webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

SB 100 584

===

catchall page for all CA climate  legis

==

AN

That’s Jerry Brown at his best. If only he hadn’t vetoed those other gender-equity bills almost in the same breath — a clear reminder that class and gender can never really be separated for progressives.

On climate change, Brown signed SB 100, committing California to carbon-free energy by 2045, another major trend-setting move. But Brown’s cozy relationship with oil producers (Salon stories hereand here), was not dispelled in his final days, as noted by RL Miller, chair of the California Democratic Party’s Environmental Caucus, and founder of the Climate Hawks Vote super-PAC.

“Brown's legacy on climate change will forever be defined by what he didn't do -- address oil production in California -- as much as what he did,” Miller told Salon. “He'll be remembered for [promising] 100 percent clean electricity by 2045, even though all he did was sign the bill -- it was Kevin de León's baby and Brown never lifted a finger before lifting the signing pen,” she said. (De León, the progressive state senator now running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein, also co-authored SB 822, the net neutrality bill.)

Although Brown will be remembered for enacting a “broad suite of energy efficiency regulations," Miller continued, "he has made it clear that he's happy to work with the oil extraction industry in California even as California produces the dirtiest, most carbon intensive oil on the planet. I'm hoping that the next governor [almost certainly current Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom] can confront the industry rather than cooperate with them.”

If the way forward on climate change is clear the same cannot be said about Brown's fourth headline-grabber, and end to cash bail in California. This was supposed to be a landmark achievement, in activists’ eyes. Other states have reduced cash bail, including New Jersey, New Mexico and Kentucky, but California will be the first state to eliminate it. But the bill that emerged (backed by the state court's Judicial Council) has gone so far off-track — adopting a computer risk-assessment tool that could defeat the whole purpose — that it drew the opposition of major initial supporters.

The new system will release people accused of most misdemeanors, while those accused of more serious crimes can be held until their arraignment or trial, based on the decisions of judges and prosecutors, relying on the mandated use of pretrial risk assessments. But such algorithms can encode hidden bias, just as judges and prosecutors can.

"The ACLU, NAACP and Human Rights Watch all abandoned their support for a move they initially hailed as a breakthrough for justice and fairness," Politico reported. "In these backers-turned-detractors’ eyes, eliminating bail was a means to an end: The real goal was fewer people in jail before trial. They now worry that California will head in the opposite direction."

.@JerryBrownGov #BailReform is needed, but NOT #SB10which replaces the predatory for-profit bail system with a system that threatens to expand unfair incarceration of communities of color. https://t.co/zQ7MZyU15o

— John Legend (@johnlegend) August 23, 2018

“We are concerned that the system that’s being put into place by this bill is too heavily weighted toward detention and does not have sufficient safeguards to ensure that racial justice is provided in the new system,” the ACLU’s Natasha Minsker told NPR.

"I was disappointed and I felt betrayed," San Francisco public defender Chesa Boudin told NPR, in another program. "The new SB 10 doesn't actually change the racist system of mass incarceration. It just expands it."

But some advocates still supported it, such as Joshua Norkin, who coordinates the New York Legal Aid Society’s decarceration project. “These types of reforms are generational,” Norkin told Politico, “and if you give up an opportunity for a substantial reduction in the jail population by passing a watered-down reform, then you may give up an opportunity to revisit that issue for another 20 years.”

This underscores is a persistent difficulty: organizing against an existing evil entails one logic, creating a positive good entails another. The two sometimes overlap, but often pull apart at crucial junctures. That’s what’s happened now with the signing of SB 10. It means that bail abolitionists will have to intensify their work on developing and articulating a much clearer, compelling and practical vision of what they are advocating for — work that Black Lives Matter activists in particular have advanced dramatically in recent years.

In that same spirit, several other criminal justice-related bills are worth noting, most notably, two significant police accountability bills Brown signed: AB 748, requiring the release of body camera footage within 45 days of a police shooting or any use of force that causes death or great bodily harm, and SB 1421, allowing public access to police records in use-of-force cases, as well as sustained investigations into on-the-job dishonesty or sexual assault. The later reverses a law signed by Brown during his first two-term stint as governor.

Brown also signed two significant juvenile justice bills: SB 1391, which prohibits 14- and 15-year-old criminal defendants from being tried as adults, and SB 439, which ends the prosecution of children under age 12, except for murder and forcible sexual assault. In a similar spirit, Brown signed SB 1437, providing that an accomplice to murder will no longer necessarily be subject to the same sentence as the actual killer.

A mixed bag: #GunSense, #MeToo and immigration...

==

yikes ~ 100

AB 813 would undermine yesterday’s hard-won victory on SB100and would sell out California’s booming clean energy industry in favor of out-of-state coal and natural gas developers. Over 120 organizations including the California Sierra Club and Earth Justice oppose it, as well as other policy experts.

NameTypeSponsorshipDistrictFinancialEncyclopediaBiography
Assemblymember Chris Holden [D]PrimarySponsored BillsHD-041FollowTheMoneyBallotpediaVoteSmart
Assemblymember Jim Patterson [R]CosponsorSponsored BillsHD-023FollowTheMoneyBallotpediaVoteSmart
Assemblymember Bill Quirk [D]CosponsorSponsored BillsHD-020FollowTheMoneyBallotpediaVoteSmart
Senator Henry Stern [D]JointSponsored BillsSD-027FollowTheMoneyBallotpediaVoteSmart
Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski [D]JointSponsored BillsHD-025FollowTheMoneyBallotpediaVoteSmart

==

All 8 Silicon Valley Senators and Assembly Members were unanimous in voting YES on SB 100. 

The biggest thank you of all goes to the four Silicon Valley Representatives who signed on as co-authors: Assemblymembers Kalra and Berman and Senators Wieckowski and Beall.

Assemblymember Low was undecided about supporting SB 100 until the very last minute. After 1.5 years of persistent lobbying by local activists, Assembly Member Evan Low (with Carl Guardino, President and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group) just published an excellent Mercury News op-ed in favor of SB 100! Let's thank Evan Low for providing a key voice at the end! Special thanks to Carl Guardino for leading the way for business!

