Calif Climate legis bill

California Global Solutions act of 2016 (SB 32, Pavley

WSPA: It was front and center for voters in 2010 when out-of-state oil companies spent millions to derail AB 32, the state’s pioneering climate policy. Fortunately, voters saw through the rhetoric and defeated Proposition 23, and the law has remained on track.

The Sacramento-based WSPA counts among its members BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, Occidental, and other major fossil fuel companies.The group serves as a key organizer of opposition to California’s groundbreaking climate policies, including the state’s low-carbon fuel standard and its so-called AB32 plan that requires a sharp reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Between January 2009 and September 2014, oil companies spent more than $26.9 million through WSPA directly lobbying in California (Bacher 2014).

Chevron alone reported spending nearly $14 million

Third Actors to the Governor urging his support, made an impact and he signed SB 253 and SB 261 into law! These bills mandate that corporations over $1 billion and financial institutions disclose their climate emissions including indirect emissions tied to their funding of fossil fuels.

He also announced that the State of California is suing the five biggest oil companies for negligence and deception because they have knowingly misled consumers for decades about the impacts of using their products, oil and gas. It’s past time that polluters should pay their fair share. 11 23

Cap and Trade Is Supposed to Solve Climate Change, but Oil and Gas Company Emissions Are Up — ProPublica

brown 2017?

...california’s cap-and-trade program was one of the first in the world, and it is among the largest. It is premised on the idea that instead of using regulations to force companies to curb their emissions, polluters can be made to pay for every ton of CO₂ they emit, providing them with an incentive to lower emissions on their own. This market-based approach has gained such traction that the Paris climate agreement emphasizes it as the primary way countries can meet their goals to lower worldwide emissions. More than 50 programs have been developed across the world, many inspired by California.

But while the state’s program has helped it meet some initial, easily attained benchmarks, experts are increasingly worried that it is allowing California’s biggest polluters to conduct business as usual and even increase their emissions.

ProPublica analyzed state data in a way the state doesn’t often report to the public, isolating how emissions have grown within the oil and gas industry. The analysis shows that carbon emissions from California’s oil and gas industry actually rose 3.5% since cap and trade began. Refineries, including one owned by Marathon Petroleum and two owned by Chevron, are consistently the largest polluters in the state. Emissions from vehicles, which burn the fuels processed in refineries, are also rising.

Critics attribute these increases, in part, to a bevy of concessions the state has made to the oil and gas industry to keep the program going. They say these compromises have blocked steps that would have mandated real emissions reductions and threaten the state’s ability to meet its ambitious goal of slashing its emissions 40% by 2030.

“There’s no question a well-designed regulation on oil and gas can have an effect,” said Danny Cullenward, a Stanford researcher and policy director at Near Zero, a climate policy think tank. “And that was traded away for a weak cap-and-trade program.”

===

====

JUN 2023

two transparency bills in the California Legislature would require corporations to disclose more information about their emissions and their efforts to fight the climate crisis. The oil and gas industry is spending millions to kill them.

The bills would force big companies that do business in California to report all of their emissions and require firms that buy or sell carbon offsets — which are credits that represent a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions — to disclose more information in an effort to crack down on bogus climate claims. Both SB 253 and AB 1305 have momentum but could be blocked by moderate Democrats historically aligned with corporate interests.

Since the legislation would make new information available beyond California, the two bills could represent a watershed moment for holding big polluters accountable when they claim climate bonafides, supporters say.

Reporting requirements for corporate emissions are currently fragmented, and SB 253 would be a landmark law pinning down the climate impacts of some of the world’s largest companies. And as more companies market themselves as partners in the climate fight, greater oversight over voluntary carbon trading markets could help verify their claims. Challenges range from a lack of information on who is buying and selling credits to credits handed out for emissions reductions that never actually happened. AB 1305 requires this information to be reported publicly.

The bills are opposed by the Western States Petroleum Association, which has already spent $2.38 million on lobbying and advocacy groups this year. While some oil and gas companies in California have expressed their support for rolling back climate change, industry opposition fits into an agenda of delaying action, said Ryan Schleeter, communications director at the Climate Center.

“Delay is the new denial,” said Schleeter. “Climate denial won’t fly in this state, and companies are smart enough to figure that out, so they delay as long as possible and squeeze out as much profit as they can.”

