Latest news with #LeadershipCounselforJusticeandAccountability
Politico
a day ago
- Automotive
- Politico
California's green rule rollback ignites firestorm
California Democrats' dramatic policy move to address the state's housing crisis has put party leaders on a collision course with environmental advocates and labor unions. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers on Monday agreed to exempt a wide array of projects from the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires construction projects to assess and address environmental impacts, writes Camille von Kaenel. Newsom conditioned passage of the state's $320 billion budget to approval of the exemptions, which he said were necessary to get more homes built. This is 'the most consequential housing reform that we've seen in modern history in the state of California,' Newsom said at a press conference. The reform also exempts projects such as wildfire fuel breaks, water system upgrades, portions of the high-speed rail project and advanced manufacturing facilities like semiconductor and electric vehicle plants — outraging many environmental and labor groups. 'They're conditioning the funding of essential services like health care, education, to this huge policy change that would dramatically roll back environmental review for some of the most polluting facilities in California,' said Asha Sharma, the state policy manager at the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. Teamsters, United Auto Workers and United Steelworkers likened the measure to the Trump administration's rollback of the National Environmental Policy Act and warned it 'would give carte blanche to companies like Tesla to expand without any environmental oversight.' But critics of the foundational law, which was passed by Republican governor Ronald Reagan 55 years ago, say it has been weaponized to allow lawsuits to slow or halt housing development, fueling the state's housing shortage and driving up homelessness rates and the cost of living. Building more densely in urban areas, they argue, is better for the environment. It allows for more energy efficiency and facilitates public transit, cutting down on super commuters who spend hours in traffic emitting climate pollution. Still, that doesn't explain why advanced manufacturing facilities such as semiconductor and EV plants would be exempt from review, argue environmentalists and labor groups representing auto workers, machinists and scientists. Such facilities can leach toxic waste into neighborhoods, they said. That argument seems to have stuck, Camille writes. Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said the California Senate is 'committed' to working on provisions related to advanced manufacturing, tribal consultation and endangered species protections in potential follow-up bills. It's Tuesday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Arianna Skibell. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to askibell@ Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: Zack Colman breaks down how a record-breaking heat wave strained the U.S. power grid last week, highlighting the risks of rising electricity demand and extreme weather. Power Centers Senate passes its megabill after an all-nighter The Senate narrowly approved its version of the Republican tax, energy and border security bill, after making changes that eased up on provisions opposed by the wind and solar industry, write Timothy Cama, Amelia Davidson and Nico Portuondo. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky joined Democrats in voting against the measure, requiring Vice President JD Vance to cast the tie-breaking vote. The sprawling domestic policy measure now heads to the House, with Republicans hustling to get it to the president's desk by July 4, writes Jordain Carney. That will be a heavy lift: Moderates are worried about changes to Medicaid and clean energy tax credits included in the Senate bill, and conservatives are up in arms that it doesn't go far enough in cutting spending. Megabill debate mirrors state battlesBefore Republican Senators passed their version of Trump's megabill, the party found itself embroiled in a debate about how harshly to treat the wind and solar industries, mirroring a major battle playing out in Texas, Oklahoma and other deep-red states, writes Jason Plautz. The debate is one of ideology versus economics. While Republicans tend to look down on clean energy, the fiscal incentives are strong. In Texas, for example, business groups — even including oil and gas producers — were crucial in spreading the message that restricting solar and wind could drive up electricity costs. Trump attacks the Montreal ProtocolAs treaties go, the Montreal Protocol is often considered one of the most successful. But the United States' continued participation in the 1987 agreement to save the ozone layer is suddenly in question, writes Sara Schonhardt. Trump's proposed rescission package calls for eliminating funding to the agreement, as part of a plan to claw back $437 million appropriated for international organizations and programs during the Biden administration. Experts say that could undermine new markets for U.S. goods while threatening protections from the sun's harmful radiation. In Other News Water infrastructure: Flint finally replaced its lead pipes. Impacts: What does climate change mean for agriculture? Less food and more emissions. Subscriber Zone A showcase of some of our best subscriber content. Trump ordered federal agencies Monday to begin sharing grant application details for critical mineral and energy infrastructure projects with the National Energy Dominance Council. The EPA's proposal to reconsider its 16-year-old bedrock finding on the dangers of greenhouse gases is now in the White House's hands — a move that sets the stage for a broad climate rule attack. Links to the nation's most comprehensive climate reports disappeared from the internet on Monday — along with the official government website that houses them. That's it for today, folks! Thanks for reading.