==

9/17

:{Send a letter now, your state representative needs to hear from you.:(style="-webkit-padding-start:0px;font-weight:700"):}: Let’s move NOW to 100% clean energy! You can help California reach 100% clean and zero carbon electric system by speaking up for SB 100. This bill has already passed the state Senate. We need to make sure it passes in the more conservative Assembly in the next 10 days. :{:(style="-webkit-padding-start:0px;font-weight:700"):}:

California in on track to reach 33% (at least) clean energy, under what’s called our Renewable Portfolio Standard. SB 100 sets specific targets and accelerates the timeline to get us all the way to 100%:

* 50% clean electricity by 2026

* 60% clean electricity by 2030

* 100% by 2045 (we think we can get there even faster, but first let’s pass SB 100)

The oil industry, large utilities, the Chamber of Commerce and other business oppose this bill. But the price of fossil fuels is greater than transitioning to clean energy.  We must be stronger and louder than they and their money are in our state Capitol.

SB100 will create thousands of new green jobs, clean our air, and maintain California’s leadership on climate change issues. Public pressure from you and your friends can make sure the Assembly does the right thing. 

:{Your Assemblymember needs to hear today how important this issue is to you:(style="-webkit-padding-start:0px;font-weight:700"):}:.

It’s way past time to move beyond dirty fossil fuels. Your action will help show strong public support (and demand) for 100% clean, carbon-free energy in California.

Thank you for all you do,

Kathy Dervin, Co-chair 350 Bay Area Legislative Committee

350 Bay Area

http://www.350bayarea.org/

==

http://www.alternet.org/environment/3000-people-will-die-because-california-lawmakers-extended-cap-and-trade

==

http://www.alternet.org/environment/california-votes-extend-landmark-cap-and-trade-program-while-allowing-big-polluters-get

==

https://www.ecowatch.com/jerry-brown-climate-bill-2461399772.html

~EJ ab 398 cap & trade 10 yr extension

==

https://www.ecowatch.com/california-sue-big-oil-2461364159.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/01/climate-change-and-bail-reform-bills-fall-short-in-the-california-assembly/

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/11/debate-rages-over-california-cap-and-trade-deal-concessions-to-big-oil/

2017

A new deal to extend California’s landmark climate program known as cap and trade was met with both praise and condemnation Tuesday as environmentalists, business groups and lawmakers worked furiously to untangle — and wrangle over — the complex proposal that could be up for a vote within days.

Reactions to the agreement, unveiled late Monday by Gov. Jerry Brown and top lawmakers after weeks of closed-door talks, reflect a long-running split in the world of environmental advocacy. As grass-roots “environmental justice” groups expressed shock over regulatory changes and other concessions granted to Big Oil, mainstream environmental organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Nature Conservancy lined up behind the hard-fought compromise as a pragmatic way forward.

One of the more controversial provisions of the bill would block local air regulators from setting additional carbon-emission rules for industry. The proposal also would limit the California Air Resources Board’s ability to set rules for carbon outside of the cap-and-trade program.

“The concessions to industry are bitter pills,” Alex Jackson, legal director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s California climate project, said in a statement, “but on balance the package ensures our emissions limits are enforceable against polluters and secures critical gains to improve air quality for millions of Californians. The world is watching for California to chart a path through the climate denial and obstruction coming from the White House — and California is yet again poised to deliver.”

Securing the future of the cap-and-trade program — and protecting it from future court challenges — will require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, a heavy lift especially in the more politically moderate state Assembly, where another cap-and-trade proposal last month failed to win even a majority vote. So far, no Republicans have publicly come out in support of the bill, but Brown and other supporters are working to drum up the support they need from both sides of the aisle.

Assembly Bill 398 would extend through 2030 a program that sets an ever-lowering cap on greenhouse gas emissions and essentially requires industry to pay to pollute, acquiring permits for every ton of carbon released into the atmosphere.

State regulators now issue millions of free permits, but had planned to begin weaning factories and the refineries from the help starting next year, forcing them to pay for a larger share of the permits. Instead, the new proposal would keep the aid flowing. Free permits for the oil and gas industry alone would add up to $10 billion-$30 billion from 2018 to 2030, said Danny Cullenward, an economist and researcher with the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University.

“The biggest winners of this proposal are the oil industry, by and large,” said Cullenward, who advised Sen. Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, on another cap-and-trade proposal that has been stalled in the Senate.

Officials with the governor’s office say that the free permits are designed to keep industry from leaving the state and emitting carbon somewhere else. They argue that this and other concessions won’t slow emissions reductions — the overarching goal of the program. 

But the change to local authority would stop the Bay Area Air Quality Management District from setting new limits on greenhouse gases from the area’s Chevron, Shell, Tesoro, Valero and Phillips 66 refineries — a proposal scheduled for a vote in September. The air district — which opposes the cap-and-trade bill for that reason and others — would be able to set a cap on emissions that contribute to local air pollution, but not on carbon.

“We find it painful to be in a position where we’re having to oppose a goal that we support so strongly,” said Tom Addison, a senior policy adviser for the Bay Area district.

Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia, who serves on both the Bay Area Air Quality Management District board and the California Air Resources board, said he was concerned about the regulatory changes.

“My reaction to this is it is unfortunate that the bill takes away local authority to regulate greenhouse gases at large, stationary sources like refineries,” he said. But he noted that “this is part of the horse-trading in Sacramento to get the two-thirds vote to extend cap and trade.”

Indeed, winning the blessing of the Western States Petroleum Association and other industry groups was widely seen as a political necessity — the only way to secure support from business-friendly Democrats and some Republicans.

The California Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday said only that it was reviewing the bill language, and the petroleum association did not respond to requests for comment.

