As we reported last month, California’s environmental record last year was abysmal — just 74% on the “Environmental Scorecard” from the California League of Conservation Voters. And the Greater SoCal 350 Legislative Committee’s report card was equally bleak — all Ds and Fs across every subject area, from “oil and gas extraction and operations,” to “transportation” and “plastic pollution” to “Green New Deal and just transition.” Coalition for a Safe Environment founder Jesse Marquez and other activists weighed in.
“The last legislative session was a horrific disappointment,” said Sherry Lear, who heads the committee. The COVID-19 pandemic and oil company lobbying were two chief impediments cited in its report card. “Paid lobbyists were able to be present in Sacramento, while local folks were relegated to remote Zoom meetings,” it noted. “This meant more than ever that only those with ‘inside’ connections were able to be heard.”
Perhaps most bitterly, as Lear recalled, SoCal 350’s highest priority bill for environmental justice, Assembly Bill 345, “died a very ugly death” in a committee hearing when three Democrats voted against it, with personal attacks on the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, as well as activists. The bill would have required health protection zones between hazardous and polluting oil and gas production facilities and sensitive uses such as schools, homes and hospitals. California is the only oil-producing state without such health safety zones. After such a disappointment, this year could be quite different.
“We’ve been very pleasantly surprised at the sheer amount of environmental bills that have been introduced, and the quality and breadth of them,” Lear said. Some setbacks have already happened, but the sheer range of proposals is inspiring.
Dealing with both causes and consequences — as well as related issues of equity and justice — has produced scores of proposed laws across a multitude of inter-related public policy areas, as described by Dr. Daniel Kammen, a professor of energy at UC Berkeley. “The overarching view of where we’re going … is very much captured in Senate Bill 582 that says we need to become more aggressive than a 40% cut in emissions by 2030 — the science says we could probably double that or more,” Kammen told Random Lengths News. “So, 80% or more is a possibility based on the dramatic movement of solar, wind, energy storage.”
A paper he recently co-authored, “Accelerating the timeline for climate action in California,” argues that “California is falling behind in its climate leadership and would benefit economically and ecologically and in terms of social justice, by establishing more aggressive goals.”
Kammen went on to highlight several different bills — dealing with sea level rise, and environmental justice, as well as “Assembly Bill 1110, the Charge Ahead California Initiative, which will bring ZEV charging and ZEV ownership options and lease options to lower income people” which “dovetails beautifully with the Biden plan to build 500,000 EV charging stations.”
There are also “individual pieces that address the downside of our past, and that’s very much the bills that look in detail at fracking and our need to end natural gas, both for local health reasons, and for the more global climate story,” he said.
“This is a big and mixed package,” Kammen summarized, “But beginning really with the high-level mission in 582 and then even jumping down to Assembly Bill 1325 that will allow micro grids to be a critical part of the story, all of these put together as a resilient low-cost climate solution.”
Fruits of Their Labor
That’s the overall view from a scientist who’s spent decades working on climate change. But bringing it to fruition will take a lot of grassroots citizen activism pushing up from below, which is where groups like SoCal 350 become critical. Lear has been active with 350 for several years, stepping into leadership as others have moved on or away, having overseen the expansion from a single group to a regional coalition of 350 chapters, local Indivisible groups and others, such as the Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy, whose operations director, Dave Shukla, brings a wealth of expertise to the group.
“We’re early in the process, we’re just having committee hearings,” so the landscape of proposals, and the efforts to get them passed could change significantly. “Even the ones we really want to go somewhere may die in committee,” Lear said. Two such bills did as this story was being written. But, “There’s other bills we’re looking at, and kind of waiting to see what happens to them, and then we’ll jump on board, if they get out of committee and they’re going to the floor.” Because there is such urgent need and so much possibility, it’s helpful to understand a range of specific proposals being advanced — even the two bills that just died, because they’re bound to return in some form in the next two-year session.
A prime example is SB 467 — which died in committee on April 13, due to two crucial abstentions. It combined three distinct broadly-supported proposals:
First, to curtail fracking and related well stimulation treatments; second — like AB 345 last session — to create health protection zones to restrict oil and gas production from close contact with residences, schools, hospitals or long-term care facilities; and third, Lear explained, “It would also provide funding for retraining and a just transition for oil field workers. … Given bills like SB 47 and AB 896 [more on these below] which will address capping of orphan oil wells, there will be a definite need for skilled workers to do this.”
