Switchboard, from NRDC › Victoria Rome's Blog

California Legislative Update

2011-10-19T19:04:06Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

Governor Brown worked up until the midnight deadline on October 9th to sign or veto the more than 600 bills sent to him by the State Legislature. Overall, he demonstrated a core commitment to California’s environment and the health of our citizens. There were a few disappointing vetoes and there are some bills that stalled in the Legislature and will have to wait until January when the second half of this legislative session begins. California’s new laws continue to advance environmental priorities including: clean energy, healthy oceans, reduction of toxic chemicals, increased recycling, and clean water. Below is a summary of top bills signed and vetoed.

NRDC Priorities Signed into Law
Oceans: AB 376 (Fong/Huffman) protects sharks from cruel practice of shark finning by banning possession, sale or trade of shark fins in California.

Clean Energy: SB X1 2 (Simitian) increases renewable energy supplies in California to 33 percent by 2020 (signed in April, 2011).

Energy Efficiency: SB 454 (Pavley) saves money and reduces pollution by improving enforcement of building and appliance energy efficiency requirements.

Safe Baby Products: AB 1319 (Butler) bans Bisphenol-A or BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups sold in California.

Additional Environmental Bills Signed
Recycling: AB 341 (Chesbro) expands recycling opportunities to businesses and apartment buildings. Also sets statewide solid waste diversion goal of 75% by 2020.

Oil Spill Prevention: AB 1112 (Huffman) ensures adequate funding for state agencies tasked with inspecting and monitoring oil operations in California.

State Parks: AB 42 (Huffman) allows nonprofit organizations to operate, restore or maintain state parks which have suffered drastic funding cuts in recent years.

Clean Drinking Water: A package of bills helps ensure access to clean, safe and affordable drinking water for disadvantaged communities (AB 938, AB 983, AB 1221 and SB 244).

Coalition Bills Signed
Jobs and Green Construction: SB 292 (Padilla) expedites judicial review for a new football stadium in downtown Los Angeles. The stadium needs to meet strong environmental performance criteria to receive the fast-track benefits.

Solar Energy: SB 618 (Wolk) provides an incentive for solar developers to site projects on agricultural land that is least suited for growing food and best suited for growing renewable energy.

Environmental Bills Vetoed
Gregory Canyon: SB 833 (Vargas) would have protected a sensitive aquifer and Native American sacred sites by preventing a new landfill in Northern San Diego County.

Sustainable Communities: SB 582 (Yee) would have authorized regions to create commuter benefit programs to encourage employees to ride transit, carpool or bike to work.

Unfinished Business
Clean and Energy Investments: AB 724 (Bradford) and SB 870 (Padilla) would reauthorize “public goods charge” funding for clean energy research, demonstration and development; renewable energy, and energy efficiency programs.

Climate Change and Communities: SB 535 (DeLeon) would invest revenues from the implementation of the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) in the most disadvantaged communities.

Fracking: AB 591 (Wieckowski) would require disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.

Clean Waterways and Oceans: SB 568 (Lowenthal) would phase-out Styrofoam food containers by 2016.

California Bill SB 454 Helps Protect Consumers, Workers and Businesses

2011-09-15T23:04:45Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

My husband and I are in the market for a new refrigerator. The one we have came with the house we bought in 2002. It works okay, but is showing signs of age. We’ve had to patch up the door shelves with duct tape so it’s time for an upgrade. As I wrote previously, I am happy to live in California where many new products are required to meet basic energy efficiency standards that save consumers money and electricity. Thanks to California’s leadership, efficiency standards for refrigerators have gone national and international; and, as my colleague David Goldstein points out, the U.S. Department of Energy recently announced the next set of refrigerator standards. Because of efficiency requirements that advance and push better technology with no impact on performance or consumer choice, we can shop for our new refrigerator knowing that it will use significantly less electricity than our 10-year old one.

SB 454, a bill that gives the California Energy Commission more authority to enforce its requirements for energy efficient appliances, is now on Governor Brown’s desk awaiting his signature. SB 454 will help ensure that consumers get what they pay for when they buy new products like refrigerators, televisions, light bulbs and water heaters. The bill also sets up a safe guard to ensure that rebates for home efficiency upgrades are only paid when building permit and contractor licensing requirements are satisfied.