Two Bay Area business groups— the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the East Bay Leadership Council — quickly endorsed the measures. The negotiations, said Mike Mielke, one of the Silicon Valley group’s executives, “have resulted in a proposal that maintains the integrity of the program while balancing the needs of the business community.”

To address local environmental concerns, especially in districts long burdened by dirty and toxic air, Brown and top leaders introduced a separate bill, Assembly Bill 617. It would require oil refineries and other plants in heavily polluted areas to replace their equipment with cleaner technology by the end of 2023. The bill could pass with only a simple majority vote.

“Overall, I find it really encouraging that they went the route of a separate bill targeting local pollutants,” saidProfessor James Bushnell, a UC Davis economics professor and former research director at the University of California Energy Institute in Berkeley.“To get to two-thirds, you need a coalition of the people who are really focused on the local pollutants joining the people who are focused on the climate question.”

But the air-quality bill was not enough to assuage the concerns of advocates such as Amy Vanderwarker, of the California Environmental Justice Alliance.

While it contains important provisions, she said, “Our bigger picture analysis is that even with those steps forward in the air quality bill, it’s not enough to justify the backsliding under AB 398.”

Introduced by Assembly Members Cristina Garcia, Holden, andors: Assembly Members Bloom, Bonta, Eggman, Friedman, Gomez, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, McCarty, Reyes, Mark Stone, Thurmond, and Ting)

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB378

Introduced by Assembly Members Cristina Garcia, Holden, andors: Assembly Members Bloom, Bonta, Eggman, Friedman, Gomez, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, McCarty, Reyes, Mark Stone, Thurmond, and Ting)
February 09, 2017

==

http://calfact.org/senate-bill-775/

First: find your legislators’ contact info

You can also call these members of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee which will be holding a hearing on the bill on July 12th at 9:30 AM.

Suggested script:

Hello my name is ___ and I live in __.

I support good carbon pricing in California.

I strongly urge you to OPPOSE AB398, a backroom deal which would make our air quality worse and make it harder to meet our climate goals.

Vote NO on AB398.

Instead, please SUPPORT a real upgrade to cap and trade that will be equitable and effective. We need carbon pricing in California that reduces emissions while supporting our families, our communities, and our economy.

We need:

Thank you.

Thank you for taking action to support equitable, efficient, and effective carbon pricing in California!

More info on SB775

:{

}:

===

a better option than Brown's proposal: SB 775. A groundbreaking Cap-And-Trade bill, SB775, authored by CA Senator Bob Wieckowski (Fremont), is about to be proposed to the CA Senate. SB 775 is supported by almost every major environmental and environmental justice organization. :{We must stop Brown's gift to Big Oil and instead move forward with SB 775. 

An excerpt from Vox about SB 775:

}:"...The changes that SB 775 proposes for the state’s carbon trading program are dramatic — and, to my eyes, amazingly thoughtful ... in my opinion, if it passes in anything close to its current form, it will represent the most important advance in carbon-pricing policy in the US in a decade. Maybe ever."

Join our Legislative Team meeting this Sunday (:{RSVP:(style="-webkit-padding-start:0px;font-weight:700"):}:) to get involved with our fight for SB 775 and SB 100.:{:{

This is a complex issue and you can find 2 excellent articles explaining more about why we want SB 775 (and not Brown's proposal) here: LINK and LINK. }:}:

==

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/annie-notthoff/california-sets-stage-next-generation-climate-action

AB 2006

...With some of the most ambitious climate policies in the world, California has grown from the world’s 8th largest economy to the 6th largest—surpassing France—while reducing its carbon intensity, divorcing economic growth from carbon pollution.

The threat from Washington, D.C., these days makes it all the more important that California get it right as we look to the next generation of climate action post-2020. We’ve learned a lot in the last 10 years, including that we need to: keep bringing other states and nations together to fight climate disruption; cutting emissions while growing the economy; making buildings and vehicles more efficient; and building more climate-friendly communities.

Governor Brown and the state legislature are now considering several proposals that will shape California’s climate future. It’s vital that our elected leaders work together to approve policies that ensure California meets its goals for reducing emissions, improves air quality for hard-hit communities, and continues to grow a successful clean energy economy that uplifts the lives of all Californians. Here’s what NRDC will be working toward as bills like SB 775 (Wieckowski), AB 378 (Garcia), AB 151 (Burke), SB 100 (De León), and others move through the legislative process:

Continuity in Pricing Carbon Pollution with a Cap on Emissions

California’s cap-and-trade program, which recently surmounted a court challenge, is the state’s backstop for cutting the dangerous pollution driving climate change. It works in concert with a suite of clean energy standards, and acts as an important insurance policy in the overall program to meet the new and stronger emissions reduction targets that have been set for 2030. Effective carbon pricing will play a critical role in meeting those targets and must be explicitly extended beyond 2020. California lawmakers have several options before them on how to move forward, but whatever final decision is made should:

On the Road to 100 Percent Clean Electricity 

Senate leader Kevin De León just introduced a bill to accelerate the timetable for California to achieve 100 percent clean electricity. SB 100moves up the deadline, as well as interim targets, for utilities to get 100 percent of their electricity from renewable energy by 2045. The good news is that California utilities are well ahead of schedule and can get more clean electricity onto the grid faster and we expect that to continue. To take advantage of all this renewable capacity, integrating the currently fragmented Western electricity grid makes good sense.Clean energy now competes favorably with dirty fossil fuels, on price, when it’s available. Integrating the grid would make clean energy more readily available throughout the West.

Given the growth of renewable clean energy in the electricity and transportation sectors, there’s no need to require utility customers to pay for more gas pipelines and natural gas fueling infrastructure, which would happen under SB 100. Private capital is already flowing on natural gas fueling stations so utility customer dollars shouldn’t be used in an already competitive landscape. California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard is resulting in contracts for biomethane now. Continuing that fuel standard, together with stricter emission standards on trucks, are much more effective and practical tools to deploy clean fuel and vehicle technologies to reduce transportation pollution. When it comes to buildings, biomethane and clean electricity (on top of reducing energy waste through efficiency) can meet the bill’s goal of reducing natural gas use.

