Skip to content

Posts from the "cap and trade" Category

7 Comments

Bill Aims to Delay Bringing Fuels Under CA Cap-and-Trade System

Drivers who make long commutes in old gas guzzlers might benefit from A.B. 69–but not much. Photo: Moira Curry

In a last-minute maneuver before the California Legislature’s summer recess, Assemblymember Henry Perea (D-Fresno) amended a bill to delay the application of California’s cap-and-trade system to fuels until 2018.

Co-authors of the bill, A.B. 69, include Assemblymembers Cheryl Brown (D-Fontana), Tom Daly (D-Anaheim), Isadore Hall (D-Rancho Dominguez), Roger Hernandez (D-West Covina), Freddie Rodriguez (D-Chino), and Rudy Salas (D-Bakersfield), as well as Senators Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) and Norma Torres (D-Chino).

California’s cap-and-trade system is intended to encourage businesses to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) by placing a cap on the total GHG they may produce, and then allowing them to buy or sell emission credits, depending on their ability to meet the cap. It is being phased in over time, and until now has only been applied to manufacturing enterprises. The cap is scheduled to apply to the production and transport of transportation fuels starting in January 2015. Perea’s bill would delay that for three years.

Read more…

5 Comments

CA Asm. Richard Bloom Talks Budgets, Cap-and-Trade, Streetcars, and More

10_21_2013_Tongva_park_mayor

Asm. Richard Bloom poses with members of the Tongva Tribe and Santa Monica Mayor Pam O’Connor at the opening of Tongva Park in Downtown Santa Monica last year. Photo: Jason Islas

Last week, Streetsblog sat down with California Assemblymember Richard Bloom, who represents Santa Monica and other West Los Angeles communities. We asked him to talk about the state budget, the cap-and-trade expenditure plan, and funding for transit and housing. Bloom chairs the Subcommittee for Transportation for the California Assembly Budget Committee.

Bloom talked about the process for crafting the cap-and-trade compromise, the impacts the new money will have on transportation, the need for more transportation funding, and some local transportation and development issues in his district.

The California state budget was passed by both legislative houses just before its June 15 deadline, and the governor signed it at the end of that week.

Streetsblog: Are you more or less pleased with the final budget and the cap-and-trade expenditure plan?

Bloom: I’m very pleased.

California is still in recovery mode. The most notable thing about the budget is that we’re beginning to provide funds for many of the programs that have been cut over the past years, since 2006 or so, and we’re also beginning to fund new programs.

The most exciting of these, I think, is early childhood education. We’re only chipping off a bit of that, but it’s a beginning, and it shows a way into the future.

Streetsblog: What about the cap-and-trade expenditure plan? Read more…

6 Comments

Breaking News: Deal Reached on CA’s Cap-and-Trade Spending Plan

Earlier this evening, the bicameral Budget Conference Committee  approved a compromise between state legislators and Governor Brown on how to spend $850 million in revenues from the state’s cap-and-trade system for the next fiscal year.

The new plan largely stuck to the Governor’s original proposal for the first year of the expenditure plan, but it adds set-asides for transit and affordable housing, two important parts of the Senate’s proposal. The compromise also incorporates an allocation method for funding in future years.

Despite Republican opposition, California High Speed Rail will still receive one-quarter of the funds generated by the state’s Cap and Trade Program.

The compromise proposal sets aside $250 million for high-speed rail, which is what the Governor proposed, but future year allocations for the bullet train would be 25 percent rather than the 33 percent he requested. The Senate’s proposal called for 15 percent allocated to high speed rail.

The agreement would split the $50 million Brown proposed for intercity rail, giving half to transit capital and construction costs and dividing the other half between transit operations and intercity rail. Future revenue streams would give 5 percent to each of the three categories, giving transit a solid, predictable source of funding for at least the next five years.

Brown’s original proposal had no set aside for local transit, but the Senate, under the leadership of Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), had countered the governor’s plan by calling for $200 million for transit operating and capital expenses.

