California is facing a major vote in the days ahead \u2014 and no, it\u2019s not who will be the next governor. <\/p>\n
Regulators at the California Air Resources Board are set to decide on May 28 whether to approve the latest blueprint for limits on greenhouse gas emissions from major polluters through 2045, a program known as cap-and-invest<\/a>. The update to the state\u2019s signature climate program has Sacramento in a tizzy and seemingly no one is pleased with the proposal on the table. <\/p>\n California is one of a handful of states, and the first, to have an an enforceable annual limit on the emissions that change the climate. <\/p>\n After a January draft was criticized by both industry and lawmakers<\/a> over concerns that capping emissions too much and too quickly would drive up already soaring energy costs, CARB went back to the drawing board and came up with the latest iteration, unveiled in April<\/a>. But opponents now say the plan kowtows to oil and gas interests who are lobbying hard for concessions, citing an already unstable state and international energy market. <\/p>\n The program works by setting a limit on the greenhouse gases that industries can emit in California. Companies must obtain credits, or allowances, for every ton they release, with the total number of allowances declining over time, consistent with what scientists say actually addresses climate change. The auctions for unused allowances generate billions of dollars in revenue for the state each year that fund clean energy, clean water and other key climate programs. <\/p>\n This year\u2019s original draft sought to remove 118 million allowances from the market by 2030, which it identified as the minimum that must be retired to meet the state\u2019s ambitious climate goals. But the April revision upends that, instead creating a new pool of 118 million \u201ccompliance instruments\u201d \u2014 defined as allowances or offset credits \u2014 above the cap that companies can earn if they invest in decarbonization projects. <\/p>\n Critics argue this first-of-its-kind mechanism, called the Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive<\/a>, effectively dismantles the program.<\/p>\n \u201cThe whole goal of the cap is to lower emissions over time,\u201d said Mary Creasman, chief executive of the nonprofit California Environmental Voters. \u201cTo then allow pollution above the cap is kind of blowing up the program.\u201d<\/p>\n CARB maintains that this change still cuts the emissions coming from California, because the new instruments enter the market only \u201cif they\u2019re applied for, are approved, and deliver verified greenhouse gas emissions reductions.\u201d And the proposal still results in an 11% cap decline year over year through 2030, and 7% from 2031 to 2045, said spokeswoman Lindsay Buckley. <\/p>\n The move would also significantly reduce cap-and-invest\u2019s revenue, according to an analysis<\/a> from the Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office. It found that the new plan would result in a loss of $2 billion, or roughly 50% less money per year for the state\u2019s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, than it has received through the program in recent years. <\/p>\n Many of the lawmakers who voted to reauthorize the program last year are also concerned. Nearly 30 Democrats signed a recent letter<\/a> urging the air board to \u201cpush back on pressure from an oil industry that is making hundreds of billions in wartime profits.\u201d<\/p>\n The fossil fuel industry has indeed lobbied heavily against requirements that it pollute less, spending a record $10.3 million in the first quarter of this year to influence state policy around cap-and-invest and other climate and energy issues, state records show<\/a>. Among them are the Western States Petroleum Assn., Chevron and Phillips 66, which have argued that lowering the pollution cap will drive up gasoline prices and push more refineries out of the state. <\/p>\n But even they are not thrilled with the latest iteration of the cap-and-invest plan. <\/p>\n \u201cWe need to continue to be competitive with other refineries throughout the world, and while there are some very short-term changes within the [revised package], it still doesn\u2019t have the long-term certainty that will drive investment,\u201d said Jodie Muller, WSPA\u2019s chief executive. Muller said she\u2019d like to see the new decarbonization incentive program extended beyond 2030 and eligibility expanded to include additional activities, such as refinery maintenance programs. <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s important that we get this right,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n More California climate news<\/p>\n Gov. Gavin Newsom recently unveiled his revised $350-billion budget proposal, which came with an unexpected $16.8-billion increase<\/a> in tax revenue largely attributed to the success of artificial intelligence companies. Among the plan\u2019s big wins and losses are boosted funding for public schools<\/a> and higher health premiums for undocumented immigrants.<\/p>\n On the environment, the plan broadly maintains funding and policy support for climate commitments, such as a $200-million incentive program<\/a> for passenger electric vehicles designed to make up for federal tax credits canceled by the Trump administration. It also includes a new $100-million disaster rebuilding fund to help wildfire survivors rebuild their homes.<\/p>\n But the plan does not include major new spending on the environment, in part due to the ongoing restructuring of cap-and-invest, the state\u2019s main climate funding source. Some environmental groups said the revised budget doesn\u2019t do enough<\/a> to support California\u2019s clean energy transition or hold oil and gas companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis. <\/p>\n Katelyn Roedner Sutter of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund urged lawmakers to prioritize proven climate investments<\/a> in the final budget agreement, such as virtual power plants and incentives for zero-emission delivery trucks. \u201cThe actions we take over the next decade are vital to preventing the worst possible scenarios for our kids\u2019 future,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n A few more things<\/p>\n Speaking of the governor\u2019s race, California Resources Corp., one of the state\u2019s top oil producers, just made a hefty $500,000 contribution<\/a> to an independent campaign committee supporting leading Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, Politico reported<\/a>. Becerra has already been criticized for accepting a $39,200 donation from Chevron, while opponents Tom Steyer and Katie Porter have both pledged not to accept contributions from fossil fuel companies. <\/p>\n Fervo Energy, a Houston-based geothermal developer with a major Google project in Utah, raised $1.89 billion in an initial public offering this month. The company\u2019s $7.7-billion valuation signals growing investor appetite for energy companies amid soaring demand for electricity fueled by the growth of AI, the Wall Street Journal said<\/a>. Geothermal technology taps into pockets of steam and hot water rising from the center of the earth, which is then used to spin turbines to generate power. <\/p>\n Los Angeles is gearing up for its role as a host city of the 2026 World Cup, which will be held in 16 stadiums across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico beginning in mid-June. But experts told my colleague Blanca Begert<\/a> that the tournament\u2019s expansion will make it \u201cthe most emissions-intensive World Cup that we\u2019ve ever seen,\u201d in part because fans and players will have to traverse the three countries to watch the games. Jet exhaust is a major contributor to climate change, representing 3% to 4% of all warming. It is the second of our stories<\/a> examining the environmental implications of the coming World Cup. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"California is facing a major vote in the days ahead \u2014 and no, it\u2019s not who will be…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":326101,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[7832,7,9,8,7836,7829,7833,7831,7830,756,457,7834,3906,7828,7837,7835,7827],"class_list":["post-326100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-california","tag-big-oil","tag-california","tag-california-headlines","tag-california-news","tag-climate-crisis","tag-climate-progress","tag-critic","tag-electric-bill","tag-environmentalist","tag-gas","tag-gavin-newsom","tag-lawmaker","tag-month","tag-oil-drilling","tag-oil-industry-whispering","tag-rooftop-solar-industry","tag-state-official"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326100","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=326100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326100\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/326101"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=326100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=326100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=326100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}