#PreserveCA

In addition to climate-focused proposals, three strong bills also deserve prompt attention, as they could be key in defending California from the pro-polluter agenda of the Trump Administration. California’s SB 49, the California Environmental and Worker Defense Act, makes current federal clean air, clean water, worker safety, and endangered species standards enforceable under state law if the federal government rolls back and weakens them.

The Public Lands Protection Act, SB 50, is designed to protect California from threats to sell off federal land to private parties for mining or oil drilling. And SB 51, the Whistleblower and Public Data Protection Act, shields the thousands of engineers and scientists working for federal agencies here in California from retaliation if they expose violations of law, unethical actions, or dangers to public health and safety committed by their agencies or others. It also prohibits censorship of information by the federal government.

An analysis by the nonpartisan business group Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) found that California’s clean energy policies have helped inject $48 billion into California’s economy and created more than 500,000 jobs—benefits that have touched every corner of the state. That’s just one reason why Californians strongly support climate action.

Eleven years after the passage of AB 32, I’ve got a new phone, improved with experience. And as California’s climate policies look to the coming decades, we should take what we’ve learned and build on our success for even more effective programs that protect the planet and the people who call California home.

==

ref

http://www.lung.org/local-content/california/documents/sota-2017_ca-overview.pdf

State of the Air 2017

finds that California remains home to some of the worst air pollution in the country,

affecting the health of millions of Californians. The Los Angeles, Bakersfield and Visalia metropolitan areas

top the list of the most polluted in the country for ozone pollution and particle pollution, with many other

California cities among the Top 10 polluted areas.

  1. Statewide, over 35 million Californians (91%) live in counties affected by unhealthy air during the year.

Almost 17 million Californians live in counties that received three failing grades in State of the Air 2017. At

risk populations include children, seniors, those with asthma, COPD, lung cancer, heart disease, diabetes,

and disadvantaged communities.

  1. There is good news in the 2017 report. Despite remaining challenges, the Federal Clean Air Act and state

and local clean air policies are driving steady progress in the fight for clean air, and a number of cities have

had their cleanest year yet. Eight cities that saw their lowest ozone averages in any report, including Los

Angeles, Bakersfield, Visalia and Sacramento.

  1. The air is cleaner today because of the Federal Clean Air Act, California’s groundbreaking clean air and

clean energy laws, and local air pollution control programs. California must continue to ramp up

investments in zero emission vehicles including electricity and hydrogen, zero emission freight, renewable

power, non-polluting residential heating, and more sustainable community planning to reduce air pollution.

  1. State of the Air annually highlights the real public health crisis caused by air pollution. Millions of

California residents live in polluted areas and are at increased risk for health emergencies. Air pollution can

cause asthma attacks and other lung diseases, send people to hospitals and emergency rooms, and even

slow the development of children’s lungs.

6. Climate change is impacting California’s fight for healthy air. Climate impacts include warming

temperatures, droughts, heat waves and wildfires which can all create conditions for poor air quality and

have devastating impacts on lung health. While California experienced a wet winter this year, the report

continues to demonstrate the impacts of drought weather conditions slowing progress in reducing particle

pollution in the San Joaquin Valley over the past few years. Without continued actions at the local, state,

federal and global levels, extreme weather events will become the new normal for California.

  1. San Joaquin Valley residents continue to face significant air pollution challenges. The San Joaquin Valley

is home to the four the most particle-polluted cities in the United States, and has seen significant challenges

in reducing particle pollution. Additionally, despite more steady progress on ozone, residents in three Valley

counties face more than 90 unhealthy ozone days per year.

EJ]8. All communities deserve healthy air. Many California communities face higher exposures and health risks

due to their proximity to freeways, refineries, rail yards, ports, freight corridors and other local soot

pollution sources. The Lung Association supports stronger regulations and targeted investments to ensure

that all Californians can breathe healthy air where they live, work or go to school.

9. Health leaders support California’s leadership on clean air and climate policies. Health leaders have

demonstrated strong support for the Federal Clean Air Act and full implementation of federal programs to

control smog, soot and climate pollution. Over 300 health leaders and experts from across the country

recently sent a letter expressing strong support for California’s leadership on advanced clean cars and zero

emission vehicles and urging stronger standards in the next round. Now is a critical time for state and local

elected officials and all Californians to join health leaders in showing strong support for California’s climate

targets and the transition to zero emissions to help meet those targets.

  1. Everyone can make a difference for clean air. Making decisions to drive less, carpool, walk or bike where

possible, switch to electric transportation instead of gasoline cars, avoid wood burning and use less energy

all contribute to cleaner air.

==

==

http://greenlining.org/issues/2017/californias-working-protect-climate-without-feds/

...

Governor Brown and Sichuan Governor Yin Li sign sister-state agreement that will boost cooperation on clean energy development. Sichuan was the first Chinese province to sign the Under2MOU. |

According to David Victor, a professor of International Relations at UC San Diego who serves as co-chair for foreign policy and energy security at the Brookings Institute, that’s not just political rhetoric on Brown’s part.

“[Brown is] going to go there and offer a bold vision for innovation based in California and partnership,” Victor said. “And he’s going to say that the U.S. federal government has left its role and that role is shifting to California. And the Chinese are going to be thrilled to hear that.”

“There’s a long standing relationship between China and California on issues of air pollution regulation, so there’s a foundation there that will be relatively easy to build on,” Victor added. “Chinese regulators are in California all the time to learn about what we’re doing. California firms visit China… to build technology partnerships. The relationship between the state and China is a serious one.”

It’s an article of faith among some people on the right (but not all) that climate mitigation is bad for business. Even the U.S.’s modest targets under the Paris Agreement came in for scathing criticism, including from Donald Trump as he announced his plans to withdraw from the agreement:

The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production. Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.

Trump also cited a study by the National Economic Research Associates [BOGUS] claiming that the Paris Agreement would cost 2.7 million jobs by 2025. (The Washington Post’s fact-checkers cast significant doubt on that claim a few hours later.)

