For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.
IN THIS ISSUE – “How did the budget come together? Behind closed doors. … I submit that that’s not a good process, mostly because it doesn’t include the citizens that we represent.”
State Sen. Jim Nielsen, a Republican and the Legislature’s senior member, on the FY22-23 State Budget
- State Budget Deal “Will Take Weeks to Figure Out”
- “Newsom is on the Mountaintop” – Biden & Harris Are Noticing
- California’s Controversial Planet-Leading Climate Change Blueprint Begins Review
Capital News & Notes (CN&N) harvests California policy, legislative and regulatory insights from dozens of media and official sources for the past week. Please feel free to forward this unique client service.
FOR THE WEEK ENDING JULY 1, 2022
CalMatters
California lawmakers adopted a $300 billion budget Wednesday night that will provide refunds to most taxpayers in the state, pour resources into expanding abortion access and extend health care to more undocumented immigrants.
With the start of the fiscal year looming on Friday, Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders announced a deal on Sunday night for the state spending plan, which has grown to a record size as the economy recovered faster than anticipated from the coronavirus pandemic.
Negotiations dragged on for several weeks as Newsom bargained with the Democratic leaders of the state Senate and Assembly over whether to tie the tax relief to car ownership; funding increases for universities, housing and social safety net programs; the details of a major climate package; and a plan that would give state regulators more control in approving clean energy projects.
The final agreement — which includes $234.4 billion in general fund spending and currently awaits the governor’s signature — is similar in many ways to a placeholder budget that the Legislature passed earlier this month to meet a constitutional deadline.
But at Newsom’s insistence, new spending commitments were slashed by several billion dollars and some appropriations will only be triggered in future years if revenue estimates hold up. As the state eyes another potential economic downturn, reserves will grow to nearly $38 billion, including more than $23 billion in the general rainy-day fund.
With tax revenues surging, driven by massive income gains among the wealthiest Californians, state leaders maneuvered to avoid the Gann Limit, an obscure provision that prohibits spending above a certain level per capita. Increased infrastructure and emergency expenditures, which are exempt in certain circumstances, as well as the tax refunds, will keep the state below the limit for the next few years. The Legislature is now considering placing a measure before voters on the 2024 ballot that would loosen the Gann Limit restrictions.
The tax rebate program, which has been publicly debated for months, is the centerpiece of the budget deal. Under the $9.5 billion plan, more than 95% of taxpayers — those making as much as $250,000 a year, or $500,000 if they file jointly — will receive a payment this fall. The amounts vary based on income and whether the recipients have dependents, so a low-income family with children will receive $1,050, while a single taxpayer with a higher income will receive just $200.
The Legislature overwhelmingly approved the budget on Wednesday night — by party-line votes of 28-6 in the Senate and 59-7 in the Assembly — and sent it to the governor’s desk.
Though heated and hours-long, the sessions were in many ways perfunctory. The supermajority-Democratic Legislature was all but guaranteed to sign off on the budget deal Gov. Gavin Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins and Speaker Anthony Rendon announced Sunday night.
Legislators from both parties reprised complaints, voiced in hasty Monday hearings, about an opaque budget process and controversial policies buried within lengthy “trailer bills” drafted in private, but their remarks largely went unheeded: Democrats control enough seats in the Legislature to approve budgets without a single GOP vote.
State Sen. Jim Nielsen, a Roseville Republican whose term ends this year: after serving in the Legislature on and off since the 1980s: “I’m glad that this will be my last budget. … How did the budget come together? Behind closed doors. … I submit that that’s not a good process, mostly because it doesn’t include the citizens that we represent. … We’re letting them down when we don’t pay attention to them, and we largely don’t. We ignore them.”
State Sen. Henry Stern, a Calabasas Democrat, “72 hours is not a lot of time to read a piece of legislation, and sometimes when bills come this quickly we have to play catch-up.”
Just as unsurprisingly, Senate Democrats rejected for the umpteenth time a Republican proposal to amend the budget to suspend California’s gas excise tax, which is scheduled to increase Friday by nearly 3 cents per gallon.
Republicans are expected to introduce the same amendment today in the Assembly — and will likely get support from Assemblymember Adam Gray, a Merced Democrat who said Wednesday “the budget simply should have suspended the gas tax.”
