If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

S.F. Bay Area Passes Carbon Tax

smokestack4-081.jpgThe San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s board of directors voted overwhelmingly (15-1) to charge area companies 4.4 cents per ton of carbon dioxide they emit, a first for the U.S.,The Associated Press reports.

The new rules, which impose fees on businesses for emitting greenhouse gasses, are expected to generate $1.1 million in the first year to help pay for programs to measure the region’s emissions and develop ways to reduce them. They are set to take effect July 1.

Of the more than 2,500 businesses that will be required to pay the proposed fees, the biggest payers will be seven power plants and oil refineries that would have to pay more than $50,000 a year. The majority of businesses would pay less than $1, the district estimates.

Shelly Sullivan, who heads the AB32 Implementation Group, a coalition of business groups working with state regulators to implement California’s global warming law, says the program will make business in the Bay Area less competitive. Others question whether or not the Bay Area Air Quality Management District even has the authority to impose fees on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District proposed the charge in February.

Last summer, as part of the Western Climate Initiative, California was one of six western states and two Canadian provinces who pledged (PDF) to work together to cut greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

California’s landmark legislation AB32, requires the state to cut its emissions 25 percent by 2020.

OSHA Written HazCom Plan Template
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

Zero Waste To Landfill
Sponsored By: Covanta Environmental Solutions

Waste and Climate: Reducing Your Footprint
Sponsored By: Covanta Environmental Solutions

Using Technology to Bulletproof EHS Compliance Management
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS


6 thoughts on “S.F. Bay Area Passes Carbon Tax

  1. So to encourage power companies and refineries to clean up their acts, so to speak, they gouge them so that they don’t have that money to use in developing cleaner technologies. Very clever, San Francisco. I can hear the screams now when they have another power crisis and the cost of oil goes up again. Do these people not have a brain among them? Everyone wants clean air, but rational thought would better serve the cause than the typical knee jerk reactions of the greener-than-thou SF council.

  2. Should Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger consider a “fee” on corn fuel ethanol use? * Lower price for food, gas, water, beer, cleaner air… and… funds for the budget from oil profit.

  3. NO on AB 2289 (Eng) unless amended


    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.” CBS video with Tom Cackette of CARB talking about the smog check program





    If an elected official would request a copy of the Sierra Research SR 2007-04-01 report and all communication about the report from CCEEB, CED, CARB, DCA/BAR, IMRC, Parsons, SGS Testcom & Sierra Research it might help improve performance of Smog Check…. “Sherry Mehl. The report has been modified since 2001. Continually”


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



    A random ‘Smog Check’ inspection & repair ‘secret shopper’ audit, ethanol cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFE credit can cut California car impact over 50% in 2010. (Prevent Over 2000 tons per day of sulfur, PM, HC, O3, NOx, CO & CO2.) Improved performance of AB32 at reduced cost. (support H.R. 1207)

  4. 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.

Leave a Comment

Translate »