In fact, as California enacts policies that penalize carbon-intensive industry and promote new, more benign technologies, the state’s economy has grown dramatically.

As the state’s GDP has grown along with its population, greenhouse gas emissions keep dropping. | Graph: CalEPA/CARB

It is absolutely true that jobs in some industries will inevitably be lost as human society contends with climate change. Most jobs in the coal industry will disappear forever. Likewise with oil industry jobs.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the entire U.S. coal industry employed just 53,420 people nationwide in 2016, a drop of nearly 20,000 jobs in two years.

During that same period, in 2015, there were more than 20,000 new solar jobs created in California alone, and more than 24,000 in 2016. Just in California, the solar industry employs more than 100,000 people — twice the number of national jobs in the coal industry.

It’s not just solar. Battling climate change creates jobs in lots of different industrial sectors, from manufacturing of composite material wind turbine components to contractors’ jobs created as homeowners take advantage of weatherizing incentives.

As Governor Jerry Brown said in a June 1 interview held by the World Resources Institute:

“California’s economy and America’s economy are boosted by following the Paris Agreement. No place is more aggressive in climate action than California. We are all in. And the California economy, last year, increased 40 percent faster than the rest of the country. So in fact, following policies even tougher than what Paris is calling for, the economy is boosted. Trump is wrong when he says this is bad for jobs. It’s good for jobs; the jobs of the future.”

That may be why some of California’s largest corporations, including Apple, Intel, Hewlett-Packard,Pacific Gas & Electric, and Google, co-signed a letter earlier this year urging Donald Trump not to walk away from the Paris Agreement. Many California businesses support climate change action, which makes it more likely that the state will be able to ramp up its climate policies.

CALIFORNIA IS READY TO FIGHT

It’s no secret that California’s political leadership and the Trump administration are at odds. That became clear two weeks before the Inauguration, when California hired former Attorney General Eric Holderand his law firm to battle the Trump administration if it tried to roll back California state policy on the environment and other matters. Even the Trump supporters in the state tend to be more moderate on issues like recognizing that climate change exists. California has long been at the forefront of environmental policy in the United States, and that’s not going to change anytime soon.

...

rump is wrong when he says [climate change policy] is bad for jobs. It’s good for jobs; the jobs of the future.” — California Governor Jerry Brown

Sanchez pointed out that as Trump was preparing his statement on the Paris Agreement, California legislators were advancing even more aggressive climate policies, such as SB100, which would raise California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard requirement to 100 percent renewable energy by 2045. SB 100 passed the State Senate in a 25-13 vote May 31, and now heads to the Assembly.

Deb <Deb350SV@comcast.net>: Jun 10 03:50PM -0700 Dear Legislative Team Members,  I’m looking forward to seeing you at the meeting tomorrow! I have attached the agenda for our meeting tomorrow. We will start at 9:30am sharp, so please do come early to grab some coffee and a snack before sitting down to the meeting.  It would be wonderful if 1 person could help us out by taking notes at the meeting. If you can take notes, please email me ahead of time to let me know: Deb350SV@comcast.net.  We will have an informal training/discussion with Judy Pope to help us prepare for our new round of meetings with our Assembly Members to lobby in support of SB100. Please read through the links below, sent to us by Judy, and write down any questions you may have for her. I am particularly interested in what the arguments are against SB100 and how to counter those arguments. If there is time, Judy will give us a briefing on the status of Cap and Trade and we can have some Q&A as well.  After Judy’s training we will get organized to schedule meetings with our 3 local BAAQMD Board Members (yes, there is a potential issue that has come up - more on this later) and meeting with our Assembly Members in support of SB100. Please bring your calendars to the meeting!  If you are attending this Sunday’s meeting please do RSVP here: LINK.  Please be on time - Judy needs to leave early so we will be starting at 9:30 sharp.  I’m looking forward to seeing you all tomorrow!  Best, Deborah  The links from Judy. Be sure to read the bills and the descriptions, and if you have time check out the other articles. Good news: these are the most "layperson friendly” articles about Cap & Trade that I’ve seen:  SB100:  > Sample of coverage of SB 100 and what it says about California’s climate leadership https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/01/these-titans-of-industry-just-broke-with-trumps-decision-to-exit-the-paris-accords/  > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/governors-pledge-climate-action-in-face-of-possible-paris-withdrawal/  > Is 100% possible? http://inewsource.org/2017/05/26/sempra-100-percent-renewables-pxise/  CAP AND TRADE:  > For clear and readable writing on Cap and Trade, the best writer IMO is Dave Roberts at Vox > Background here https://www.vox.com/2016/8/29/12650488/california-climate-law-sb-32 > His description of SB 775 (he’s a fan) https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/3/15512258/california-revolutionize-cap-and-trade  SB 775 the bill https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB775  More in-depth article about why new Cap and Trade program is needed by Stanford professors Wara and Cullenward, who helped design SB 775: http://legal-planet.org/2017/05/15/guest-bloggers-michael-wara-and-danny-cullenward-understanding-sb-775-a-realistic-path-to-achieving-californias-climate-goals/  For an environmental justice prospect http://greenlining.org/blog/2017/cap-and-trade-clean-energy-protecting-communities-of-color/   > For deeper dives in Cap and Trade: > 350 Bay Area 2016 informational workshop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I5rQbLdwMs&feature=youtu.be#t=21m44s   For a really deep dive into Cap and Trade, here is the link to a 4 hour oversight hearing of the program by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on May 10,2017 http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=4530 Although the topic of this hearing is the current Cap and Trade program, there was also a lot of discussion of SB 775. The opening testimony by ARB head Mary Nichols and then presentations by Wara and Cullenward are particularly interesting. You’ll also hear testimony from major environmental groups supporting the basic ideas in SB 775.  Caution - it is a big file and slow to load. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Legislation/Policy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to legislation+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to legislation@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/legislation/51DB1187-5480-49B5-B739-A88A2741C8F4%40comcast.net.