Politico
2 days ago
- Business
- Politico
California is about to roll back a landmark environmental law
SACRAMENTO, California — California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers on Monday agreed to limit the scope of one of the state's preeminent environmental rules in a last-minute budget deal. Lawmakers passed a trailer budget bill on Monday exempting a wide array of projects from the California Environmental Quality Act, including wildfire fuel breaks, water system upgrades, portions of the high-speed rail project, and advanced manufacturing facilities like semiconductor and EV plants. Environmental groups were apoplectic. 'They're conditioning the funding of essential services like health care, education, to this huge policy change that would dramatically roll back environmental review for some of the most polluting facilities in California,' said Asha Sharma, the state policy director of the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. It's the latest — and one of the most consequential — turns in Sacramento's years-long trend of poking holes in CEQA, a foundational 1970s-era law requiring construction projects to not only analyze their environmental impacts, as federal law also requires, but address those impacts. Environmentalists defend the law as essential and pro-growth advocates deride it as an obstruction to critical housing, infrastructure and industrial development. The measure, AB 131, triggered a last-ditch lobbying frenzy from environmental and labor groups over the weekend after its introduction on Friday. They were still lobbying as late as Monday morning, with the Teamsters, United Auto Workers and United Steelworkers linking the measure to the Trump administration's rollback of the National Environmental Policy Act and warning it 'would give carte blanche to companies like Tesla to expand without any environmental oversight.' But they had little leverage: Newsom has tied his signature on the state's $320 billion budget to passage of the bill, which he could sign as soon as Monday evening. And one of the biggest labor players, the State Building and Construction Trades Council, stayed out of the fight, having secured the removal of another provision last week they say could have undercut construction wages. The Senate passed the measure 33-1 and the Assembly 53-3, with several Republicans joining in support and only one Democrat voting against. The maneuver showed even more muscle than Newsom's last big CEQA push, when he convinced lawmakers in a 2023 trailer bill to shorten the time period for CEQA-related lawsuits against key infrastructure projects. 'There's less transparency and more at stake every year,' said longtime environmental lobbyist Jennifer Fearing. She said she hadn't yet fully processed how it might impact other environmental priorities this session, including extension of the state's emissions trading program for greenhouse gases and a proposal to cap prices for transportation emissions. The short turnaround predictably caused an outcry among environmental advocates and some lawmakers, including Sen. John Laird, who had voted against an earlier version of the bill, Sen. Scott Wiener's SB 607, and progressive assemblymembers. But Wiener defended the measure as a compromise, saying he had removed some of his more ambitious CEQA reform ideas from the bill because of pushback from environmental groups. Sen. Chris Cabaldon went further, suggesting that hammering out the policy through the legislative process would have led to so many trade-offs it wouldn't have yielded the outcome Newsom and pro-building lawmakers wanted. 'I'm not convinced that we could produce a workable, comprehensive bill that would get to the core of what the challenges are,' Cabaldon said. Case in point: Environmental groups were gearing up for a hard push in the Senate against AB 306, a measure by Assemblymember Nick Schultz to temporarily freeze most building code updates. But the language got folded into one of the housing trailer bills poised to pass on Monday. Industry and pro-housing groups like the California Chamber of Commerce and California YIMBY are cheering the win. Matthew Lewis, a spokesperson for California YIMBY, called the measure 'the biggest housing legislation in a generation.' 'The fact that people are so vociferously opposed to this — all of these common-sense solutions to problems that we've all known about for decades — is just more proof that we need leadership on this,' said Louis Mirante, senior vice president of public policy with the Bay Area Council, which represents Intel and Apple, among others. Opponents were left licking their wounds — and hoping for a second chance later in the legislative session. In particular, labor groups representing auto workers, machinists and scientists and environmental groups coalesced in opposition to a provision that would remove the CEQA review for advanced manufacturing facilities like semiconductor and EV plants, which they said can leach toxic waste into neighborhoods. The argument seems to have stuck. Wiener said on Monday afternoon the Senate is 'committed' to working on provisions related to the advanced manufacturing, tribal consultation and endangered species protections in potential follow-up legislation. Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's California Climate newsletter.
