Executive Order S-3-05

Executive Order S-3-05
Name	Executive Order S-3-05
Date signed	2005
Signed by	Arnold Schwarzenegger
Jurisdiction	California
Subject	Climate change mitigation
Status	Active

Executive Order S-3-05 Executive Order S-3-05 is a 2005 California executive order issued by Arnold Schwarzenegger establishing statewide targets for greenhouse gas reductions and directing state agencies to develop implementation strategies. The order set specific reduction milestones tied to historic 1990 levels and catalyzed interaction among agencies such as the California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, and State of California Natural Resources Agency. It influenced later legislation including AB 32 and intersected with federal initiatives under the United States Environmental Protection Agency and international frameworks like the Kyoto Protocol.

Background

The order emerged amid rising attention from figures and events such as Al Gore and the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and followed scientific assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and research institutions like Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Political context included previous California actions by governors including Pete Wilson and policy debates in the California State Legislature and at the California Energy Commission. External pressures included litigation involving entities such as Friends of the Earth and regulatory moves by the California Air Resources Board responding to court rulings like Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.

Provisions

The order established targeted reductions to reach 2000 level greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, reach 1990 levels by 2020, and achieve 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. It directed agencies including the California Environmental Protection Agency, California Natural Resources Agency, California Energy Commission, Department of Transportation (California), and California Public Utilities Commission to coordinate plans, inventories, and monitoring. The text referenced metrics tied to emissions sectors represented by organizations such as the California Air Resources Board and incorporated guidance from scientific bodies like the National Academy of Sciences and the United States Global Change Research Program. It also called for integrating the order into regulatory frameworks overseen by agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Office of Planning and Research.

Implementation and Agencies Involved

Primary implementation roles were assigned to the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, which developed emissions inventories, regulatory measures, and market mechanisms including cap-and-trade designs later codified under AB 32. The California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission worked on energy efficiency and renewable portfolio strategies related to institutions like Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison. Transportation-related directives engaged the Department of Transportation (California) and metropolitan planning organizations such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area), while land-use and conservation efforts involved the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and California Department of Conservation.

Impact and Outcomes

The order helped accelerate state policy that produced measurable outcomes: it shaped the development of AB 32, the establishment of statewide greenhouse gas inventories, and the implementation of cap-and-trade under the California Air Resources Board. It stimulated investment in renewable energy projects involving companies and utilities like NextEra Energy and motivated programs connecting to federal efforts by the United States Department of Energy and research at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The order influenced municipal planning in cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, and contributed to legal and policy models referenced in cross-jurisdictional agreements with entities in British Columbia and the European Union emissions discussions.

Criticism and Controversy

Critics included business groups like the California Chamber of Commerce and trade organizations representing sectors such as California Farm Bureau Federation and California Manufacturers & Technology Association, which raised concerns about economic impacts, competitiveness with states like Texas and Arizona, and regulatory burden on companies including Chevron and ExxonMobil. Legal challenges questioned executive action scope versus legislative authority, invoking doctrines and precedents considered in cases like Sierra Club v. California Air Resources Board and debates over preemption related to Clean Air Act implementation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental advocates such as Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council both praised ambition and criticized the pace or sufficiency of subsequent rules.

Legal and Policy Context

The order existed within a framework that included California statutes like AB 32, judicial decisions such as Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, and federal statutes including the Clean Air Act. It intersected with constitutional principles related to executive authority under the California Constitution and administrative law doctrines adjudicated in courts including the California Supreme Court and federal United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Internationally, the order resonated with commitments under agreements discussed at United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations and linked to standards promoted by organizations such as the International Energy Agency.

Category:California executive orders Category:Climate change in California