Reviews of Government Progress (or Lack Thereof)

Why California Needs Emission Budgets to Close Its Climate Blind Spot

Posted by CLR

California has built a global reputation for climate leadership, with some of the most ambitious policies in the world. But even a leader can’t steer effectively without a clear dashboard. Right now, California’s climate policy suffers from a major transparency gap — a lack of clear, public accounting that connects its reduction targets to the total carbon budget consistent with the Paris Agreement.

The Missing Link: From Targets to Trajectory

California tracks annual emissions and sets percentage reduction goals for 2030 and 2045, but those figures tell us little about whether the state’s pathway actually aligns its targets and with limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. Without a defined emission budget, there’s no way to see whether California’s planned reductions add up to its fair share of the global carbon limit and are aligned with its targets — or whether it’s quietly overspending its climate allowance.

Why Transparency Matters More Than Ever

Other jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom and Germany, use national CO₂ budgets to quantify the relationship between near-term policies and long-term temperature goals. That allows scientists, policymakers, and the public to detect both implementation gaps (whether policies are on track) and ambition gaps (whether those policies are strong enough).

In California, we can’t even begin that assessment. The data exist, but they aren’t organized or communicated in a way that links the state’s emissions to a finite carbon limit. As a result, we have a sophisticated set of tools — cap-and-trade, renewable mandates, vehicle standards — without a clear sense of whether they collectively keep us within climate safety bounds.

What a Carbon Budget Would Add

A CO₂ budget translates the abstract Paris temperature targets into a concrete number: the total amount of emissions California can produce while still contributing fairly to global goals. This benchmark doesn’t replace existing policies — it grounds them.
By defining that total, the state could:

  • Evaluate whether its targets are ambitious enough and whether implementation is aligned with the target.
  • Track whether real-world emissions are staying within the budget.
  • Communicate transparently how each sector contributes to overall progress.

Why California Needs Emission Budgets to Close Its Climate Blind Spot

California has built a global reputation for climate leadership, with some of the most ambitious policies in the world. But even a leader can’t steer effectively without a clear dashboard. Right now, California’s climate policy suffers from a major transparency gap — a lack of clear, public accounting that connects its reduction targets to the total carbon budget consistent with the Paris Agreement.

From Leadership to Clarity

California doesn’t need to assume it’s falling short — but it does need to know. Adopting a system of periodic emission budgets would transform guesswork into accountability, allowing the public and decision-makers to see, year by year, whether the state’s climate spending stays within planetary means.

If California wants to remain a climate leader, it should lead not just in ambition, but in clarity. Emission budgets — regularly updated and publicly tracked — are how we make that leadership measurable.

California’s Agency Reports: A Helpful Tool — With Big Gaps

Posted by CLR

Each year, California lawmakers pass hundreds of new laws, nearly 1,000 in 2024 alone. Many require agencies to report back on how well those laws are working. But most of those reports never make it to the public, or even to the Legislature.

The Agency Reports Portal, maintained by the Office of Legislative Counsel, has been around for more than a decade. It’s a valuable resource that lets anyone search for reports that state agencies are legally required to file, by agency, year, or topic. Despite its usefulness, few people know it exists.

It also could be much more powerful. The problem is what’s not there. According to CalMatters reporting, of 867 reports due between January 1 and December 9, 2024, 84% had not been filed. Even among those that were submitted, about half were late. Some agencies say they completed their reports but never properly filed them; others simply missed the deadline. In some cases, reports can sit in limbo awaiting approval before being sent on.

This lack of follow-through makes it harder for lawmakers, and the public, to see what’s working and what isn’t. If you care about how the state spends your tax dollars, check out agencyreports.ca.gov. Just keep in mind: if a report isn’t there, it might not mean it doesn’t exist. It might just not have been filed. Transparency depends on more than laws. It depends on implementation follow-through.

Follow through might be encouraged if the portal also posted in red the agencies that are delinquent and if agencies were ordered to review the Legislative Analysist’s website and to file missing reports in their possession within 6 months.

What’s Next for California’s Carbon Market? A Preview of the Upcoming IEMAC Meeting

Posted by CLR

The Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee (IEMAC) is set to convene on Thursday, May 1, 2:30-4:00 p.m. PST. The meeting will take place at the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) headquarters, located at 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, as well as a number of other physical locations. For those unable to attend in person, remote participation will be available via Zoom.