My colleague Noah Long and I spent the past several months working with Senator Pavley on the bill. We partnered closely with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, as well as contractors, businesses, labor and other environmental groups.

Workers, law abiding businesses and environmental groups all support SB 454 because better enforcement of efficiency requirements ensures that no one is able to skirt the law and undercut competitors. Improving compliance also ensures that we actually get the energy savings we expect; thereby saving us money and reducing pollution.

SB 454 saves money for the state and its citizens, reduces pollution, and creates a level playing field for workers and businesses – all good reasons it should be signed into law right away. The bill will help California’s economic recovery and move us toward a clean energy future. Urge Governor Brown to sign SB 454 and other key environmental bills by taking action here.

California's Republican politicians still don't get it

2011-03-18T17:48:03Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

Governor Brown and California’s legislative leaders are working around the clock to address the state’s $26.6 billion budget deficit, yet a deal remains elusive. The governor proposes a mix of budget cuts and extensions to taxes that would otherwise expire this July, to close the gap. The tax extensions would go before voters in a June special election, and according to a poll released this week, most Californians support extending personal income, sales and vehicle license taxes at their current rates for five more years, which would add about $12 billion to the ailing budget. However, even though voters made it more democratic to pass a State Budget by approving Prop 25 that allows a majority vote for the budget rather than a 2/3 vote, it still takes 2/3 to put a revenue measure on the ballot – and that’s where the Republicans come in. Simply allowing voters to decide requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature, meaning two Republicans in the Assembly and two in the Senate must agree.

We’ve seen time and again that state Republicans use their leverage over the budget process to extract major policy changes that have nothing to do with the budget. As the Los Angeles Times editorialized on Thursday, the environment is again their preferred target and they’re hawking a bad deal.

The Republican proposal would gut the California Environmental Quality Act, the state’s bedrock law that affords citizens a voice in the approval process for major development proposals. This would pave the way for more projects by taking away the people’s voice and allow only the state Attorney General or those wealthy enough to pony up a $50,000 “deposit” to the court can challenge environmental impact reports in court. Their proposal would retain CEQA as an option for industry and wealthy developers but lock regular citizens out of the process.

Clearly, California’s Republican politicians did not get the message sent by the overwhelming defeat of Proposition 23 in November. In that battle, voters of every stripe and in every area of the state resoundingly rejected an attempt by out of state oil companies and the Koch brothers to stop programs that clean up California’s air and build a clean energy economy. They rejected the false choice of environmental protection or economic growth presented by Prop. 23’s backers. Less than five months later, we see the same tired proposals to weaken health and environmental protections through the budget process. NRDC calls on our leaders in Sacramento to reject these proposals and vote to put a balanced solution to our budget problems on the ballot without delay. Click here to urge your legislators to let the people decide.

A Positive Development in Sacramento

2011-01-26T21:23:17Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

I recently attended the groundbreaking for an exciting new project in downtown Sacramento. La Valentina is being built on a formerly polluted site that sat vacant for two decades. That’s a long time to wait to turn valuable property into something attractive and functional. When complete, La Valentina will offer 81 studios, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments all available at below market rates. The ground floor will feature art, bicycle parking, a cafe and enhanced transit amenities. There’s a light rail stop right in front of the building meaning that the lucky residents of La Valentina won’t need a car, saving them money on gas, maintenance and insurance.

Photo courtesy of Domus Development

As one of the first regions to prepare a blueprint plan, Sacramento is ahead of the curve in planning for population growth while meeting the challenges of climate change. SB 375, a law which passed in 2008, requires regions to develop sustainable communities strategies and the Sacramento region is at the forefront of this effort. Projects like La Valentina are being encouraged throughout the state.

La Valentina provides the environmental benefits that “smart growth” advocates envision because it uses energy and water efficiently, is well-situated near transit and other services, and can reduce auto dependence. But environmental benefits are only part of the equation. Smart growth projects save money both for residents and for cities; existing infrastructure can be utilized and improved to accommodate them. Smart growth also improves health by allowing people to walk or bike, and revitalizes communities by turning vacant eyesores into attractive new homes and businesses. According to a recent survey of the next generation of home buyers, their preferences tend toward smarter growth as well. The survey found that a majority of “Gen Y” would like to be able to walk, doesn’t need large lawns, and wants common spaces where they can gather with their friends and neighbors. I’m glad that La Valentina will provide a positive housing choice for Gen Y and others who want to save money, improve their health and help the environment.