==

wapo

Cuomo isn’t alone. About 30 states have adopted mandates for utilities to increase their use of renewable energy, standards that will not change with Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord or his effort to nullify the Clean Power Plan.

In California, state legislators are looking at ways to boost renewable energy activity even as Trump moves to undercut that sector. On Wednesday the state Senate voted to make utilities use 100 percent renewable energy by 2045 and 60 percent by 2030. The current standard in both California and New York is for utilities to get 50 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2030.

Though the California Senate measure must still win approval of the State Assembly and Gov. Jerry Brown (D), it sent a signal. “It draws a huge contrast between Trump wanting to go backwards and states trying to take the lead in tackling the climate crisis,” said Anna Aurilio, legislative director of Environment America.

“The California economy last year increased 40 percent faster than the rest of the country,” Brown saidin a conference call Thursday. “In fact, following policies even tougher than what Paris is calling for, the California economy is boosted. Trump is wrong when he says Paris is bad for jobs. It’s good for jobs. The jobs of the future.”

Cuomo, Brown and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) said they were forming a coalition of states determined to stick to the Paris targets. The three states account for a fifth of the U.S. economy.

Many energy experts say that progress will continue on greenhouse gas emissions even if the United States drops out of the Paris agreement.

“The net impact to our emissions performance is likely zero to negligible,” said Andy Karsner, a former climate negotiator for President George W. Bush. “I don’t actually believe for a moment that a withdrawal from Paris is tantamount to abating our efforts, direction or momentum toward increased penetration of clean-energy technologies. Washington does not have the power to put the genie back in the bottle.”

==

mary b:

 http://sd24.senate.ca.gov/news/2017-05-02-california-senate-leader-introduces-100-percent-clean-energy-measure

De Leon's website, listed above, has 2 videos with answers to the challenges below.

VIDEO: 100% Clean Energy Equals Jobs https://youtu.be/7Zeu3yXuGCg**

VIDEO: 100% Clean Energy: We Can Get There https://youtu.be/9AYRADZkkqs**

I think Low will resist on e justice that renewable practices are for people with money and not for working single moms, that housing is a bigger need, that this bill would disrupt jobs, and oil affilation?

Nicole countered that the people with less $ will suffer health effects in future if we don't do something re: climate,  that high density housing near transit was desirable, and that this bill would bring jobs, right, Nicole?

Allen Chiu at Low's office seemed impressed that De Leon was author.

2) Objections by republican senators(LA Times) :

SB 100 passed over objections from Republican senators. Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Temecula) criticized the measure as government getting ahead of technological capacity.

“What if we can’t make that mandate that we’re putting into law today?” Stone said. “What it’s going to do is drive up electricity bills for our businesses.”

3) http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/24/california-**100-percent-renewable-energy-future-may-hit-roadblocks/**

“It’s the most ambitious target in the world, especially for an economy that dwarfs all but a handful of nations,” said Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De León, the author of the bill.

“This is about jobs,” he said. “Real jobs.”

More than a half-million Californians are employed by the clean energy industry, about ten times more than work in the U.S. coal mining industry.

4) http://www.utilitydive.com/news/**will-californias-100-renewables-goal-survive-the-political-process/444706/**

SB 100 does three important things, De Leon said. It moves the 50% renewables mandate up to 2026, it imposes a 60% mandate for 2030, and it establishes a non-mandatory 100% renewables  goal for 2045 that can drive regulatory agency and power sector stakeholder planning.

“If not us, who?" De León said. "If not now, when?”

Hawaii is the only other state with a 100% renewables mandate, which it must hit by 2045. But Hawaii is a small, isolated economy with one dominant electricity supplier and high power prices that support a transition to alternative sources.

...

V. John White, executive director for the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT), said political circumstances in Sacramento were shaken up by the Assembly’s recent rejection of AB 378, a bill to extend the state’s landmark cap-and-trade program.

It was largely a debate between progressive Democrats who favor climate action and more business-oriented Democrats, White said. “The moderate Democrats showed their strength but there are important differences in the debate about SB 100.”

California’s oil companies, who are not yet significant players in the SB 100 debate, made opposition to AB 378 a priority, White said. “And the building and construction trade unions who opposed AB 378 back SB 100.”

De León’s staff is also working to get the utilities to understand that “the 60% by 2030 mandate is regulatory, but the other 40% by 2045 is aspirational,” he said.

The objective of the 2045 goal is to move planning forward at the CPUC, the California Energy Commission (CEC), and the Air Resources Board (ARB)," the Senate president said. “There are no penalties for not meeting it.”

...

SB 100 can certainly get through the Assembly, though the IOUs may have “the political clout” to stop it, Miller acknowledged. He is hopeful because “it is a slimmed down bill and the more controversial proposals have been removed.”

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Senior Energy Analyst Laura Wisland endorsed De Leon’s separation of the mandatory 60% by 2030 standard and the aspirational 100% by 2045 goal.

“Accelerating to 50% in 2026 and moving to 60% in 2030 is not that big of a stretch,” Wisland said. “It’s best to keep the 100% zero-carbon by 2045 goal as something in statue that says, ‘this is the vision.’”

She was even more emphatic than Miller that SB 100 should be separate from other legislative and regulatory initiatives that will make it work. Detailing provisions for how a 2045 resource portfolio should be allocated or implemented would be “micro-managing” what should be an long-term goal and vision for planners, Wisland said.

==

sv350: For Endorsed JP/Amy 3/12/2017 

SB 584 De Leon, Senate Pro Tem (D-LA) 100% clean electrical energy by 2045

Referrred to EQ and Nat Resources 

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB584

* 03/02/17 = Referred to Com. on RLS. No cmte hearing scheduled as yet. E3 Study on Feasability of 50% RPS in California 

 ==

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-senate-leader-puts-100-1487714001-htmlstory.html

Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) is proposing legislation that would require California to generate all of its electricity from renewable sources.

