Senate President Kevin de León called the efforts of those opposed to his SB 350 energy bill “fear-mongering.” Gov. Jerry Brown’s chief aide, Nancy McFadden called one of the charges made against the bill “outrageous.” A  columnist said the speculation of opponents was “outlandish.”

Yet, now Sen. de León says he is advancing amendments in response to one of the complaints about the bill—that the Air Resources Board will have a free hand in implementation with no legislative oversight.

Might other concerns about the immediate economic effects also be valid? Sen. de León seems to be hearing those concerns. At least he reportedly said that the measure will have “exit strategies and off ramps” in case of an economic downturn.

But negative economic effects may hit even without a downturn in the economy. More expensive costs could not only hit consumers, but increased costs might also stifle economic growth and job creation, a potential double whammy especially for low income individuals.

The call for fuller examination of possible consequences of SB 350 comes at a time when a review of a previous initiative tied to climate change, Proposition 39, found unfulfilled promises.

Previously, I wrote that “the legislature should take its time understanding consequences” of SB 350. I think the reason that those behind SB 350 want it signed, sealed and delivered before this legislative session ends is because of Paris.

Recall the line in the classic film Casablanca when Rick (Humphrey Bogart) says to Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) remembering the good times, “We’ll always have Paris.”

For Jerry Brown and Kevin de León they want to say: “We want to have Paris.” In the upcoming UN conference on climate change, which both California leaders will attend, they want to hold up California’s climate change program as an example to the world. For them, SB 350 as signed law will be a feather in their cap at the conference.

But rushing legislation without truly understanding the effects would be a disservice to the people of California. Since the proponents of the bill have now admitted that changes are necessary, why not take time to consider the economic impacts of the bill? Paris can wait.