NO on Prop. 26: A Bad Idea for California

2010-10-21T17:08:16Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

It seems like everyone and their sister is opposed to Proposition 26. The American Lung Association in California, American Cancer Society, Sierra Club, NRDC, police officers, firefighters, teachers, and the League of Women Voters all urge their members to vote NO on 26. These groups oppose Prop 26 because it would eliminate the ability of a majority of the legislature to enact fees on industries that pollute our air and water and endanger our health. Prop 26 would make it harder to hold polluters accountable for the harm caused by their activity. But Prop 26 goes farther – it also dictates what local governments should do by requiring cities and counties to run costly elections and win a two-thirds majority every time they want to enact a fee. Prop 26 would cripple local government and hurt local communities, which is why the League of Cities and the State Association of Counties also urge a NO vote.

It makes me wonder, who likes this initiative? The answer lies in who is funding the campaign. Big oil, big tobacco and big alcohol are spending millions on deceptive advertising to try to convince voters that 26 will protect them from “hidden taxes.” But independent analysis shows that it would actually cost taxpayers at least a billion dollars annually.

California is the only state that does not allow the Legislature or initiative proponents to repeal or amend a ballot measure. Therefore, if this measure passes, any disastrous impacts on children’s health and our environment would be locked in until and unless 26 is revised by another vote of the people. Let’s not let it come to that. Help NRDC beat the Polluter Protection Act by voting NO on Prop 26.

Photo: San Francisco Supervisor David Chiu discusses how Prop 26 hurts communities

California Votes on the Environment

2010-10-04T23:10:24Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

When Californians mark our ballots for the November election we will decide on nine ballot initiatives, four of which impact California’s public health, natural resources and proud tradition of environmental leadership. NRDC’s positions on these measures are outlined below.

NO on 23 – The Dirty Energy Proposition

Proposition 23 would stop progress on curbing global warming emissions and transitioning to clean energy by “suspending” California’s landmark law, AB 32, until unemployment is below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. This unemployment threshold has only been reached 3 times in the past forty years. Prop 23 would pull the rug out from the one sector of our economy that is actually growing – clean technology and clean energy – and create loads of uncertainty for businesses that have already made investments and are looking to expand. You can read more on the impacts of Prop 23 here and here and visit the campaign website here.

NO on 26 – Polluter Protection Act

Proposition 26 is another disastrous measure for California’s environment, public health and local communities. It would eliminate the ability of a majority of the legislature to enact fees on industries that pollute our air and water and endanger our health. Currently, a simple majority vote can enact a fee (used to remedy a specific harm), but a tax (used for general purposes) requires a two-thirds vote. Prop 26 would make it much harder to ensure that polluters are held accountable for the harm caused by their activity. But Prop 26 goes farther – it also dictates what local governments should do by requiring cities and counties to run costly elections and reach a 2/3 majority to enact a fee. Prop 26 would make it nearly impossible for local communities to deal with issues like traffic and public safety for large events and would shift the burden to taxpayers for cleaning up hazardous waste and other pollution. A broad coalition of environmental and health groups, local governments, civic organizations and public safety professionals have come together to defeat this initiative. Check out the opponents’ website here.

YES on 21 – California State Parks Initiative

Proposition 21 would give California vehicles free, year-round day-use admission to the state parks in exchange for a new $18 vehicle license fee, which would be dedicated to state parks and wildlife conservation. State parks are chronically underfunded and have been threatened with closure the past two years due to the state’s dire budget situation. Prop 21 would provide a stable and on-going source of funding for the parks at a time when we need them more than ever for our own recreation and respite, and for the economic activity they generate. Read more about Prop 21 and the benefits of the parks here and here.

YES on 25 – End Budget Gridlock

Proposition 25 would allow the state budget to pass by majority vote of the legislature. Changing the vote threshold from 2/3 to a simple majority would help stop the practice of one or two legislators demanding repeal or weakening of environmental laws as the price of their budget votes. Proposition 25 would help ensure that environmental policies are considered in the light of day, through regular legislative or administrative processes, not in backroom budget negotiations. Learn more about Prop 25 here.

