The California Legislature adjourned for summer recess on Friday, July 16, and will reconvene on August 16. Before they adjourned, the Legislature moved several priority CLFP opposed bills out of policy committees.
Perhaps the most problematic measure relates to California’s climate change policy. Assembly Bill (AB) 1395 by Assembly Member Muratsuchi passed the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on July 12 and was moved to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill creates a brand-new climate target of reducing greenhouse gases 90% below 1990 levels by 2045.
CLFP and a large coalition of stakeholders are opposed to the bill arguing that it is entirely premature to establish a new target for 2045. The state’s current target of 40% reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 was established by the Legislature in 2016 and only took effect in 2021.
Further, this new target entirely undermines work just getting started via the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan that will begin to outline the additional steps necessary to meet California’s current emissions reductions targets. This work will help inform California’s progress on the current goals and outline some narrowly defined potential pathways to achieve the broader goal of carbon neutrality, in addition to 2030 goals.
Establishing and extending climate targets requires involved, complex and negotiated policy making. Unfortunately, there have been no meaningful conversations with stakeholders about AB 1395 and its proposed changes to the date and targets of the current goal. CLFP believes that significant work must be done to assess and understand the impacts of this type of policy before the legislature votes.
At the same time, AB 1395 limits the tools for achieving carbon neutrality. In establishing a carbon neutrality target, the bill also limits the role of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), ignoring the science supporting large-scale CCS. The bill calls for the prioritization of “nature-based solutions,” effectively picking winners and losers and sending misguided signals to the market that investments in other forms of technology are unwanted.
Limiting California’s technology-based solutions while simultaneously extending and expanding the state’s climate targets will unnecessarily threaten high-wage jobs, further challenge the reliability of our electric grid and increase costs for consumer goods for all Californians.
California League Of Food Producers