One of the most controversial measures was a sweeping energy trailer bill that — as part of a contingency plan to avoid power shortages and rolling blackouts as California transitions to clean energy — could give PG&E millions of dollars to extend the life of the controversial Diablo Canyon nuclear power plantwhile also significantly expanding the authority of the state Department of Water Resources and prolonging the use of gas-powered plants.
Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat: “This is a crappy trailer bill that was dumped on us on late Sunday night and we have to vote on this three days later. This trailer is a rushed, unvetted and fossil-fuel-heavy response.” Nevertheless, Muratsuchi voted to support the bill.
State Sen. Shannon Grove, a Bakersfield Republican: “Even the governor and the individuals voting on this bill to pass it know … if we don’t have these gas-powered power plants to fire up when we need them, you will not be able to flip the switch and get electricity. So I was actually excited … that a vote on this bill realizes that you need fossil fuels. You do. You need ’em! … But I am opposed to it because I think it completely usurps local authority.”
State Sen. Bob Wieckowski, a Fremont Democrat: “There’s a lot of details here that have not been worked out. … But we have to be adults. We’re the adults in the room. If this is what we need to do to keep the energy sources and California’s lights on, then that’s what we need to do. Wish it would have been different, but those are the facts we’re faced with.”
Here are other significant aspects of the budget deal:
When signed by the Governor today, the complete document will be posted here, click on the pale green “Enacted Budget” tab on the right:
State Budget Deal “Will Take Weeks to Figure Out”
CalMatters commentary by Dan Walters
When Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his proposed 2022-23 budget in January, he spent hours explaining its details to reporters and anyone else who wanted to watch his webcast.
Four months later, Newsom did it again when he proposed revisions to the budget.
And then the curtain fell.
The Legislature passed a placeholder budget bill to meet a June 15 constitutional deadline but everyone knew that it wasn’t the real budget, which was being negotiated behind closed doors. Everyone also knew that Newsom and legislative leaders disagreed on how a multi-billion-dollar package of rebates, tax breaks and other payments should be framed.
Finally, on Sunday night, they emerged with a deal on that and other budget issues that included two “budget bill juniors” to modify the placeholder version and more than two dozen “trailer bills” to implement the budget’s provisions but also containing an unknown number of policy decrees, some of which had little or nothing to do with the budget.
On Monday, just hours after the agreement was announced, legislative committees staged pro forma hearings on the budget deal — after giving the public, the media and affected interests almost no time to assess what was being proposed.
In stark contrast to Newsom’s lengthy dog-and-pony shows in January and May, there was no detailed presentation of the final budget’s provisions. There was just a joint statement from Newsom, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins congratulating themselves for doing a great job of spending about $300 billion.
“California’s budget addresses the state’s most pressing needs, and prioritizes getting dollars back into the pockets of millions of Californians who are grappling with global inflation and rising prices of everything from gas to groceries,” they said.
“The centerpiece of the agreement, a $17 billion inflation relief package, will offer tax refunds to millions of working Californians. Twenty-three million Californians will benefit from direct payments of up to $1,050. The package will also include a suspension of the state sales tax on diesel, and additional funds to help people pay their rent and utility bills.”
“In the face of growing economic uncertainty, this budget invests in California’s values while further filling the state’s budget reserves and building in triggers for future state spending to ensure budget stability for years to come,” Newsom, Rendon and Atkins concluded.
Newsom had proposed payments to motorists based on how many cars they owned — in theory to offset higher fuel prices — but legislative leaders wanted to concentrate relief on low- and moderate-income families. The final form of income-based payments indicates that Newsom backed down.
After leaving the bills in print for the minimum three days required by law — a law passed by voters over the opposition of Capitol politicians — the Legislature will pass and Newsom will sign the final budget just in time for the new fiscal year to begin on July 1.
Those with stakes in or curiosity about the new budget will then spend weeks trying to figure out just what it does beyond the splashy election year giveaways Newsom and legislative leaders are touting.
The secrecy and fast-track handling of the budget deal drew sharp criticism from Sen. Jim Nielsen, a Yuba City Republican who is also the vice-chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. He complained that Republicans were given the budget package too late for complete analysis before the committee voted.
