cap-and-trade revenues: the controversy and funding opportunities for disadvantaged communities
DESCRIPTION
California’s controversial cap-and-trade program went into effect this year and is expected to generate tens of billions of dollars in new state revenues over the next decade. EJ and social equity advocates have the unique opportunity to channel a significant amount of these funds to help highly-polluted communities and to ensure the equitable implementation of climate change laws, such as SB 375. This panel will explore the controversy behind cap-and-trade program and the advocacy efforts at the state and regional levels to maximize benefits to disadvantaged communities. Speaker: Supervisor John Gioia, District l, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Moderator: Guillermo Mayer, Senior Staff Attorney at Public Advocates Inc. Panelists: Mari Rose Taruc, State Organizing Director for the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) Marybelle Nzegwu, Staff Attorney on the Housing, Transit and Climate Justice team at Public Advocates Inc. Vien Truong, Director, Environmental Equity Program, The Greenlining InstituteTRANSCRIPT
“Cap-‐and-‐Trade Revenues The Controversy and Funding Opportunities for
Disadvantaged Communities” October 30, 2013
UH News
Executive Director Position Available
Shared office for rent @ Urban Habitat
Our Approach • Policy Advocacy • Mobilizing and Educating Community Coalitions around Policy
• Training Advocates to become Decision-‐Makers
The BCLI Model
Train
Place
Connect
Recruit
1 2
3 4
The Fellowship
Deep and integrated equity knowledge Political skills Power structures and influences Commission procedures and best
practices
SKILLS KNOWLEDGE
NETWORK
What’s Hot Today Current Issues Series
Past panels include: Building Infrastructure for Local Hire Programs Understanding Equity Issues in SB 375 Equitable Decision Making for Transit-‐Oriented Design Projects Innovative and Equitable City, County, and Regional Climate Action Initiatives Encouraging Community Support for Affordable Housing Development Innovative Models for Quality Jobs for Low-‐Access Communities
Current Issues Series
Network Critically question and engage
Share your perspective with our speakers Inform your communities and your work
Guillermo Mayer, Public Advocates
Mari Rose Taruc, Asian Pacific Environmental Network
Marybelle Nzegwu ,
Public Advocates
Vien Truong, The Greenlining
Institute
Supervisor John Gioia
Global Warming v. Climate Change
• Global Warming — An overall warming of the planet, based on average temperature over the entire surface; accelerated warming caused by increased emissions of greenhouse gases.
• Climate Change — Changes in regional climate characteristics, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind, and severe weather events. – Global Warming leads to climate change, but human actions also impact climate change directly.
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Núñez) (AB 32)
• Global Warming poses a serious threat to the state’s economic and environmental well-‐being, public health, and natural resources.
• California Air Resources Board required to “ensure that activities undertaken to comply with [AB32] do not disproportionately impact low-‐income communities” and to “direct public and private investment toward the most disadvantaged communities in California.”
• Air pollution exacerbates localized climate change impacts.
• Major sources of GHGs emit co-‐pollutants such as ozone precursors and PM2.5 that cause local health impacts including cardiovascular and respiratory disease.
Climate Change & Air
Pollution: Think Globally, Act Locally
In California, disadvantaged communities, “including but not limited to, communities with minority populations, communities with low-‐
income populations or both” suffer “disproportionate impacts from poor air quality are due to proximity to a concentration of
pollution sources.”
Cap & Trade: Market-‐Based Compliance Mechanism
• AB 32 allows use of MBCMs, but did not require use of cap and trade. – ARB could have considered other market based compliance mechanisms such as a carbon fee.
• The “capped sectors,” will be subject to some direct regulation, such as improved building efficiency standards and vehicle efficiency measures.
• Additional reductions needed to bring emissions within the cap will be accomplished through price incentives posed by emissions allowance prices.
Cap and Trade & Hot Spots
AIR v. CARB
Represented essentially the entire Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. CEQA claims successful. ARB failed to analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the Plan and failed to adequately analyze alternatives.