“We Can’t Improve What We Don’t Measure”

Lawmakers are evaluating the bills as the climate crisis intensifies around the world. Halfway into 2023, smoke from extreme wildfires blanketed Canada and the U.S. Record-breaking temperatures have struck Texas, Mexico, Ireland, Britain, Puerto Rico, Europe, Northern Africa and Asia.

In California, WSPA insists that it wants to be part of the “climate conversation,” according to Kevin Slagle, the association’s vice president of strategic communications.

WSPA’s opposition to the transparency bills “is based not so much on not wanting to progress, as it is how we get to those places,” he continued, noting areas where the oil and gas industry is promoting solutions like hydrogen and biofuels. “Is it that we are often pushing too far, too fast?”

But industry warnings about pace and ambition contrast with the U.N.’s insistence that deep, rapid and sustained reductions are needed now. And the bills are in line with recommendations from a group of experts convened by the United Nations, which concluded that companies should annually report their emissions and reliance on carbon offsets as early steps to eventually ending fossil fuel production.

When pressed on the matter, Slagle deflected, offering his view that the oil and gas industry has been unfairly painted as “evil” due to its frequent opposition to climate accountability measures. In public comments and written testimony, WSPA representatives have said little about why they oppose reporting requirements proposed under SB 253. The California Chamber of Commerce, which has spoken for a broader opposition coalition that includes WSPA and other business associations, cites compliance costs.

Companies that participate in California’s cap and trade system already report emissions information to the state, including Scope 3 emissions, which account for the vast majority. These are from burning oil and gas sold by fossil fuel companies. Scope 1 and 2 refer to emissions from a business’s day-to-day activities and electricity usage.

SB 253, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), expands reporting requirements to all companies generating revenues of more than $1 billion a year. It’s more expansive than a rule currently under consideration by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the disclosures have the potential to affect climate action worldwide, said Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters.

“This would be pretty monumental,” said Creasman, whose organization is sponsoring the legislation. “There is a movement to say we can’t improve what we don’t measure, full stop.”

Sometimes companies claim to reduce their climate pollution by buying offset credits, which can be used by a company or a country to offset their own emissions.

But offsets have dubious track records across industries and regions. One study into offsets for cooking stoves found that only one in seven represented actual reductions.

Another study found 93% of Chevron’s offsets over the last two years were likely junk. The company, a WSPA member, opposes AB 1305 and spent $1.27 million on lobbying this spring, the most of any oil company. It plans to use offsets while continuing to produce oil and gas.

In a legislative filing, WSPA called the bill’s reporting requirements unclear and redundant, pointing to the SEC’s rulemaking process.

For Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Woodland Hills), who authored AB 1305, the argument holds little water. Financial filings by one WSPA member company, the refining giant Valero, warned that disclosure rules could “be used to advance agendas that disfavor the fossil fuel industry.”

“If these companies want to get the benefit of showing they are on the right side of history, [AB 1305] will encourage them to show that they are purchasing offsets that will actually make a difference,” Gabriel said.

Moderate Democrats Will Decide Bills’ Fate

A nearly identical version of SB 253 failed last year by one vote in the Assembly. It’s now headed to committees in that chamber that must approve it before a floor vote.

Democrats dominate the chamber, 62 to 18 Republicans. This supermajority means opponents are focusing on swaying moderate Democrats, who are historically more likely to oppose regulations on businesses than progressive lawmakers.

In addition to all Assembly Republicans, one Democrat who is still in the Assembly — Sharon Quirk-Silva (Buena Park) — voted against climate disclosures last year. Fifteen others who registered “no vote recorded” in 2022 will have an opportunity to vote if the bill reaches the floor this year.

Combined, these legislators have received millions from the California Chamber of Commerce, as well as the oil and gas industry and other corporate interests.

“It’ll be a tough bill to pass in the Assembly,” said Creasman. “We’re hopeful this year, because it’s part of a strong package of other corporate leadership and accountability bills.”

Meanwhile, AB 1305 passed by a large majority in the Assembly and is now moving through the Senate. Gabriel is hopeful about its chances.

“I actually think the bills would fit together nicely in terms of creating a regulatory architecture that’s going to really just provide more accountability and transparency,” Gabriel told Capital & Main.

As scrutiny of the fossil fuel industry has grown, companies have cloaked themselves as climate warriors, said Melissa Aronczyk, an associate professor of media studies at Rutgers University who studies the history of the industry’s public relations strategies.

The public has caught on to squishy climate claims in recent years, but oil majors still often announce actions or aspirations that are impossible to measure.

“These are efforts to sidestep real rules, regulation or other frameworks, to actually hold these companies accountable,” Aronczyk said. “The irony is that it is a very simple need that we have, which is to phase out fossil fuels. It’s straightforward.”

RELATED TOPICS:CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCEFEATUREDLOBBYISTSOIL AND GAS INDUSTRYPOLLUTIONWESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

===

Climate change policy of California - Wikipedia

as the most populous state in the United States,^[1] California's climate policies influence both global climate change and federal climate policy. In line with the views of climate scientists, the state of California has progressively passed emission-reduction legislation.

California has taken legislative steps in the hope of mitigating the risks of potential effects of climate change in California by incentives and plans for clean cars, renewable energy, and pollution controls on industry.^[2] In California, climate change policy has been developed through both the executive and legislative branches of the state government.^[3] Many of the policies have specifically targeted greenhouse gas emissions, which have been shown to raise global temperatures and skew natural rhythms.^[4]

One of the most notable pieces of climate legislation in California was Assembly Bill 32. This landmark piece of legislation required many actors in California’s economy to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.^[5] The bill also appointed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to devise policies and mechanisms for reaching the goal.^[5] CARB ultimately implemented the state’s cap-and-trade program, a type of emissions trading, the first such program in the United States.^[6] California was able to reach the emissions target four years ahead of schedule, in 2016.^[7]

Legislation overview

See California Climate Executive Orders for a detailed outline of executive orders signed by California governors that focus on climate change.

California lawmakers are among leaders in the U.S. in enacting climate change policy.^[8] Starting in the early 2000s, several executive orders focused on climate change were signed by California governors. The California State Legislature has passed numerous bills to enact the changes and regulations that were necessary to meet the goals outlined in those executive orders. These policies address issues in emissions measurement, transportation, waste, and energy in California.

The following is a list notable climate change legislation in chronological order:

• SB 1771 (2000)
• SB 527 (2001)
• SB 812 (2002)
• AB 1493 (2002)
• AB 1007 (2005)
• AB 32 (2006)
• SB 375 (2008)
• SB 535 (2012)
• SB 1204 (2014)
• SB 1275 (2014)
• SB 1383 (2016)

Emissions measurement

Climate change is driven by the accelerated amount of greenhouse gas emissions being put into the atmosphere by anthropogenic activity.^[9] To combat climate change, national and state governments around the world are struggling to control their emissions levels. Setting emissions reductions goals and using effective emissions-measurement technology is necessary to reduce emissions and keep track of progress across time.^[10] According to the 2022 IPCC report, the world needs to cut its emissions in half by the year 2030 to limit warming to 1.5^o Celsius.^[11] The California legislative body has been paying attention to the importance of cutting emissions ever since the 2000s.

SB 1771 (2000)

This bill created the California Climate Action Registry, however this organization officially closed in December 2010 and is encouraging its members to report their emissions to the Climate Registry instead.^[12]

SB 527 (2001)

SB 527 was approved in October 2001, authorizing the California Air Resources Board to impose administrative penalties instead of civil penalties for violations of regulations to air pollution control, with a limit of 10,000 per day and 100,000 total.^[13] Before this bill was enacted, the California Air Resources Board had to rely on enforcement of their penalties of violations on air pollution regulations through an action by the Attorney General, now they would have the ability to assess and enforce administrative penalties.^[14] The California Climate Action Registry is required to record voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions made by California entities after 1990, but many of its functions were changed with the passage of SB 527 including; ensuring the public can comment on board meetings, requiring protocols for monitoring and reporting emissions to be consistent with California Energy Commission protocols, and remove the requirement to report nationwide emissions in order to focus solely on in-state emissions.^[14]

AB 32 (2006)

In September 2006, the California State Legislature passed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 with the goal of reducing man-made California greenhouse gas emissions (1.4% of global emissions in 2004) back to 1990 emission levels by 2020.^[15] The responsibility for implementing, enforcing, and monitoring progress to meet the emission goals was placed on the California Air Resources Board (CARB).^[16] Due to the extensive involvement of environmental justice groups, a cap and trade emission scheme was not specifically mandated.^[17]

Environmental justice proponents advocate for the reversal of the historical trend of dumping pollution on BIPOC, low-income, Hispanic and Latino communities.^[18] Communities of color are significantly more likely to live near major polluters, which emit both GHGs and particulate matter into the surrounding air.^[19] Environmental justice advocates assert that a cap-and-trade program does not call for sufficient protections for historically marginalized communities.^[20] Instead, it allows leaders the flexibility to act on the global issue of climate change without adequately addressing the more local issue of air pollution.^[20]

