ROADMAP 2035: What Now – Timelines and Implementation

CAPITOL WEEKLY PODCAST: This Special Episode of the Capitol Weekly Podcast was recorded live at Capitol Weekly’s conference examining California’s climate goals: ROADMAP 2035: Cars, Carbon and Climate Change – How Do We Meet California’s Zero Emissions Goals? which was held in Sacramento at the California Endowment Conference Center on Thursday, May 25, 2023

This is Panel 2 – What Now: Timelines and Implementation

Panelists: Dr. Jen Gress, California Air Resources Board; Kip Lipper, Policy Advisor to the Sen. Pro Tem; Michael Pimentel, California Transit Association; Scott Wetch, Carter, Wetch and Associates

Moderated by Ari Plachta, Sacramento Bee

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tim Foster: Thanks again for coming and I’m gonna turn it over to Ari Plachta of the Sacramento Bee.

Ari Plachta:  Thank you so much, Tim. Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining us for the second panel of the day. Hopefully, we won’t cover the same ground that we did earlier. I don’t think we will. But I would love to start by just letting the panelists introduce themselves for, you know, not more than a couple minutes each. That, you know, folks have their bio, your bios on their program, but tell us please, a little bit about yourself and what you have to say on the subject of timelines and implementation for California’s climate goals.

Kip Lipper: Good morning, everyone. My name is Kip Lipper. I work for the fun and happy branch of government, the legislative branch. I have, I’m embarrassed to tell you all, but I’ve been working in the legislature. This is my 48th year in the state legislature. And I’ve worked for the last six pro tems, or Senate majority leaders for those of you who don’t follow California politics. And I currently work for Senator Toni Atkins, the pro tem of the Senate, and I work on climate policy and energy policy and a variety of other environmental issues. And, last but not least, I want to say any remarks that I make are my own and don’t represent those of Senator Atkins, or any other senators. So, if I insult anybody or offend anybody, it’s on me. I just want to be clear. Thank you.

Scott Wetch: Hello, my name is Scott Wetch, and I own Carter, Wetch and Associates. This is my 35th year working in around the Capitol. Twenty-five years in the third house, representing a lot of different clients, but primarily I represent trade unions. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, sheetmetal workers and a few others. I’m not going to let… for those of you who don’t know, Kip Lipper… I’m not going to let his introduction pass because he’s far too modest, but basically, and this is if anything an understatement: For the last 40 years, nobody has had a bigger imprint on environmental policy in California than Mr. Lipper. So..

KL: Very kind!

Jen Gress: Good morning, everybody. Jennifer Gress. I’m chief of the Sustainable Transportation and Communities Division at the California Air Resources Board and some of the programs in my portfolio are the Advanced Clean Cars Program which was the subject of the last panel, also the SB 375 program aimed at reducing VMT building decarbonisation and also California Climate Investments. We have the the portion of that that sets the overarching guidance for state agencies that administer cap and trade auction proceeds.

Michael Pimentel: Good morning, everyone. I’m Michael Pimentel, Executive Director of the California Transit Association. We represent 220 member organizations here in the state of California, that includes 85 transit and rail agencies from across the state, but also our TPAs metropolitan planning organizations, and the manufacturers and suppliers that provide support to California’s transit industry.

The primary work that we do as an association is advocacy. For state funding, for transit supportive laws and regulations. And in my role that I’ve been in for about three years, but a decade in this industry, I’ve been our lead on a variety of fronts, including on environmental regulations, where I was our chief negotiator for the industry with the California Air Resources Board on things like the Innovative Clean Transit Rule [that] moves us to 100% zero emission transit buses by 2040, as well as the in-use locomotive regulation that moves us to 100% zero emission passenger and commuter rail locomotives by 2047. So happy to be here and engage in the conversation.

ROADMAP 2035, Panel 2 – What Now: Timelines and Implementation. Panelists: Dr. Jen Gress, California Air Resources Board; Kip Lipper, Policy Advisor to the Sen. Pro Tem; Michael Pimentel, California Transit Association; Scott Wetch, Carter, Wetch and Associates. Moderated by Ari Plachta, Sacramento Bee. Photo by Scott Duncan, Capitol Weekly

AP: The star-studded panel, folks. So, I was hoping we could ground our conversation in some top line facts and figures before we dive into questions. So, the California Air Resources Board’s Climate Scoping Plan has set a target to reduce overall statewide emissions to 48% below 1990 levels by 2030, right? And transportation is the largest source of California’s carbon pollution, followed by industry and electricity. The state’s plan was criticized by the Legislative Analyst’s Office pretty recently for lacking a clear strategy and relying on several pretty large assumptions, including how quickly Californians will buy EVs, and reduce their vehicle miles traveled in gas cars, among others.

And in 2020, the state emitted under 4 million tons of CO2. Our 2030 target is 226 million. I know this is getting wonky, but stay with me. In between now, and the ban on gas, car sales in 2035, our interim target for zero emission car sales is 35% in 2026. And data from the first quarter of this year showed that they made up 21%. So, we’ve got a significant way to go.

And the first question, which kind of is a big one that I’d like to kick us off with, is, are we going to achieve our 2030 goals? And if we don’t, how do we double down? And yeah, whoever wants to start?

KL: Well, that’s a great question. And I just want to say, it’s sort of like, ‘am I gonna lose that 50 pounds that I wanted to lose, beginning in January?’ These are, you know… the legislature and the governor have set a variety of targets to meet our greenhouse gas reduction goals, some of them are in the transportation sector, and some of them are the, in the electricity sector. And then there are other sectors like agriculture, and so forth, that are affected. And some or all of those are in law.  Some, or some of them are in what are called executive orders. These are basically pronouncements by Governor, sitting governors to his agencies, they do not have the force and effect of law. But they all are aspirational in terms of where they’re trying to get to.

And another thing that’s important is unlike a speed limit on the road, for example, if you go over 65, you might get a ticket. There is no direct consequence other than the fate of the Earth, which is a pretty big one, for not meeting these targets. And so they are aspirational in their nature, they are extremely important in terms of planning goals for the the, you know, the basic efforts that state government makes with respect to funding, staffing of agencies, and commitments those agencies make to implement the laws that the legislature and the governor pass.