AIR v. CARB
Environmental justice
communities: disproportionately
impacted by pollution
California climate pollution sources
Background on SB 535/AB 1532
California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) requires:
“direct investments to disadvantaged communities”
SB 535 & AB 1532 amassed 200 supporters from environmental, environmental jus@ce, health, business, labor, immigrant, housing, transporta@on & faith organiza@ons, and local elected leaders
SB 535 (de Leon) Establishes a
Framework to Direct Investments to Disadvantaged Communities
ü Directs CalEPA to define “disadvantaged communities”
ü Ensures a minimum of 25% of the investments benefit disadvantaged communities
ü Requires at least 10% of the investments are for projects located in disadvantaged communities
AB 1532 (J. Perez)
Establishes a Process for Allocating Revenues from Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Efforts (AB 32)
ü Establishes general guidelines for allocating moneys – including ensuring they are used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
ü Establishes general categories of programs/projects
ü Requires Department of Finance and State Air Board to develop a 3 year investment plan
ü Requires 2 public workshops, 1 CARB hearing, and review by the Legislative Budget Committees.
Cal/EPA & OEHHA
“Cal Enviro Screen”
mapping tool http://www.oehha.ca.gov/
ej/cipa080612.html
Cal/EPA & OEHHA
“Cal Enviro Screen”
mapping tool http://www.oehha.ca.gov/
ej/cipa080612.html
Background on SB 535/AB 1532
California’s Global Warming Solu3ons Act (AB 32) requires:
“direct investments to disadvantaged communi3es”
SB 535 (de Leon)
Establishes a Framework to Direct
Investments to Disadvantaged Communities
ü Directs CalEPA to define “disadvantaged communities”
ü Ensures a minimum of 25% of the investments benefit disadvantaged communities
ü Requires at least 10% of the investments are for projects located in disadvantaged communities
AB 1532 (J. Perez)
Establishes a Process for Alloca3ng Revenues from
Greenhouse Gas Reduc3on Efforts (AB 32)
ü Establishes general guidelines for allocating moneys – including ensuring they are used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
ü Establishes general categories of programs/projects
ü Requires Department of Finance and State Air Board to develop a 3 year investment plan
ü Requires 2 public workshops, 1 CARB hearing, and review by the Legislative Budget Committees.
How does the Money Flow?
What is a Disadvantaged Community?
SB 535 passed – Now What?! Implementing SB 535
• Starting 10/2013: Statewide education and organizing efforts • Webinars • Survey
• Starting 10/2013: Influencing the Budget: the inside/outside game
• Jan. 2013: CalEPA releases CalEnviro Screen to identify top 10% of CA’s most “disadvantaged” communities
• 1/2013 – 4/2013: California Air Resources Board, 3 -‐yr Investment Plan (released 5/2013)
Surprise! Brown Budget Borrows Funds
• 5/2013: Governor borrows $500 million of cap and trade revenues
• SB 535 “Quad” demand for return and allocation of funds – legislators, allies, and media push
• 6/2013: SB 605 (Lara) calls for funds above $500 million – up to $125 million – to be invested into disadvantaged communities – Offsets & Short-‐Lived Climate Pollutants
– 9/2013: • SB 605 à SB 726 (Lara) • 2-‐year bill
Next Steps • Meeting with regulatory agencies,
Administration, and legislative leaders to shape budget
• Coordinating with regional efforts • Long-‐term game!
– Beyond the 25% – Beyond 2014:
• Next Investment Plan • Next budget plan
• ASKS: – Support from organizations – Support from YOU!
• Email your legislators on the importance of environmental investing in disadvantaged communities
Plan Bay Area and Cap & Trade Funds
SB 375 – Sustainable Communities Strategies – Land use and transportation planning to reduce GHG emissions
– Region has estimated it could receive around $3.1Billion dollars of cap and trade revenue for SCS implementation
Gioia’s Amendment to Plan Bay Area commits the region to “a transparent and inclusive regional public process” for
allocation of Cap and Trade revenues in the region. Guarantees that “at least 25
percent of these revenues will be spent to benefit disadvantaged communities in the
Bay Area.”
6 Wins for Social Equity Working since 2010 on the Bay Area’s SCS to ensure the needs of disadvantaged communities are met. Cap and Trade revenues provide our region with an important opportunity to allocate funds to a variety of projects that reduce GHG emissions and improve public transit, land use patterns, public health and quality of life.
Cap and Trade Investment Principles To meet the objectives of both state law and regional policy – and to achieve a better Bay Area for all our residents – Cap and Trade revenue allocation should be governed by the following principles: • Ensure Full Transparency and Accountability in
Decision Making. • Prioritize the Needs of Communities Suffering the
Greatest Toxic Exposures. • Ensure that all Cap and Trade Revenue Benefits
Low-‐Income Families Across the Region. • Leverage All Funding to Create Quality Jobs and
Economic Opportunity for Those Who Need it Most.
“Cap-‐and-‐Trade Revenues The Controversy and Funding Opportunities for
Disadvantaged Communities” October 30, 2013