PD Editorial: California still leading on climate policy

Bipartisan. Compromise. There are a couple of word that aren’t used very often any more to describe major legislative decisions in Washington or Sacramento - for good reason.

But this week’s extension of cap-and-trade, California’s signature program for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, stands out as an old-fashioned example of Democrats and Republicans working out their differences on an issue of monumental public importance.

Is the bill perfect? No. But it is a good compromise.

Assembly Bill 398 strikes a balance between environmental safeguards and economic vitality, while reaffirming California’s leadership role on global climate policy.

With the Trump administration abdicating that role, and abandoning the Paris climate accords, rejection of California’s cap-and-trade program would have signaled the rest of the world that Americans aren’t serious partners in the effort to protect future generations from a climate catastrophe.

With bipartisan votes on Monday, state lawmakers sent the opposite message.

“Tonight,” Gov. Jerry Brown said in a statement shortly after the vote, “California stood tall and, once again, boldly confronted the existential threat of our time. Republicans and Democrats set aside their differences, came together and took courageous action. That’s what good government looks like.”

Brown, who plans to host a global climate summit next year in San Francisco, got help rounding up votes from two former governors, Republicans Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the 2006 legislation that created the state’s cap-and-trade program. In the end, eight of the?38 GOP lawmakers voted yes. So did all five legislators representing Sonoma County.

Cap-and-trade is a market-based approach to controlling pollution. The government sets a limit, which ratchets down over time, and companies must buy resalable permits to pollute. Cap and trade was used by the federal government in the 1980s to phase out leaded gasoline and to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. Under California’s program, which was set to expire in 2020, the state sets an annual cap on greenhouse gas emissions, and companies need permits, called allowances, for every metric ton they emit.

AB 398 extends cap and trade until 2030. Because it was approved by a two-thirds majority, the program won’t be subject to legal challenges that it’s an unlawful tax.

Brown had to wheel and deal with Republicans and Democrats to get the votes he needed.

Among other things, Brown agreed to continue a sales tax exemption on new emission-control equipment for manufacturers. He also acceded to a proposed constitutional amendment that, if approved, would require a statewide referendum in 2024 on how cap-and-trade money is spent - a vote sought by opponents of Brown’s high-speed rail project, which currently receive 25 percent of cap-and-trade proceeds.

The compromise plan also included stricter penalties for polluting the air in urban areas and suspension of a $152-a-year tax surcharge on rural properties to help pay for firefighting and suppression.

Some progressive groups say Brown gave up too much, and some conservatives say California, as large as it is, can’t make much of a dent in the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. But if the Golden State abandoned it efforts to combat climate change, it would be even harder to persuade others - including the Trump administration - to step up to the challenge.