The measure, SB 584, was introduced without fanfare before last week’s deadline for new proposals in the Capitol.

If approved, 100% of the state’s electricity would need to come from clean sources such as solar and wind by 2045. De León first suggested the ideain a conversation with The Times last month.

The measure would also accelerate the state’s goal of reaching 50% renewable energy. Legislation approved two years ago set a deadline of 2030, but the new proposal would move that up to 2025.

Hitting those targets would keep California a few steps ahead of New York, which wants 50% renewable energy by 2030, and on par with Hawaii, which is seeking 100% renewable energy by 2045.

==

E3 Study on Feasability of 50% RPS in California

 This report presents the results of a study of a 50% renewables portfolio standard (RPS) in California in 2030. The study was funded by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison Company (SCE), (“the utilities”) to examine the operational challenges and potential consequences of meeting a higher RPS. This study was conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), with assistance from ECCO International. A companion study was conducted by DMV KEMA examining “smart grid” technologies that may become available to help alleviate challenges associated with high penetration of distributed generation. An independent advisory panel of experts from industry, government and academia was commissioned to review the reasonableness of the assumptions and to provide input on the study. The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) also provided input on key study assumptions...

...

CONCLUSION

This study assesses the operational impacts, challenges, costs, greenhouse gas reductions, and potential solutions associated with a 50% RPS in California by 2030. The study finds that renewable integration challenges, particularly overgeneration during daylight hours, are likely to be significant at 50% RPS. The study indicates that at high penetrations of renewable generation, some level of renewable resource curtailment is likely to be necessary to avoid overgeneration and to manage net load ramps. The study also identifies a number of promising integration solutions that could help to mitigate overgeneration, including procurement of a diverse portfolio of renewable resources, increased regional coordination, flexible loads, and energy storage.

Achievement of a higher RPS at least cost to electric customer will likely require implementation of a portfolio of integration solutions; timely implementation of these solutions is critical but would likely involve substantial challenges related to cost, feasibility, and siting. In this study, a 50% RPS is shown to lead to higher electric rates than a 33% RPS under a wide range of natural gas prices, CO2 allowance prices, and renewable resource costs. The lowest-cost 50% RPS portfolio modeled here is one with a diversity of renewable resource technologies. The highest-cost portfolio modeled is one that relies extensively on rooftop solar photovoltaic systems. This study highlights the need for additional research in a number of areas, including the need to address sub-five-minute operational issues, ensure sufficient power system flexibility, and develop strategies to avoid overgeneration.

P a g e | 37 | Executive Summary © 2013 Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc.

NREL & maybe others have done similar studies on feasibility of a higher RPS in CA.

basics on RPS:  http://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/state_local_governments/basics_portfolio_standards.html

2013 study http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2016/21615

A new study by researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) estimates that $2.2 billion in benefits came from reduced greenhouse gas emissions and $5.2 billion from reductions in other air pollution, in mid-range estimates, for state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) policies operating in 2013. RPS policies require utilities or other electricity providers to meet a minimum portion of their load with eligible forms of renewable electricity.

1/16 fact sheet national: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65409.pdf

http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy-jacobson-2278462825.html

no links

States Lead the Way Toward 100% Renewable Energy

Lawmakers in California and Massachusetts have recently introduced bills that would require their respective states to get all of its electricity from renewable energy sources.

California Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), who introduced SB 584 last Friday, would require the Golden State to have a carbon-free grid by 2045. It would also accelerate the state's current goal of hitting 50 percent renewables by 2030 to 2025.

De León actually helped pushed through the initial 50 percent by 2030 law two years ago, but as he told the Los Angeles Times the legislation did not go far enough.

"We probably should have shot for the stars," he said.

As InsideClimate News noted, California is already well on its way:

"The California Energy Commission says the state got about 27 percentof its electricity from renewables last year, slightly better than the 25 percent required by law. Capacity has more than doubled over the past decade. California's largest utilities have also said they are ahead of schedule for meeting their 2020 goal."

Massachusetts legislators have also announced similar clean energy efforts. HD.3357 and SD.1932 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Sean Garballey and Marjorie Decker and in the Senate by Sen. Jamie Eldridge.

The measure would require Massachusetts to get all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2035. All of its energy needs, including heating and transportation, would have to come from renewable sources by 2050.

So far, the only state that has an official 100 percent renewable energy standard is Hawaii. Hawaii's aggressive clean energy mandate—requiring the state's electricity to come from renewable sources no later than 2045—was enacted back in 2015.

Many renewable-energy loving states—as well as town and city governments—are ramping up their clean energy goals in spite of the federal government's favoritism of fossil fuels and indifference towards fighting climate change.

This month, Nevada assemblyman Chris Brook introduced a bill to ramp up the state's renewable portfolio standard to 80 percent by 2040. Nevada's current standard calls for 25 percent by 2025.

Transitioning to 100 percent clean energy is not as far-fetched as it seems.

Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford University professor and cofounder of The Solutions Project, has created a state-by-state roadmap to convert the country to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.

Last year, The Solutions Project team published a study explaining how each state can replace fossil fuels by tapping into renewable resources available in each state such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and even small amounts of tidal and wave power.

The Solutions Project

The authors found that converting the nation's energy infrastructure into renewables is ideal because it helps fight climate change, saves lives by eliminating air pollution, creates jobs in the rapidly booming renewable energy sector and also stabilizes energy prices.

"It is now established that such a transition is possible state by state and country by country," Jacobson commented to EcoWatch in December.

Also, as USA TODAY pointed out from a University of Texas at Austin study, wind turbines and big solar farms are the cheapest sources of new electricity generation across much of the U.S. Certainly in sun-soaked California, where solar is the cheapest form of energy in much of the state.

I had the chance to take a deeper dive with Jacobson via email on Wednesday. He took the time to answer these following questions:

What do you say to the critics who say it is not feasible for California, Massachusetts (or any other state) to get to 100 percent clean energy?

Jacobson: They speak without having every studied the issue or examined the numbers, including the ability to keep the grid stable or the costs of energy.