But what I would say is, you know, I also think one last point I would make is, it depends on the sector. I think we’re in a, we have a lot of work to do in the transportation sector, which I know is a key focus of this conference. I’m really proud to say that in the renewable energy sector and the electricity sector, and again, thanks to the good work of my my colleague here, Scott Wetch, and others.  We started with the California Renewables Portfolio Standard back in the year 2000. Predating AB32, and AB1493 and all of the laws that are viewed as the climate portfolio for California. And that law has been enormously successful in reducing dependence on fossil fuels and replacing or displacing electricity generation with clean and eligible renewable energy resources.

So I think you have to kind of break it out in terms of the different sectors. A lot of work to do in transportation, very ambitious goals. Not sure how we’re gonna get there. I do agree with the LAO does outstanding work, by the way, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, on these things, and I do think we have the real effort now is to look at the transportation sector. Thank you.

“We’re very confident we’re going to make our goals, especially in the light duty side. And here are some reasons why I’m optimistic. As was stated earlier, 21% of new car sales ZEVs in the first quarter of this year. That’s three and a half times higher than we originally projected when we adopted Advanced Clean Cars I” – Dr. Jen Gress

SW: Yeah, I don’t have any great insight into this. I agree with with Kip, the area where we’ve made the greatest strides and I think we’ll meet our 2030… we’re well on our way to meet our 2030 goals in regards to the RPS. I just think that there’s just the the economic landscape for California and the world in general. And, you know, going forward over the next five years, most people are projecting, you know, a very hard landing, the tail end of 2023 going into 2024, and that the trough is going to be a lot more sustained.

You see a glimpse of that, and this year’s budget and the governor having to roll back a lot of his clean energy investments from last year. Even though he did attempt to protect a lot of the ZEV funding from last year, the negotiations are not over. There’s still a big need to protect transit and other things. So I’m very pessimistic, that we’ll meet those 2030 goals in those other sectors simply because I don’t think the state budget will have the wherewithal to really do what it needs to do to make it happen.

JG: Well, let me… I think Kip brought up the idea of looking at sector by sector. So, let me talk a little bit about transportation. CARB is setting regulations in every sector of transportation to go to zero. And we’re very confident we’re going to make our goals, especially in the light duty side. And here are some reasons why I’m optimistic. As was stated earlier, 21% of new car sales ZEVs in the first quarter of this year. That’s three and a half times higher than we originally projected when we adopted Advanced Clean Cars I. We’re also  – California is part of a global transition to ZEVs. We’re definitely not in this alone. Every major economy has significant ZEV goals. The entire industry is moving this way.

Also, every automaker has made significant public commitments to zero emission transportation. They’re committed. I think one example, I’ve noticed this year, so many commercials on TV that are promoting new ZEV products. Two years ago, I didn’t see nearly the number of advertisements. The industry is serious about zero emission vehicles.

We have 15 other states in the country that have adopted California ZEV requirements. We have five that have adopted Advanced Clean Cars II which was just final in November. So already five other states have adopted that in a very short period of time. U.S. EPA’s rules are very aggressive on greenhouse gases. And they’re projecting that the likely compliance scenario is is going to be 67% ZEVs, not including plug in hybrids by 2032. That’s huge.

“If that money isn’t forthcoming, we are going to find transit agencies who are going to be in retreat, and we’re going to have to scale back service. And we could enter a death spiral” – Michael Pimentel

And as we’ve talked about, in the last panel, there have been significant federal and state commitments on incentives, both on the vehicle side and the charging infrastructure side. So, all of the sides are moving towards electrification in a really rapid way. There are challenges, of course, as the last panel acknowledged, but one of the things that makes me really proud of California is that we have the legislature, the executive branch, and every agency within it fully focused on California’s climate commitments. And on transportation, we see policies being developed to support 100%, zero emission transportation.

ROADMAP 2035, Panel 2 – What Now: Timelines and Implementation. Panelists: Dr. Jen Gress, California Air Resources Board; Kip Lipper, Policy Advisor to the Sen. Pro Tem; Michael Pimentel, California Transit Association; Scott Wetch, Carter, Wetch and Associates. Moderated by Ari Plachta, Sacramento Bee. Photo by Scott Duncan, Capitol Weekly

MP: I’m gonna expand the conversation a bit more. And I think there’s been a lot said on the zero emission vehicle front and we just acknowledged we as an industry are fully there in making the transition to zero emission technologies. We’ve been lead proponents, lead supporters of this transition to zero emission technologies across the heavy-duty space. And have made some significant strides in that respect. I noted the innovative clean transit regulation 2040 goal to get 100% zero emission. We are today – And actually, I should say, we were, in the end of 2022, where car believed we would be, in terms of number of zero emission buses on order or deployed as where they thought we would be in 2027. So we’ve made some significant significant strides in this transition.

We’ve got rail agencies, chief amongst them CalTrain is soon to have a 75% zero emission fleet. All other agencies have adopted or will soon be adopting Tier Four cleanest diesel locomotives as a transition to zero emission technology. So we are making strides in that respect. The area where we have not made progress is on Mode Shift. And I think for us as an industry, there is no more critical impediment to us meeting our Mode Shift goals than the crisis we’re facing right now with public transit.

We’ve got a five point our I’m sorry, $6 billion funding shortfall over the next five years. We’ve made a request to the legislature for $5 billion in support. It just recognizes in a difficult budget year, identifying the full $6 billion is going to be a challenge. We have supported … we greatly thank the senate and assembly for putting forward significant dollars to begin to chip away at the issues that we are facing. But the reality is that we still need more. And if that money isn’t forthcoming, we are going to find transit agencies who are going to be in retreat, and we’re going to have to scale back service. And we could enter a death spiral where the service becomes so unuseful, so unattractive to the vast majority of people who are riding today that they simply stop taking it.

And at that point, revenues erode, agencies lose out on the local support that they have for transit, and they may not be able to operate their systems, generally. And so for those reasons, our focus this year, as much as we love the transition to zero emission technologies, we’re going to continue to champion it is on saving public transit. Securing the operations dollars to allow us to be the foundation of what is the state’s strategy on the transportation end for getting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of meeting our 2030 and 2040 targets.