Steinberg’s plan called for 20 percent of cap-and-trade funds to be spent on affordable housing near transit and sustainable communities planning. This would have amounted to about $170 million the first year. The current agreement would give this category of projects — which could include bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and planning — about $130 million in the first year, with future allocations at 20 percent.

“This plan is good for California,” said committee co-chair Mark Leno (D- San Francisco). “With this proposal we will continue to not only lead the state but also the nation on this important issue of greenhouse gas emission reduction, when time is running out.” Read more…

2 Comments

Steinberg’s Cap-and-Trade Spending Plan Gains Momentum, No News on Deal

Senate President Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) espouses the benefits of CA’s cap-and-trade program, with Senator Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) and L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti behind. Photo: Eric Garcetti/Facebook

Despite being only 0.5 percent of the California budget, cap-and-trade revenue spending is emerging as a sticking point in Sacramento as Democrats in the Assembly, Senate, and Governor’s Office push three different spending plans. The legislature must approve a state budget by June 15.

Check out our graphic explaining the three cap-and-trade spending proposals on Friday: Click on the image to see the entire graphic or read the story here.

Each of the three proposed plans for spending cap-and-trade revenue to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as we explained on Friday, generally fund the same programs, but differ significantly only in how they slice the pie. Each proposal takes a different approach on how the state should invest in sustainable transportation and smarter urban planning to improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions.

While Governor Jerrry Brown’s office was the first to propose a cap-and-trade spending plan, there seems to be momentum with the Senate plan put forward by Senate President Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento.) Last week, Steinberg, whose plan sets aside the most for active transportation, local transit, and affordable housing, held a rally with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and earned the endorsement of the mayor of California’s largest city.

“This is smart legislation that would spend cap-and-trade funding where it naturally should be spent – on reducing pollution and improving the health of our neighborhoods and our city,” said Garcetti. “Cities are where we work, where we live, but they’re also where we pollute, so addressing the needs of cities like Los Angeles is critical in tackling climate change.”

The rally with Steinberg came one day after the mayor had a meeting with Governor Brown on other topics including the status of the state’s plans to retain film industry jobs and preserve the state’s dwindling water supply.

Read more…

2 Comments

Infographic: Comparing California’s Three Cap-and-Trade Spending Proposals

SBLA_CaptradeComparisons_infographic_large3

In the midst of California’s state budget negotiations, the legislature must separately decide how to spend the state’s cap-and-trade revenue, be it on public transit, high-speed rail, affordable housing near transit, or other emissions-reducing programs.

Three different proposals for slicing this new pie come from Governor Jerry Brown, the Senate, and the Assembly. In the next week, legislators must find a way to meld these three plans, or just choose one. To help explain the differences between the three approaches, we created the above chart, with more explanation below.

This relatively new pot of money, collected under the authority of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or A.B. 32, by law must be spent on programs and projects that help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions throughout the state by 2020. The administration estimates that the cap-and-trade system will raise about $870 million in 2015, and various estimates assume it could grow to several billion dollars each year between 2015 and 2020.

In all three of the plans, there is no set-aside for active transportation. Bicycle and pedestrian planning would be included within a larger group of as-yet-undefined projects and programs, called a “Sustainable Communities” program. Programs in this group would compete for funds based on how well they achieve GHG emission reductions. In each plan, what is included under Sustainable Communities and how much money is allocated to that pot of funds differs.

Read more…

1 Comment

CalBike Pushes for Protected Bike Lanes, Vulnerable User Laws in Sac

The California Bicycle Coalition held its Advocacy Day this week in the state capitol to lobby legislators on several key policy reforms to promote bicycling.

Joined by local bicycle groups from around the state and participants who finished the California Climate Ride in Sacramento, CalBike met with state legislators and staffers and urged them to support two bills currently in play: one that would codify “separated bikeways,” or protected bike lanes, into state law and another that would increase penalties for drivers who injure vulnerable road users, primarily bicyclists and pedestrians. Advocates also urged lawmakers to support increased funding for projects that promote “active transportation,” a.k.a. walking and bicycling.

