|
|
Air Board Corruption Exposed and Sued
Today in Sacramento County Superior Court, eleven business
and taxpayer organizations filed a lawsuit against the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) for failing to comply with Public Records Act
requests for a full accounting of the millions of dollars spent on staff
and expenses that have resulted from two years of administering AB 32,
California’s Global Warming Solutions Act.
The law allows CARB to impose regulatory fees under AB 32, but at the
same time they must account for the staff salaries, travel, consultants
and other expenses accrued to implement this law, said Dorothy Rothrock
vice-president of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association.
Its too bad that the agency didnt supply this information, and we need
to litigate to obtain it.
This is the first lawsuit to be brought against the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) associated with AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act). These
requests came as a result of CARB’s AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions
Act) proposed Administrative Fee regulation which proposes back fees
of $56 million to pay for the first two years of implementing AB 32 and
a projected $39 million a year in the future. CARB expects these fees
would be passed on to energy consumers in the form of higher prices.
AB 32 policies already will increase electricity costs, transportation
fuels, water, and housing costs by billions of dollars, said John Kabateck,
Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business
- California (NFIB). At a time when California’s small businesses
and consumers are concerned about every penny they spend, its important
that these fees are fully transparent and the minimum possible, said
Kabateck.
The requested documents include those that would substantiate the basis
for and the amount of fees to be collected and the nexus between the
fees to be paid, the fee payers, and the regulatory activity to be funded
with the fees. After repeated requests, CARB hasn’t produced the
documents.
In order for organizations to make informed comments about the proposed
Administrative Fee regulation, these documents are necessary for review
and economic analysis. Comments regarding the Proposed AB 32 Fee Regulation
will likely be due on or about June 22, 2009, leaving no time for the
organizations to challenge CARB’s determinations when it takes
the issue up at its June 25 and 26 board meeting.
CARB’s failure to produce the requested public records is contrary
to AB 32 and will impair the ability of the petitioners to exercise their
rights to participate in the rulemaking process for the Proposed AB 32
Fee Regulation, said Rothrock. With the rest of the nation and the world
watching the example California is setting with its climate change policies,
it is critical the process is transparent, promotes good public policy
and is completed in a cost-effective equitable manner, Rothrock concluded.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include: California Business Properties
Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Independent Oil
Marketers Association, California League of Food Processors, California
Manufacturers & Technology Association, California Small Business
Alliance, California Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association,
National Federation of Independent Business-California, The California
Black Chamber of Commerce, and the Western States Petroleum Association.
Source: CA Political News
May 8, 2009
back |
|