AP: Thank you all so much for tackling that question. Jen, you mentioned the challenges to rapidly manufacturing and deploying zero emission vehicles. I know that the previous panel walked us through this pretty deeply. But for the purposes of our conversation of implementing the state’s goals, can you walk us through what those major challenges are today?

JG: Say, in the near term, the top three challenges are: Infrastructure, you know, both kind of grid support and charging infrastructure on the ground; The second is access to ZEVs in low income and disadvantaged communities. And, you know, the last panel talked about equity in terms of reducing emissions and, you know, in overburdened communities. But I would say one, an important part of equity is also just ensuring access to the technology and zero emission mobility. And I think the third big challenge is Cost. Right now, the cost of ZEVs is very high. All new… the cost of all new cars are very high. And we have to kind of reduce those costs over time to ensure that these vehicles are affordable to all Californians.

AP: And, of course, in addition to passenger vehicles, the whole centerpiece of this transition has to be public transportation. Right? I think there isn’t very much disagreement on that. But it does seem like our transit agencies are, as you said, Michael, in pretty dire financial straits. What happens if transit agencies don’t get the funding that they’re … the $5 billion in funding that they’re requesting right now? And how does that, you know, keep us from achieving these goals?

MP: I think we do find ourselves – those of us who have been previously in this position of retreat as an industry – where it just becomes that much harder to get folks to see the value proposition, the benefit of taking public transit. And we are going to then see a continued decline in the ridership levels that we are even now seeing are well below the pre pandemic levels.

I would just though note that, you know, as we are having these conversations about funding, that’s only one element of what is going to be necessary to get folks back on public transit. Just want to acknowledge we as an industry right now have a safety and security challenge. That is something that is dissuading many Californians from riding our system today, we’ve got to find a way to address it. But even as I acknowledge that, I do want to just reflect that the reality is that so many of the issues that we’re facing on our systems today are reflections or outgrowths of larger policy failures. Whether it’s on public safety, or on housing, that have made public transit, really the, the center for those ills and the spillover.

And so we’ve got to find a way to address some of these broader challenges, again, on on safety on housing affordability, to make sure that we are creating a foundation and an environment for public transit be successful.

You know, the final thing that I would just mention on this front, is there is also a need for us as a state to get real about transit prioritization. And I mean that on our city streets, on our county roads, on our state highway system, to find a way to provide a foundation for public transit to be efficient and effective. And to demonstrate of value proposition to the everday Californian. And I’ve often said, the best testimonial for riding public transit is being stuck in traffic looking at a fixed guideway system move past you. You might see it on the causeway here in Sacramento to Davis. You might see it elsewhere in California, but that is what we need to see across the state to get folks to realize there’s some advantage to taking public transit. It’s going to provide you cost savings. It’s going to provide you savings in your wallet. Take public transit.

AP: Kip or Jen, do you have anything to add on transit funding?

JG: Well, I will add on the on the question of what happens if we don’t address transit? You know, under the SB 375 program, and if you’re not familiar with 375, it’s a law that requires that metropolitan planning organizations to create integrated land use and transportation plans at the regional levels designed to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets that are set by my agency. And transit is a significant part of those sustainable community strategies. That is how the regions and large part are going to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets. And we’re counting on those reductions to meet the state’s climate goals. So any erosion of transit doesn’t just hurt communities. It doesn’t, just, you know, doesn’t just make it harder to get around. But it also impedes the ability for regions to hit their targets which were relying on.

ROADMAP 2035, Panel 2 – What Now: Timelines and Implementation. Panelists: Dr. Jen Gress, California Air Resources Board; Kip Lipper, Policy Advisor to the Sen. Pro Tem; Michael Pimentel, California Transit Association; Scott Wetch, Carter, Wetch and Associates. Moderated by Ari Plachta, Sacramento Bee. Photo by Scott Duncan, Capitol Weekly

KL: I just wanted to add, I think you all are getting a sense of the Rubik’s cube that we face when we’re talking about climate policy in the transportation sector. Jen did a great job of talking about EVs, and that’s one major piece of the puzzle. And she also didn’t mention it but I know, the effort on diesel trucks in the heavy duty sector that the ARB has done is another big piece of this both in terms of conventional pollution and community pollution. And in terms of greenhouse gases. Michael mentions transit, that’s another piece of this that needs to be fit in. And as Jen mentioned, also, the questions of land use and reductions in what are called VMT, or Vehicle Miles Traveled is a very important piece of it.

One of the questions we have to grapple with, and to your point Ari, is we only have so much money. We don’t have and you know, the state budget, for better or for worse, is often feast or famine. And if you had $5 billion to spend, and I say this with great respect to Michael, because I’m a big supporter of transit – is that the highest and best use of that money to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to improve transportation? Some people would say absolutely, yes. Some people would say absolutely no. And some people would say we need to think about that across the board.

“The structure of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund… those were decisions made in 2011. And the question is in 2023, do we need to sort of look at some of those things and revisit them?” – Kip Lipper

One good thing that we have in California that is often not mentioned is, in my part of the world, you know, you you read stories about the budget, and the governor talks about the budget being in arrears and the General Fund being down. A lot of the programmatic work that we do on climate is what’s called Special Funded, meaning it’s not funded through the General Fund, it’s funded through special fees or other charges, the cap-and-trade program generates revenue in the greenhouse gas reduction fund. And so a lot of times when you hear the bigger picture of the budget, being in trouble, it doesn’t necessarily impute to the climate world. But I will say you’re hearing this morning, exactly the challenge that we have, which is how do you sort of balance these various pieces of the transportation sector. And more broadly, the climate firmament, to be able to, to, you know, allocate funds most efficiently, and societally in a way that achieves our goals.

AP: I hear you saying that the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund might need some restructuring. Is that is that what you’re saying? To fund, maybe our priorities better?

KL: Yes.

AP: Okay.

KL:  Can I say something more?

AP: Making news, just kidding.

KL: You know, I just wanna, I mean, again, speaking for myself only, I want to be very clear. You know, the structure of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. And for those of you who don’t know, that is the fund into which the proceeds from the cap-and-trade program, the sale of rights to pollute, or allowances, goes into that fund. And a significant portion of it is what’s called Continuously Appropriated. So the legislature never looks at it, it doesn’t get changed.