The bill was amended prior to the hearing in an effort to respond to objections.
“SB 467 will be amended and will become a bill focused on “managed decline” of well stimulation, fracking, etc. in California,” Lear explained. “The time frame for phasing out has been extended to reflect the type and amount of well stimulation actually happening in our state, which is far more than was anticipated.” But it wasn’t enough to persuade two neutral senators.
“While we saw this effort defeated today, this issue isn’t going away,” the bill’s authors, senators Scott Wiener and Monique Limon said in a joint statement. “We’ll continue to fight for aggressive climate action, against harmful drilling and for the health of our communities.”
As referenced above, AB 896 authorizes Cal GEM (The California Geologic Energy Management Division) to place liens on wells that are unsafe or operator delinquent, or to recover costs for plugging and abandonment. It also establishes a collection unit.
Starting in fiscal year 2022–23, SB 47 raises CalGEM’s spending cap to deal with hazardous wells, idle-deserted wells, hazardous facilities and deserted facilities from $1 million to $10 million. The Wilmington oil field has many such wells. “That’s definitely an environmental justice issue,” Lear said. “We make it a priority to make 50% of our work support environmental justice issues.”
Another priority is building decarbonization, where Michael Rochmas, with 350’s Westside LA Hub takes the lead.
“Natural gas in buildings is about 10% of our carbon emissions in California,” said Rochmas. “So, it’s really important to switch from gas to electricity and as the electric grid becomes renewable, then that will decarbonize buildings.” It’s not the largest factor, “But it is critical in order to hit our goals as a state.” It’s even more critical for green jobs. A UCLA study found it would create 100,000 new jobs.
“There’s going to be a lot of work in terms of retrofitting buildings. … A lot of jobs for electricians, for example, to make sure that buildings can work with electrified appliances.” While the easiest way to electrify is with new construction, “Buildings last 40 or more years, so if we really want to electrify everything we really have to eventually retrofit.”
A suite of three bills authored by Sen. Dave Cortese deal with decarbonization. “Each bill has a different target,” Rochmas explains.
“The first one, SB 30, is targeting the buildings the government runs itself and saying that any new buildings the government buys or pays our bills will be carbon neutral, or all electric and that there be a plan for retrofitting those buildings.” Its start date was set to be January 2022, but it’s now being held back as a two-year bill.
Next, “SB 31 is for building electrification projects eligible for funding that the state has for climate-related projects. … The goal is to spur innovation.” Its next hearing date is Monday, April 19. Finally, “SB 32 tells local governments that they should put a plan in place for building electrification” — both cities and counties. Many already have such plans, “but other cities and counties haven’t done any kind planning around it, and so SB 32 says that they have to.” It’s being heard on April 15.
Just Transition
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions — about 40% of California’s total. This means reducing transportation needs as well as emissions. The former is epitomized by the concept of a “15-minute city,” Lear explained, “which is that you live, work and play within 15 minutes of your home,” an idea promoted by Assembly Transportation Chair Laura Friedman. The latter is best captured in a pair of bills supported by Coalition For a Safe Environment.
“We’re supporting two key legislative bills that support California achieving one million zero-emission fossil-free fuel vehicles in public service in California by Jan. 1, 2023,” said CFSE founder Jesse Marquez.
“AB 1110 and SB 551 mandate that the governor’s office take the leadership role, provide for long term funding support includes the building of statewide charging infrastructure, supports all public governmental entities such as small cities, local public transportation authorities and public school districts to purchase non-polluting fossil-free public buses, transportation vehicles, and maintenance utility vehicles and offers special incentives to low-income residents and disadvantaged communities.”
Another major transportation need is clear, says Dave Shukla, of the Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy: “Our transportation corridors statewide need a fundamental overhaul of policy and incentives to decarbonize along science-based climate goals, like 80% from 1990 levels by 2030.”
That need could soon be answered. Sen. Lena Gonzalez — the daughter of a port trucker — is the new chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, and has introduced a set of three significant bills — SB 671, SB 726, and SB 338.
