• Mar 21st 2010 at 12:43PM
  • 22

California plans to implement an emissions control law called Assembly Bill 32 in 2012. The law grants the state the rights to set emission standards and implement greenhouse gas guidelines. Additionally, the state will be able to promote alternative fuels and technologies by way of rebates and other incentives. The focus of A.B. 32 is to drive down harmful emissions statewide with a goal of turning back the clock to emissions levels seen decades ago.

The law has been met with some opposition. The California Jobs Initiative was recently formed to block the implementation of A.B. 32. The Initiative aims to block the implementation of A.B. 32 until the state's jobless rate drops to 5.5 percent. Currently, the jobless rate sits at 12.5 percent. The Initiative claims that implementation of the law would result in the loss of thousands of jobs.

In order to block implementation, the Initiative must collect signatures of registered voters, a labor intensive and time consuming process. Typically, initiative campaigns are organized to block future laws. These campaigns require funding and that's where big oil has stepped in. The California Jobs Initiative has filed papers with a state office to get the initiative on the upcoming ballot. Green Car Advisor has uncovered information about current funding for the initiative which now approaches one million dollars.

Who tops the funding list? Oil refiner and gas station chain Valero has committed $500,000, oil refiner Tesero committed $100,000, gasoline distributor Tower Energy Group committed $100,000, oil refiner World Oil Corp. committed $100,000 and the list continues on. Absent from the list is any group or company associated with job placement, job creation or any other job related field. As it appears, the big oil companies are interested in saving some jobs, their own.

[Source: Green Car Advisor]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 5 Years Ago
      Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals, March 22, 2010 … CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie [at] earthlink.net …

      • 5 Years Ago
      Money available to clean air and improve smog program

      Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals, March 22, 2010

      The Smog Check issue has been under continuous legislative debate since 1993. AB 2289 by Eng is an opportunity to improve program performance and public support.

      We at the Clean Air Performance Professionals propose “reasonably available control measures” to improve California Smog Check performance. Consider a Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) quality audit to improve smog check performance.

      We propose using the CAP cars and funds to provide a random quality audit (or secret shopper) of smog check providers. Audits that result in the car’s not being in compliance should be handled similarly to the former Consumer Repair and Education Workforce program. The Bureau of Automotive Repair program did not fine the licensees nor did it involve coercion. But when the question of “what would you like to do?” was asked, the shop took care of business and usually elected to fix the car.

      The average smog check failure repair is about $ 150.00 state wide. The motorist pays about the same at the average repair station and the CAP station. The average CAP repair is about $350.00. Many cars are not brought into compliance.

      To level the smog check failure repair playing field so more cars meet standards after repair, the whole smog check market should be subject to a CAP random audit.

      Around 1985, BAR started a “missing part” audit. In 1991 that program was stopped, The difference was a 300 percent change in result in finding the missing part.

      When BAR ran less than one audit per station per year, the result was a change in behavior that started at more than an 80 percent rate, but moved to less than 20 percent rate of noncompliance.

      The difference was a 300 percent change in result in finding the missing part. If the CAP audit was addressing the issue of repair compliance rather than just finding a missing part, the results may be the same or a 300 percent improvement in compliance. With the missing part program, a follow-up audit with increasing demands lift the stations no options but to find the missing part or be removed from the game.

      There are huge inconsistencies from Smog Check station to station and with BAR representatives. For BAR to decide a car is not in compliance, rules of Smog Check must be clarified. Money is available for the CAP program. It can be used for contracted scrap and repairs, or some of the funds can be used to evaluate and support improved performance of licensed small business. The cars and funds are the same, but the results may be credit for 2,000 tons per day in pollution prevention credit in the State Implementation Plan, rather than our current credit of fewer than 400 tons per day.

      The governor and state Legislature would get the credit for improved performance. Performance improvements would be accomplished at a cost of less than $500.00 per ton. And program illusions would be reduced in 1 year.

      Charlie Peters is president of Clean Air Performance Professionals.

      CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie@earthlink.net
      • 5 Years Ago
      Mary Nichols, CARB Chair, on AB32 global warming performance.

      • 5 Years Ago
      Legislative Analyst's Office Rips $54,000 Valero Oil-Funded “Study” Designed To Ditch AB 32, California #Climate and #Energy Legislation http://tinyurl.com/yjtwjmh
        • 5 Years Ago
        Good article!!!

        Well i'll personally be smearing Valero from now on.
      • 5 Years Ago
      """...able to promote alternative fuels and technologies by way of rebates and other incentives. The focus of A.B. 32 is to drive down harmful emissions statewide with a goal of turning back the clock to emissions levels seen decades ago."""

      They could much easier accomplish those things WITH A GAS AND ENERGY TAX! Give poor people a $500 year taxpayer rebate (which is also an imputed income tax on the underground economy). There would be MORE jobs, as you need more people to do the work instead of Arab Oil fueled machines (I know you all don't want Arab Oil fueled futuristicTerrorist Robots attacking downtown L.A.).
        • 5 Years Ago
        "(I know you all don't want Arab Oil fueled futuristicTerrorist Robots attacking downtown L.A.)."

        Actually, that would make for a great movie!
      • 5 Years Ago
      Well . . . at least the auto companies have realized that they screwed themselves over and are not backing this provisions as much.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Federal ethanol policy increases Government motors oil use and Big oil profit. It is reported that today California is using Brazil sugar cane ethanol at $0.16 per gal increase over using GMO corn fuel ethanol. In this game the cars and trucks get to pay and Big oil profits are the result that may be ready for change. We do NOT support AB 523 or SB 1396 unless the ethanol mandate is changed to voluntary ethanol in our gas. Folks that pay more at the pump for less from Cars, trucks, food, water & air need better, it is time. The car tax of AB 118 Nunez is just a simple Big oil welfare program, AAA questioned the policy and some folks still agree. AB 523 & SB 1326 are just a short put (waiver) from better results. GOOGLE: (510) 537-1796
      • 5 Years Ago
      If I remember correctly VALERO is mostly Venezuelan dictator Chaves' main income source... Castros best friend... and is bed pals with both Irans president and Russia. oh does that not make you want to TRUST VALERO!?????
      • 5 Years Ago
      The problem with Cal (and the USA in general) is we the poeple want everything, as long as the "rich" pay for it.
      • 5 Years Ago
      CBS5 TV’s Jeffrey Schaub reports: “30% of the cars in California are over 12 years old but they account for 75% of state’s pollution.”



      • 5 Years Ago
      Let the people speak. Our politicians are supposed to do what the people want. That is what the initiative process all about, and the politicians hate it!
        • 5 Years Ago
        Yes, but anywhere on the initiative will it be raveled taht the the "California Jobs Initiative" has nothing to do with jobs?

        Is it the "people speaking" when the initiative is essentially a front for corporations? Corporations are not people. They don't get to vote. Their employees do, as they are people.
        • 5 Years Ago
        This initiative is just to get put on the ballot. At that point, "The People" will be able to vote on it.

        I agree that corporations can't vote, but neither can unions. What is the difference between a union-organized initiative, and a corporate-organized initiative? I can point out one big difference: corporations are often publicly-owned, and have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the shareholders. If a corporation thinks future legislation will harm shareholder interests, then it is the corporations responsibility to take action.

        You don't have to agree with what they're trying to do, but it's important to understand why they're trying to do it - they want to stay in business.
      • 5 Years Ago
      You'll sooner find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow than either justice in this world or a honest and dedicated politician.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X