What are some of the specific benefits for California and Massachusetts if they transition to clean energy?

:{

}:

Jacobson: Create more net long-term jobs than lost, stabilize energy prices because thefuel costs of wind and solar are zero, reduce the costs of energy since onshore wind and large-scale solar are the least expensive forms of new energy in the U.S. today, eliminate 13,000 air pollution deaths and hundreds of thousands of illnesses in California alone saving 3 percent of the GDP, reduce terrorism and catastrophic riskbecause of the more distributed nature of the grid and reduce dependence on foreign energy.

What are some of the biggest obstacles (i.e. technology, politics, fossil fuel industry) for states to get to 100 percent clean energy?

:{

}:

Jacobson: Lack of information and people with a financial interest in the current infrastructure. Once people have full information about the transition and its benefits, most are likely to support the transition. Ninety percent of the blockade to faster progress is due to individuals and companies that have a financial interest in the current infrastructure thus profit over it not happening.

Are you working with any of the legislators who have proposed these 100 percent clean energy bills? If so, who? And, what role is The Solutions Project playing in helping states advance renewable energy policies?

Jacobson: We provide information to all parties who request it, thus our goal is not partisan. It is purely to help facilitate the healthiest and cleanest future for Americans and the world.

How do you feel about President Trump and his administration's pro-fossil fuel agenda? Does it make the push to 100 percent clean energy harder?

Jacobson: The transition will occur regardless of what President Trump wants or does because costs are favorable and most people want healthy air and lower energy prices, and see all the benefits in terms of jobs, price stability, health and security that clean, renewable energy provides.

==

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-pollution-deaths-:{2016:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:0810-snap-story.html

...Moore than 2,000 Southern Californians die early each year from polluted air, and the region would benefit the most of anywhere in the country from reducing ozone and fine particle pollution below current federal limits, a new study has found.

The analysis by scientists at New York University and the American Thoracic Society, released Wednesday, estimated that more protective air quality standards would prevent 3,632 deaths a year in California, more than one-third of the 9,320 early deaths linked to dirty air nationwide.

The study estimates 1,341 avoidable deaths from pollution each year in the Los Angeles metro area and 800 in Riverside-San Bernardino. The region has “the most to gain” from attaining tougher air quality standards because of its large population and high pollution levels, according to the study published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society, a peer-reviewed journal.

Southern California has the nation’s highest levels of ozone — the corrosive gas in smog — and does not meet federal standards for fine particles, harmful soot and chemical-laden specks of pollution that can lodge deep in the lungs.

The “Health of the Air” report also found that reducing ozone and fine particle pollution levels beyond current federal limits would prevent many thousands of heart attacks, emergency room visits and other serious health consequences as well as millions of missed days at school and work nationwide.

==

Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.

New MIT study finds vehicle emissions are the biggest contributor to these premature deaths.

Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office

August 29, 2013

Researchers from MIT’s Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment have come out with some sobering new data on air pollution’s impact on Americans’ health.

The group tracked ground-level emissions from sources such as industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations, and commercial and residential heating throughout the United States, and found that such air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year. Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000.

In a state-by-state analysis, the researchers found that California suffers the worst health impacts from air pollution, with about 21,000 early deaths annually, mostly attributed to road transportation and to commercial and residential emissions from heating and cooking.

The researchers also mapped local emissions in 5,695 U.S. cities, finding the highest emissions-related mortality rate in Baltimore, where 130 out of every 100,000 residents likely die in a given year due to long-term exposure to air pollution.

“In the past five to 10 years, the evidence linking air-pollution exposure to risk of early death has really solidified and gained scientific and political traction,” says Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT. “There’s a realization that air pollution is a major problem in any city, and there’s a desire to do something about it.”

Barrett and his colleagues have published their results in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829

==

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington and Mayor Arreguin Subject: Support SB 584 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program RECOMMENDATION That Berkeley City Council send a letter to both State Senator Nancy Skinner and Assembly member Tony Thurmond urging them to vote yes on SB 584 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program.

BACKGROUND The California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program introduced by California Senate leader Kevin de Leon – would require the state to obtain 50% of its electricity from renewables by 2025, and 100% of its electricity from renewables in 2045. Senator Leon’s ambitious policy challenges the current presidential administration, whose proposals clearly favor the fossil fuel industry. Furthermore, it builds on his original mandate requiring that half of California’s electricity be derived from renewable energy sources by 2030. There are multiple benefits which would result from enacting SB-584. First, it would aid in displacing fossil fuel consumption within the state, and would reduce air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gasses. This bill would help California meet the state’s resource adequacy requirements and need for a diversified and balanced energy generation portfolio. There are just a few of the many unique benefits this bill could provide to California. Supporting this legislation will allow California to continue to lead in environmental policy and sustainability.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Minimal

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS Consistent with environmental goals

CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170 Raja Sutherland

==

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB584

BILL START

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017–2018 REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILLNo. 584

:{Introduced by Senator De León

}:
February 17, 2017

An act to amend Section 399.11 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to energy.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 584, as introduced, De León. California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program.

Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations, while local publicly owned electric utilities, as defined, are under the direction of their governing boards. The California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program requires the Public Utilities Commission to establish a renewables portfolio standard requiring all retail sellers, as defined, to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources, as defined, so that the total kilowatthours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieves 25% of retail sales by December 31, 2016, 33% by December 31, 2020, 40% by December 31, 2024, 45% by December 31, 2027, and 50% by December 31, 2030. The program additionally requires each local publicly owned electric utility, as defined, to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources to achieve the procurement requirements established by the program. The Legislature has separately declared that its intent in implementing the program is to attain, among other targets for sale of eligible renewable resources, the target of 50% of total retail sales of electricity by December 31, 2030.

This bill would revise those legislative findings and declarations to state that the goal of the program is to achieve that 50% target by December 31, 2025, and for all electricity sold at retail to be generated by eligible renewable energy resources by December 31, 2045.

==