Due to these concerns, decisions on what system would be most effective were left up to CARB, with mandated review and revision every five years.^[21] This granted CARB enough programmatic flexibility to successfully meet the emission reduction mandate. The emissions goal was reached in 2016, four years ahead of the 2020 deadline.^[22]

In order to reach emission reduction goals, the California Air Resources Board has adopted a variety of legislation including plans for greener transportation, waste reduction, a cap-and-trade program, the use of new energy efficient technology and the expansion of renewable energy resources.^[23]

The greenhouse gases that AB 32 targets include:

• Carbon dioxide
• Methane
• Nitrous oxide
• Hydrofluorocarbons
• Perfluorocarbons
• Sulfur hexafluoride
• Nitrogen trifluoride (was not included in the original AB scoping plan but was later listed as a targeted greenhouse gas via legislation)^[23]

The emissions target of AB 32 has been updated to a stricter target following Executive Order B-16-12 and B-30-15. Therefore, updates of the AB 32 Scoping Plan continue to introduce new measures in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions even further.^[23]

Funding for the implementation of AB 32 is collected from greenhouse gas emitters. This includes approximately 250 fee payers from polluters such as electric power plants, oil refineries, cement plants, and other large industries. In addition, the revenue collected from auctioning permits to greenhouse gas emitters through the cap-and-trade system is also used to fund programs under AB 32.^[23]

Scoping plan

Development of the scoping plan is a central requirement of AB 32, which is a bill that calls on California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The required Scoping Plan is intended to outline the approach California will take to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The comprehensive approach includes both new and existing measures in almost every sector of California's economy.

The initial AB 32 scoping plan included a series of proposals that would become law in 2008.^[24] The initiatives include implementing a cap-and-trade program on carbon dioxide emissions (that will be developed in conjunction with the Western Climate Initiative, to create a regional carbon market) that will require buildings and appliances to use less energy.^[25] Additionally, it requires oil companies to make cleaner fuels, and utilities to provide a third of their energy from renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal power and proposes to expand and strengthen existing energy efficiency programs. California's Renewable Portfolio Standard created in 2002 through SB 1078, requires electricity providers to use renewable energy for a specified portion of their electricity, which under SB 100 has increased to 44% by 2024, 52% by 2027 and 60% by 2030.^[26] The Plan will also encourage development of walkable cities with shorter commutes, high-speed rail as an alternative to air travel, and will require more hybrid vehicles to move goods and people, following the implementation of the California Clean Car law (the Pavley standards).^[27]

California has also implemented climate-smart agriculture programs including the Healthy Soils Program, the Alternative Manure Management Program, the Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program, and the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program, which all aim to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions produced from agriculture, which include 8% of the states total greenhouse gas emissions and most of the nitrous oxide emissions as well.^[28] In addition, the California Green Building Standards Code was implemented in 2009 aiming to reduce the near 25% of the states greenhouse gas emissions from commercial and residential buildings.^[29] However, these efficiency standards only apply to new or renovated buildings, leaving existing buildings to fall short of the reduced emission goals of AB 32.^[30]

Several additional initiatives and measures factor into reaching the required reductions under AB 32. These include:

• full deployment of the Million Solar Roofs initiative.
• a fuel efficiency tire program which sets standards for tire pressure and purchasing replacement tires
• water-related energy efficiency measures; and
• a range of regulations to reduce emissions from trucks and from ships docked in California ports.^[31]

A key feature of the scoping olan is that it must be updated by the California Air Resources Board every five years. This is so California can continue reducing greenhouse gas emissions as the government sets stricter standards in recent years (as seen by Executive Order B-16-12 which was issued in 2012 and aims to reduce emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050).^[32] Multiple public workshops are held every time a new scoping plan is proposed, so that the Board can receive feedback from the public before approving the updated plan.^[33] The first update to the scoping plan was approved by the board on May 22, 2014, and builds upon the original scoping plan by outlining new initiatives and recommendations.^[33] The update identifies possibilities to invest new and existing funds in low carbon technologies and other opportunities to continue reducing greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels in the next five years. These proposed measures focus on nine main sectors including transportation, water, energy, waste management, the cap-and-trade program, the energy efficiency of residential and non-residential buildings, and natural and agricultural lands.^[31]

