Author Archives: CLR

Proposition 4 (Climate Bond) Embraced by Voters

Posted by CLR

Proposition 4, a $10 billion dollar bond measure to fund environmental and climate projects, passed by a clear margin according to the Secretary of State. The election will not be formally certified until December 13, 2024, but the results for this proposition are not expected to change.

Funding would be directed at climate adaptation activities as follows, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office:

(Source: LAO, Proposition 4 Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands From Climate Risks. Legislative Statute (November 5, 2024).)

Good News:  CARB Reports Emissions Are Expected to Be Slightly Down in 2023 Compared to 2021 and 2022 (Bad News, They Remain Up as Compared to 2020)

Posted by CLR

CARB recently released a preliminary greenhouse gas inventory reporting that the state’s emissions decreased in 2022 and 2023 as compared with 2021.  The bad news is that overall emissions remain up as compared to the 369 MMTCO2e that was previously reported for 2020. 

Reporting by Scoping Plan sector in units of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e), CARB revealed that emissions are on an upward trend:

Sector2021 GHG Inventory (MMTCO2e)Ratio of MRR Emissions (2022/2021)Estimated 2022 Emissions (MMTCO2e)Estimated 2023Emissions (MMTCO2e)
Transportation1460.9889144141.7±5.4
Electric Power620.95275960.4 ±1.7
Industrial740.99117373.5 ±0.4
Residential & Commercial390.98413838.6 ±0.4
Agriculture31N/A3131.2±0.2
High GWP21N/A2121.2±0.1
Recycling & Waste  8N/A88.5 ±0.0
Total381376375.1 ±8.2

New Law Would Legally Delay Implementation of SB 261 and 253

Posted by CLR

Senate Bill (SB) 219, adopted in September 27, 2024, would delay implementation of California’s landmark corporate disclosure acts, SB 261 (governing corporate climate risk disclosure) and SB 253 (corporate climate emissions disclosure). By and large, the changes will delay implementation of the acts slightly. The changes can be summarized as:

Existing Law (SB 261)Proposed Change
CARB must adopt regulations before January 1, 2025, requiring annual reporting for scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Under this law, CARB must adopt regulations before July 1, 2025, requiring annual reporting for scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. 
Starting in 2027, corporations must disclose scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, although disclosure of scope 3 emissions may trail other disclosures by 180 days.This law would change the reporting requirement so that corporations must disclose scope 3 emissions on a schedule adopted by the state board in regulations rather than on a set statutory schedule. This law would also allow reporting to occur on a parent company level.
Existing law requires reporting entities to pay a fee upon reporting.This law would eliminate the reporting fee requirement.
CARB must contract with an emission reporting  organization to develop a reporting program to receive and make certain required disclosures publicly available.The law would authorize, rather than require, the state board to contract with an emissions reporting organization.
Existing Law (SB 253)Proposed Change
On or before January 1, 2026, a covered entity—defined as a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other business entity with total annual revenues in excess of $500,000,000—must prepare a climate-related financial risk report disclosing the entity’s climate-related financial risk and measures adopted to reduce and adapt to climate-related financial risk.  This reporting is due every two years.     Under existing law, CARB must contract with a climate reporting organization to prepare a report summarizing the disclosures.  The law would authorize, rather than require, the state board to contract with a climate reporting organization.
Existing law requires reporting entities to pay a fee upon reporting.This law would eliminate the reporting fee requirement.

Newsom Seeks to Defer Corporate Accountability Law

Posted by CLR

The Climate Accountability Package, which included Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 253 and Senator Henry Stern’s SB 261, will likely be delayed for several years due to hostility from the administration.

Even back when he signed the bill into law on October 7, 2023, the Governor expressed concern about bill’s financial impact on businesses, and indicated he would direct CARB to “streamline” the program. News reports indicated that CARB itself had urged amendments to weaken the climate disclosure law by removing requirements for businesses to report Scope 3 emissions. (See purported draft here.) Earlier this year, Governor Newsom proposed leaving out funding for their implementation from his January budget proposal; he reinstated funding in the May revised proposal, as part of a compromise that would fund all chaptered laws. That said, he proposed changes in the law that would substantially delay its implementation until 2028 for reporting on Scope 1 and 2 emissions and 2029 till Scope 3 emissions. A trailer bill incorporating this language has been drafted and is part of this year’s overall budget negotiations.

The Senators who drafted these bills are opposed to the changes.

For more on this, see our earlier blogs: Climate Transparency in California Is at Risk and SB 253 and 261: Climate Accountability Package Includes New Corporate Transparency Requirements.

Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC) August 16 Meeting Continued on September 3

Posted by CLR

The EJAC will be meeting of Friday, August 16, 2024, from 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. was interrupted due to a building wide power outage. The meeting will be continued on September 3, 2024, from 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. The Committee will be hearing a few items, including an update to its charter. Otherwise, the Committee will primarily be discussing topics that will be covered at a joint EJAC and CARB meeting on  September 12, 2024, including (1) Low Carbon Fuel Standard, (2) Carbon Markets: Cap-and-Trade Program, including Resolution Development Progress, and (3) Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) and Direct Air Capture (DAC).

The public may attend in person or remotely via zoom or phone. In person, the meeting will be held at CalEPA HQ Building, Sierra Hearing Room, Second Floor, 1001 ” I ” Street, Sacramento, California. For remote attendance, you may call or attend via zoom as follows:

New Information for September 3 Meeting:

Register: Zoom (please register ahead of the meeting)
Passcode: 085999

By Telephone: 888 363 4734 US Toll-free   
Conference code: 176024

August 16 meeting:

Register: Zoom (please register ahead of the meeting)
Passcode: 711638

By Telephone: 888 363 4734 US Toll-free   
Conference code: 176024

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.

CARB’s California State Budget Item 3900-001-3237 Reporting

Posted by CLR

California State Budget Item 3900-001-3237 required CARB to publish annually for three years beginning in 2022 a preliminary estimate of the prior-year’s GHG emissions. CARB’s reporting is very oddly worded, and cautions in multiple places that it is posting only as required by statutory budget item and is not intended for decision making or regulatory compliance.

You can find those reports here: 2021, 2022, and 2023. They are also summarized below.