Efficient TVs Coming to California

2010-01-05T00:55:07Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

Working for an environmental organization I am accustomed to seeking out “green” products when shopping. This year I found several in unsuspecting places as I did my holiday shopping. Did you know you can buy a tricycle made of mostly recycled materials? We got one for my two year old.

There’s also this cool solar powered remote control car I got for my five year old. Anyone who has replaced the batteries on kids’ toys knows how liberating it is to have a great toy that doesn’t need batteries – ever! I found both of these at a major retailer. At many stores I find one section, albeit a small section, that offers environmentally friendly products that are either super efficient or are made out of recycled materials. There are cell phones made from old phone parts and recycled plastic, an idea that is long overdue given that most of us only keep our cell phones for a year or two. Even a recent visit to the eye doctor yielded a dozen choices of frames made from recycled material.

But what if consumers didn’t have to seek out environmentally preferred products? What if every product met a strong environmental performance standard? That day has come to California for one of our most central household products, the television. As my colleague Noah Horowitz wrote here and here, the California Energy Commission’s efficiency standards for new televisions mean that, starting in 2011, every television sold in California will be an efficient one. Conscientious California consumers won’t have to worry if their local Best Buy or Target stocks energy efficient TVs. The new TVs will be so efficient in fact, that once the standards are in full effect, California won’t need to build that new 500 megawatt power plant and will save almost $1 billion in the form of lower electricity bills.

The new TV standard doesn’t address every aspect of environmental performance; for example, there is no requirement for the TV to be easily disassembled for recycling. But for TVs, refrigerators, cell phone chargers and other products that meet energy efficiency standards, Californians don’t have to look for the one, usually tiny “green” section of the store to do their part for the Earth. And I’ll bet most people don’t know that their cell phone charger is regulated so that it doesn’t use inordinate amounts of power just by being plugged in to the wall. They just want it to charge their phone. That’s the great thing about efficiency standards. They nudge manufacturers to do better - to innovate so that their products use less energy with no tradeoff in performance or availability. Despite claims of “empty shelves” from the D.C. based Consumer Electronics Association, which has been fighting the TV efficiency standard for years, there are close to 300 models on the market today that meet the higher standard, known as the Tier 2 standard, three years before it goes into effect. For a list of the most efficient models on the market today go here.

My family is a bit behind the times when it comes to home entertainment. Case in point: we don’t have a digital TV or subscribe to cable so we needed a digital converter box when all broadcasting switched to digital last summer. But as my children grow up I can already anticipate repeated requests for a new flat screen television and a Wii or Xbox or whatever new game might come along. Video game consoles are due for development of energy efficiency standards because they consume excessive amounts of power when left on but are not in use. I’m proud that California keeps forging ahead with energy efficiency standards so that when we finally upgrade our TV or buy that new video game console, we will have a wide range of products to choose from and won’t have to seek out the little corner where they keep the efficient ones.

For Good and Ill the California Legislature Met its Deadline (Almost)

2009-09-29T22:42:05Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

When pushing up against a deadline, do you feel more productive? There's something about human nature that causes us to submit a work product at 11:59 to meet a midnight deadline. The California legislature is no different. After going through the traditional process of committee hearings and floor votes for nine months, many details of final bills are not decided until the last minute and brand new bills spring up days, or even hours, before the legislature is scheduled to adjourn. As my colleagues wrote about here and here, these last minute bills usually signal trouble or can occasionally represent progress, as in the case of water, where the final language came together on the last day of session, but represented an agreement among stakeholders who are often at odds.

Increasingly though, last minute deals are struck between a few powerful players who hope the public isn't paying attention as they try to jam their bill through with maneuvers like rule waivers, "gut and amend" (Sacramento-speak for completely removing the contents of a bill and putting in new language), and rushed committee hearings late at night where legislators and advocates get their first look at actual bill language. More and more, late attacks seem to target environmental and public health protection laws. There were plenty of these attacks in the final hours of this year's legislative session and two harmful bills regrettably made it through. Despite the last minute defense we were forced to play, environmental advocates and our champions in the legislature kept pushing to protect California's public health and natural resources and got some key bills through to the Governor's desk.