Two pivotal topics on the agenda could significantly influence California’s cap-and-trade program and broader climate policy.

  • Strengthening Transparency: Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures

A key agenda item is the review of IEMAC’s conflict-of-interest disclosure policies. Given the committee’s role in providing impartial analysis of California’s emissions trading system, maintaining public trust is paramount. Chair Meredith Fowlie, Co-Chair Danny Cullenward, and Salwa Bojack, Senior Staff Counsel at CalEPA, will lead this discussion. They aim to ensure that the committee’s operations remain transparent and free from potential biases, reinforcing the integrity of its recommendations.

  • Navigating Federal Climate Actions: Implications for California’s Carbon Market

Another significant topic is the examination of recent federal initiatives that may impact California’s carbon market. Cara Horowitz, Executive Director of the Emmett Institute at UCLA School of Law, will provide insights into how federal policies, such as new EPA regulations or proposed national carbon pricing mechanisms, could interact with California’s existing cap-and-trade system. This discussion is crucial for understanding potential synergies or conflicts between state and federal climate strategies.

These discussions come at a critical juncture as California strives to meet its ambitious climate goals while ensuring the robustness and fairness of its carbon market. The outcomes of this meeting could have lasting implications for the state’s environmental and economic landscape.

For more details on the meeting, see the agenda and meeting materials. 

CARB Announces Delayed Enforcement of the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act

Posted by CLR

The Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act Senate Bill (SB) 253 (Wiener, Statutes of 2023, Chapter 382) requires entities formed under the laws of California, the laws of any other state or the District of Columbia with total annual revenues over ($1,000,000,000) that do business in California to annually report all of their Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. This legislation aims to promote transparency. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to promulgate regulations implementing SB 253, including establishing a date in 2026 when the first emission reports will be due.

In the meantime, however, CARB has announced it will not penalize entities for incomplete Scope 1 and 2 emissions disclosures under SB 253 during the first reporting period.  Specifically, on December 5, 2024, CARB issued an Enforcement Notice, stating it would not impose penalties for incomplete reports when the first disclosures are due in 2026, provided entities make “good faith” efforts. This policy applies to Scope 1 and 2 emissions from the previous fiscal year. CARB’s discretion has raised concerns from environmental groups, who may challenge the decision, and angered lawmakers.  The law’s authors, Senators Scott Wiener and Henry Stern, expressed frustration with CARB’s slow progress in implementing SB 253, warning of oversight hearings in 2025 unless progress is made.

This notice only affects SB 253, and not other climate disclosure laws like SB 261 or AB 1305.

CARB also opened a 60-day public comment period on the implementation of SB 253 and SB 261, ending February 14, 2025, allowing stakeholders to provide input.

The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies has a new chair: Will it take a more active role in 2025?

Posted by CLR

The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies has a new chair. Assembly Member Jacqui Irwin will be leading the Committee moving forward in 2025. This is a great opportunity for the Legislature to resume its role in pushing the state forward to meet its climate commitments.

The committee is supposed to oversee a lot of the climate activities of state agencies in California, and appears to have lost its momentum. It met 5 times its first year, 5 times its second year, once in 2020, once in 2021, 3 times in 2022, and 2 times in 2023. In 2023, it heard testimony from several independent oversight analysts, including the IEMAC and the LAO, indicating that the State’s Scoping Plan was flawed and ought to be bolstered. The staff report prepared for that meeting stated: “Put simply, the LAO and IEMAC were directed to let the JLCCCP and Legislature know if there was reason for concern, and since the Scoping Plan Update was released, they have both sounded alarms. This hearing is intended to heed those warnings.” Recommendations included:

  • The members of the Committees may wish to consider requesting CARB to provide a legislative addendum to its Scoping Plan to provide additional information that quantifies the level of investment and identifies the specific regulations that will be necessary to achieve the enhanced 2030 target.
  • Moreover, the JLCCCP may wish to consider commissioning further independent expert analysis, in accordance with AB 197’s authorization of a technical advisory panel to the Joint Committee, providing answers to some of the missing pieces in the Scoping Plan, especially with respect to pre-2030 action.

The Committee took no action at the end of that hearing, a missed opportunity that can be seized with new leadership.

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.