Transportation

According to the EPA, transportation is the sector with the largest contribution to US greenhouse gas emissions, emitting 27% of the nation's total volume. Vehicles run on fossil fuel burning internal combustion engines, so California legislation is starting to incentivize consumers to invest in cleaner transportation powered by renewables.^[34]

AB 1493 (2002)

It is the successor bill to AB 1058, was enacted on July 22, 2002, by Governor Gray Davis and mandates that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) develop and implement greenhouse gas limits for vehicles beginning in model year 2009. Subsequently, as directed by AB 1493, the CARB on September 24, 2004, approved regulations limiting the amount of greenhouse gas that may be released from new passenger cars, SUVs and pickup trucks sold in California in model year 2009. The automotive industry has sued, claiming this is simply a way to impose gas mileage standards on automobiles—a field already preempted by federal rules. The CARB staff's analysis has concluded that the new rules will result in savings for vehicle buyers through lower fuel expenses that will more than offset the increased initial costs of new vehicles. Critics claim that these will only work if serious reductions are made in automobile and truck sizes.

California standard uses grams per mile average CO~2~-equivalent value, which means that emissions of the various greenhouse gases are weighted to take into account their differing impact on climate change (i.e. maximum 323 g/mi (200 g/km) in 2009 and 205 g/mi (127 g/km) in 2016 for passenger cars).^[35]

A federal district court ruled on December 12, 2007, that the state and federal laws could co-exist,^[36] but on December 19, the EPA denied California's request for the necessary waiver to implement its law, saying the local emissions had little effect on global warming, and that the conditions in California were not "compelling and extraordinary" as required by law.^[37] California intends to sue the EPA to force reconsideration, given the precedent of Massachusetts v. EPA, which ruled that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant which EPA had authority to regulate.^[38][39] Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington are also interested in adopting California's automobile emissions standards.

SB 375 (2008)

Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, also known as SB 375, which required urban planners to limit urban sprawl

SB 1204 (2014)

This bill created the California Clean Truck, Bus and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology program to fund zero and near-zero emission technologies using some of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.^[40]

SB 1275 (2014)

This bill created the Charge Ahead California Initiative program with the goals of; placing at least 1 million zero-emission and near-zero-emission vehicles into service by January 1, 2023, especially in low-income communities to ensure that these vehicles are a "viable mainstream option".^[41]

Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentive Program

The Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentive Program^[42] (abbreviated as AFVIP,^[43] also known as Fueling Alternatives) is funded by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), offered throughout the state of California and administered by the California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE), established with AB 118.^[44] A total of $25 million ^[45] was appropriated to promote the use and production of vehicles capable of running on alternative fuels. Such alternative energy sources include compressed natural gas and electricity via all-electric vehicles and Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV).^[46][47]

Vehicles using alternative fuels include Global Electric Motorcars, Vectrix, and ZAP vehicles. The 2008 Tesla Roadster and 2008 ZENN neighborhood electric vehicle are also on the list of vehicles eligible for rebates under the Fueling Alternatives.

PHEV Research Center

Main article: PHEV Research Center

The PHEV Research Center was launched with fundings from the California Air Resources Board. Fueling Alternatives includes, among others, Global Electric Motorcars, Vectrix and ZAP vehicles. The 2008 Tesla Roadster and 2008 ZENN neighborhood electric vehicle have been added to the list of vehicles eligible for rebates under the Fueling Alternatives [13] .

Labeling of new vehicles for sale

Since January 2009, all new vehicles sold in California have been required to be labeled with a California Air Resources Board window sticker showing both a Smog Score and a Global Warming Score. The scores are on a 1–10 scale, with 5 being average and with 10 being the best (i.e., emitting the least carbon dioxide). Data comes from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.^[48]

Waste

SB 812 (2002)

SB 812 was passed in 2014 requiring changes to the Department of Toxic Substance Controls permit approval for hazardous waste facilities including; requiring owners of a hazardous waste facility to submit both a Part A and Part B application for permit renewal at least 2 years before the expiration date of their current permit instead of only 6 months, and requires that the owner of a hazardous waste facility submit a written cost estimate associated with corrective action for hazardous waste under specified circumstances.^[49]

SB 1383 (2016)

SB 1383, officially named California's Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Law, was passed in 2016 by Governor Brown as an effort to reduce methane emissions released from decomposing organic waste.^[50] Methane is one of four well-known short-lived climate pollutants. These are greenhouse gasses that have a shorter lifetime than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but have a substantially higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide.^[51] Specifically, methane is 28-34 times more potent than carbon dioxide.^[52]

The new law regulates rates of organic waste disposal and food rescue.