At CalBike’s Advocacy Day, Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) promotes his bill, A.B. 1193, which would institutionalize protected bike lanes in California. Photos: Melanie Curry

Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) showed up to stump for his bill, A.B. 1193, which would require Caltrans to develop standards for protected bike lanes, also known as “cycle tracks” or “separated bikeways,” which are not currently defined by statute in California. The state’s Streets and Highways Code defines three types of bike facilities: “paths,” “lanes,” and “routes,” each of which provide bicyclists with a different level of physical separation from motor traffic, and thus a different level of comfort and safety. “Cycle tracks,” which are on-street bike lanes separated from traffic by landscaping, parking, or a wide painted divider, don’t fit easily into any of the existing categories.

Although Caltrans recently endorsed the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide, which does include guidelines for creating cycle tracks, no standard for them currently exists in California law.

Protected bike lanes, common in many civilized nations, are already being built here and there in California. Long Beach and San Francisco have had them for several years, and new ones were recently opened in SF and Temple City. But these have been the result of long and arduous planning processes, and advocates hope that changing the statute will allow Caltrans and local agencies to implement them more easily.

The bill would also remove the requirement that local agencies apply the Caltrans Highway Design Manual’s design criteria to all bike facilities, even ones located on city streets and not state highways. Removing this requirement would allow city planners to rely on other criteria like the NACTO Street Design Guide.

Streetsblog will continue to cover A.B. 1193 as it moves through the legislature. The bill has already passed the State Assembly, and is currently scheduled for a hearing in the Senate next week.

Read more…

54 Comments

Steinberg: CA Cap-and-Trade Must Fund Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing

Negotiations over the California state budget are producing dueling proposals on how best to spend revenue from the state’s cap-and-trade program.

steinbergatMacarthur

Senator Steinberg proposes affordable housing as a greenhouse gas reduction strategy. Photo courtesy TransForm.

While Governor Jerry Brown continues to call for a third of the cap-and-trade funds to go to CA high-speed rail, Senate President ProTem Darrell Steinberg last week expanded upon his alternative proposal to spend a larger share of the revenue on affordable housing and transit at the local and regional level.

State cap-and-trade funds are collected under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, A.B. 32. The law provides a way for companies to meet a state-mandated cap on greenhouse gas emissions by buying “pollution credits” produced when others exceed emissions reductions. Estimates vary on how much revenue the program will generate, but it could produce billions each year between now and 2020.

Standing in front of an active construction site for new housing units near Oakland’s MacArthur BART station last Thursday, Steinberg called for permanent sources of funding for affordable housing, mass transit, and sustainable communities development. The Senator argued that  California is facing a “catastrophic funding crisis” as affordable housing bonds run out, and noted that the transportation sector is the state’s biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

“Californians are logging more vehicle miles annually than ever before,” Steinberg said.

Behind him, a forklift raised a load of lumber high up in the air, with an attached sign reading, “At least 972 lbs of CO2 emissions reduced every day.” That’s the amount by which  the housing project, which will provide 624 housing units next to the BART station, is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to other housing developments. Of those apartments, 108 will be leased at below-market rates. Read more…

No Comments

California Legislation Watch: Weekly Update

Screen Shot 2014-05-02 at 4.34.24 PMHere is Streetsblog’s weekly highlight of California legislation  related to sustainable transportation.

Clean vehicles: S.B. 1204, Ricardo Lara (D-Huntington Park/Long Beach) and Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), which passed the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality on a 6-1 vote, was read for the first time in the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill creates the California Clean Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment Program to fund development, demonstration, and deployment of zero- and near-zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. Funding for the program, which would be run by the California Air Resourced Board (CARB), would come from the cap-and-trade system set up under the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, A.B. 32.

Greenhouse gas emissions into the future: S.B. 1125, also from Fran Pavley, was amended slightly and passed by the Committee on Environmental Quality, and now goes to Appropriations. The bill amends Pavley’s A.B. 32 by requiring CARB to develop overall targets for 2030 emissions reductions, beyond the 2020 reductions targets currently required by the law.

Texting while driving: A.B. 1646, from Jim Frazier (D-Oakley) and Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles), passed the Appropriations Committee on a 16-1 vote. It was read on the Assembly floor once and ordered to a second reading at some point in the next few weeks. This bill increases the penalties for using a phone or texting while driving, increasing fines and assessing a point against a driver’s record for a 2nd or subsequent violation. It also requires the DMV to include questions about the distractions and dangers of cell phone use and texting while driving in the exam for a driver’s license. With cell phone use now the leading cause of “driver distraction” crashes in California according to the Office of Traffic Safety, this bill is a start in the right direction, despite those who wrongheadedly assert that if “everybody does it” it must not be so bad.

For social media coverage focused on state-wide issues, follow Melanie @currymel on Twitter or like our Facebook page.

14 Comments

CA Transportation Choices Summit Tackles Policy Issues

The California Transportation Choices Summit, held in Sacramento this week, was an opportunity for sustainable transportation and public health advocates to spend the day learning about current state policies and legislation in the works to change them.

Christopher Cabaldon, Mayor of West Sacramento, discusses bike infrastructure on a pre-summit bike tour along the Sacramento River. Photos: Melanie Curry

This year’s summit was titled “2014: A Year of Opportunity.” The “opportunity” comes in the form of new funds from cap-and-trade and current discussions in the legislature about how to spend that money. As Streetsblog has reported, these funds are required to be spent on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which could include projects that encourage walking, bicycling, and transit.

The annual summit is hosted by TransForm and a long list of partners across the state including ClimatePlan, MoveLA, Circulate San Diego, the Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership, National Resources Defense Council, and the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network. In addition to discussing current policies, the learning day prepared attendees for TransForm’s “Advocacy Day,” in which participants meet with State Assembly members and their staff to talk about the issues that matter most to them and push for legislation.

Summit speakers laid out facts about funding, discussed trade-offs between spending on different programs, and urged everyone to share their personal stories about why their issue is important. “Let’s pull those heart strings,” said Elyse Lowe of Circulate San Diego, “so we can do a better job advocating for good transportation policies.”

Stuart Cohen, executive director of TransForm, created an “applause-o-meter” to gauge summit attendees’ views on trade-offs between funding categories. He asked participants to applaud for the categories of activities they thought were most important: planning; bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure; transportation demand management programs like shuttles, carpool programs, and guaranteed ride home programs; affordable homes near transit; and transit capital and operating costs.

The audience, mostly comprised of savvy transportation advocates, applauded for all of these categories, although there two clear “winners”: affordable homes near transit and transit capital and operating costs. These also were the most expensive categories, according to Cohen’s estimate of how much it would cost to fully fund needs in these areas: $6 billion for transit and $1 to $1.5 billion for housing. Read more…

1 Comment

California Legislation Watch: Weekly Update

Screen Shot 2014-03-28 at 2.09.21 PM

For social media coverage focused on statewide issues, follow Melanie Curry @currymel on Twitter or like our Facebook page

Here is Streetsblog’s weekly highlight of legislation and events related to sustainable transportation at the California capitol.

  • This week, the legislature was out for Spring Recess, giving legislative staff time to prepare for the onslaught of bill hearings coming up in the next few weeks.
  • On Monday, Senate President Darrell Steinberg changed his mind about a carbon tax and instead proposed a new plan for spending revenue from the state’s cap-and-trade system.
  • California Senate Transportation and Housing Committee staff published its summary of the committee’s March hearing on CA high-speed rail. Its main conclusion: while numerous legal and fiscal challenges for the project remain, the most pressing issue is the lack of a plan to fill the funding shortfall of $15 to $21 billion.
  • Next week, the State Senate has postponed all hearings that were scheduled for Wednesday, April 23, so that senators and staff can spend the day discussing ethics. This comes in the wake of the recent arrest of Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) on charges of gun trafficking, the arraignment of Senator Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) for bribery and corruption, and the suspension of Senator Rod Wright (D-Inglewood) for pretending to live in a house he didn’t live in.