Doesn't this pretty much guarantee higher gasoline prices, lower electricity production in-state, increased reliance on out of state electricity sources with the inefficiencies inherent in that, even fewer manufacturing jobs and an increase in inflation? And that the state of California will make a metric ton of money because of it?

Sorry, thought this was the State of California, not just 9 counties. Still can't help, but not nearly as large an issue.

While not a stationary source, ships that come into the bay are a real source of pollution. L.A. and San Pedro harbor figured this out a while back. They require the ships to have cleaner APUs or connect up to dock side for power.

Think of large diesel powered ships that are made and registered in other countries coming into your ports. They have no pollution controls nor regulations. They can just leave their pollution at sea and in your harbors. Their own country of origin may have no pollution laws at all!

This is a regular tax hike, just greenwashed. There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 emitted by stationary sources in the Bay Area is any more - or less - damaging than CO2 emitted elsewhere in California or indeed, the world.

Well it's probably a testing ground for AB 32 compliance. (Which is controlled by the state level Air Resources Board)
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/voluntary/policy/voluntary_policy_draft.pdf

$00.42 per metric ton is nothing compared to the European market cost of $30.00 per metric ton of CO2.

GreyFlcn,

Exactly. I've heard that true prices reflecting the damage being done to the ecosystem should be more like $100.00/ton.

For all the rest of you whiners about "higher fuel prices" etc., since gasoline emits 20 lbs per gallon, at 42 cents a ton, the San Francisco fees would amount to a paltry 42/100 of a cent per gallon. Or if you want to talk about electricity, it's 1 to 1.5 pounds per kWh. So we're talking about 3/100 of a cent per kWh. Stop whining.

At the proper price of $100/ton, the gasoline carbon tax would be $1/gallon, and the electricity tax would be about 8 cents a kWh. Now these numbers would be enough to change behavior, and it's what we actually need if we want a snowball's chance of preventing the unparalleled disaster of losing trillions of dollars of coastal real estate and infrastructure. Not to mention the human wreckage and global resource warfare that will inevitably ensue.

@sic
You may have missed this item placed here recently.
"Based on the success of the demonstration, the Port of Oakland is considering a plan that would use Wittmar LNG generators to cold iron every ship entering ..."

Let's see:

8¢/kWh * 4 trillion kWh/year = $320 billion
$1.00/gallon * 140 billion gallons/year = $140 billion

Compared to the US economy, or even the US federal budget, these are not terribly big numbers.

I saw that and I also saw a video of ships going out of the bay, one trailing a large plume of smoke. I have been on the bay and I could smell the tankers under power miles away. It is good that they are doing something dockside, now for the time that they are on the water....

Changing behavior against one will is communism at its finest. this is just greenwashed Marxism plan and simple. Socialism failed in the 1980's so the commies invented a pending disaster to implement Marxism anew. good try comrades thankfully most of the nation does not have to deal with the united socialist state of komiefornia. People have lost there minds if they think taking money from people will save the planet from impending doom, when the very people pushing the Marxism emit 20 to 100 times the emissions that they are claming to be evil. Al Gore is a perfect example his home emits 20 times the CO2 of the average American yet we are all to sacrifice at his behest. While flying around in a private jet all the while ordering the masses to pay out the nose for the privilege to consume energy. Yea no thanks I do buy in to hypocrites. Don’t whine about offsets they have been proven not to be viable the CO2 makes it back to the atmosphere in less than 100-1000 years when the trees die and decompose. This is just like buying indulgences from the church in the medieval era. Global warming is a religion and most of us are not believing the false prophet of Al Gore.

Yeah, the vanishing Arctic sea ice is a figment of religious dogma.  So are the accelerated movements of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, shorter winters in high-latitude regions the world around, changing patterns of vegetation, vanishing snow in the former ski areas of the Alps....

Al Gore made it all up, if we believe you.

Those complaining should be required to provide a better idea.

A "sin-tax" on CO2 emissions will give at least some incentive for companies to clean up. The small starting number is a fine idea as it leads to less initial resistance in getting the program established. Later the number can be adjusted up to where it needs to be to provoke serious changes.

No one is saying that the CO2 emitted in the Bay Area is more harmful than anywhere else, it is harmful everywhere else. If they can reduce the emissions, they are doing their part. If everyone does their part the problem can be reduced. It is as simple as that.

There appears to be a mistake in the article as to the amount of the fee. In the fact sheet and the rule, the fee is listed as $0.042 per metric ton. That's 4.2 cents per metric ton, not 42 cents (also a small amount, as previous posters have mentioned).

As far as I can tell (and as far as the AQMD claims, too), this is meant only to help cover the administrative costs to the AQMD of their Climate Protection Program.