WSPA Opposing Mandates to Force 50% Reduction in Petroleum

SB 350, a bill by California Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), contains no specific programs or policies that would achieve the 50% cut, but rather gives the unelected California Air Resources Board open-ended authority to adopt mandates by regula­tion to achieve unrealistic cuts in gasoline and diesel use, the association comments. “History tells us two things,” observed Reheis-Boyd. “Mandates designed to achieve a goal of this magnitude will require unac­ceptably coercive restrictions on our mobility choices and will be crushingly expensive.” The association president added that since the early 2000s, a series of measures have been introduced seeking to cut petro­leum use by 15% to 20%.

“Each time, they have been rejected or ignored because it quickly became clear that legislative man­dates designed to change behavior and force consumer choices are expensive—very expensive. By proposing a goal of 50% reductions, Sen. de Leon has upped the ante dramatically. His legislation is a blank check for the Air Resources Board to impose those same costly mandates on all Californians without legislative review or oversight. Achieving so radical a goal in so short a time will require the removal of eight billion gallons of gasoline and diesel from our fuel supply—with no guarantees that something will be available to replace them.”

Reheis-Boyd reminded de Leon that Califor­nia petroleum producers, refiners, and marketers are the source of nearly half a million jobs in the state, and the products they produce drive industries that support California—the eighth-largest economy in the world. “This proposal is a major distraction from the much more important work that must be done to move California’s climate change agenda beyond the 2020 horizon established by AB 32,” she said.

“California’s petroleum producers and refiners will be participants in shaping those policies so that we can continue the progress we have made toward achieving greenhouse gas reduction targets. It is one thing to establish goals like those identified in the governor’s inaugural address and to use those goals to measure the effectiveness of climate change policies. It is another thing entirely to empower an unaccountable regulatory agency the authority to impose regulations to achieve those goals.”