Gov. Jerry Brown wants to redirect money from California's "cap-and-trade" program to help balance the state budget. Many groups say the money should be used as the law intended - to help fight climate change, boost the clean-energy economy, and clean up air pollution.

Vien Truong, director of environmental equity for The Greenlining Institute, said Brown's proposal violates the state's promise to spend the money on greenhouse gas-reducing activities, especially in disadvantaged communities.

"We believe it should be invested in things that have triple bottom-line benefits," she said, "like creating good jobs, reducing pollution and creating investments into areas that have been sorely underinvested for a long time."

Truong said Brown's proposal reminds her of a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: "Justice too long delayed is justice denied."

"And that's more true now than ever before, especially in communities of color where people are battling to breathe, where our neighbors have been looking for jobs for years now and we now see a surplus," Truong said. "Instead of using it where we need to invest it most, Gov. Brown wants to sit on it for a year. That's just not tolerable."

Holly Smithson, president and chief operating officer of CleanTECH San Diego, said a lot of clean-energy businesses have been planning based on these funds.

"This has been in the making for several years," Smithson said. "And then for this to be completely redirected really smacks in the face of the businesses. What do all businesses despise more than anything? It's uncertainty."

The Legislative Analyst's Office has suggested there isn't a need to take the money from cap and trade because tax revenues are expected to be higher than what Brown has predicted. A spokesman for the state Environmental Protection Agency says the delay will give the state more time to identify which projects to select.


get more stories like this via email

The United States is seeing a national push from the federal government and car companies to pivot toward electric vehicles, and Connecticut is riding the trend.

The Inflation Reduction Act includes incentives for buyers of electric vehicles, and elected officials are taking this call to action in stride. Connecticut passed its own Clean Air Act, which requires all state vehicles to be electric by 2030. It also offers incentives for anyone to buy zero-emission vehicles.

Sen. William Haskell, D-Westport, who worked on the bill, feels it was born of the necessity to rid Connecticut of harmful carbon emissions.

"My state saw 21 days of unhealthy levels of ozone in 2021," Haskell reported. "That was the highest in New England, and five of our eight counties got 'F' grades from the American Lung Association. The American Lung Association weighs in because worse air pollution can create aggravated, serious lung conditions, including asthma and emphysema."

Numerous rebates will be available for electric vehicle purchases, to help make it easier for families and small business owners to do so. Connecticut will also give rebates of up to $500 for electric bikes.

Haskell hopes the moves will help the state meet its carbon goals by the end of the decade.

Some elected officials are pushing the Biden Administration to take on even more stringent policies, such as California's new rules prohibiting the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

Haskell added he would like to see the influx of money for infrastructure updates be spent on the most climate-friendly projects.

"We're living in this historic moment where there's more money being spent on infrastructure than has been there since the Eisenhower administration," Haskell observed. "The problem is, if we don't spend that money wisely, it could actually worsen the crisis of climate change, not make it better."

One point eliminated from Connecticut's Clean Air Act, which Haskell would like to see in the future, is the state implementing a "carbon budget." He argued it would force the state to evaluate projects based on whether they'd increase or decrease carbon emissions.

Local officials concerned about climate change are calling on the Biden Environmental Protection Agency to adopt strict national clean car standards - like the ones the Golden State has already embraced.

The California Air Resources Board recently adopted new rules that will phase out the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

Alex Walker-Griffin, the vice mayor of the town of Hercules in the Bay Area, said California's new rules are intended to cut vehicle pollution 60% by 2030.

"By 2026," said Walker-Griffin, "car dealerships have to have a plan for the phasing of electric, hydrogen, and hybrid vehicles into their fleets that they sell."

More than 600 local officials from across the country, part of a group called Elected Officials to Protect America, have signed a letter asking the EPA to start the rulemaking process for stringent clean-car standards.

The agency says the transportation sector accounts for 27% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Neighborhood Council Member Andrew Lewis from North Westwood, near UCLA, said he suspects the extreme heat and rain that recently pounded Southern California is linked to climate change.

"So to go from, literally on the same day, a heat wave into hurricane impacts," said Lewis, "which created a Miami-like atmosphere here in Los Angeles, something's wrong, something's got to change."

State Sen. Will Haskell - D-Westport - is a 26-year-old from Connecticut. He also signed the letter.

"I worry about whether my generation is going to have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink," said Haskell, "or if policymakers are going to stick their head in the sand and watch the point of no return go by."

The Inflation Reduction Act, which passed this summer, is poised to invest $369 billion into climate action, including $7.5 billion to build a network of charging stations, every 50 miles on interstate highways.

Oregon has officially axed a gas-fired power plant near the Columbia River.

The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council terminated the site certificate for the proposed Perennial Wind Chaser Station in Umatilla County.

Audrey Leonard, staff attorney for Columbia Riverkeeper, said the decision is a victory for the climate.

"If built, the facility would have been one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters in Oregon," Leonard pointed out. "Over its 30-year life cycle, the plant would have emitted at least 30 million tons of greenhouse gas pollution, which means it also would have locked the state into 30 more years of reliance on fracked gas."

Plans for the plant date back to 2015. Since then, Perennial Power Holdings, the company behind the plant, has struggled to find a buyer for the power that would be generated.

Since it was first announced, the state has committed to strong climate goals. In 2020, Gov. Kate Brown directed state agencies to cut carbon emissions in Oregon by 80% within the next three decades.

Leonard noted the decision came after a lot of hard work from the communities opposing the plant.

"The victory really belongs to those who came out and spoke out and filed comments and really did the hard work there," Leonard acknowledged.

She added the fight over fracked gas and polluting energy sources isn't over in Oregon. She pointed to the GTN Xpress Project, which would increase the capacity for fracked gas along a 1,300-mile long pipeline running from British Columbia to California.

Oregon, Washington and California are calling on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reject this project.