Shelly Sullivan, executive director of the AB-32 Implementation Group, an alliance of the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers and Technology Assn., praised the plan as "balanced and cost-effective."
"We're encouraged that this draft acknowledges the effectiveness of market systems like cap-and-trade to deliver greenhouse gas emission reductions at a lower cost for California consumers."
If California succeeds in reducing emissions from a projected 596 million metric tons in 2020 to 427 million metric tons, it will have ratcheted itself down to the amount it emitted in 1990, about 10% below today's level.
That would mean, on an average per capita basis, reducing the annual carbon footprint of every Californian from 14 tons to about 10 tons, according to the air board.
"This is the beginning of a process," Nichols acknowledged. "Now is when we begin to talk through how the program will go into effect."
Many public workshops and meetings with industries and civic groups, as well as more detailed economic modeling, remain before the board would adopt the plan, slated for November. It would take another two years to develop regulations to lock the goals in place, officials say.
Beyond 2020, the board is committed to even more dramatic action: reducing emissions by 80% by mid-century, the level that most scientists say will be needed globally, if Earth is to avoid a dangerous level of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has endorsed the 80% goal in an executive order.
State Sen. Don Perata (D-Oakland noted that bills to implement the plan's efficiency and renewable-energy goals are pending, but he added, "I am concerned that the plan relies on a 'cap-and-trade' scheme that raises more questions than it answers."
Under such a system, similar to one the European Union has adopted, governments set a limit on overall emissions but allow some industries, such as coal-dependent utilities, to purchase pollution credits. The credits can be traded on the market. Heavy polluters could offset their emissions by paying to clean up other industries where costs are less prohibitive, or invest in other projects that decrease carbon.
What proportion of pollution permits or allowances would be given out free and what proportion would be auctioned has yet to be worked out. That decision is likely to spark debate among industries and environmental groups.
