Author Archives: CLR

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

Posted by CLR

Update: The peoples “right” in California died on third reading in the Legislature on November 30, 2024.

*****

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.

California Senate Hearings on Cap and Trade

Posted by CLR

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.

May 16 EJAC Meeting to Consider CARB’s Regulatory Impact Assessment of New Regulations

Posted by CLR

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

Posted by CLR

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.

Climate Transparency in California Is at Risk

Posted by CLR

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.

So far, the litigation has not been successful in the courts, but it is early days. In November 2024, US District Court for the Central District of California denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement as premature, granting leave to refile after discovery.

Senator Wiener issued the following statement in response to the litigation:

“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.