In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled what is likely one of the last large climate announcements of his tenure: California will move forward with linking its decade-old carbon market with a newly formed market in Washington state, aiming to merge it with the market California already shares with Quebec.<\/p>\n
Newsom said California was \u201cchoosing certainty, partnership, and clean energy\u201d amid a stream of federal climate policy rollbacks.<\/p>\n
But the announcement didn\u2019t distract environmental advocates from the sting of a challenging year back home for the so-called \u201ccap-and-invest\u201d program. As Newsom leaves his post, many policy and climate experts say the adjustments to the program put California\u2019s climate goals further out of reach. The program provides billions of dollars in funding for climate and other programs.<\/p>\n
Yet with little talk of climate policy in the governor’s race, Californians are largely left guessing about how Steve Hilton or Xavier Becerra would handle the program or California\u2019s broader climate ambitions. The Becerra campaign did not respond to multiple emailed requests for comment. Hilton told CalMatters he would move to suspend the carbon market \u2014 which he called \u201ca disaster of a program\u201d \u2014 entirely.<\/p>\n
Twenty years ago, lawmakers made California the first state to mandate broad cuts in greenhouse gas emissions with AB 32, the landmark carbon emissions reduction law, which authorized the subsequent creation of a market. The law requires the program to be as cost-effective as possible while maximizing benefits to the state\u2019s economy.<\/p>\n
Whoever wins in November can appoint a handful of new members to the California Air Resources Board, which has to finish writing the linkage rules and will propose the budget that leans on carbon market revenue. The next governor will also help decide how aggressively California leads on climate, after a year of mixed signals about where the program is headed.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt’s really set up the politics of these issues to get worse and not better over time, and that is the problem that is being tossed like a live grenade into the lap of the next governor,\u201d said Danny Cullenward, an economist who sits on an advisory committee focused on the carbon market.<\/p>\n
A question of climate leadership<\/p>\n
In May, a process to reauthorize the keystone climate program ended with a controversial agreement<\/a> that the Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office projects will roughly halve annual auction revenue, offering about $2 billion less in funding for priority environmental programs while opening a separate pool of free permits for polluters that pledge to invest in decarbonization, valued at as much as $4 billion.<\/p>\n Oil companies fought the initial cap-and-invest reauthorization proposal, arguing it would encourage companies to leave the state or further increase fuel prices. The California Air Resources Board, which manages the program, said the increased allowances it eventually approved were meant to balance affordability and economic uncertainty alongside emissions targets. In an email, a board spokesperson said the new incentives would not have any impact on the market\u2019s auction revenue. (The Western States Petroleum Association, which represents refiners in the state, declined an interview for this story.)<\/p>\n The concern comes as California prepares to elect its next governor and nears its own 2030 target<\/a> to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels, on its way to zeroing out emissions by 2045.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is not a question anymore of whether or not we’ll reach the target. This is a guarantee that we won’t,\u201d said Katie Valenzuela, a consultant for Communities for a Better Environment who previously co-chaired an environmental justice committee that advised regulators on the state\u2019s program.<\/p>\n State officials have long framed cap-and-invest as a backstop, keeping the state on track for its climate targets by ratcheting down the emissions limit even if other programs fall short. Advocates worry the changes will have a chilling effect rather than signal the market\u2019s long-term strength, just as California loses ground to federal rollbacks.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is going to become very difficult for us to say we are a climate leader when we are visibly missing our targets,\u201d Cullenward said.<\/p>\n Others remain more optimistic. Cap-and-invest is one tool in California\u2019s toolbox, even if this year dulled it. Meredith Fowlie, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, said the program is not optimal but has done the basics of its job: sending a price signal to drive down emissions while raising revenues for important programs.<\/p>\n Linking with Washington\u2019s market will strengthen California\u2019s program overall, air board Chair Lauren Sanchez wrote<\/a> to Newsom in September. In addition to creating a larger market with more credits available to industries in both states, the link is expected to raise carbon credit prices in California, where recent auctions have yielded prices at state minimums. A connected market could also lower prices in Washington, making the state\u2019s more stringent program less lucrative. Low prices reduce the program\u2019s revenues and starve polluting industries\u2019 incentive to invest in lowering emissions.<\/p>\n Regulators have not yet established a rulemaking timeline for the linkage process, a spokesperson for the board told CalMatters, but the board expects the joint market to begin operating next year.<\/p>\n Chloe Ames, policy adviser at NextGen Policy, an organization founded by former gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer, called linkage a strong step forward. The group is disappointed by the other changes made to cap-and-invest this year, she said, and will keep urging the legislature to adjust the industry incentives and California\u2019s next governor to take climate seriously.<\/p>\n \u201cIt’s been more challenging for us to say that we’re a climate leader, and that’s why we need to step up,\u201d Ames said. \u201cIn this work, what are you going to do other than to be hopeful?\u201d<\/p>\n Kicking the can<\/p>\n Since the market began, revenue has funded a wide range of priorities, including job training, clean energy and affordable housing. Managing those investments, alongside costs to Californians and emissions cuts, has been a balancing act \u2014 one the next governor will inherit, Fowlie said. \u201cSome of those objectives are potentially in tension,\u201d she said. \u201cA sole focus on designing the program to meet our greenhouse gas reductions misses this really important larger picture that this program is about more than that.\u201d<\/p>\n The legislature approved the program\u2019s reauthorization and the state\u2019s air regulators lay out its rules, but a governor has influence over how that process plays out and can exert his own priorities, Cullenward said.<\/p>\n Beyond the carbon market, governors have wider latitude: Newsom has used his executive authority on wildfires, water shortages and clean energy.<\/p>\n In the governor\u2019s race, neither candidate has centered climate in his campaign. In their one debate, both candidates steered a question about climate change\u2019s impacts toward affordability concerns, offering little detail on the actual climate policies they favor.<\/p>\n \u201cI think it’s fair to say that climate probably isn’t the top priority of either one,\u201d said Barry Vesser, the chief operating officer at the Climate Center, a California environmental group that opposed this year\u2019s changes to the carbon market.<\/p>\n Becerra\u2019s campaign website emphasizes affordability in climate policy. He has faced criticism for defending Chevron and for accepting large oil and gas donations. As attorney general, though, he defended<\/a> the state\u2019s carbon program in court, arguing that \u201ccarbon pollution knows no borders\u201d and promising that California would fight the first Trump administration\u2019s rollbacks.<\/p>\n Hilton has rallied against California\u2019s Democratic establishment, and he told CalMatters he would aim to de-bloat the bureaucracy guiding the state\u2019s climate policies. He likened the market\u2019s recent programmatic changes to \u201crearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.\u201d Hilton, who considers himself an environmentalist, has argued for redirecting resources from current climate programs and wildfire mitigation toward management of the state\u2019s natural lands. He also wants to rework renewable incentives to create \u201ca level playing field\u201d for technologies like rooftop solar, hydropower and geothermal energy. His strategy, he claims, will reduce economic burdens for Californians while exceeding the state\u2019s climate targets.<\/p>\n The relative lack of attention to climate policy is a missed opportunity, according to Valenzuela and Vesser. They see a chance for the next governor to more directly and publicly connect climate programs to affordability, a key concern for likely voters<\/a> and an issue on which Becerra and Hilton agree.<\/p>\n Ultimately, the race\u2019s rhetoric has advocates like Valenzuela \u201cfreaked out.\u201d She points to a \u201chuge chasm\u201d between present reality and the policies that would put California on the right track. The state has little time left for the aggressive action its climate ambitions require, she and other advocates say, and it\u2019s time to start dealing in reality.<\/p>\n \u201cThere’s not many more governors left we can kick the can to before that bill comes due,\u201d Cullenward said.<\/p>\n This article was originally published on CalMatters<\/a> and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives<\/a> license.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled what is likely one of the last large climate announcements of his…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":505768,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[163,165,164],"class_list":["post-505767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-anaheim","tag-anaheim","tag-anaheim-headlines","tag-anaheim-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/505767","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=505767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/505767\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/505768"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=505767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=505767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=505767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}