A costly energy mandate defeated last year over cost concerns is being sent back to the state Assembly Appropriations Committee for discussion next month, officials said.

Senate Bill 32, which would further California’s already nation-leading emissions standards, is expected to have costs “at least in the hundreds of millions of dollars,” according to the Appropriations Committee’s most recent analysis of the bill.

SB 32, authored by state Sen. Fran Pavley, would require the state “to approve a statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limit equivalent to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. The current standard, authored by Pavley in 2006, calls for emissions levels to reach 1990 level by 2020, and “80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.”

Lawmakers are expected to debate the bill again in the Appropriations Committee on Aug. 3 or Aug. 11, according to an official in Sacramento.

Pavley’s rationale behind the law and its benchmark, which the business community has criticized as setting an arbitrary limit, is that the mandate will force the business community to invest in cleaner technology.

“By providing a clear market signal to businesses and investors, SB 32 will help the state continue to lead the world in creation of good-paying jobs building the technologies and resources necessary to prevent the worst consequences of climate change,” Pavley said. “It gives businesses and industry a realistic goal that we’re already on track to meet.”

However, business owners have already collectively spent millions on reaching the previously established targets by Pavley, which one business advocate likened to a bad case of deja vu.

“There are a lot of trucking companies that have invested heavily to comply with the 2020 goals and now they want to make them 40 percent stricter by 2030 without any credit for these good intentioned businesses,” said Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Associations, which advocates for San Fernando and Santa Clarita Valley businesses. “It’s like Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football.”

With no funding mechanism for enforcement, business owners expressed concerns over the new price tag associated with the bill, despite any positive intention.

“This is just another blow to businesses,” Waldman added. “The grand goals of this legislation cost money.  Some businesses are forced to move, some cut payroll and some just go out of business. It’s hard to tell an employee who just lost his job that they are doing their part for the environment.”

In addition to SB 32 and AB 197, a bill furthering greenhouse gas regulation, the Legislature is hearing debate this year on a host of bills related to the environment, according to Pavley’s office. Those bills include:

•      SB 1464 (De Leon) – GGRF Accountability and Metrics
•      AB 1550 (Gomez) – Climate Equity
•      AB 2722 (Burke) – Transformative Climate Communities
•      AB 2139 (Williams) – Ocean Acidification
•      AB 1965 (Cooper) – Clean Vehicles
•      AB 2222 (Holden) – Transit Pass Program
•      AB 2783 (E. Garcia/Eggman/C. Garcia/Gomez/Steinorth) – Affordable Housing,

Sustainable Communities

•      AB 33 (Quirk) – Energy Storage
•      AB 2868 (Gatto) – Energy Storage
•      SB 886 (Pavley) – Energy Storage
•      SB 1383 (Lara) – Super Pollutants