-run around the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and create a new, high-level panel with sweeping authority over greenhouse gases. Environmentalists are suspicious of the governor's plan, and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez believes it could weaken pollution fighters.

Schwarzenegger's blueprint was contained in amendments that the administration quietly offered to AB 32.

Schwarzenegger would set up a new body called the Climate Action Board, comprised of nine of his top appointees. The board--whose members would include his top business adviser, the head of the Public Utilities Commission, his consumer adviser, the Energy Commission chairman, and others--would have the power to block regulations to curb greenhouse gases if it determined that the rules had a negative effect on the economy

On August 23, 2006,with the legislative session fast coming to a close, we reported about Speaker Nunez drawing the line on AB 32:

The Speaker was advised by a reporter that at the same time the Governor’s office had held a phone conference and indicated that the Governor cannot live with amendments the Speaker was proposing yesterday. He was advised that rumors were floating around the Capitol building that the Governor might veto the bill if it did not have “mandatory” trading caps and only had “permissive’ ones as had been proposed.

Nunez declined to discuss the details of negotiations with the reporters. He stressed his desire to reach an agreement with the Governor and indicated he was negotiating in good faith. But he did make the following statements in response to this and another question, sometimes pounding his fist for emphasis on the podium:

I try to keep meetings that happen behind closed doors private. What I will say to you that there are come hiccups that we are trying to iron out in this process and some differences, that I hate to say they are fundamental differences but I think they are beginning to characterize themselves as such in a couple of the different areas we are negotiating at this point

It is not only our intention and desire, but we are fully committed, Assemblymember Pavley and I to sending the Governor this bill for his consideration.

I’ve made it very clear that we are going to send the Governor a bill that is consistent with a cap on greenhouse gas emissions in this state, to reduce greenhouse gases, a bill that has enforceability.

What we will not do in this process is simply to allow for more than one opportunity for the mandate not to occur. We believe the way the bill is written right now has a clear path to a market based mechanism.

I am not going to send the governor a bill that the environmental community does not support. And the moment we start tearing away at the enforceability and the mandate to reduce carbon the way that we want to…then there’s no reason to do the bill.

Really what it comes down to is enforceability.

We want real reductions.

Then at long last, when there was agreement and after the New York Times confirmed information we had, we reported that "Schwarzenegger blinked on AB 32".

The rest is, as they say, history.