By Keith Goble, Land Line state legislative editor

An attempt to thwart at least a 15-cent-per-gallon fuel tax increase in California appears to be lost.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, announced on Friday, Aug. 22, he would not stand in the way of plans to put fuels that include gas and diesel under the state’s cap-and-trade program the first of the year.

The program has been in place since 2006 through passage of AB32 – the California Global Warming Solutions Act. The program allows the California Air Resources Board to cap greenhouse gas emissions and require companies to buy permits to exceed those caps.

Currently, the cap applies to power plants and other heavy manufacturers. Starting Jan. 1, 2015, the program is set to expand to include oil companies. CARB estimates the program could result in a fuel tax increase between 15 cents and 76 cents per gallon.

The state already claims the highest fuel prices in the continental U.S. The average price for a gallon of diesel this week is $4.084, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

State lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called for action by Democratic leaders and the governor to prevent the looming tax increase.

Concern about rising fuel costs spurred 16 of the state’s 55 Democratic Assembly members to send a letter to CARB Chairman Mary Nichols asking her to delay, or redesign, the program for greenhouse gas emissions.

Assembly Republicans penned a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown. They requested that the Democratic governor use his executive authority to delay expansion of the program. The lawmakers cite concerns about “wild fluctuations” in the price of gas and diesel that would be caused by linking them to carbon auctions.

Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, offered a bill with the backing of 10 other Senate Republicans that would exempt gas and diesel from the program.

In addition, Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno, introduced a bill with nine other Democrats to push back the looming rule. Specifically, AB69 would delay for three years the rule requiring the energy industry to purchase permits for transportation fuels.

However, Steinberg said in a letter written to Perea on Friday, Aug. 22, that he would not bring AB69 up for consideration before the regular session ends on Sunday, Aug. 31.

“Business as usual is unsustainable. Inaction is not an option,” Steinberg wrote. “If we are serious about reducing fuel costs and righting the public health and economic wrongs facing our constituents, we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels and invest in cleaner transportation alternatives.”

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is on record in support of delaying the mandate. The Association sent communication to California state lawmakers conveying their concerns about the increased costs that small-business truckers would be forced to absorb.

OOIDA is also one of nearly 40 groups to endorse Perea’s bill. In a letter of support to Perea early this month, the groups wrote “this expanded regulation must not happen until the California Air Resources Board fully and transparently assesses and communicates the effects of the expansion to the public.

“This is necessary to ensure that the public fully understands the impacts on individuals and to the state’s economic well-being.”

Copyright © OOIDA

 

Right...
Because regulation has done so well for Commiefornia's economy...
Lets see what even more will do eh?

If it aint broke... fix it till it is!

 

Neal, did you write that? I dont see a source other than the copyright at the bottom.

Posts like this always drum up unnecessary arguments about "commifornia" which is really annoying... Sorry that you guys dont like my state. Deal with it.

I read the first few paragraphs, then go to "CARD estimates..." and then realized this is not a fuel tax increase, just someone saying that what the carb is doing might cause the fuel costs to go up. Until it goes into effect there is no way to know how much fuel cost will go up, therefore its purely speculatory, which kind of renders the article moot, doesnt it? Maybe it should be titled "CARB to start regulating oil industry more" rather than this farce to drum up anger over fuel tax. In fact, the rest of the article is soley about the act, not the fuel increase.

 

I'm starting to think CA is trying to lower its expenses by giving people reasons to move elsewhere, thus lessening the demand on the infrastructure . . .

 

[QUOTE=A/Ox4;14618304]Neal, did you write that? I dont see a source other than the copyright at the bottom.

Trey,
What do you think "OOIDA" at the bottom next to the copyright stands for?

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association

I live here and agree this state is messed up. I just saw something in the news about how the arrest percentage for CA Senators is higher than the states largest cities, here is the link. Arrest rate in California Senate higher than rate in all of state's largest cities - Data Center - The Sacramento Bee

When these idiots clean up their own house maybe they can dictate what we do , until then they need to make things better not worse. In the mean time I will continue to buy my fuel in Reno/Sparks.

Consider me gone upon retirement.

 

Title is too misleading. When I was in Kalifornia 30 years ago fuel prices were increased when compared to the rest of the nation.

Not quite what I would consider a countdown.

 

Trey, I would just say I have nothing against California...I hope they keep doing what they are doing in your legislature. I have no gripe with anyone there, other than the politicians, the Public Employee Retirement System CALPERS), and the California State Teachers Retirement System (CALSTRS). I'd just point you towards the statement I bolded:

Starting Jan. 1, 2015, the program is set to expand to include oil companies. CARB estimates the program could result in a fuel tax increase between 15 cents and 76 cents per gallon.

The Senate President Pro Tem said to the attempt to stop the increase in the cap and trade tax “Business as usual is unsustainable. Inaction is not an option,” Steinberg wrote. “If we are serious about reducing fuel costs and righting the public health and economic wrongs facing our constituents, we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels and invest in cleaner transportation alternatives.” On the back of all fuel users in the state...he'll still be driving around with his state car and state credit card.

Sorry if this pissed you off Trey, not my intent. My intent was that maybe some Californians would start beating their representatives up to stop this foolishness. Businesses will continue to flee the state, as well as retirees (like many of us have already done).

Less you think this is just the rantings of a crazy desert trucker, here is the link to the Editorial page of the U-T San Diego...and the LA Times.

 

It didnt **** me off, I just had disagreements about how the article presents.
I dont like rising fuel costs either, nor their associated problem any more than the next guy. But its an uphill battle for sure.

Bio Diesel. Lets work on that.

 

Gotta pay for those illegals some how 30 billion just supporting them, your Gov. should be out of there by now.

 

we down bio production in late 2009. after the new administration came in and changed things, production costs skyrocketed.

 

A big California "Welcome" to all the illegals from Jerry Brown....maybe they will all move to CA. Y'all just keep electing those Liberal Democrates.

 

i should try to read just the original post, comment on it and be on my way. instead, i read all the following replies… what i think and what i know:
fuel prices will continue to rise
i'd like to retire in a state that will not tax my military pension
i would like to convert my truck to WVO or bio
keep saving and spending wisely b/c the cost of living will probably continue to rise…everywhere.

 

We (Nevada) don't have income tax here...come on over and bring your guns and money (both are very welcome here)!

 

If you switch to Bio there is nothing that you need to convert on your truck. I brew my own and have been running B100 in my truck off and on for three years depending on my oil supply. I can make it for roughly $1.00 - $1.50 a gallon depending on methanol and lye prices. I didn't change a thing on the truck and no issues whatsoever. That said for bio and WVO users depending on your state, they can and will dip your tank and if they can prove that what you are burning in your rig was not subject to state and fed. taxes you will get ticketed. Just like running red off road diesel in your tank, they will get their tax money one way or the other. I am rolling the dice with my truck but in my area there is not a huge enforcement on this but it is always in the back of my mind. I live in Northern California (Oregon) so what happens down south eventually makes it up here.

 

They wouldn't be dipping my tank without a search warrant. Just sayin'.