Comment Log Display

When I voted for the various rules to control green house gases, my
expectation was that funds created by fees and taxes and carbon
credit sales would be used to reduce greenhouse gases and not to
displace funds in other programs for localized air pollution clean
up or providing health services to people immediately affected by
local air pollution such as asthma victims along diesel engine
corridors both truck and rail.

While conversion of all port equipment to electricity will improve
particulate concentrations in the port area, the focus of the cap
and trade money must be on the most cost effective reduction of
carbon emissions in the state.

As most of the air pollution in the LA Basin is caused by mobile
equipment, cars and trucks, much attention will be paid to reducing
vehicle miles and emissions. Cap and trade funds should be
leveraged with public or private agencies seeking to convert motive
power from combustion to electric power. If local air pollution
funding or regulation conformance funding by private parties can
offer to match cap and trade to yield higher reduction in carbon
emissions than other projects, they should be preferentially
funded.

Cap and trade should not be used for technology development. The
state does not have sufficient technical personnel to choose
winning technologies from among the hundreds being proposed to
private investors. Investing in commercial projects with
substantial technical risk seems acceptable when private parties
have funded a project so that it can be financially successful
without cap and trade monies.

For example, cap and trade monies should not be spent in designing
better quality fuel cell stacks. The money should be spent
replacing all public vehicles in the state with electric vehicles.
This stops emissions and supports the private parties which have
created the electric vehicles.