California business leaders and industry groups have urged state lawmakers to reject any last-minute attempts to extend the state’s Cap-and-Trade program this year, citing a lack of comprehensive planning and stakeholder engagement. The coalition includes organizations such as the California Chamber of Commerce, Agricultural Council of California, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, and Western States Petroleum Association.
According to these groups, almost five months have passed since state leaders committed to reauthorizing the climate law that aims to balance economic impacts with environmental goals. However, no comprehensive legislation has been reviewed through policy committees in either legislative chamber. Key stakeholders report they were not consulted during this period.
Despite disappointing results from recent quarterly auctions for carbon allowances—which generated less revenue for environmental programs—there was no significant push by lawmakers to address the program’s future through a detailed process.
“We are deeply disappointed by the inaction and inability to seize the moment and secure our shared future,” said California Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Jennifer Barrera. “For months, we have heard promises that issues affecting California’s affordability were at the top of the list. But this vital issue will have to wait. No proposal is better than a bad proposal.”
Other business group leaders echoed similar concerns about affordability and process transparency:
Lance Hastings, President and CEO of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, stated: “California’s 34,000 manufacturers work hard to keep goods affordable, but poorly crafted policies drive up costs, and families will end up paying more. There’s no rush on Cap-and-Trade this year. Waiting allows for a transparent process that leads to better outcomes for all Californians.”
Jodie Muller, President of Western States Petroleum Association, commented: “This effort does not represent progress toward a workable solution, rather it is a major reversal for both affordability and stabilization of the oil and gas industry. With the state already experiencing leakage in real time with two announced refinery closures, this deal does nothing to create the kind of investor certainty that is necessary to ensure a reliable, affordable fuel supply for California and our neighboring states.”
Emily Rooney, President of Agricultural Council of California added: “Ag Council’s been actively engaged on cap and trade, and we were hopeful a reauthorization was within reach that emphasizes affordability for our farmer-owned businesses, which also benefits California consumers. Unfortunately, we are not there, and we are nearly out of time. It is hard to envision how the unveiling of a brand-new solution outside of a ‘clean reauthorization’ could be workable at this late date.”
Tim Carmichael, President and CEO at California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance remarked: “CCEEB has long supported California’s cap-and-trade program as the foundation of the state’s climate policy. A rushed deal that raises costs for working Californians and job-creating industries should not move forward.”
The organizations maintain their position that any extension or modification should undergo thorough review instead of being decided under deadline pressure.