“Where is the information?” Nielsen asked during the committee’s brief hearing on Monday. “What are you afraid of?” It’s a lousy way to spend the public’s money but it’s the way it is
“Newsom is on the Mountaintop” – Biden & Harris Are Noticing
Politico
For weeks, an exasperated Gavin Newsom warned Democrats they need to more aggressively confront Republicans in the national culture wars he’s convinced his party is losing.
In recent days, the California governor signaled to his team that, for now at least, what they’ve referred to internally as his “Paul Revere” phase has gone far enough. But the warnings turned a whisper campaign into something audible: Is the governor positioning himself for a White House run in 2024?
Newsom has stressed that he isn’t challenging President Joe Biden — either on his stewardship of their party or as a candidate in two years. He’s reminded people that Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris separately trekked across the country to stump for him in his recall election. But taken together, the moves have been widely interpreted as a relatively young executive using the specter of a future presidential bid to shine a bright spotlight on himself. And they’ve been enough to elicit early brushbacks from allies of Biden and Harris.
“Everybody is trying to be relevant for the next race. He came through the recall election and he’s doing a pretty good job as governor. However, I think ambition makes people do different things,” said Cedric Richmond, a former senior Biden White House official who recently transitioned to a top role in the Democratic National Committee.
Richmond bristled at suggestions — advanced by Newsom and others — that Democrats aren’t taking the fight to Republicans on abortion and guns, and praised Biden for uniting the West against Ukraine, delivering baby formula and continuing to lead the response to Covid. Assessing the West Wing’s reaction to Newsom, Richmond added, “I am not sure they are reading the Gavin Newsom opinion pages about his desire to be politically relevant.”
The subtext of Newsom’s latest moves, however, is that he is the rare Democrat in an enviable position. After soundly beating back the recall, Newsom is sitting on a record state budget surplus and had more than $25 million in his campaign accounts. His U.S. Senate and state attorney general appointees will keep their seats; the state is bouncing back from the pandemic; he’s preparing to sign a raft of gun control bills — including one modeled after Texas’ new abortion law allowing people to sue healthcare providers — and he’s helping lead the fight around abortion rights to a state constitutional amendment on the fall ballot.
With no real fall campaign, his team has talked about turning him into a one-man tourism bureau, traveling to landmarks and far-flung corners and urging Americans to spend their travel dollars there. The side effect of such freedom is that it sparks a lot of chatter about larger political ambition. And though the governor’s allies downplay such talk, a longtime Newsom friend described him as appearing “unshackled from any expectations.”
“He’s on the mountaintop,” the friend said. “Now, there’s of course a question of what the next mountain will be. But he’s going to be governor for another four years. He’s in the job he always wanted. He has no reason to be timid at his age or at this stage in his life.”
Already, Harris’ orbit has taken notice. Bakari Sellers, a Democrat close to the vice president who served as a top surrogate for her in 2020, said that Newsom is “no threat to the VP for anything she decides or wants to do. But you have to tread lightly because Joe Biden is still president of the United States and Joe Biden is running again in 2024.”
“An older guy once told me you don’t want to fly too close to the sun,” Sellers added. “I like what Newsom is doing, but I don’t want him to be Icarus and sometimes he gets too close to the sun.”
And Brown, an early mentor to both Newsom and Harris, told POLITICO he would advise Newsom not to join a presidential field that included Harris. He suspected that would be Newsom’s “natural instinct” as well. “He’s a very careful, precise, candidate,” Brown said.
Members of Newsom’s team, which includes advisers who previously consulted for Harris, largely agree with Brown. Still, a Democratic operative who has spent years batting down suggestions that Newsom and Harris were on an eventual collision course said they aren’t so sure anymore that Newsom would stand down.
One lane that may be available to Newsom would be as a late entrant into a Democratic primary, either in 2024 if Biden does not run again, or in 2028 — waiting in either scenario to see first if Harris somehow opts out or stumbles. By waiting, he would avoid a direct confrontation with Harris while presenting himself as an alternative.
“If it’s a wide-open race, I think he can come in late and be competitive,” said Danielle Cendejas, a California-based Democratic strategist.