Here's a rundown of some of the top environmental bills that we hope the Governor will sign:

Renewable Portfolio Standard: SB 14 and AB 64 would require California utilities to acquire 33 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020, setting the most ambitious targets in the country.

State Parks: The legislature approved two bills to help protect state parks. SB 372 would prevent "non-park" uses of our parks (like toll roads) and SB 679 would make it more difficult to sell off state parks in difficult economic times.

Global Warming: AB 1404 would ensure that industries required to reduce their global warming emissions could only use offsets for up to 10 percent of the reductions required by California's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32).

AB 828 would bolster the California Green Building Code by ensuring that the state's public health and environmental agencies have a say in designing green building standards.

SB 406 would help fund public transit operations, which have been zeroed out in the state budget, by allowing regions to add $1 or $2 to vehicle registrations. The bill would also fund efforts to improve pedestrian and bike access and give people alternatives to driving.

SB 728 would also increase transportation options by improving implementation of a "parking cash-out" program. Parking cash-out requires large businesses that provide free parking to employees to also offer those employees the option of receiving the cash value of those parking spaces if they choose to get to work without a car.

There are two bills that we hope the Governor will veto. AB 1318 and SB 827 are blatant misuses of the legislative process to undermine pending NRDC and environmental justice groups' litigation against the South Coast Air Quality Management District over its air emission credit scheme which plaintiffs argue (and the court agrees) need to be analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These bills would allow scarce air pollution reduction credits that should be reserved for small businesses and essential public services like hospitals and schools, to be available for power plants that are capable of purchasing the offset credits on the open market. Senator Alan Lowenthal, a legislative champion who joined in the fight against these bills wrote an Op-Ed about the damage that SB 827 would inflict, not only on air quality in the most polluted region in the country, but to the state's decades-old fundamental environmental protection law.

Click through to NRDC's Take Action Page to urge the Governor to sign the good bills and veto the two harmful ones.

Finally, I say the legislature "almost" met its deadline because technically, they should have adjourned before midnight on Friday, September 11. SB 827 wasn't heard in committee until 11:30pm that day. The legislature extended its own deadline a bit and didn't officially adjourn until the early morning on September 12. That's the thing about deadlines. Sometimes extending them makes sense. But sometimes a hard and fast deadline is necessary to stop bad ideas from taking hold.

California Leaders Pass Budget and Reject Offshore Oil Deal

2009-07-31T23:09:44Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

During a recent family vacation in Colorado, I relished the absence of daily news about California's budget woes. It was a welcome reprieve to spend a week recreating, visiting with family and friends, and forgetting the budget deficit and California leaders' inability to agree on a comprehensive set of lasting solutions.

When I got back in early July though, I was right back into it. California started issuing IOUs instead of paying its bills and the "Big 5" (Governor Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders from each party) were meeting almost daily to come up with a plan to close the deficit, which stood at around $23 billion. After several weeks of negotiations, the legislature passed a budget on July 24 and the Governor signed it on July 28th. Wall Street is still determining California's credit worthiness and the State Controller is examining whether he can stop issuing IOUs. While the latest set of cuts and accounting tricks should ease California's cash flow problems, most budget watchers expect that the legislature and the governor will need to revisit the budget again in just a few short months. Revenues are still falling short of estimates, unemployment is high, and lawsuits have been filed over some of the budget provisions, compounding uncertainty.

The budget deal is mostly bad news for the environment. Severe cuts could lead to the closure of up to 100 state parks and public transportation is further decimated despite strong support for more transit investments. The budget also eliminates a program that lowers property taxes for farmers who agree to conserve their land, and abolishes the state's Integrated Waste Management Board which manages recycling and hazardous waste programs.

One piece of good news, however, is that the State Assembly voted down a misguided bill that would have granted the first new offshore oil drilling lease in 40 years. My colleague Leila Monroe recently wrote about the offshore oil deal and an alternative proposal that would have generated a lot more money, but didn't gain traction with Republican leaders this time around. The effort to push this deal through in closed-door budget negotiations demonstrates yet again that California's budget process is undemocratic and needs reform.

I'm hopeful that people will express their feelings about the loss of schools, parks, public transportation, healthcare and other vital services to their elected representatives; and that people's demands for a responsible state budget will shift the political winds and lead to real reform in Sacramento. Until then NRDC will fight to keep budget negotiations from derailing environmental progress. But I may need to get out beyond California's borders once in a while to gain perspective and recharge.

