Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
It is becoming more and more obvious that AB 32 (the foundation upon which SB 375 is built) might not make it to its 2012 launch date. The forces that are gathering now to undo what Arnold hath wrought grow louder every day. And if that happens we could very well dodge the bizarre RHNA numbers and unfunded Sacramento mandates that organizations like SCAG (and SCAG/CEHD functionaries such as Joe Mosca) are working so very hard to make happen here. Something that could result in unwanted high-density development in Sierra Madre and throughout the San Gabriel Valley "transportation corridor." Below is an excellent article from Fox & Hounds that details the costs associated with AB 32. The authors' conclusion is that in an economic climate such as ours AB 32 could be an economic disaster. A contention that Arnold Schwarzenegger, now saddled with Gray Davis level approval ratings, might no longer have the political capital to fight.
New Study Finds AB 32 Scoping Plan Imposes Staggering Costs on California’s Families and Small Businesses
Our study released today finds that small businesses in California will pay an additional $49,691 as a result of the California Air Resources Board’s implementation of AB 32. The study, which we conducted at the request of the California Small Business Roundtable, analyzes the potential economic impacts of AB 32 on the state of California, its consumers and its small businesses.
The study focuses on the costs to be incurred by consumers in five specific areas: housing, transportation, natural gas, electricity and food. Using three different scenarios to measure the economic costs, we find that the potential loss of output, jobs, indirect business taxes and labor income is substantial and significant.
Our report reveals that when the plan is fully implemented, California families will be facing increased annual costs of $3,857 and that in order to cope with the increased costs generated by the Greenhouse Program, consumers will be forced to cut their discretionary spending by 26.2%. We conclude that when California’s climate change program, AB 32, is fully implemented, the average annual loss in gross state output from small businesses alone would be $182.6 billion, approximately a 10% loss in total gross state output. This will translate into nearly 1.1 million lost jobs in California. Lost labor income is estimated to be $76.8 billion, with nearly $5.8 billion lost in indirect taxes. This decline in revenues will have a severe impact on future state budgets.
Small businesses drive the economic engine in California. They comprise 99.2% of all employer firms and 99.7% of all firms. They account for over half the employment, over 90% of net new job creation, and 75% of the creation of gross state output. Costs borne by small businesses due to the implementation of AB 32 must be carefully evaluated for a full understanding of their significance and impact on the state and residents.
The study’s cost analysis was based on the California Air Resources Board’s own findings, which revealed significant cost increases. The study’s findings are consistent with the Peer Review analysis commissioned by CARB, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) review of the Scoping Plan and an analysis conducted by the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC). These independent analyses concluded that the cost of the AB 32 Scoping Plan would be significant, and that CARB had significantly underestimated these costs.
An adverse impact on small business is bound to adversely impact the production of goods and services in California, the risk tolerance of entrepreneurs and investors, the productivity of labor, the quality of life, and the overall well being of the State and its citizens.
Currently California is facing one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, an unstable real estate market with rising foreclosures, and rising numbers of families looking to move out of the state to find a more affordable living. Businesses are similarly faced with an inhospitable environment that features some of the highest taxes and utility costs in the nation, and an unfriendly regulatory climate that will likely result in more leakages of businesses elsewhere.
Legislative and regulatory mandates may result in practices and policies that raise the costs of operating for small business or provide a deterrent to small business growth, and hence provide disincentives for economic risk taking and entrepreneurship. This appears to be the case here. While the ultimate goals of AB 32 are not in question, the findings of this study suggest that the costs associated with the implementation of the AB 32 Scoping Plan will have significant adverse impacts on California’s economy, consumers, and small businesses.