At the close of California legislative session, August 31, 2022, the Assembly and Senate passed several climate bills, signed by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2022. These bills were part of the California Climate Commitment, “a record $54 billion investment in climate action that exceeds what most countries are spending…”
The Governor’s press release states that the California Climate Commitment will:
- “Create 4 million new jobs
- Cut air pollution by 60%
- Reduce state oil consumption by 91%
- Save California $23 billion by avoiding the damages of pollution
- Reduce fossil fuel use in buildings and transportation by 92%
- Cut refinery pollution by 94%”
These bills are:
California AB 1279 – The California Climate Crisis Act, requires California “to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85% below the 1990 levels.”
Prior to this new law, the state was required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030.”
The very ambitious new target of AB 1279 would require much more drastic tactics to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of California’s economy.
A coalition of about 60 chambers of commerce, agriculture, business and industry organizations from across the state opposed this bill as well as AB 2133 that is noted below because these bills would affect new housing construction, agriculture production, energy, transportation, and all manufacturing.
AB 2133) – GHG Reduction by 2030 – This bill “would have increased California’s climate reduction targets to at least 55% below 1990 levels no later than December 31, 2030…it did not receive a majority vote in the Legislature, making it the only Climate Proposal not codified into law.”
In a open letter to the California Senate, the main reason for opposing AB 2133 by the Coalition was: “Increasing the GHG 2030 emissions reduction target from 40% to 55% below the 1990 level, would require the state to remove an additional 17 million gasoline vehicles off the road by 2030, according to data developed by CARB. Additionally, CARB data shows that CARB’s initial modeling of scenarios in this range concluded them to be “economically and technically infeasible due to the current lack of low-carbon energy infrastructure, unavailability of technology, large job loss and high implementation costs.”
SB 1020 – Clean Electricity. This bill codifies into law a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources will provide:
- 90% of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2035, 95% by December 31, 2040, and 100% by December 31, 2045; and
- 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2035.”
To achieve these objectives, “SB 1020 requires that CARB and the California Energy Commission use unspecified programs authorized under existing statutes and employ measures to ensure that implementation of the policy does not cause increases in GHG emissions elsewhere, a concept also known as leakage”
SB 1137 – Oil and gas: operations: location restrictions: notice of intention: health protection zone: sensitive receptors. The bill “establishes a ‘health protection zone’ of 3,200 feet between oil and gas wells and ‘sensitive receptors’ defined broadly to include residences, schools, healthcare facilities, and any building housing a business that is open to the public.”
It also requires that “all operators of oil and gas wellheads and production facilities must submit sensitive receptor inventory maps that identify sensitive receptors within 3,200 feet of the operator’s wellheads and production facilities” by January 1, 2023. “Health and safety requirements kick in after January 1, 2025, for oil and gas wellheads and production facilities currently located within a health protection zone.”
The bill also “prohibits the Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) from approving any notice of intention after January 1, 2023, to drill a new well within a health protection zone, except under limited circumstances, including when it is for the purposes of plugging and abandoning a well.”
SB 905 – CCUS – This bill instructs the California Clean Air Resource Board (CARB) “to create a ‘Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program’ to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and viability of CCUS and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies; facilitate capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide using these technologies; and develop monitoring and reporting frameworks to enforce the proper implementation of these activities.”
The bill “mandates that all CCUS and CDR activities be carried out in a way that seeks to minimize adverse effects on the environment and public health, promote workforce development and employment opportunities, and reduce fossil fuel production in the state, among other goals.”
It also requires “CARB to adopt implementing regulations on or before January 1, 2025, and by January 25, 2025, the state Secretary of Natural Resources, in consultation with CARB, must publish a framework governing agreement …for purposes of managing, developing, and operating CCUS and CDR projects.”
Governor Newsom has faced some criticism from environmental advocates for some of his proposals. Maya Golden-Krasner, the deputy director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental advocacy group, stated, “Carbon capture technologies are dangerous, expensive and infeasible…It’s creating a ticking time bomb that needed to be addressed before the state goes forward with anything,” she said, referring to the potentially hazardous effects for communities living above any of these deposits.
Of course, the oil and gas industry opposed these bills, warning “that the policies would raise costs for consumers and increase California’s dependence on other countries for fuel.
“It is the California government dictating how and when we can travel and mandating the type of energy we’re using and when we can use it,” said Kara Greene, a spokesperson for the Western States Petroleum Association, a Sacramento, California-headquartered trade group that represents petroleum companies in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
“It disregards the livelihoods of thousands of Californians, who still need to drive to work, who still need to drive their kids to school, who still need to balance their household budgets.”
The irony of all of these Climate Commitment bills is that the week after the Governor signed these bills, “the California Independent System Operator (ISO)asked “Californians to not use electricity in large amounts between 4 P.M. and 9 P.M. In particular, they asked residents to voluntarily reduce their power consumption by avoiding using large appliances and charging electric vehicles during peak usage hours of 4 p.m. to 9 p.m.” The inclusion of “charging electric vehicles” received considerable criticism because of the previously passed ban on gas-powered vehicles by 2035.
It only took a two-week extreme heat wave to cause this crisis because “the power supply in California has been in a state of constant flux due to the policy of removing oil, gas, and coal plants at a rate faster than wind, solar, hydro, and other renewable sources of energy can replace them.”
At least, there were enough legislators who recognized the problem of the electricity grid in California that they passed SB 846 “to extend the life of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, which supplies nearly 10% of the state’s electricity. Diablo Canyon’s two nuclear reactors were scheduled to close in 2024 and 2025, but SB 846 delays this timeline by five years, to 2029 and 2030, by enabling the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and any other state and federal authorities to renew the operator’s license for an additional five years.
All of us want less pollution to enjoy cleaner air and clean water, but not at the cost of not having enough electricity to enjoy the benefits of modern life: lighting, air conditioning, heating, and the conveniences of electricity-powered appliances. We also need electricity to produce food, livestock, and poultry, as well as to manufacture the wide variety of consumer goods we enjoy, pharmaceuticals and medical products to protect the health of Americans, not to mention the goods and products needed for our military defense and national security. The goal of our non-profit, Industry Reimagined 2030 to “reduce the environmental footprint by 30% by 2030 is a much more reasonable and achievable goal than California’s unrealistic climate legislation.
Tags: legislation
This is all so amusing, But its idiocy will be dwarfed when all the Toilet-to-Tap plants are built thanks to Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act pork. Not even insane Sacramento would fund these projects previously because they’re outrageous energy hogs ($$$$$$$). When they all turn on and the lights go out, remember you heard it here first. Glad to see you’re still around, Jim.