Politico
2 days ago
- Business
- Politico
How enviros lost CEQA
With help from Jordan Wolman, Eric He and Blake Jones SEE YA, CEQA: Environmental groups lost one of California's landmark environmental laws slowly, piece by piece, then almost all at once. State lawmakers at press time on Monday were poised to pass a bill exempting a wide array of projects from the California Environmental Quality Act, including wildfire fuel breaks, water system upgrades, portions of the high-speed rail project, and advanced manufacturing facilities like semiconductor and EV plants. Environmental groups are apoplectic. 'They're conditioning the funding of essential services like health care, education, to this huge policy change that would dramatically roll back environmental review for some of the most polluting facilities in California,' said Asha Sharma, the state policy director of the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. It's the latest — and one of the most consequential — turns in Sacramento's years-long trend of poking holes in CEQA, a foundational 1970s-era law requiring construction projects to not only analyze their environmental impacts, as federal law also requires, but address those impacts. Environmentalists defend the law as essential and pro-growth advocates deride it as an obstruction to critical housing, infrastructure and industrial development. The measure, AB 131, triggered a last-ditch lobbying frenzy from environmental and labor groups over the weekend after its introduction on Friday. They were still lobbying as late as Monday morning, with the Teamsters, United Auto Workers and United Steelworkers linking the measure to the Trump administration's rollback of the National Environmental Policy Act and warning it 'would give carte blanche to companies like Tesla to expand without any environmental oversight.' But they had little leverage: Gov. Gavin Newsom has tied his signature on the state's $320 billion budget to passage of the bill, which he could sign as soon as Monday evening. And one of the biggest labor players, the State Building and Construction Trades Council, stayed out of the fight, having secured the removal of another provision last week that would have likely lowered wages for unionized construction workers. The maneuver showed even more muscle than Newsom's last big CEQA push, when he convinced lawmakers in a 2023 trailer bill to shorten the time period for CEQA-related lawsuits against key infrastructure projects. 'There's less transparency and more at stake every year,' said longtime environmental lobbyist Jennifer Fearing. She said she hadn't yet fully processed how it might impact other environmental priorities this session, including extension of the state's emissions trading program for greenhouse gases and a proposal to cap prices for transportation emissions. The short turnaround predictably caused an outcry among environmental advocates and some lawmakers, including Sen. John Laird, who had voted against an earlier version of the bill, Sen. Scott Wiener's SB 607, and progressive Assemblymembers. But Wiener defended the measure as a compromise, saying he had removed some of his more ambitious CEQA reform ideas from the bill because of pushback from environmental groups. Sen. Chris Cabaldon went further, suggesting that hammering out the policy through the legislative process would have led to so many trade-offs it wouldn't have yielded the outcome Newsom and pro-building lawmakers wanted. 'I'm not convinced that we could produce a workable, comprehensive bill that would get to the core of what the challenges are,' Cabaldon said. Case in point: Environmental groups were gearing up for a hard push in the Senate against AB 306, a measure by Assemblymember Nick Schultz to temporarily freeze most building code updates. But the language got folded into one of the housing trailer bills poised to pass on Monday. Industry and pro-housing groups like the California Chamber of Commerce and California YIMBY are cheering the win. 'The fact that people are so vociferously opposed to this — all of these common-sense solutions to problems that we've all known about for decades — is just more proof that we need leadership on this,' said Louis Mirante, senior vice president of public policy with the Bay Area Council, which represents Intel and Apple, among others. Opponents were left licking their wounds — and hoping for a second chance later in the legislative session. In particular, labor groups representing auto workers, machinists and scientists and environmental groups coalesced in opposition to a provision that would remove the CEQA review for advanced manufacturing facilities like semiconductor and EV plants, which they said can leach toxic waste into neighborhoods. The argument seems to have stuck. Wiener said on Monday afternoon the Senate is 'committed' to working on provisions related to the advanced manufacturing, tribal consultation and endangered species protections in potential follow-up legislation. — CvK Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! SEE YOU IN COURT: The fate of California's nation-leading emissions disclosure law will get put to