Greenhouse-gas fee has business groups fuming

The Bay Area will become one of the first regions in the nation to charge businesses for emitting greenhouse gases.

Business groups, however, say the plan to charge companies is unnecessary and could lead to litigation.

In total, 2,500 firms will be affected, although 1,650 of those businesses will pay less than $1 per year, according to documents provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the nine-county regional group that approved the plan Wednesday.

The fees would not be imposed upon vehicles, which are responsible for 50.6 percent of all greenhouse gases in the region.

The greenhouse-gas fee will cost Bay Area businesses a little more than 4 cents per metric ton of greenhouse gases emitted. District officials have called the fee “modest,” saying the program is aimed at making the Bay Area a leader in climate-control initiatives.

“The cost of doing nothing today is the cost of our public health,” said San Mateo County Supervisor Jerry Hill, who sits on the district board.

With state agencies already studying ways to decrease emissions as required by Assembly Bill 32 —the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 — some business groups questioned how the Bay Area’s plan will fit in with larger climate-control programs.

“Our concern is not about the money, it’s about the uncertainty that has now been raised in the state,” said Dennis Bolt of the Western States Petroleum Association. “This could undermine the entire initiative going on in Sacramento.”

Bolt said litigation against the plan is “always a discussion with our members.”

Shelly Sullivan, executive director of the AB 32 Implementation Group, a coalition of 150 California businesses, said the plan puts local businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Lisa Fasano, a spokeswoman for the air-quality district, said that the district is not concerned with litigation challenging its authority to impose the fee. She also said that if local businesses are concerned with the costs they should find ways to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions.

The fee, which will generate $1.1 million for the district, will go into effect by July.

wreisman@sfexaminer.com  

Bay Area NewsLocalTransittransportation

Just Posted

A felled tree in Sydney G. Walton Square blocks part of a lane on Front Street following Sunday’s storm on Monday, Oct. 25, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/The Examiner)
After the rain: What San Francisco learned from a monster storm

Widespread damage underscored The City’s susceptibility to heavy wind and rain

Plan Bay Area 2050 is an expansive plan guiding the region’s growth and development over the next three decades. The regional plan addresses progressive policy priorities like a universal basic income and a region-wide rent cap, alongside massive new spending on affordable housing and transportation infrastructure. (Shutterstock)
$1.4 trillion ‘blueprint’ would address Bay Area’s housing, transit woes

Analyzing the big ticket proposals in ‘Plan Bay Area 2050’

A felled tree in San Francisco is pictured on Fillmore Street following a major storm that produced high winds and heavy rains on Oct. 24, 2021. (Photo courtesy of Philip Ford)
Storm updates: Rainiest October day in San Francisco history

Rainfall exceeded 10 inches in parts of the Bay Area

On Sunday, California bore the brunt of what meteorologists referred to as a bomb cyclone and an atmospheric river, a convergence of storms that brought more than half a foot of rain to parts of the Bay Area, along with high winds, concerns about flash floods and the potential for heavy snow in the Sierra Nevada. Much of the Bay Area was under a flash flood watch on Sunday, with the National Weather Service warning of the potential for mudslides across the region. (NOAA via The New York Times)
Bomb cyclone, atmospheric river combine to pummel California with rain and wind

What you need to know about this historic weather event

The Department of Building Inspection, at 49 South Van Ness Ave., has been mired in scandal since since its creation by voter referendum under Proposition G in 1994. (Courtesy SF.gov)
The Department of Building Inspection, at 49 South Van Ness Ave., has been mired in scandal since its creation by voter referendum under Proposition G in 1994. (Courtesy SF.gov)
Whistleblowing hasn’t worked at the SF Dept. of Building Inspection

DBI inspectors say their boss kept them off connected builders’ projects

Most Read