A big portion of it goes to high-speed rail, another big portion of it goes to, as Jen mentioned, to how, you know, basically the SB 375, kind of housing and transit-oriented development. And a chunk of it goes to transit and intercity rail. So that those were decisions made in 2011. And the question is in 2023, do we need to sort of look at some of those things and revisit them? Maybe more money should be spent on transit, maybe we should find another another source of funding for some of the other priorities. But I do think that’s a logical revenue source to look at. How it’s prioritized is really based on decisions that were made over a decade ago. And I think it’s time to look at it again.

AP: And since you’re talking about this Kip, I did want to ask you, like, what do you think the role the legislature should have in sort of managing these funding priorities? And, you know, deciding that we need to focus more on transit, for example, versus the regulatory agencies? And what needs to change there in your mind?

KL: Well, I think the legislature should be all-powerful and in control, I think.  I’m sure that surprised you, right? No, you know, that’s actually a really, really good question because there is a tension between the priorities, you know, the agencies, the regulatory agencies don’t necessarily make the decisions. The governor makes the decisions, and he’s an elected official. His Department of Finance writes the budget, with input from agencies, but not always with agreement from the agencies. I mean, we have agencies that – Jen would never do this – but I have agencies coming to me all the time saying, “Hey, Finance didn’t approve that expenditure and we really like it. Will you put it in the budget?” So, you know, that is not an uncommon occurrence, in the budget.

What I would say is the governor and the legislature, generally speaking, have agreed, broadly speaking, on the categories that need to be expanded, and the legislature has its little pot of money that it gets to spend as well, although the governor likes to encroach on that, as well. So I think the legislature’s role should be to prioritize this [garbled] very much along the lines of what’s being discussed up here this morning, in terms of is the priority incentives for EV deployment and low-income communities? Are the incentives for transit? Are they both? And how do you do those kinds of things?

AP: Thank you, yeah. Scott, I want to ask you a question. Um in the legislature, the Trades have killed some of the most ambitious bills to tackle climate change historically. But obviously, widespread electrification and meeting these goals can’t happen without blue-collar labor and just lots of work. How can Labor be at the center of this transition instead of responding to it and sometimes fighting it.

SW: Well, thank you. First of all, Labor, when you’re speaking of Labor, you’re speaking primarily about the Building Trades. It is not a homogeneous group, like any other sector. For instance, my coalition, we helped round up the last votes for AB 32, for Speaker Nunez. We supported Fran Pavley’s mobile source bill and walked the halls with Tom Adams to get those votes. We supported Fran’s SB 375. We co-sponsored or sponsored Joe Simitian’s bill to take us through a 33% RPS. We co-sponsored SB 100 Kevin de Leon. And last year, you know, we broke from the rest of the building trades, and we supported many key pieces to the governor’s climate package. So not everybody sees the world through that same prism.

Having said that, speaking in general, what I think our position would be, is that people have to wake up and stop living in Fantasyland. Okay. I mean, if you read the Stanford Energy Futures Initiative study with their carbon storage center, you know, they found that if we are going to go with an all-renewable strategy for meeting our 2045 goals, we’re going to have to produce 500,000 megawatts of renewable power. And if anybody here thinks that’s doable, then we should have this discussion in Disneyland in Fantasyland, because that’s impossible. You know, so that’s if you just do it on wind and solar and storage, right? No nukes, no carbon capture, no natural gas whatsoever. That’s impossible.

So, we have to acknowledge that, and why that’s important to the labor sector is is that there is not equity when you’re just talking about wind and solar. You know, plumbers and pipefitters and boilermakers and insulators and all kinds of different unions who are employed within the oil and gas industry and other heavy-emitting industries, have no equity in those sectors. So what you have to have is you have to have a diverse portfolio of technologies. Okay, we have to get beyond the point of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good when it comes to everything like CCUS and hydrogen and Pumped Storage. Okay, you know, we can’t meet our climate goals if we’re going to try to save every three-legged frog in California. That’s just the fact.

The second thing is we have to do is you have to recognize, people, that we’re never going to be without a robust refinery capacity in California. We need transportation fuels, we need jet fuel, and we need it for National Defense. I mean, all of our threats come from the East: China and Russia. We’ve got 36 military installations in California, the defense of the United States of America is based on the West Coast. You cannot have a National Defense without a robust refining capacity on the West. So we have to get beyond this false narrative that somehow we’re going to get to a point where we’re not going to have any refining in California. That’s absolutely never going to happen.

And we also have to get beyond, like I said, allowing the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we don’t have a diverse portfolio of technologies, then you’re going to continue to have those years. You can’t take a $150 an hour boilermaker and turn them into a $12 an hour rooftop photovoltaic installer. That just doesn’t happen. So the key to getting the entire Building Trades aligned, moving forward on climate change, is having an honest conversation about what’s realistic and what’s not. And then I think you’d have a lot more inclusion of those groups in these efforts.

AP: Any responses to that? Okay, we can move on. Um, the California. Oh, yeah, [Kip].

KP:  And I have nothing but the highest regard for Scott. I do think, someday, you know, hopefully, we don’t need those fuels. It’s just in the same way that, you know, lead was a part of gasoline for much of the 20th century, but we were able to phase it out over time. And with a lot of difficulty, don’t get me wrong. So, I do think, you know, for the sake of the planet, we need to start looking at ways, and you’re right, there are sort of eliminating or reducing dependence on fossil fuels. And then there are ways to reduce the emissions from the fossil fuels and address that. So, I do agree with you. But I do hope we get to a place where we do, you know, at least as much as possible, eliminate those sources of local and greenhouse gas pollution as much as we can.

And I just want to say, too in response to your question, I’ve worked with Scott many years and with the trades, and in general, he’s exactly right. They have been very strong supporters of the clean energy economy and of climate change. A lot of these skirmishes, I mean, we’re gonna get to this in a minute. But it’s interesting to me that the governor did a press conference last Friday and announced a big infrastructure package, and standing right up there with him was Environment California, one of the leading environmental groups. The next day, 75 environmental groups sent a letter to the legislature saying, “Don’t approve any of this stuff.” And, you know, wait and do it through the policy process. So, you know, there are divisions and differences of opinion among it within labor and within the environmental community as well. So I think that’s what you’re seeing sometimes.