If he does run, Newsom would immediately join the ranks of credible, upper-tier contenders — a proven vote-getter with a large donor list and connections to Democratic Party heavyweights in organized labor, Silicon Valley and in Hollywood. At 54, he is young in presidential terms. And in November he will almost certainly cruise to a second term, pulling more votes — if last year’s failed recall election is any indication — than the whole populations of many states.
“He’s got a huge constituency because he’s the governor of the most populous state,” said James Carville, the former Bill Clinton strategist. “He’s got an enormous fundraising base and a lot of delegates there.”
Newsom has a history of rankling his own party dating back to his days as San Francisco mayor. In 2004, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggested Newsom’s issuance of gay marriage licenses gave conservatives an issue to rally around in that year’s presidential campaign.
Newsom has long centered Republican leaders as foils, using his State of the State speech in March to argue that America is plagued by agents of a “national anger machine” that’s fueling division and weaponizing grievance. Often focusing on Ron DeSantis of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas, Republican governors who revel in making California an example of progressivism run amuck, Newsom argues, the GOP is counting on complacency to erode voting rights, scapegoat minorities, conjure conspiracies and undermine democracy.
But after POLITICO revealed the leaked Supreme Court draft overturning Roe v. Wade, Newsom unloaded on Democrats, asking outside a Planned Parenthood office last month, “Where the hell is my party? Where’s the Democratic Party? … Why aren’t we calling this out? This is a concerted, coordinated effort. And, yes, they’re winning.”
He made similar comments in later interviews.
The governor’s pointed critiques arrived at a particularly vulnerable time for Biden, who is facing renewed questions about his age and confronting a long list of challenges as Democrats prepare for the likelihood of a tough midterms, all while suffering from historically weak polling.
“They don’t know if Biden is going to run or not,” John Morgan, a prominent Biden bundler and attorney from Orlando, Fla., said of Newsom and other potential presidential candidates. “They are thinking, ‘I don’t know if I am going to be at the swim meet or not, but I am going to put my bathing suit on anyway.’”
“He looks like a million dollars,” Morgan added of Newsom. “And he looks at the Democratic bench and he doesn’t see anyone sitting there, so he says, ‘I am going to sit there.’”
Newsom’s remarks outside the Planned Parenthood office surprised even some on his own team. More recently, he’s tried to steer attention away from inside his own ranks and toward Republicans themselves. In a sit-down with The Atlantic, he keyed in on Republican efforts to curb reproductive and voting rights, ban books and limit how teachers instruct about race and their targeting of LGBTQ rights, including Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Fellow California Democrats say he’s not trying to create a youthful contrast with Biden so much as make the affirmative case for Democratic governance.
Facing no serious threat in his fall reelection, Newsom is now planning to do what he demanded of fellow Democrats: directly engage with Republicans in those culture wars. His most attention-grabbing idea so far is one he pitched staff on his own. He joined Truth Social, Trump’s social media platform, where he’s since gone after the GOP on red state murder rates. The governor’s team also has discussed going on Fox News, with one adviser arguing that for Newsom, “it’s about the feeling we’re getting our asses kicked; that the Trumpers are owning the libs and we have to get into the fighting mode and make this a choice.”
Added another person close to Newsom: “He resents that shit [and] wants to push back on that narrative because he has the facts on his side.”
Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who helped give Newsom his start in politics in the mid-90s, said he was merely “telling it like it is.”
“He is literally echoing what lots of us think: Our party doesn’t have a message that’s registering with voters,” Brown said.
While Newsom tends to eschew the Sunday shows, believing that statewide officials are often put in the uncomfortable position of punditizing on national events, he recognizes that doing them has the benefit of boosting his reputation in the state, a person familiar said. His spokesperson Anthony York said he’s trying to help people “connect some of those dots” around GOP efforts in the states and before the Supreme Court. But, York added of the critiques of Democrats, “you can only do that so many times.”
California’s Controversial Planet-Leading Climate Change Blueprint Begins Review
CalMatters
California’s sweeping climate plan would increase electricity consumption by as much as 68% by 2045 – which would put an immense strain on the power grid unless hefty private and public investments are made in clean energy, state air quality officials said today.
