They say it can’t be done. Climate policy means higher costs for consumers, they say. Policies that prioritize pocketbooks mean rolling back health protections, they say.
But as we enter the final month of the legislative session in California, elected officials have an opportunity to prove that we can have it all: Forward looking climate policy that protects consumers and prioritizes affordability.
But having it all will require thoughtful leadership and an unprecedented willingness to work together across interests to meet extraordinary challenges. I believe we can do it.
Call me an optimist. Call me a dreamer. But never call me an unconcerned nonscientist.
Stabilizing gas prices while advancing clean vehicles
Last month, the Vice Chair of the California Energy Commission released a thoughtful letter responding to Valero’s announcement that it plans to shutter its Benicia, California refinery. The news and policymakers have zeroed in on one paragraph of the letter that urges legislative approval of an ordinance allowing for drilling in Kern County, California.
This is a piece of the puzzle to provide a stable supply of crude oil to northern California refineries, but it is only half a page of a 24-page letter that also calls for continued prioritization of zero-emission transportation and funding for workers and communities to transition when refineries ultimately close.
The path forward here is simple: Targeted policies that stabilize prices in the near term must be coupled with medium- and long-term solutions that keep the clean energy transition on track.
One brilliant, science-backed policy is to allow for non-California gasoline to be sold in the state with a 25-cent fee that would be used to replace the oldest and dirtiest cars with zero-emission alternatives.
The final refinery deal must also include dedicated funding for zero emission cars, trucks and charging infrastructure. Our concerned scientists love complicated things, but this one is straightforward.
Landmark climate policy for a clean, affordable future
California’s Cap-and-Trade program provides a backstop to everything that keeps us from the dystopia that was smog in LA fifty years ago, like the Renewable Portfolio Standard and our necessarily ambitious clean vehicle standards. The program is set to expire soon and the legislature must act to extend it.
The “Cap” half of this program sets a limit on global warming emissions in the state so even if the Trump Administration insists on attacking and rolling back California’s regulations, polluters still have to reduce their emissions.
The “Trade” half generates funding that is used to incentivize clean technologies and allow communities to invest in a cleaner future. It is not perfect, but scientists have shown that it is improving air quality and reducing costs of clean up. The California Air Resources Board must continue to improve the program with legislative guidance so that it works for all Californians.
But this continued improvement cannot happen if the program is allowed to languish in uncertainty. The legislature and governor must enact legislation that extends this program with a cap on pollution that is aligned with our climate goals.
Cap and Trade reform for affordability
One proposed Cap and Trade reform championed by Assemblymember Irwin in AB 745 would directly reduce energy costs immediately. This bill would reform the way Cap and Trade provides incentives to electrify, converting a biannual, lump-sum utility bill discount called the “climate credit” to a volumetric credit that reduces the per kilowatt hour price of electricity.
Not only does this send a pro-electrification price signal by reducing the cost of using electric appliances and vehicles, but it also reduces costs for Californians who live in hotter climates and rely on their air conditioning to make their homes livable. These are the folks for whom summer electricity bills can be debilitating.
But wait, there’s more! The legislature and governor could redirect the portion of the climate credit currently given to natural gas customers entirely to electricity. Taken together, these reforms could reduce rates by an average of 10% for all Californians. That’s around $300 savings for an average electricity user.
Reducing rates and advancing clean electricity
Since January, legislators have been laser focused on reducing electricity rates. AB 825 by Assemblymember Petri Norris and SB 254 by Senator Becker both include policies that will reduce costs borne by ratepayers.
One of our favorite solutions included in both bills would allow for transmission—the giant wires needed to get electricity from a renewable energy source to our homes and buildings—to be publicly financed. California has an excellent credit score, so the state can borrow money at a much lower interest rate than investor-owned utilities and can pass the savings onto you, the consumer.
Another policy to reduce costs for ratepayers over time is SB 540 by Senator Becker that would allow California to join a regional electricity market. This would give us access to cheaper, clean electricity in other states and let us more easily export some of our excess solar energy as well.
Winners and losers
I don’t want to sugar coat this. There will be winners and losers at the end of this legislative session if policymakers follow everything laid out above.
Winners: Californians, the climate, the air, Concerned Scientists.
Losers: Grumpy people, naysayers, those who hate commonsense, politicians who want to see California fail to meet this critical moment.
I know which side I want to be on.