Former Speaker Ignores his own Intent on CARB Fees :: Fox&Hounds

By Joel Fox, Editor of Fox & Hounds and President of the Small Business Action Committee

The reasoning and intent behind a law is of upmost importance especially when courts attempt to interpret legislative actions. Yet, the Air Resources Board and even the bill’s author, Former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, are ignoring the clear intent of “fee” revenue raised under the provisions of AB 32, the 2006 bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Last week, the former speaker wrote an op-ed piece in the Sacramento Bee in which he proudly hails the legislation putting a “price on pollution” so that revenues can be collected and directed toward technologies and programs that he claims will benefit the economy and environment. He writes that the legislature has the responsibility to invest these “forthcoming cap-and-trade proceeds” for pollution reduction and to stimulate the economy.

Hold on a moment, Mr. Speaker. That’s not what you said the intent of the “fees” were when the bill was considered and passed in 2006.

In a letter written to the Chief Clerk of the Assembly for the official journal, Nunez wrote, “AB 32 authorizes the California Air Resources Board to adopt a schedule of fees to pay for the direct costs of administrating the reporting and emission reduction and compliance programs established pursuant to the bill’s provisions.

It is my intent that any funds provided by Health and Safety Code Section 38597 are to be used solely for the direct costs incurred in administering this division.”

If the “sole” intent the speaker clearly stated is just to pay for “administering” the program, why will the legislature have the ability to “invest” all these revenues that can “flow to technologies and programs?”

Courts look into the history of a particular piece of legislation to discover its legislative intent. Aware of this concern, most initiative proponents declare the “Purpose and Intent” of a proposition and legislative bills carry the author’s intent. In this case, the bill’s author spelled out the intent of the “fee” provided for in AB 32.

Now, however, it seems the former speaker is advocating violating the intent of his own legislation – Click HERE for full PDF.

Russ Comments:  I have been writing for years that AB-32 was going create a huge slush fund of taxpayer dollars and did not have anything to do with saving he planet from global warming. Now my predictions are coming true.  Stay tuned the corruption is Sacramento will only deepen and as those carbon fees start rolling in. They just cannot help themselves!


About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

2 Responses to Former Speaker Ignores his own Intent on CARB Fees :: Fox&Hounds

  1. D. King says:

    CARB may have the same way to go as the EPA.

    I would not want to be them right now!

  2. MikeL says:

    Removed, no e-mail address.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: