The People’s Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment?

Posted by CLR

The Legislature is considering a constitutional amendment that would give California’s the right to decide whether they should have a right to a clean and healthy environment. Assembly Member Bryan has proposed ACA 16, which is now pending before the Legislature. If passed by the Legislature, voters will get to decide whether the following is added to the constitution:

“The people shall have a right to clean air and water and a healthy environment.“

This constitutional protection–if approved by the Legislature and adopted by the voters–would put Californians on par with other states, like New York, Pennsylvania, and Montana. This proposal reportedly enjoys significant broad support, with the exception of a handful of businesses that profit by polluting.

August 7, 2024 Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee (IEMAC) Meeting

Posted by CLR

The IEMAC Meeting will be held in the CalEPA building on August 7, 2024 at 2:30 to 5:00 located at 1001 I Street, Sierra Hearing Room, 2nd Floor. Zoom and phone participation are also available. Register in advance using this Zoom link. The public may also participate by phone: Dial +1 (877) 853-5247 (US Toll Free); the meeting ID is: 978 1483 2023, the passcode is: 661610.

The agenda is published. The committee will apparently hear a presentations on carbon removals and carbon management, featuring guest speakers, discuss the July 10, 2024 CARB cap-and-trade workshop materials, and plan for the 2024 IEMAC Annual Report. If you are interested, plan to attend because the meetings are not recorded and the meeting minutes are spare.

Big Oil Still a Goliath in the Golden State

Posted by CLR

A game-changing bill to hold fossil fuel giants accountable for climate damage stalled in the Legislature this summer, apparently blocked largely by oil interests like WSPA (Western States Petroleum Association).

Senate Bill 1497, known as the Polluters Pay Climate Cost Recovery Act, aimed to make companies pay their fair share for the havoc wreaked by their products.  Right now, fossil fuel companies rake in the profits from the burning of coal, oil and methane gas. Big oil is making record profits. One 2023 report suggested about $172,813,000,000 in profits in one year alone.  At the same time, Big Oil has been accused of gouging consumers at the pump and contributing the damage from global warming in California related to rising sea levels, rampaging wildfires, floods, and deadly heat waves.  Californians are suffering.  Wildfires alone cost the state about $20 billion in 2020, for instance. Governor Newsom said he’d be holding Big Oil accountable.

Despite these promises, SB 1497 failed to make it to a floor vote by May 24, a critical deadline this term. Big Oil continues to profit, and California residents remain stuck with the check.

IEMAC Opines that California is NOT on Target to Hit Emissions Goals

Posted by CLR

The IEMAC makes a number of recommendations in its 2023 annual report, covering greenhouse gas accounting, affordability, market links with other jurisdictions, and subsurface carbon management.

IEMAC’s recommendations are based on the backdrop that, while emissions are on a downward trend, California is not on track to hit its emission reduction targets in 2030.

First, IEMAC recommends adjustments to the methodology employed by CARB in accounting for emissions. It noted several methodological concerns. 

  • Among other things, IEMAC notes that CARB should reevaluate the calculation of biogenic CO₂ emissions as this could encourage certain mitigation measures notwithstanding controversy over whether biogenic CO₂ ought to be treated differently from fossil CO₂.
  • IEMAC recommends changes in the treatment of land sector emissions and removals, which are presently excluded from California’s GHG inventory, but in light of recent wildfire seasons comprise a significant source of CO₂. 
  • IEMAC recommends the adjustment of the 1990 statutory emissions baseline, since CARB recently shifted to using MRR data as the primary source for the GHG Inventory; this change was viewed as improving data accuracy but also had the effect of retrospectively lowering historical emission estimates. The IEMAC recommended that this change underscores the need to review and possibly adjust the 1990 baseline to maintain policy stringency.

Second, IEMAC addresses concerns about policy equity in the climate transition. 

  • IEMAC emphasize that vulnerable Californians bear the brunt of these climate impacts, and that the transition to a zero-emission economy must be both affordable and equitable, particularly benefiting disadvantaged communities. It notes that current approaches, such as raising electricity prices to fund wildfire mitigation, disproportionately affect low-income households.
  • It argues for a shift towards more cost-effective strategies, advocating for the role of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions market. It stresses the market’s flexibility in promoting least-cost abatement strategies compared to rigid regulations, potentially lowering overall mitigation costs. IEMAC also recommends tighter regulations and adjustments to allowance supply as part updates to the market.

Third, IEMAC encourages California to share its policies.  It argues that while California emits a small fraction of global greenhouse gases, its policies and technologies have a disproportionate impact due to their potential for replication and adoption beyond state borders.

  • It cites examples like California’s cap-and-trade system, which was linked early with Quebec’s through the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), demonstrating the potential for collaborative emission reductions across regions.
  • It advocates for expanding these linkages, particularly with Washington State’s recently passed Climate Commitment Act, which mirrors California’s. 
  • They argue that expansion actually improves efficiency by reducing administrative costs and stabilizing business costs across a larger market.