(April 7, 2010) A California Chamber of Commerce-supported bill that required an economic analysis of all major California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations failed to pass the Senate Environmental Quality Committee this week.
SB 960 (Dutton; R-Rancho Cucamonga) provided oversight and accountability by requiring a thorough economic analysis of regulations proposed by CARB. A report conducted by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) would have focused on a cost benefit analysis and the technological feasibility of a regulation.
The CalChamber believes that a thorough economic study, which tests the full impacts and benefits of a regulation on the state, is key to ensuring the state is using the best tools possible to meet the goals of proposed CARB regulations. As regulators weigh different policy choices, their decision making must be guided by a sound economic analysis that reveals the cost implications of those decisions.
SB 960 would have helped to provide such guidance by directing an independent agency (OAL) to provide sound economic analysis of regulations proposed by CARB. This independent analysis would have established oversight and accountability by ensuring that policy makers and stakeholders know the true costs of the regulations.
A stronger analysis of the regulations will give regulators and lawmakers additional information to make decisions for the long-term, providing both justification for CARB regulations like those under AB 32, and sensitivity toward the current state of the economy.
Since the passage of AB 32 in 2006, the CalChamber has been advocating a balanced approach to implementation that takes into consideration the needs of the environment and the economy. Given the current state of California’s economy, it is imperative to accurately assess a regulation’s overall cost to business. Furthermore, returning the state to economic health and vitality should be the state’s highest priority.
The CalChamber believes it is important to continue to work toward ensuring that compliance costs are minimized by pushing for measures that are cost-effective, technologically feasible and allow for business growth in California.
Key Votes
Senate Environmental Quality rejected SB 960 on April 5 on a party-line vote of 2-4:
Ayes: Runner (R-Antelope Valley), Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks).
Noes: Corbett (D-San Leandro), Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), Simitian (D-Palo Alto).
Absent, abstaining or not voting: Hancock (D-Berkeley).
Staff Contact: Brenda M. Coleman