the test Tuesday in federal court in Los Angeles, when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, CalChamber and other business groups will argue that the program is unconstitutional and should be struck down. The arguments tomorrow against SB 253 and SB 261, which compel all large companies operating in California to disclose their carbon footprint and climate-related financial risks starting next year, will center on the business groups' claim that the laws violate the First Amendment and follow months of discovery. Remember: The court already sided with California in the plaintiffs' two other arguments, that the laws violated the Supremacy Clause and limitations on extraterritorial regulation. The hearing comes on the same day that the Air Resources Board is due out with rules to implement the laws, which won't happen. Chair Liane Randolph told CC last week that she's aiming to finalize the rules by the end of this year. — JW WINDS ARE BLOWING: Congress is in the throes of a fight over wind and solar incentives as Republicans tee up a vote on President Donald Trump's megabill. A handful of Senate Republicans are staging a last-minute rally to preserve wind and solar incentives from Democrats' 2022 climate law, report POLITICO's Josh Siegel, Caitlin Oprysko and Meredith Lee Hill. Conservatives thought they secured a major win ahead of floor action on their megabill when Trump successfully urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on tax credits for wind and solar energy from the Inflation Reduction Act. Now, a diverse group of Republicans — led by conservative Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) — are offering an amendment to undo the harsher language that could get a vote during Monday's Senate 'vote-a-rama.' Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), John Curtis (R-Utah) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) also suggested Monday they were sympathetic to the push to ease the gutting of wind and solar credits. The amendment could set up a clash of Republicans with energy projects planned for their states with staunch conservatives and Trump administration officials, who vehemently oppose continuing subsidies for intermittent wind and solar resources that they claim are unreliable. INSURANCE INSULT: Former Insurance Commissioner and current Rep. John Garamendi had some words for Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara's handling of the Los Angeles wildfires at Consumer Watchdog's 40th anniversary gala on Saturday in Beverly Hills. 'The current insurance commissioner doesn't have the courage to stand up to the insurance companies and hold them accountable,' he said. 'I am disappointed, the consumers of California are disappointed. The commissioner has by law, by Prop 103 and the regulations, the power to hold insurance companies accountable to pay fully on their claims ... and make sure they don't get a rate increase when they're doing badly on paying their claims.' In response, Lara's office sent us prepared prepared remarks he made in May at an insurance conference held by the Capitol Weekly. In them, Lara hit back, naming Garamendi as one of the members of Congress who was unable to pass the federal funds for home hardening he had requested. 'I'm the clean up guy,' Lara said. 'Past Commissioners left a mess and they have the gall to tell me I missed a spot.' — DK, CvK SPEAKING OF FIRE: Oregon lawmakers last week voted to repeal the wildfire hazard maps that they ordered in 2022, Adam Aton writes for POLITICO's E&E News. The repeal, which is now awaiting Gov. Tina Kotek's signature, means property owners in the riskiest areas — about 5 percent of the state's private properties — won't have to meet stronger building codes and defensible space requirements. The maps had been a political hot potato since their release, getting tangled up in the public's mind with insurance hikes and nonrenewals. Democrats tried to salvage the program — restarting a second mapping effort with more public meetings, and passing a law to explicitly bar insurance companies from using the maps — before Kotek finally froze it in February. 'The rollout of the maps and the perception of the maps on the ground really undermined their effectiveness,' Democratic state Rep. Pam Marsh, one of the maps' architects, said Tuesday before voting to nix them. The Legislature's lone professional firefighter, Democratic state Rep. Dacia Grayber, was the sole dissenting vote. 'I know that politically this is the right thing to do for a lot of us,' Grayber, a firefighter with Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, said on the state House floor before the 50-1 vote. 'We have a tool here that we're walking away from,' she said, 'that could potentially be a game changer.' — Protecting Marin County's Stinson Beach from sea-level rise could cost the equivalent of $2.4 million apiece for each of its approximately 500 residents. — Immigration enforcement raids in the agricultural area north of Los Angeles have left fruits and vegetables unharvested. — The Santa Rosa Press-Democrat goes inside the country's next big dam removal along the Eel River.
