More and more cities in California are developing Climate Action Plans (CAPs). During our climate action planning work with cities, we repeatedly hear questions from the public and city staff about costs. How much is this climate action plan going to cost the city, and by extension taxpayers? Which measures get us the biggest emissions bang for our buck? What’s the bottom line? What are the financial impacts to homeowners and businesses? These questions have merit—after all, it is important to understand who will be financially impacted by a city’s policies and actions. In response, the Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), in partnership with the San Diego Association of Government’s Energy Roadmap Program, has developed a method for evaluating the cost implications of CAPs. This post, the first in a series to describe these methods, summarizes the basics of CAP cost analyses and provides context for the material covered in future posts.
Litigation Update: Latest Round of Litigation Filed over County of San Diego CAP and General Plan Update Amendment
On March 16, 2018, the Sierra Club and several other environmental and climate oriented organizations (Petitioners) filed a Writ of Mandate in San Diego Superior Court against the County of San Diego. The Writ challenges the County of San Diego’s February 14, 2018 adoption of its:
- Revised Climate Action Plan (CAP);
- Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR);
- Guidelines and new Thresholds that determine whether a project’s Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) emission are significant or insignificant under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
- Under the Guidelines, an allowance for a project that requests a General Plan amendment (GPA project) to be found consistent with the Revised CAP if the project incorporates design features from the Guideline Checklist and uses post project approval GHG offsets from a geographic priority list—approved at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Development Services—for GHG emissions not prevented by the incorporated Checklist design features.
The following list and information is an update to the previously posted 10/4/17 and 10/10/17 Legislative Updates that includes actions by the Governor between 10/11/17 and 10/15/17. This concludes the 2017 legislative session with the passing of the October 15, 2017 deadline for the Governor to either veto, sign, or allow other bills to become law by not vetoing them before the deadline approaches.
The following list and information is an update to the previously posted 10/4/17 Legislative Update that includes actions by the Governor between 10/4/17 and 10/10/17. We will continue to provide updates as the October 15, 2017 deadline for the Governor to either veto, sign, or allow other bills to become law by not vetoing them before the deadline approaches.
Of note, the Governor signed eleven bills related zero and near-zero emission vehicle markets. These bills cover a range of categories and are interspersed between the Air Pollution, Alternative Fuels and Vehicles, and Electric Vehicles categories.
You can find a complete list of enrolled, chaptered, and vetoed bills on EPIC’s Legislative Center website.
The following list and information include actions by the Governor since the September 15, 2017 legislative deadline ending the 2017 legislative session. This list will change as we reach the October 15, 2017 deadline as the Governor either veto, signs, or allows other bills to become law by not vetoing them before the deadline. Continue reading
Bills introduced in the 2017 legislative session were required to be enrolled and sent to the Governor by September 15, 2017, concluding the last legislative deadline. Nearly forty bills were enrolled sometime before this deadline. Several bills dealing with renewable energy resource procurement, CAISO regionalization, and further decarbonization of the electric sector failed to reach the Governor’s desk. SB 100 (De León) dealing with a 60% RPS by 2030 and 100% renewable/ zero-carbon procurement by 2045 failed to pass in the Assembly. Additionally, AB 813 (Holden) and AB 726 (Holden) both sought to drive the CAISO board to create a regionalization framework under a sunset requirement and mandated that the Public Utilities Commission increase electric utility procurement above the RPS to take advantage of “tax-advantaged” renewable resources. AB 813 failed to pass out of it assigned Senate committee and AB 726 failed to pass the Senate floor. We expect all three of these bills to continue as priorities in the 2018 legislative cycle as two-year bills. Continue reading
(Jessica Kirshner, a 2L at the University of San Diego School of Law, wrote this post. It was minimally edited for publication.)
AB 398 and AB 617 are the latest push by the legislature to meet SB 32’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) reduction goals to reduce the statewide GHG emissions 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. AB 398 – passed Monday by the Senate (28 to 12) and Assembly (55 to 22) – extends the GHG Cap-and-Trade Program (“Program”), through 2030 and provides for cap-and-trade revenue appropriations to fund specified priorities. AB 617 – also passed Monday in the Senate (27 to 13) and Assembly (50 to 24) – imposes stricter emissions monitoring standards and increases air district penalty authority over emitters of toxic and criteria air-pollutants, particularly for stationary emissions sources near disadvantaged communities (“DAC’s”). These bills are enrolled and await the signature of Governor Brown to become law. If signed, AB 398 will take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Continue reading