AP: And, Scott, you started to bring up infrastructure, which I was hoping we could pivot to talking about a little bit more. The governor, like Kip mentioned, proposed some major CEQA reforms to speed up climate infrastructure development, and the legislature is considering, you know, those proposals. And these are, we’re talking about things like energy production facilities, major transmission lines needed to carry energy from their sources to population centers. And the ISO, the California Independent System Operator, has estimated that we need to triple-grade capacity in the next two decades. So this is just massive. It’s hard for me to wrap my head around sometimes. Kip, are there going to be environmental trade-offs? As you mentioned, that proposal saw a lot of environmental opposition already. And are we as Californians ready to make those?

“I’ve been at the forefront of protecting CEQA for 20 years. It’s one of the most fundamental—it encompasses one of the most fundamental pillars of democracy, which is the right of a citizen to petition their government when they feel that something has gone off the rails” – Scott Wetch

KL: Yeah, that’s a great question. I have to say it’s… let me say, first of all, the governor has done a service in a way, because he’s put his finger on a key issue in meeting our climate goals, which is, and as Scott mentioned, I wouldn’t I want to say three-legged frog, I want to be clear with you. But what I would say is, we have to look at our permitting and regulatory structures in a way that optimizes as best we can. And I might say, not just CEQA and not just permitting, but financial institutions like the California Green Bank, which is part of the governor’s proposal, we need to look across the board at ways to, if we’re going to walk the talk, we need to walk the walk with respect to the way state government assesses, evaluates, and implements these policies, these broader policies.

So I think the governor’s raised a good issue here, a very important issue. And I mean, it’s the same issues being debated at the federal level in the Biden administration and Congress as well, which is, how do we deploy, as Scott says we have to deploy thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of new megawatts of power to get out there. And that’s going to require transmission line building, it’s gonna require power plant building, and even though solar, everybody loves solar and loves the sun, there are environmental implications to that, same with offshore wind.

So the governor proposed 11 trailer bills, and last Friday, five of which touch on the environment, and several of which address the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as you mentioned it, and the proposals that he put forward, you know, in general, make a lot of sense. And I hate to say it, but they’re not that different than what the legislature and, frankly, working with labor and environmental groups have put forward in the past—expediting judicial review, so lawsuits don’t take three or four years. Getting what’s called the administrative record prepared more quickly, so that if there are lawsuits, it’s dealt with expeditiously and not debated for years and years and years. Those kinds of things, I think, are very much within the realm of things that the legislature would look at. And I would hasten to point out Senator Atkins and we worked on this two years ago to author SB 7, which applies some of the same kind of streamlining to the housing, to the development of housing in the state. So.

SW:  I would just add, look, I’ve been at the forefront of protecting CEQA for 20 years. It’s one of the most fundamental—it encompasses one of the most fundamental pillars of democracy, which is the right of a citizen to petition their government when they feel that something has gone off the rails. And what Kip has described, what the governor is proposing is very narrow. It doesn’t remove the ability for any citizen or citizens group to file suit. It just gets the administrative record compiled more quickly, and it says we’re going to resolve this issue in the courts within 240 days…. Uh, 270 days.

I am far more concerned with the lack of attention going on with the bill the Senate is probably going to pass this week, which is SB 423, by Scott Wiener, which basically is a complete gut of CEQA and says you could have a massive mixed-use housing and development project. And if you check a few minimalist boxes, you get a Ministerial Permit, which means that neighborhood groups and individuals have no voice at a planning commission, no ability to petition their city council. It’s like getting a permit to build a deck in your backyard. People should be far more concerned about that, which the environmental community has been silent, than they are about the narrow crafting of the governor’s trailer bills.

ROADMAP 2035, Panel 2 – What Now: Timelines and Implementation. Panelists: Dr. Jen Gress, California Air Resources Board; Kip Lipper, Policy Advisor to the Sen. Pro Tem; Michael Pimentel, California Transit Association; Scott Wetch, Carter, Wetch and Associates. Moderated by Ari Plachta, Sacramento Bee. Photo by Scott Duncan, Capitol Weekly

AP: Jen, I also want to pose an infrastructure question to you on EV charging, which is, you know, going to be so important to the deployment and adoption of widespread zero-emission vehicles. And I’ve seen a lot of push and pull between private industry and state government as to who pays for this infrastructure and makes sure that it’s operating and working all the time. I’m wondering if you see any advancements and how is this conversation evolving? And how are we going to see that infrastructure in the near term?

JG: Well, there’s significant investment in charging infrastructure, right? There’s a lot of money right now, both from private companies and from the state and federal government. And I think we’re going to see a quick ramp-up. Also, the automakers are increasingly getting into infrastructure, either through partnerships with charging companies or, you know, by building it themselves like Tesla.

“We want to be clear that if we’re going to have projects that are going to bypass environmental review and therefore that really deep engagement that can happen at a community level, that we are guaranteeing that these projects that are advancing are the cleanest possible projects in California” – Michael Pimentel

I think the, you know, honestly, the concern I hear the most is about having it in urban areas where maybe there’s multifamily developments, or you’re a renter and you can’t put a charger near your home. Like this is an issue Steve Douglas raised. The other big one is reliability and unreliability. CEC is currently working on some requirements to put into their grants for charging. NEVI, the federal program for charging, also has reliability requirements. I think that’ll be very good. I think it will be important, I mean, for a consumer standpoint, and consumers having confidence that the charging is going to be available, that reliability has got to be tackled. And I think that’s going to be, you know, based on what we’re seeing, that’s gonna have to come from government putting firm requirements on the industry.

AP: Yea, you want to add, Michael?

MP:  I want to just add a few remarks. And I think, you know, a lot of what Scott has outlined has been resonant for me in our industry and what we’ve experienced. Generally, we’re seeing policies that are passed either through the legislature or promulgated by CARB that set ambitious targets. But then it comes down to the question of implementation. And the reality is that in this implementation conversation and really, dynamic, there are going to have to be concessions that are made to ensure that we can meet our goals.

