For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.
IN THIS ISSUE – “We’re going to look really silly if we are telling people they can only buy electric vehicles, and we don’t have the charging infrastructure” Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel
- Climate Change Bond Gets Early Voter Support
- Judge Stays State Groundwater Management Law
- New State Water Conservation Rules Roll Out
- “Unrealistic” Goal for EV Charging Stations Alarms Lawmakers
Capital News & Notes (CN&N) curates 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 19, 2024
Climate Change Bond Gets Early Voter Support
Public Policy Institute of California
A majority of Californians — 59 percent — say they would vote for a $10 billion climate bond heading to the ballot in November, according to a Public Policy Institute of California voter survey.
Some other highlights from the poll released Wednesday:
— Climate change is top of mind: When asked to identify the state’s most important environmental issue, 17 percent of respondents said climate change, followed by wildfires at 15 percent and water supply at 14 percent. Water concerns have declined from previous years as the state has recovered from a deep drought.
— California’s ready for renewables, with an asterisk: Two-thirds of Californians said they supported the state’s law requiring all electricity to come from renewable sources by 2045, including 59 percent of independents. But just 44 percent of respondents said they’re willing to pay more for renewable electricity.
— Insurance costs have people on edge: Eight in 10 respondents said they were at least somewhat concerned that home insurance will become more expensive because of climate change risks. A smaller amount, 24 percent, said they had considered moving to avoid climate-related impacts.
Full survey:
https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-the-environment-july-2024/
Judge Stays State Groundwater Management Law
CalMatters
A Kings County judge today issued a temporary restraining order against the state that pauses its unprecedented move to crack down on groundwater depletion in California’s agricultural heartland.
The decision by Superior Court Judge Kathy Ciuffini grants Kings County growers a temporary reprieve from a state mandate to monitor and report how much water they pump from heavily over-pumped aquifers. The order will last through a hearing in August, when the judge will consider issuing a preliminary injunction.
The State Water Resources Control Board in April put Kings County water managers on probation under the state’s landmark groundwater law — a first step towards wresting control of the severely depleted Tulare Lake groundwater basin in the San Joaquin Valley.
The groundwater basin serves vast swathes of dairies, ranches and farms, including those controlled by agricultural giants J.G. Boswell Company and Bay Area developer John Vidovich.
These powerful companies have representatives that serve on the local groundwater agencies that were put on probation in April, after repeated warnings that their plans failed to adequately address dried up wells, contaminated water and sinking earth worsened by over pumping.
Calling the judge’s decision a “massive step” toward a victory, the Kings County Farm Bureau has argued in court that the state’s actions will cause them “imminent harm.”
“The way that it’s been implemented so far is completely inappropriate and wrong,” said farm bureau Executive Director Dusty Ference.“Having a requirement to have meters installed on groundwater pumps in the middle of the irrigation season, in the middle of July, put everybody at risk,” Ference said. “For so many, complete irrigation systems would have had to come offline for an extended period of time to get meters installed and make sure that they’re calibrated correctly.”
State water board spokesperson Edward Ortiz said the board disagrees with the judge’s order and is considering its legal options. The requirement to report groundwater use is an “important part of the probationary process,” Ortiz said, “which protects groundwater resources for the benefit of all Californians.”
Kings County Supervisor Doug Verboon, a fourth generation corn and walnut farmer, had mixed feelings about the judge’s temporary order.
New State Water Conservation Rules Roll Out
CalMatters
Facing a future of shortages, California is entering a new phase of water conservation: Cities and towns must meet new mandates ramping down use over the next 15 years — and some will be hit harder than others.
Approved two weeks ago, the new state rules require 405 cities and other urban suppliers serving 95% of Californians to meet individualized water budgets.
Suppliers serving roughly a third of Californians won’t need to cut water use to meet the 2040 mandates. Coastal California is expected to escape relatively unscathed with its cool climate, while hot, inland communities will face far steeper conservation requirements.
Of a dozen water systems projected to face cuts of 40% or more over the next 15 years, seven are located in the Central Valley, where many suppliers already struggle with water availability and quality, according to preliminary state data.
The rules target urban water agencies, not residents. Suppliers will have to develop rebates, fee structures and other ways to provide incentives for people to use less water.
San Diego, Irvine, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Monterey are among the others that won’t have to cut water use to meet their state mandates.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the nation’s second largest municipal water utility, serving about 4 million people, will have to reduce use by a modest 9% by 2040.