• Compared to 2014 levels, the law mandates that organic waste disposal in landfills must be cut in half by 2020, and 75% by 2025.^[53] Instead of ending up at the landfill, organic waste would be diverted to commercial composting or anaerobic digestion facilities that would capture the methane released.^[50]
• To combat the immense amount of edible food that is wasted at grocery stores and food service establishments, the new law is mandating that at least 20% of edible food gets rescued and redistributed by 2025.^[53]
• Starting in 2022, all counties are expected to provide organic waste collection services to homes and businesses and transport the waste collected to organic waste facilities.^[50]

Renewable energy

AB 1007 (2005)

Assembly bill (AB) 1007, (Pavley, Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) requires the California Energy Commission to prepare a state plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California (Alternative Fuels Plan).

SB 535 was passed in 2012. The bill required that 25% of funding sourced from the GGRF would be allocated to GHG reducing investments that benefitted disadvantaged communities.^[54] Another important stipulation was that at least ten percent of the funds had to be invested directly into disadvantaged communities.^[54] The responsibility of identifying and locating disadvantaged communities was placed on CalEPA.^[55] CalEPA created a tool called CalEnviroScreen in order to map these communities and determine who was most disadvantaged and where funding should be directed.^[55] In 2016 AB 1550 was passed in order to expand upon SB 535 and increase the initial 25% investment requirement to 35 percent.^[56]

SB 100 (2018)

SB 100, also known as the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018,^[57] marks California's firm commitment to developing renewable energy infrastructures to replace fossil fuel-powered energy. Its two main goals are:

• by 2030, 60% of all energy generated from will be from renewable sources
• by 2045,100% renewable energy for the whole state^[57]

The increasingly affordable costs of wind and solar technologies make these two sources the main focus of renewable energy infrastructure across California.^[58]

Cap and trade

In 2018, California spent $1.4 billion raised from its cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, out of $3.4 billion spent cumulatively since 2012; notable projects include California High-Speed Rail and the Clean Vehicle Rebate for low-emission vehicles.^[59] Until 2021, the funds are supposed to be used to reduce emissions; however, as of part of the 2019-2020 budget, lawmakers approved a plan to use cap and trade programs for water quality, which raised questions about the connection to global warming.^[60]

California climate investments

California climate investments puts resources of cap and trade auction proceeds to work reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening the economy, improving public health and the environment, and providing meaningful benefits to the most disadvantaged communities, low-income communities, and low-income households.^[61]

Resilience and adaptation

In 2020, the Ocean Protection Council released the Strategic Plan to Protect California's Oceans. This agreement sets a five-year action plan with four main goals and with many subtargets: climate change resilience, ocean access and equity, biodiversity, and the blue economy. Targets include adaption to support 3.5 feet of sea level rise by 2050, the restoration of 10000 acres of wetlands by 2025, and managed retreat for public buildings and infrastructure. The plan relies on existing funding sources for its first two years, and a possible half billion out of the $4.75 billion bond led by Governor Gavin Newsom for the rest.^[62]

Even as California implements many mitigation policies in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the pre-existing effects of climate change continues to impact the region. This can be seen from frequent wildfires, drought and floods.^[63] Therefore, the state issued the 2018 update of the Safeguarding California Plan which outlines over 300 ongoing actions by state agencies to reduce the effects of climate change on infrastructure, public safety and the economy.

A few examples of the hundreds of adaptation projects enacted by the state include:

• enhancing the energy efficiency of public school districts
• replacing roofs to prevent damage caused by wildfires
• investing in research on climate change impact models
• reducing the vulnerability of cities' electrical grids to heat waves
• reforestation initiatives
• realigning highways which have been affected by severe coastal erosion; and
• updating irrigation systems ^[64]

Timeline

This is a timeline that encompasses the recent greenhouse gas emissions reduction bills currently into law in California:^[65][66][67]

See also

• Climate change policy of the United States
• California Environmental Protection Agency
• CoolCalifornia.org
• Pollution in California
• Effects of global warming
• Plug-in electric vehicles in California

[### California Climate Bills to Boost Efforts in NY, Other States Bloomberg Law News

https://news.bloomberglaw.com › in-house-counsel](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/in-house-counsel/california-climate-bills-to-boost-efforts-in-n-y-other-states)

7 days ago — California's first-in-the-nation measures requiring companies to disclose financial risks related to climate and report greenhouse gas ...

California Climate Policy Dashboard - Berkeley Law