And here I want to just acknowledge a few things. We have, as I’ve noted, leaned into this transition to zero-emission technologies. And while funding is a critical part of the conversation, so too is infrastructure build-out and a timeline for that build-out. And it’s part of the reason why we, as an association, served as a co-sponsor for Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 922 created a variety of CEQA exemptions for the build-out of clean transportation infrastructure, including charging and refueling infrastructure that’s necessary to meet the ICT, to meet the commercial harbor craft regulation, to meet the in-use locomotive regulation. Reality is that in the absence of that, we would have agencies who want to make the goals and objectives that have been set forth by the state, but simply cannot do so because of impediments that happen at the local level.

Now, there is a balancing act that has to take place within those conversations, and Scott mentioned engagement from the community. We want to be clear that if we’re going to have projects that are going to bypass environmental review and therefore that really deep engagement that can happen at a community level, that we are guaranteeing that these projects that are advancing are the cleanest possible projects in California.

“Don’t forget the electrons that are used to charge those EVs have to come from somewhere. And the transmission lines and distribution capacity has to be built to do that” – Kip Lipper

If there are projects that have large footprints, or projects for which there could be questions about the cleanliness of them or, for example, hydrogen refueling infrastructure, we worked with the environmental community, with the environmental justice community, with the trades to make sure that there was a process, a deliberative process for public engagement, public oversight, and counsel to lead us to solutions that ultimately, one, drive us toward this imperative of building out infrastructure, but also recognizing the responsibility that my members have as public agencies to be deeply engaged with the communities that they potentially are impacting in the infrastructure that they’re building out. And so there are ways to do this. It does require a lot of negotiation here in Sacramento to get things done. But I think we have, with the work that we’ve done, proven it can be done in an effective way and drive our industry forward.

KL: Jen is exactly right. But don’t forget the electrons that are used to charge those EVs have to come from somewhere. And the transmission lines and distribution capacity has to be built to do that. And that’s part of what the government has infrastructure package to look at is looking at. I also would note, and again, I want to emphasize it, that for true decarbonisation, those electrons ought to be generated as much as possible from zero-carbon or renewable energy resources. In other words, if you’ve got an EV being charged by a fossil fuel power plant, there, it’s not quite as good as if you were doing it from renewables. Second point I want to make is on Michael’s point. The governor, you know, to his credit, he did, and I saw some criticism of this. I think YIMBY put out a thing saying he hasn’t done anything to streamline CEQA. Well, first of all, the problems with CEQA are not, you know, in my view, the problem is CEQA was written at a time before you had robust state agencies like the ARB. And so the enforcement mechanism is through the courts.

That’s unfortunate. The courts have their own branch of government; they have their own approach. And I think the governor is sort of focusing on the underlying problem, which is moving more quickly to analyze and to resolve concerns about those projects, just as Scott said, is a really good way to go. I think limiting who can bring a lawsuit or, you know, these bills running through that say, you know, if you’ve contributed more than $1,000 to the litigation, then you should be identified. I think those are all, you know, really not getting at the real problem, which is the delay factor.

AP: I’d like to bring us back to cost and equity. I’ve heard California’s approach to decarbonization and regulations for climate being described as a top-down approach. The regulatory agency comes out with a rule everybody must meet it. And the wealthiest of Californians kind of jumped to meet that, buying EV developed, you know, put solar on the rooftops. And lower-income Californians, really, like the vast majority of the state, are going to end up with higher energy costs for gasoline, for electricity. What can the state be doing better to address this dynamic? That’s that is a threat of intensifying?

SW: Well, look, I think they took a big step finally with the PUC reforming, the probably the most regressive tax policy in the history of the state of California, which was the Net Metering Program, which, you know, had a cost shift of more than more than a billion dollars a year was going to grow to over $4 billion by 2030, affecting low-income ratepayers at the, you know, to the benefit of the wealthiest. And while you know, I don’t feel the reforms went far enough, they did take a big step, at least in that regard.

JG: On EVs in particular, we do anticipate costs will come down over time. But in the meantime, I would say two things: We need to continue investing in incentives for inequity transportation programs. And, you know, the state, and by that, I mean both the legislature and the executive branch, have been doing that. It’s just a matter of continuing those investments. And those investments will probably have to happen for a long time.

In addition, I would say, you know, one of the things, one of the principles that we had in Advanced Clean Cars II, is that the vehicles have to be designed in a way to serve as true replacement vehicles. They have to be high quality enough. And that’s not just important for the new car buyer. That’s also important for the used car buyer. So we put in durability requirements, warranty requirements for the battery, data transparency issues. Requirements like battery state of health, so that when the car is, you know, on the used market, folks can have confidence that it is going to serve their needs. And there were a whole host of other things. So I think building in those kinds of measures makes sure that at least on the EVs, that they can be high-quality vehicles even in the used car market.

But I also want to shift a little bit to because I think that when you’re talking about equity and zero-emission mobility, it isn’t just about personally owned vehicles, it’s also about having a range of affordable convenient options in their communities. That’s where transit comes in. It’s also other mobility options like bike share, car sharing, and making sure that every community is outfitted with options that allow people to take… you know, get around other than owning a car. Owning a car is expensive, whether it’s a ZEV or not, car ownership is expensive. So I really think it comes down to making sure we’re investing not just in making EVs affordable but providing a whole range of options to get around in the cleanest way possible.

MP:  I’d like to add to this conversation is I think, as we’re looking at these regulations, are considering the movement away from fossil fuels. The thing that we as a state really have to contemplate is what are going to be the downstream impacts to other industries, other modes. I think Scott’s touched on this a bit with regards to the workforce. But I also want to just highlight clearly one of the dominant sources of funding for public transit is a sales tax on diesel fuel. Produces about a billion dollars a year. The state has not, at this state, proffered any recommendation for how, when we get to 100% zero-emission trucks, ships, locomotives, we’re going to backfill that money and allow for us to have robust public transit in the process.

And so, yes, we want clean air, yes, we want to move towards reduced emissions. But we also have to contemplate what is going to be that backfill for industries who are playing a critical equity role, who are going to be hobbled by a billion dollars of lost investment. If we are not thinking concretely and prospectively about the work that needs to take place here through the legislature to address what are those funding needs.

KL: Note too, and Jen slightly touched on this, but you know, the state and the legislature and the administration have adopted very aggressive policies on what’s called environmental justice. And that includes setting aside significant portions of funding for the kinds of programs that have been described up here. As I mentioned, some of them are funded through the GGRF. But some of them are funded through other fees as well. But the focus, and I think Jen’s right, the hard focus here is not on, you know, what you and I would think of as the typical Beverly Hills Tesla driver, but it’s focused on the affordability and the availability of clean transportation and transit for, you know, working people in California.

