Sacramento – The fate of California’s important climate plan Gavin Newsom advocates for a key tool to respond to the Trump administration’s environmental rollback.
The Democratic legislature plans to vote on Saturday to expand the state’s cap and trade plan, which will expire after 2030. Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law authorizing the program in 2006 and launched in 2013. It allows major greenhouse gas emitters to purchase emission allowances from the state, available over time. Climate change mitigation from sales funds, funding for affordable housing and transportation projects, and utility bill credit for Californians.
Democrats and legislative leader Newsom said they would prioritize the plan a few months ago, with little time introducing the proposal ahead of the state capitol parcel this year.
After months of hard work with the Legislature, we agree to historic reforms to save your electricity bills, stabilize natural gas supplies and cut toxic air pollution – all of which will bring California’s transition to a clean, green job creating an economy. ”
The proposal will reauthorize the plan by 2045, combining emissions drop limits with state climate targets and potentially increasing carbon removal programs. It will also change the name to “CAP and Investment” to emphasize its funding for the climate plan.
The Legislature will vote on another bill for the annual funds earned by the program. It includes $1 billion for the state’s long-term extended high-speed rail project, $800 million for affordable housing programs, $250 million for community air defense programs, while the legislature conducts $1 billion per year.
Officials are fighting for the state’s ambitious climate goals and the cost of living. California has the highest prices for utilities and gasoline. According to the energy regulator, officials face increased pressure to stabilize fuel costs and supply pressures, while both refineries are planned to close, accounting for about 18% of the state’s refining capacity.
Supporters of the extension say it will allow the company to determine the future of the program. According to reports from a group of economists and lawyers supporting the program, the state lost revenues for $3.6 billion in the past year and a half, mainly due to uncertainty. Some environmentalists say the Trump administration’s attacks on climate plans, including the state’s first ban on selling new gasoline-powered vehicles from 2035 to 2035, exacerbating the re-authorization effort.
Katelyn Roedner Sutter, director of the California Environmental Defense Fund, said CAP and trade are important cost-effective tools to curb carbon emissions.
“It’s very important to support the program and incorporate that commitment into the future – now more than ever,” she said.
But the environmental justice advocating against the proposal says that this is not far enough and lacks strong air quality protection for low-income Californians and people of color who are more likely to live near major polluters.
“This does continue to allow big oil to reduce emissions on paper rather than in real life,” said Asha Sharma, national policy manager at the Leadership Committee on Justice and Accountability.
Critics also said this would increase the cost of living.
“This move forward, rather than reducing costs, makes California more expensive,” said Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland. “They are increasing the prices of energy, gas, and goods and services.”
According to a February report from the Independent Emissions Advisory Committee, CAP and trade increased gasoline costs by about 26 cents, a group of experts analyzing the program. It played a “very small role” in raising electricity prices, as the state’s grid is not very carbonated, the report said.
Legislators and lobbyists criticized the governor and legislative leaders for catching up with the deal with little public opinion.
Ben Golombek, executive vice president of the California Chamber of Commerce, said at a hearing this week that the legislature should spend more time “enforcing this right.”
Democratic Senator Caroline Menjivar said that for lawmakers, delaying the bill without an opportunity for amendment should not be equal.
“We expect to vote on this,” she said of the Democrats. “If not, you’ll find that you’re not part of the team or don’t want to be a team player.”
Menjivar finally voted to pass the committee to propose the bill.
Caps and trade bills are part of a package designed to promote the state’s energy transition and reduce costs for Californians.
One of the bills would simplify oil production licenses in Kern County, with supporters’ necessary responses to planned refinery closures and critics’ necessary responses are threats to air quality.
Another would increase air monitoring requirements for areas with excessive pollution burdens and a bureau within the Justice Department established in 2018 will protect the community from environmental injustice.
When a fire is triggered by a utilitarian device, the state can refill a fund covering wildfire damage. The bill will establish public financing to build power projects.
Legislators will also vote on a measure that allows the state’s grid operators to work with regional groups to manage the electricity markets in Western countries. The bill aims to improve grid reliability. This will save money on taxpayers’ money, as California generates more countries than needed and buys cheaper energy from out-of-state if necessary, the governor’s office said.