“Taken together, these bills revamp existing Clean Trucks and Clean Freight programs to take more urgent action along scaled-up climate, environmental health, labor, and infrastructure goals,” Shukla said. “SB 671 updates the target dates and incentive programs for zero-emissions heavy and medium-duty trucks in line with Gov. [Gavin] Newsom’s recent executive order.” It would establish an assessment to identify freight corridors (or segments) to prioritize for the deployment of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and describe the necessary infrastructure, projects and operations.
“SB 726 updates the goals for rapid deployment of zero-emissions vehicles and infrastructure in line with Gov. Newsom’s executive order,” Shukla noted. “It also proposes significant changes to how clean energy infrastructure and technologies — such as battery storage requirements and charging stations sitting in the Freight corridors — are planned, developed, and deployed over the next decade.”
Finally, “SB 338 takes steps to address a fundamental inequity in port trucking misclassification. In addition to creating health and safety standards for port drayage truck drivers, it would create a “bad actor” list for companies who commit violations of these standards, and make companies that continue to do business with these bad actors jointly liable for future violations, with more stringent requirements, including an audit, to get off the list.”
Summing up, he said, “California needs a comprehensive strategy for rapid development and deployment of zero emission vehicles and infrastructure. Each of these bills is a good start, and we are looking forward to how they evolve over the course of the legislative process.”
More broadly, “What the situation with the port trucking sector highlights is the importance of Just Transition policies in regional industry,” Shukla said. AB 1453, authored by Muratsuchi, would create a “Just Transition Plan” with recommendations to transition California to a climate-resilient and low-carbon economy that maximizes the benefits of climate actions while minimizing burdens to workers, especially workers in the fossil fuel industry, and their communities — especially those, such as Wilmington, facing disproportionate burdens from pollution.
“What we don’t want is workers and communities who were already struggling with redlining, poor labor standards and conditions, pollution, cumulative health burdens, etc. before the pandemic to bear the brunt of the economic or social costs of transition,” Shukla summed up.
Corporate Accountability
This leads to the issue of corporate accountability. “We need more sunlight, more reliable and independently verifiable information, on what highly polluting companies are actually doing,” Shukla said. Two bills in particular stand out. “SB 260 is noteworthy, because it requires large corporations [more than $1 billion in annual revenues] to publicly provide greenhouse gas inventories, and, crucially, set science-based emissions reduction targets.” Another bill, SB 449, requires banks and other financial entities to create annual climate-related financial risk reports.”
Another bill from Gonzalez, SB 342, addresses another aspect of accountability: providing a voice on the AQMD board for communities that are disproportionately burdened by high levels of pollution and issues of environmental justice. It would require the appointment of two members from such communities — one by the Speaker of the Assembly, the other by the Senate Committee on Rules.
“Giving these communities (including my own) a direct say in air quality issues is the right thing to do,” said Chris Chavez, Deputy Policy Director at the Coalition for Clean Air. “Currently, the forums available to these communities are, at best, advisory. SCAQMD will be considering rules on warehouses and refineries that can improve air quality for these communities. Yet, these rules, which have faced years-long delays, have faced stiff opposition from industry and hesitant board members,” he said. SB 342 would change that significantly — a crucial part of changing the overall constellation of California policy-making.
Like the League of Conservation Voters, Coalition for Clean Air is a well-established organization accustomed to decades-long struggles, which inclines them towards caution. When asked about SB 582, and its accelerated target of 80% reductions by 2030, they both offered similar responses.
“From a policy perspective it may make more sense at this point to put in place feasible measures to actually reach the targets already in law rather than put our energies into establishing new goals,” cautioned Bill Magavern, Policy Director at CCA. “We are only setting ourselves up for failure if we focus too much on targets and not enough on concrete action,” warned Mike Young, Political and Organizing Director at League of Conservation Voters.
But it’s an open question whether we have to choose, or whether, as Kammen argues, advances on each front can reinforce one another. The more voices are raised drawing the connections these bills and others make, the more likely it is we can advance on all fronts, which is why groups like SoCal 350 and its coalition partners have such a significant role to play. Time is growing short — for the planet and for California, as last year’s record forest fires remind us.
“20-plus years ago the environmental justice movement began its advocacy in California of supporting our statewide dream for clean air, clean environment and healthy communities by advocating for new stricter environmental laws,” Marquez said. “Today, our new generation of environmental and equitable justice legislators are pioneering new laws, policies and programs and endorsing new alternative technologies that will achieve those dreams and create tens of thousands of new California jobs.”