So I do think that that’s, you know, one of the great things about my work is, you know, the legislatures are open. You know, Scott Wetch can walk in my door, but an environmental justice advocate, the mayor of Huron, Rey Leon, can walk in too. He’s a great guy. And I mean, he’s not an environmentalist. He’s the mayor of this community, and he’s making it 100% electrified. And, you know, that’s, I think that there’s a lot to be said for that. And I’m proud of the policies. We need to do more, no question about it. But I’m proud of the policies, what we’ve been able to do.

AP: Um, do we have any questions from the audience? Can you open it up?

Rich Ehisen: Thanks. Ari, you got in front of me a little bit…. Yes. Do we have questions that anyone would like to throw?

TF: We did have one question from our Zoom handle or Zoom viewers. And that question is high-speed rail. Can you address how that will play into this? And what’s the timeline on that?

AP: I’ll leave that to our Transportation Association representative first.

MP: Yeah, so I just want to make the disclaimer that as an association, we do not represent the California High-Speed Rail Authority. But in a previous role, I did work for the High-Speed Rail Authority. And so I can’t speak to the updated plans and updated timelines. But what I would acknowledge is that as an association, we do see high-speed rail as being a central component of our broader strategy to move people to high-capacity mass transportation systems. We would see the high-speed rail system as being the central spine that then has interconnection with inner-city and commuter rail systems, innercity bus systems, to really deliver on the type of transportation system that we know we need to get people out of their cars.

I was unfortunately driving down the 101 this past weekend. I’m going to be unfortunately driving down the 5 this weekend, and for anyone who’s done it, you know it’s not a great experience. We’ve got to do better. And so high-speed rail is going to be a critical component for driving us to that future. But we just want to note that in these conversations about high-speed rail, I think it is important to recognize the important role that those intercity and commuter rail systems are going to play. It’s why as we’ve seen the investments, the ongoing investments from the state in high-speed rail, we’ve been bullish about the ongoing investments in intercity and commuter rail systems, knowing that they are going to be central linkages to that system when it’s eventually built.

John Howard:  Hi, John Howard, formerly of Capitol Weekly. Given the transitory nature of executive orders over the years, as well as regulations that codified those executive orders, what is the real expectation that in 2035, we’re all going to start selling new electric vehicles in California? It seems to me over time, many things can happen. Governors, administrations can be supplanted. The political landscape can change, budgets things can change. What’s your best guess? Whoever would like to answer, what’s your best guess and over and under a bet on whether we really put this into effect in 2035?

“The other thing I really worry about, to be honest with you, and I don’t know how to think of a better word to say it, but “fudging” the data” – Kip Lipper

JG: We already have an enforceable regulation on the books with Advanced Clean Cars II. So, I mean, I feel really confident that we have something in place that will really require 100% new car sales being ZEVs in 2035. There are challenges to overcome. But as I was saying earlier, all the reasons why I’m optimistic, I mean, the sales are already growing at a really rapid rate, much faster than we previously estimated. And I think the ingredients are in place for success. I think the…. I’m not as worried about California as I’m worried about the broader United States because there I see more changing of administrations affecting support for clean car policies, whether it’s EPA’s proposed rule or incentives coming down from the federal level. But in California, I think we have the ingredients in place.

KL: John, it’s a great question. I want to say two things. One, as I’ve thought about this a lot, and I’ve gone back and looked 25 and 30 years back. A few of us were around, by the way, Pete Wilson was governor, he issued a number of executive orders on illegal immigration, which would curl your hair – if I had any. Today, very different, you know, very different era, as you know, and you can go back and go to the State Library and look at these executive orders. Some of them, you know, get prominently mentioned, some of the discriminatory executive orders issued during World War II, things like that. They, unlike laws, they are not legally enforceable in the courts… it’s a governor’s directive to his agencies. So you’re dependent on successive governors to carry that forward.

And so far, going back to Schwarzenegger, we’ve had governors who have been strongly committed to this. And we’ve had legislators who have been strongly committed to it. So, you know, I think a lot of that depends. With great respect to Jen and I, you know, the ARB is not a lawmaking body. Those regulations, to the extent they’re not federally enforceable, and that’s an important caveat, those regulations can be rescinded. And we’ve seen that happen before in administrations for varying reasons.

The other thing I really worry about, to be honest with you, and I don’t know how to think of a better word to say it, but “fudging” the data. And I have great regard for the State Air Resources Board and for state agencies. But I think sometimes, just like, you know, again, I hate to use the analogy, but you know, because I’m a little bit overweight, it’s like, you know, you want to lose weight, and you want to go get that ice cream sundae on a Saturday evening. And I just think sometimes the pressure on these agencies… They want to, you know, they believe in what they’re doing, and they get out there and they make assertions about how well things are going when, as is noted and was noted by Ari earlier, the more dispassionate analyses by, say, the Legislative Analyst’s Office and others show that there’s, you know, beyond the press releases and the huzzahs and the high fives and the bill signing ceremonies at Treasure Island. The hard work is every day, every week, every month. It’s not something that you can just assume is going to happen.

RE: Well, I’ll add one if no one else is going to have one. You mentioned, I think it’s 15 other states, right, that are somewhat on board with following California’s standard. What happens if there is that kind of fall off from those states or the support from the federal government? I mean, what happens if we get two years from the timeline, as John is kind of inferring? And maybe it’s obvious, we’re not going to get there, then why?

JG: We always track implementation of our regulations, right? If something is happening and it’s no longer feasible to require 100%, we always have the ability to amend our own regulation. So, we, you know, we always have that ability, we’re always tracking what’s going on.

So my point is more that that, that we have the building blocks in place. And I think California does. All the agencies are… all the agencies at the state level, and even the legislature. They’re seeing what the obstacles are, and they are taking steps to address those obstacles. And that is why I feel optimistic. Sometimes I see policies that are high in the sky. And maybe they are a little like, maybe you only have one or two agencies working on it, you know, in the Brown administration. ZEVs were like really CARB’s purview, and not all the other agencies were necessarily moving in that direction. But today, compared to then, every agency is oriented… who has some role to play and ZEVs, they’re oriented this way. That is the change I have seen over time. That is why I feel good that we are taking steps to address the barriers and that we have the building blocks in place.