That, however, “seems like a lot when you look at the history of our conservation effort,” said Delon Kwan, assistant director of water resources. Over the past 15 years, Angelenos have cut their water use by 33%, dropping to 101 gallons per person per day by June 2023.
“The low-hanging fruit — we’ve done a lot of those early on,” Kwan said, adding that the utility already offers rebates for “just about every type of indoor and outdoor water-consuming plumbing fixture.”
The South Coast region, mostly spanning coastal parts of San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura counties, will cut water use by only 10% by 2040. With more than half the state’s population, that region’s relatively modest cuts will account for roughly half of water savings from the state’s new measures.
Regions facing the steepest cuts, averaging between 17 and 30%, include the Sierra Nevada and mountain communities in Southern California, the deserts, much of the Inland Empire, stretches of the Central Valley and the remote, sparsely populated areas of the northeast.
Water suppliers must stay within water budgets calculated from targets for residential indoor and outdoor use, certain business landscapes and losses in the system, such as leaks. Local climate, population and landscaped area also factor into the equations, as do livestock, recycled water, swamp coolers and other factors.
If they serve areas with lower incomes, agencies that face cuts of 20% can opt for alternatives that extend their deadlines. Other agencies with bigger cuts also can opt for the alternatives as long as they reduce use by at least 2% per year and meet other requirements, regardless of local incomes.
Statewide, urban water use per person is expected to drop by 21.8% between 2022 and 2050 with the proposed regulation, compared to 17.9% without it. The measures are projected to save an estimated 1.7 million acre-feet of water through 2040 — enough to supply almost half the state’s population for a year, substantially less than the state’s earlier proposals would have cut. Total savings through 2050 could reach 3.9 million acre-feet.
MORE:
https://calmatters.org/environment/water/2024/07/california-urban-water-conservation-mandate-effect/
“Unrealistic” Goal for EV Charging Stations Alarms Lawmakers
CalMatters
California will have to build public charging stations at an unprecedented — and some experts say unrealistic — pace to meet the needs of the 7 million electric cars expected on its roads in less than seven years.
The sheer scale of the buildout has alarmed many experts and lawmakers, who fear that the state won’t be prepared as Californians purchase more electric cars.
A million public chargers are needed in California by the end of 2030, according to the state’s projections — almost 10 times more than the number available to drivers in December. To meet that target, 129,000 new stations — more than seven times the current pace — must be built every year for the next seven years. Then the pace would have to accelerate again to reach a target of 2.1 million chargers in 2035.
A robust network of public chargers — akin to the state’s more than 8,000 gas stations — is essential to ensure that drivers will have the confidence to purchase electric vehicles over the next several years.
“It is very unlikely that we will hit our goals, and to be completely frank, the EV goals are a noble aspiration, but unrealistic,” said Stanford professor Bruce Cain, who co-authored a policy briefing detailing California’s electric vehicle charging problems. “This is a wakeup call that we address potential institutional and policy obstacles more seriously before we commit blindly.”
Under California’s landmark electric car mandate, a pillar of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s climate change agenda, 68% of all new 2030 model cars sold in the state must be zero emissions, increasing to 100% for 2035, when 15 million electric cars are expected in California.
“We’re going to look really silly if we are telling people that they can only buy electric vehicles, and we don’t have the charging infrastructure to support that,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Encino who introduced a package of unsuccessful bills last year aimed at expanding access to car chargers.
“We are way behind where we need to be,” Gabriel told CalMatters.
Big obstacles stand in the way of amping up the pace of new charging stations in public places. California will need billions of dollars in state, federal and private investments, streamlined city and county permitting processes, major power grid upgrades and accelerated efforts by utilities to connect chargers to the grid.
State officials also are tasked with ensuring that charging stations are available statewide, in rural and less-affluent areas where private companies are reluctant to invest, and that they are reliable and functioning whenever drivers pull up.
But installing and operating fast chargers is an expensive business — one that doesn’t easily turn a profit.
Nationwide each fast charger can cost up to $117,000, according to a 2023 study. And in California, it could be even more — between $122,000 and $440,000 each, according to a separate study, although the Energy Commission said the range was $110,000 to $125,000 for one of its programs.
Most of America’s publicly traded charger companies have been forced to seek more financing, lay off workers and slow their network build outs, analysts said. EVgo, for instance, has seen its share price crater, as has ChargePoint, which specializes in selling the slower, Level 2 hardware.
California stands apart from other states — it has by far the most chargers and electric car sales, and more incentives and policies encouraging them.
MORE: