|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calif.'s 'cool cars' law runs afoul of budget cuts, bad timing The California Air Resources Board's attempt to reduce air conditioning use in vehicles failed last month, but it wasn't because of the usual suspects. The state was on track to finalize its "cool cars" standards, which would have mandated infrared-reflective window coatings to reduce vehicle temperatures and the need for air conditioning. It had weathered objections from auto manufacturers, which claimed the coatings would be too expensive, as well as cell phone carriers and GPS companies, which submitted studies showing an increase in dropped calls due to the infrared shield (ClimateWire, Jan. 21). But then the rule fell prey to California's overcrowded prisons. The state's $20 billion budget deficit and exploding prison population have prompted an early-release program that aims to set free 6,500 convicts by the end of the year. Crime victim advocates worry ex-convicts could commit crimes in the safety of their cars, shielded from monitors by metallic window coatings. "If a sex offender who's on a GPS device gets into a car by which the signal is impaired, and pulls up to a school which he's prohibited from being near, manages to lure a child into his or her car, and parks under an underpass which ARB said was a particular problem in making a dropped signal even worse, that could impact public safety," said Dawn Sanders-Koepke, a lobbyist for Crime Victims United of California. After the group sent a letter to the air board in February calling the regulation "unacceptable," the California State Sheriffs' Association and the California chapter of the National Emergency Number Association increased the pressure even further by appealing to state lawmakers. The window coatings could block emergency calls to 911, they charged. "We'd been raising concerns to the governor's office and the Legislature," said legislative representative Danielle Higgs, who worked for both groups. "I think it was a very collaborative process in recognizing there were still significant concerns." ARB officials, for their part, said they could have incorporated the groups' concerns if they had had more time. The rules had to be finalized by May 7. "These came to us at a very late stage of rulemaking, and we didn't have time to resolve them adequately within the legally binding time limit," spokesman Stanley Young said of the objections. Instead, ARB will create a performance-based standard that will allow automakers to meet the temperature requirements through a variety of methods, possibly including better insulation, ventilation, advanced upholstery or some kind of mechanical window shade. Environmentalists blamed the timing. "This is clearly a problem of stakeholders not having the latest or most recent information and not having enough time to have their concerns addressed," said Simon Mui, a clean vehicles and fuels scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It was interesting, though; sort of one group came out of the woodwork, and then a whole bunch came out after that, so obviously someone was coordinating this effort." Carol Livingston, an attorney with Greenberg Traurig who represented the cell phone companies and several law enforcement groups, including the sheriffs and crime victims, said the latter groups got involved in February, after the wireless study came out. "It takes a while for issues to percolate around," she said. "After the study in February they started getting active. Then we all went to a board meeting in February and said to the board, 'You've got a problem; you've got to look at these studies.'" Source: ClimteWire |
|