KL: I wanted to just give you one other example that I think is important to look at. And again, I look back sometimes because I’ve been around too long. And in 1989, the legislature passed a revolutionary law known as the Integrated Waste Management Act. And it had the outrageous idea that cities and counties would reduce their solid waste and through recycling, source reduction, or composting, by the year 2000 by 50%. It was revolutionary. People thought this is outrageous. Two cities in the state, Palo Alto and Berkeley had curbside recycling programs.

Today, you know, roughly 30 years later, a little bit over that, every city in the state has curbside recycling. Composting programs, both for methane reduction for greenhouse gases, and for reuse of materials are blossoming throughout the state, including here in Sacramento. These, I think Jen is right in the sense of where you get buy-in on laws from the economic sectors as well and not just sort of as an environmental aspiration. But you have the investment and the money that’s coming forward, both from the federal government but also from the private sector. I think you have a much better chance of sustaining these policies over the long haul.

AP: I just have one final question before we break. I think at 11:45, so make it fast.

So we keep talking about these dispassionate analyses saying from the LAO saying that CARB’s scoping plan, that our plan to reaching these targets, are not as rooted in reality as maybe they could be. That they rely on assumptions that Californians will get out of their cars, for example, or that carbon capture is going to, you know, save us to get that extra step.

How should California agencies and actors be grounding this plan more in reality? This panel is about implementation. So how do we make our implementation plan more rooted in what’s real? Whoever wants to address that?

KL: I don’t want to talk too much so if somebody else wants to.

ROADMAP 2035, Panel 2 – What Now: Timelines and Implementation. Panelists: Dr. Jen Gress, California Air Resources Board; Kip Lipper, Policy Advisor to the Sen. Pro Tem; Michael Pimentel, California Transit Association; Scott Wetch, Carter, Wetch and Associates. Moderated by Ari Plachta, Sacramento Bee. Photo by Scott Duncan, Capitol Weekly

SW:  I’ll just, I’ll just say, from my perspective, I’m not concerned with the concerns of LAO because the scoping plan isn’t the 10 Commandments carved in stone. I mean, it is a document that evolves over time. And that’s why we update it. And that’s why the mechanisms are in place to see how the progression is happening and then making the appropriate adjustments as we move along. To think that we’re just going to set a plan in place from now to 2045 and hit it spot on is just naive. And so I don’t have those same concerns that LAO does.

AP: Yeah, Michael.

MP:  So I’ll give a shout out to Governor Newsom and the recent plan that he’s offered for infrastructure streamlining. Within his plan, there’s a series of executive actions. One of them calls for the establishment of this series of strike teams that are cross-jurisdictional between agencies and departments to help with permitting and streamlining and being the eyes and ears for those industries and those actors are who are charged with implementing these plans. I would argue that that needs to be scoped up even further and focus on the implementation of laws and regulations and providing tactical hands-on support for industry players in being successful.

Candidly, we as an association have been that type of strike team for our industry, of course, in close concert with CARB and CPUC and CEC. But I would argue that that isn’t necessarily solely the role of a trade organization. It ought to be the role of a state who’s saying, we’re establishing laws and regulations to meet certain goals and objectives – How do we get there? And on a very practical level, I mean, we’re talking about issues that happen in infrastructure build-out, in syncing up of grant opportunities, in modifying electricity rate designs, etc., that ultimately support the industry players for doing exactly what the state would like for us to do. And so there ought to be that type of hands-on role. Currently, there isn’t. But that’s an area where I would say there’s a dearth of leadership and we’ve got to fill it.

AP:  Thanks. Yeah, Kip.

KL: Sorry.

AP: Don’t apologize!

KL: I want to both agree and disagree with my friend Scott. I want to first of all say, I, you know, the LAO, in particular, but outside reviewers of the climate programs in California are essential to keeping us on track. And, you know, I read the LAO’s report, not so much as an outright criticism but saying, ‘Hey, you, the legislature ought to have more information about how they’re going to go from point A to point B.’ Scott’s right, though, it the scoping plan is an iterative process. It does change over time. The only thing I would say is if you look at the 2018 scoping plan, it was… how shall I put it, based on, to use Scott’s word, “Fantasyland” assumptions about greenhouse gas emissions. So while I agree with you, the scoping plan can be and should be revised. The problem is that the ARB, with all the great work that it does, sometimes gets it wrong. And I do think it’s a very valuable function. Frankly, I think the legislature should do more oversight. We have five budget subcommittees meeting right now, as I’m speaking, over in the Senate, looking at the various budgets of state agencies. And I think we should do more of that. I think that’s, it’s really important to keep us on track.

AP: Got to let Jen respond to that.

JG: Let’s talk about EVs in particular. And, you know, I don’t remember the year this started, this was a long time ago under the Brown administration. Governor Brown tasked GO-Biz with developing a ZEV Action Plan for the state. It was basically an implementation plan to meet the ZEV goals that he had put in executive orders. In that document – and that effort remains active today – it’s called the Market Development Strategy. I don’t know how many agencies have actions identified in that in terms of how they’re going to support the state’s EV goals. But I feel like that is a good model that can be used in other sectors. I think, for me in my area, the area I’d like to see more attention is on VMT reduction. And both, you know, in terms of both the legislature and the administration, you know, in the scoping plan, we did identify actions that need to be undertaken to support VMT reduction…

AP: Vehicle Miles Traveled.

JG: Vehicle Miles Traveled. Thanks. Also, we have a forthcoming SB 150 report that assesses progress meeting the goals of [SB] 375 that I talked about earlier, also identifies actions that can be taken, but they’re difficult actions. And I think there’s a lot of work that needs to be done to actually move those actions forward.

AP: Well, thank you so much, panelists, for a great conversation. And thank you all for joining us. Let’s get some lunch.

Thanks to our ROADMAP 2035 sponsors:

THE TRIBAL ALLIANCE OF SOVEREIGN INDIAN NATIONS, WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, KP PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PERRY COMMUNICATIONS, CAPITOL ADVOCACY, LUCAS PUBLIC AFFAIRS, THE WEIDEMAN GROUP and CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS