On February 13, 2024, the Senate Environmental Quality joined the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy, met to consider the new proposed “Cap and Trade Rulemaking” and to examine more closely why the state’s current cap-and-trade program is not on track to drive environmental justice and affordability outcomes by 2030. Staff produced a background paper to summarize the concerns. You can watch the hearing here.
Author Archives: CLR
May 16 EJAC Meeting to Consider CARB’s Regulatory Impact Assessment of New Regulations
AB 32 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee meet next on Thursday, May 16, 2024, at 1:00 PM – 5:00 pm. You can attend in person, on line, or by telephone. Details are here.
The meeting will focus on the economic impacts of the new cap and trade regulatory changes. The cost benefit analysis (Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment or SRIA) was prepared pursuant to regulations adopted by the Department of Finance.
Table 1 from page 5 the SRIA sets out the costs and benefits predicted from the action, although it lumps them all together.
In total, it appears that the $79.4 – $82.8 billion costs of the program will be overshadowed by the $125.70 – $561.10 billion in benefits. Read the full report to understand the ranges, which are largely due to the differences in the proposed scenarios and the discount rate applied.
Open for Public Comment: 2023 Annual Report of the Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee Open for Public Comment: 2023
The Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee (IEMAC) is seeking public comment on its Sixth Annual Report to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies on the environmental and economic performance of California’s carbon market
and other relevant climate policies.
Public comments should be sent to iemac@calepa.ca.gov by February 26.
Upcoming AB 32 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee Meeting
The next meeting of the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC) will be Thursday, February 8, 2023. The meeting agenda and information about how to attend in person or via zoom can be found on CARB’s website.
Climate Transparency in California Is at Risk
The Climate Accountability Package — comprised of Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 253 and Senator Henry Stern’s SB 261 — created the nation’s first requirements for large corporations to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, carbon embedded in supply chains, and climate risks. The New York Times called SB 253 in particular a “landmark climate disclosure bill” […] with national repercussions.”
The ink on these bills is barely dry and they are already under attack from multiple fronts.
Governor Newsom’s proposed budget included significant cuts to address a $37.9 billion budget shortfall, including all funding to new legislative programs. Thus, the $9 million requested by the California Air Resources Control Board (CARB) to implement the Climate Accountability Package was part of that proposed cut. The Newsom Administration has emphasized that the proposed budget was just a starting point for negotiations. Senator Wiener, author of SB 253, has issued the following statement: “It’s critical that the May budget include funding to implement these laws so that businesses have the certainty they need to prepare to make these new disclosures.” Thus, funding to implement these laws is far from certain.
Although having the laws have the support of many major corporations, including Apple, Google, Salesforce, Levi’s, and Patagonia, the California Chamber of Commerce was stanchly opposed. In fact, it file suit in federal district court to challenge the laws on January 30, 2024. The petition, drafted by the firm multinational law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, raises claims largely rooted in the US constitution.
- The petition argues that the laws impermissibly “compels speech” under the First Amendment by making the corporations report on their direct and indirect emissions, which they argue are primarily speculation, as well as requiring them to report on the future risks from climate change. Further, they complain that some of this reporting is on the company’s website. Many of the complaints are based on “vagueness” in the law; since both laws require CARB to adopt regulations to implement them, these charges seem premature.
- The petition argues that federal law in the United States Constitution and in the Clean Air Act preempts any efforts to require companies to report their emissions related to activities inside and outside of California. Implicit in this argument is that “reporting” on emissions is “regulation” on emissions.
- The petition argues that the laws somehow attempt to regulate commerce extraterritorially, both interstate and foreign, which is—according to the petition—an “offense” to the commerce clause.
All of these arguments are clearly aimed at the activist, conservative United States Supreme Court.
Senator Wiener issued the following statement in response:
“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit against these groundbreaking climate laws is straight up climate denial,” said Senator Wiener. “Why is the Chamber of Commerce working so aggressively to block basic transparency for the public? We know the answer. It’s not because of the Chamber’s bogus arguments about cost and implementation, since it’s both inexpensive and easy for corporations to make these disclosures. It’s not because of the Chamber’s bizarre and frivolous First Amendment argument. Rather, the Chamber is taking this extremist legal action because many large corporations — particularly fossil fuel corporations and large banks — are absolutely terrified that if they have to tell the public how dramatically they’re fueling climate change, they’ll no longer be able to mislead the public and investors. The Chamber and large corporate polluters don’t want the public to know how much they’re strangling the planet with carbon emissions — that’s why they filed this baseless lawsuit.
“The climate crisis is a real and present threat to our planet and to businesses’ success. Investors and consumers have a right to know the details of how billion dollar companies are navigating the greatest challenge of our time, and many major corporations like Apple and Google are already making these disclosures and support these laws because they understand that need. While corporate lobby groups continue to wage an unhinged misinformation campaign against these laws, investors and consumers are being deprived of vital information to navigate our rapidly warming planet.”
See more from Senator Weiner on the need to fund these measures at Four questions for Scott Wiener.
SB 252 Fails as CalPERS and CalSTRS Oppose Its Proposal for Divestment from Fossil Fuels
The Legislature proposal in SB 252 this year would have required the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) to stop investing in fossil fuels as of January 1, 2024, and to sell their remaining fossil fuel investments by the 2030, if consistent with their fiduciary duty. (The Legislature is allowed by the California Constitution prohibit certain investments by these retirement boards, where it is in the public interest to do so, provided that the prohibition satisfies the standards of fiduciary care and loyalty owed by the boards to pension plan participants. (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 17.) ) The bill would also require annual reporting on fossil fuel holdings.
The bill noted that the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas, known as fossil fuels, is the single largest contributor to global climate change, and that fossil fuel companies’ plans to expand production, public relations campaigns, and efforts to obstruct climate stabilization policies are incompatible with California’s climate goals, and our obligation to current and future generations. The idea behind the bill is that, to meet our zero carbon goals, money needs to move from funding fossil fuel infrastructure and instead be invested at scale in clean energy. CalPERS has investments of $9.4 billion currently in fossil fuels.
The bill was blocked by the chair of the Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement–Senator Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach). CalPERS specifically expressed strong opposition to the bill. In its message to the public, expressed both on its website and in mailers sent to public employees, presumably in the thousands, CalPERS noted that divestment would not be consistent with its fiduciary duty. The logic there is circular in as much as the condition for divestment under SB 252 is that divestment be consistent with the fiduciary duty.
In point of fact, CalPERS appears to have a divestment policy to oppose all calls for divestment that are not “investment related.” CalPERS opposes the potential lost investment performance and the transaction costs associated with divestment. It’s divestment policy states that its fiduciary obligations require it to oppose this and all other divestment initiatives by the Legislature: “However, fiduciary obligations generally preclude CalPERS from sacrificing investment performance for the purpose of achieving goals that do not directly relate to CalPERS’ operations or benefits.”
CalPERS also may have been opposed to the limits on future investments as well as the requirement to report on the scale of its investments in fossil fuels on a regular basis.
The proposal is up for reconsideration next year.
Fifth National Climate Assessment Reveals Grim Outlook and the Need for Urgent Action
Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) was released this month. The NCA5 describes itself as “the US Government’s preeminent report on climate change impacts, risks, and responses. It is a congressionally mandated interagency effort that provides the scientific foundation to support informed decision-making across the United States.”
NCA5 reports that climate change is having severe and worsening effects on California. It details that increasing temperatures have intensified drought, leading to a more arid future, while extreme heat will harm crop production and bring widespread economic impacts. Additionally, the assessment warns of unprecedented wildfires in California, driven in part by the changing climate, with high-severity wildfires expected to continue as temperatures rise, putting people and ecosystems at greater risk. The report also describes food shortages, floods, droughts, wildfires, pollution, and disease—all linked to climate change. Furthermore, the assessment emphasizes that many regional climate impacts, including extreme heat and flooding, disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color.
Overall, the NCA5 underscores the urgent need for action to prevent additional heating of the planet and to adapt to the changing climate in California and the Southwest.
Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures Act (VCMDA) Adopted
The recently adopted Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures Act (VCMDA) will go into effect on January 1, 2024. (See Assembly Bill (AB) 1305 (Chapter 365, of Statutes of 2023).)
According to the bill’s author, the “voluntary carbon offset industry is currently a wild west with all transparency or regulation being entirely voluntary. While offsets used for compliance market are regulated, voluntary carbon offset credits sold to consumers or businesses to voluntarily offset their emissions are completely unregulated. With a variety of recent reports all demonstrating consistent over crediting and lack of legitimate additionality in voluntary offset projects, there is a clear and pressing need for increased accountability and transparency. Requiring important details about the offsets being sold and purchased, such as the site location and how the total number of credits to be sold were calculated allows researchers and the public to better evaluate the validity of the credits being sold. By doing this, AB 1305 will combat greenwashing and give consumers a meaningful tool to decide which projects are worth investing in to reduce their carbon footprint.”
The VCMDA will apply to public and private companies operating in California that make claims or purchase or use VCOs, or sell or market VCOs in the state. Violations of the VCMDA could result in civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day per violation, not to exceed $500,000.
CARB Reports Emissions Are Up
CARB recently released a preliminary greenhouse gas inventory reporting that the the state’s emissions increased in 2021 and 2022 as compared with 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:
Sector | 2020 GHG Inventory (MMTCO2e) | Ratio of MRR Emissions (2021/2020) | Estimated 2021 Emissions (MMTCO2e) | Estimated 2022 Emissions (MMTCO2e) |
Transportation | 136 | 1.0913 | 148 | 148.8 ±13.3 |
Electric Power | 60 | 1.0345 | 62 | 60.4 ±1 |
Industrial | 73 | 1.0186 | 75 | 76.1 ±3.8 |
Residential & Commercial | 39 | 0.9998 | 39 | 39.3 ±1 |
Agriculture | 32 | N/A | 32 | 31.6 ±0.2 |
High GWP | 21 | N/A | 21 | 20.9 ±0.3 |
Recycling & Waste | 9 | N/A | 9 | 8.8 ±0.1 |
Total | 369 | 384 | 386 ±17.7 |
This is of course bad news, since addressing climate change requires deep and swift emissions reductions and the trend is clearly inconsistent with state law, which requires carbon neutrality by 2045. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 38562.2, subd. (c).)
CARB’s disclaimer for this analysis sounds defensive. It reports that these estimates are provided only because they are required by law and “should not be used for any policy making decisions or regulatory compliance, nor cited for any purpose.” (Emphasis added.)
EJAC: Critical of Scoping Plan, Calling it Business as Usual
The EJAC meet several times during the preparation of the new scoping plan in 2021 and 2022, on June 3, August 3 and 26, September 22 and 27, October 12 and 15, November 9 and 16, December 1 and 14, 2021, and January 25, February 8 and 28, March 1, 10, and 30, April 25 and 26, May 23 and 24, June 27 and 28, July 25 and 26, August 22 and 23, September 1, 26, and 27, October 24 and 25, and November 29 and 30, 2022.
On September 30, 2022, the EJAC wrote a letter to CARB. EJAC was critical of the draft scoping plan, calling it “business as usual.” It argued that greater focus should be on direct emission reductions that covered all sources, rather than a plan that extends the life of fossil fuel and natural resource extraction. See details in the letter. You can also find CARB’s response here.