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Commission recommends Kern supes OK oil review, permitting plan
A high-stakes effort to resume local oil permitting advanced this week as Kern's Planning Commission voted Thursday night to recommend approval of the county's third attempt at a massive environmental review. The board voted 4-0 with Commissioner Joe Ashley, a local oil executive, absent. Next the controversial measure will head to the county Board of Supervisors, which is scheduled to consider certifying the review and adopting a related ordinance during a special meeting June 26. Because the board is seen as likely to approve the proposal over the objections of climate and environmental justice activists, the bigger challenge for the county may be getting the approval of state appellate court judges. They have ruled, as recently as two years ago, that the county's efforts violate the California Environmental Quality Act. Kern's latest attempt includes new concessions that would raise the costs oil companies face when applying for permission to drill in the county. If the legal bid falls short, permitting will remain in the hands of Sacramento, where producers complain that the process is slow and hobbled by politics. People attending Thursday's commission meeting spoke up in opposition and support for revisions that would allow the county to permit up to 26,970 new wells by 2035. The county estimates that, based on past experience and depending on barrel prices, it will give out no more than about 19,000 drilling permits during that time, and that many of those will merely replace other wells set to be idled. Relatively few people criticized the county effort on Thursday; if history is a guide, a much greater number of opponents will weigh in when the Board of Supervisors takes up the issue. Many groups see the permitting process as overly broad "fast-tracking" at a time when oil production should be curtailed for climate and health reasons. Policy Director Ema De La Rosa at the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability urged the commission Thursday night to reject the proposal. She said oil and gas has historically impacted poor people and communities of color she said suffer disproportionately from illnesses including asthma, cancer and high-risk pregnancies. "Residents in Kern County already endure the worst air quality in the nation … and expanding these operations will only worsen the public health crisis and further burden already impacted communities," she said. Later she added, "Doubling down on fossil fuel reliance is a step in the wrong direction as the state is working toward a clean energy future." Director Lori Pesante of Sierra Club's Kern-Kaweah Chapter said in a statement ahead of Thursday's meeting it's time for the county to move past oil production. 'Kern's Planning Commission should prioritize clean air, new job opportunities in the renewable energy sector, and protecting the public from dangerous leaks and spills," she stated, "not double down on a failed approach that would give the oil industry a free pass to pollute our neighborhoods.' The architect of the county's effort, Director Lorelei Oviatt of Kern's Planning and Natural Resources Department, made the point oil production is still legal in the state, and that permitting done in Sacramento does not incorporate the 89 mitigation measures and standards Kern's system would impose for the protection of local air, water and biological and cultural resources. Oviatt said by email Friday the benefits of oil and gas production in Kern extend beyond the county, including to Southern California refineries that rely on local petroleum. "Returning Kern County to full environmentally protective permitting is critical for providing gasoline to consumers at prices we can all afford, stabilizing our local business community and providing investor confidence," she wrote. Since before it was initially adopted in 2015, the measure has been a top concern for local oil producers, which more recently are also dealing with a new state law forbidding oil work within 3,200 feet of a home, school or other sensitive site. Kern's proposed ordinance does not attempt to change that regulation. CEO Rock Zierman of the California Independent Petroleum Association trade group expressed support for the county's actions in an email Friday. "If we want any hope of saving the local oil industry and reducing gas prices, Kern must be empowered to take over permitting from the state, which is refusing to process permits in a timely manner' he stated. One of the county's newly proposed mitigation measures, included to address the appellate court's concerns, would prohibit new wells on farmland until old oil-field equipment is removed. Oil producers would also have to secure an ag easement within the county measuring the same size as any lost farmland. Additionally, oil companies applying for permits would have to pay into a fund that would match state investments in water systems serving local disadvantaged communities. Fees for each new oil well would amount to $9,732. It is projected to raise between $17.3 million and $25.9 million per year.