The California Air Resources Board is held its first day-long public hearing this week on its proposed climate-change blueprint, called a scoping plan, for reducing greenhouse gases.
The state’s power grid — marred by outages in previous years and increasingly extreme weather — needs massive investments to attain the clean-energy future outlined in California’s five-year climate roadmap.
The far-reaching strategy would transform the state, scaling back the use of fossil fuels by 91% by 2045 and scaling up electric cars and use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar. The plan aims to fulfill state mandates to reduce planet-warming emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
At least 450 speakers lined up to voice concerns about the plan at the hearing, which is expected to continue late into the evening and possibly on Friday. The hearing was temporarily interrupted when environmentalists and their supporters who were rallying outside entered the packed room, protesting the state’s plan and demanding environmental justice.
The climate plan has been criticized by environmentalists for too slowly phasing out fossil fuels and relying too much on technologies to remove or capture emissions, while the oil and gas industry has said the ramp-up of clean energy is too ambitious.
To achieve the plan’s goals, air board officials project that California will need about 30 times more electric vehicles on the road, six times more electric appliances in homes to replace gas appliances, 60 times more hydrogen supply and four times more wind and solar generation capacity.
The plan “is very, very aggressive in terms of the deployment of clean technology,” said Rajinder Sahota, the Air Resources Board’s deputy executive officer for climate change and research. “If we can actually make all of these things happen, there are significant reductions in fossil fuel and methane that we would see by 2045. All of it hinges on implementation and successful deployment of that energy infrastructure and technology.”
To handle the surge in electricity demand, air board staff said the state needs to expedite the construction of new solar and wind infrastructure, improve existing power lines and build battery storage capacity. In addition, California will need backup dispatchable power to account for energy losses when renewables like wind and solar can’t produce electricity due to changes in weather.
Without these major improvements and investments, California would have to keep relying on climate-warming fossil fuels, particularly natural gas. An additional 10 gigawatts of natural gas capacity would be needed by 2045 to support the power grid if sufficient renewable power is not available by then, air board officials said.
Secretary for Environmental Protection Jared Blumenfeld said the permitting and approval process of renewable energy projects needs to be accelerated to meet the state’s climate targets.
“We have to be able to get projects on the ground quicker,” he said. “Offshore wind will take 15 years to permit and deploy. We don’t have 15 years. So part of our effort needs to be, not only to understand the power of our ambition, but how the hell do we get this done? We need reforms in those areas.”
Sahota added that streamlining the permitting process for new energy facilities is important, but raised concern that part of the challenge is the restraints imposed by city and county officials. She said while there’s widespread support for renewable energy, many residents may not want that infrastructure in their communities.
“We have an obligation as a state to make sure that energy is reliable,” Sahota told CalMatters in an interview. “But we’re fighting against some of these things, like what we want to have available and where do you build it and where can you build it?”
Air Resources Board Member Diane Takvorian, who is executive director of an environmental justice group, said ensuring the reliability of the grid is “an important concern.” But she added that increasing power generation is the responsibility of other state agencies, such as the Public Utilities Commission, while the air board must focus on battling climate change.
Takvorian said she wants the plan to be revised so that it includes more direct emission reductions at industries that burn fossil fuels and prioritize a faster timeline. “I’m very hopeful that the final plan is much more aggressive than the draft plan,” she said.
Alice Reynolds, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, the regulatory agency which oversees the state’s power operations, said California has made great strides in the past two years in increasing the reliability of the grid. She said the agency has also been escalating the installation and improvement of energy storage technologies, despite supply chain challenges brought on by the pandemic.
But, she added, “the hard work really is yet to come.”
“We need to think about how the energy sector can continue to grow — double or triple — to meet decarbonization goals,” she said. “And we need to focus on what it takes to meet the needs of an evolving grid, especially during the hours when the system must ramp up to replace our massive solar fleet as the sun sets.”
Some speakers at the hearing expressed concerns that the accelerated transition to an electrified technology could result in higher utility bills that would disproportionately affect disadvantaged communities in inland and rural areas. They also said they worry that the lack of proper infrastructure could also increase the likelihood of power outages.
The Air Resources Board is expected to hold a second hearing on the climate plan in August and vote in the fall.
The hearing comes amid growing concerns that the plan relies too heavily on strategies that extend the life of the fossil fuel industry. In the weeks since the draft scoping plan was released, air board officials have faced intense public and media scrutiny for its proposed use of carbon removal and capture technologies for oil refineries and other industries.
In their initial modeling included in the plan, air board officials said the use of carbon capture technologies were already deployed in 2021 and would ramp up quickly by 2030. The draft says about 2 million tons of carbon dioxide were captured in 2021 — even though no facilities exist in California. At today’s meeting, air board staff said its new modeling would be based on startup of carbon capture technologies in 2028.
At today’s hearing, dozens of environmentalists held a rally outside the main headquarters calling for air board members to reconsider the plan’s reliance on carbon capture and urged them to push for carbon neutrality by 2035, a decade earlier than staff’s 2045 goal.
Environmental justice advocate Colin Miller, who was reading on behalf of Jasmine Martinez, an organizer with the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, said carbon capture and storage could pose potential public health threats in nearby communities.
“The technology would bring even more health and safety risks, including groundwater contamination, leaks that can lead to suffocation, asphyxiation and death, and earthquakes,” he said. “Even if (carbon capture and storage) was the magical tech solution that the plan says it is, it would only address the carbon emissions. (There would still be) high risk to frontline environmental justice and indigenous communities.”
But oil and gas companies say the state should reevaluate its “aggressive” pace for phasing out oil and gas, arguing that it will have a detrimental effect on Californians and their economy.
In a letter to California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president and CEO of the Western States Petroleum Association, said some policies the board is proposing — such as the ban on sales of new electric vehicles by 2035 and eliminating in-state oil production — would increase fuel costs, especially for lower-income residents.
Oil and gas companies “recognize these extraordinary times and stand ready to work with policymakers on realistic energy policy solutions and the role our industry must play to provide cleaner, affordable energy California families and businesses need now and for decades to come,” Reheis-Boyd wrote. “While California may be leading with its policy ambitions, it has not been without significant cost to the entire California economy.”
“Technology bans, mandates, and limiting affordable options for Californians is not leadership,” she wrote. Instead, the companies say the state should consider alternative, less-restrictive policies that give more leeway to the industry to continue operating in the state.
On the other hand, members of the state’s Environmental Justice Advisory Committee Meeting said the state should remove the use of carbon capture and storage, instead relying on clean energy technologies and deepening investments in ecosystem restoration.
Sharifa Taylor, a committee member and advocate for Communities for a Better Environment, said the deployment in carbon capture and storage will only continue to hurt low-income communities of color already burdened by air pollution.
“This is a dangerous, expensive and unrealistic protocol to sacrifice low-income communities of color,” she said. “(Carbon capture and storage) in California refineries is not a solution.”
To address some of these equity concerns, staff said they would include a community vulnerability metric in the final version of the plan to guide the state on how to allocate resources for disadvantaged communities. These include residents living next to freeways and stationary pollution sources, who are most affected by environmental hazards, air pollution and climate impacts.
The metric would be used to identify certain needs in those communities where the state can direct funds and resources. For example, the board would identify how communities plagued by extreme weather events could benefit from more resources or funds from the state, Sahota said.
“If you’re a census tract that is more susceptible to heat, then we can deploy and make sure that there’s better air conditioning or cooling centers to help build that resiliency to withstand those climate impacts that are going to happen,” Sahota said.
The role of the state’s cap and trade program, which is a greenhouse gas market for industries that allows them to buy and sell credits, also has been questioned by experts and advocates. In an abrupt reversal from the 2017 plan, this year’s 228-page document includes just six pages mentioning how the state’s landmark program could work in helping California meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Staff plans to reconsider the role of cap and trade in 2023.
Catherine Garoupa White, executive director of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, said the board should assess the role of and reduce dependence on the program in the final version. She said air board staff should also improve data collection to better track how emissions are being reduced by each strategy to ensure transparency in how the state is meeting its targets.
She added that air board staff should create a digitized mapping tool that would allow people to view how much pollution a facility is emitting in their communities.
“While we may not be in agreement about the overall role of the cap and trade program, generally we are in alignment on the need for robust analysis and program adjustments,” she said.
https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/06/california-climate-plan-electricity/