A Green Infrastructure Package for California

2009-01-16T06:36:35Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

Governor Schwarzenegger delivered his "State of the State" address yesterday and his speech was focused, appropriately so, on California's budget crisis. He offered few details about where he and the legislative leaders are with their negotiations, but we know from the 2009-10 budget proposal, also released this week, that the governor and Republican legislative leaders continue to push for environmental rollbacks as part of the budget deal. As reported recently in the LA Times and discussed by me and my colleagues on Switchboard, Governor Schwarzenegger and legislative Republicans want to push through a few infrastructure projects while ignoring their health and environmental impacts. But NRDC and our allies know that there is a better way to create jobs. This week (it's been a busy week) state Democrats released their own plan that doubles the level economic stimulus of the governor's plan and doesn't jeopardize our health or California's environment.

NRDC and our partners are identifying more and more projects every day ranging from public transportation and parks improvements to clean water and energy. These projects would create thousands of jobs and would help ensure a well-trained workforce for California's growing green economy. The governor should stick to his principle that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. There's no shortage of environmentally beneficial infrastructure projects out there. Let's move forward with a budget solution that helps the economy, creates jobs, protects the health of our children, and enhances California's treasured natural resources. We can do it and now is the time.

Bad Policy Does Not Make an Environmental Champion in California

2008-12-23T18:23:54Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

UPDATE: Yesterday Governor Schwarzenegger held a press conference along a stretch of freeway that he claims is affected by the budget crisis and lack of resolution between the Governor and Legislature. He failed to mention, however, that he just vetoed a package of bills that would have helped get the state back on track financially in part because, according to him, they were too protective of the environment. The Governor continues to draw accolades for his environmental accomplishments and his signature issue: combating global warming. But as I wrote last week, his latest budget antics would undermine his leadership by taking away the state's ability to examine the pollution and health impacts of large transportation projects.

As the California League of Conservation Voters points out, Governor Schwarzenegger has earned a reputation as an environmental champion by arguing that a strong environment and strong economy are compatible. There is no logical reason to back peddle on this fundamental principle. Californians should reject the Governor's calls for environmental rollbacks and demand smart leadership to forge a pathway out of the budget mess.

California Budget Fight Threatens Environmental Protection

2008-12-19T20:55:22Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

My son Evan likes to watch Batman movies. We particularly enjoyed seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger in the role of Mr. Freeze in Batman and Robin. These days, though, I liken Schwarzenegger more to Two-Face from Batman Forever.

One face is the Governor who boldly signed groundbreaking global warming legislation, AB 32 in 2006 and SB 375 this year. The other face, though, is the one who vetoes budget bills for being too protective of the environment. NRDC and our partners in Sacramento have been working for weeks to stop environmental attacks that have made their way into budget battles despite having nothing to do with California's fiscal problems. This week, the legislature passed a bill that environmentalists opposed because it exempted large transportation projects from environmental review. It hurt when the legislature passed the bill, but we were shocked when the Governor announced that he would veto the long-sought budget bill because it didn't go far enough to exempt infrastructure projects from California's landmark environmental protection statute - the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). You can read our coalition press release here.

There's no question that California's budget situation is dire and creative solutions are needed. But state leaders can't commit to strong global warming reductions on the one hand and then undermine that commitment by allowing major road construction projects to go forward with no analysis of the environmental and health hazards they create. That makes no sense. We are on the verge of accelerating a clean energy economy. President-Elect Obama has not waivered in his commitment to a stimulus package that invests in efficiency, renewable energy and public transportation. California must stand by its environmental commitments too. If legislators and the Governor make shortsighted decisions now, we will fall short in curbing global warming and protecting public health. And if we fall short, I doubt the Bat Phone will save us.

Public Transportation on Life Support

2008-11-20T04:51:08Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

California's budget deficit is bad and getting worse as revenues decline along with the sagging economy. The urgency of the situation requires consideration of both spending cuts and new revenues. But it's hard to understand how Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature see the wisdom in eliminating meager funding for public transportation - the triple win transportation option that helps people get to work, reduces pollution, and helps stimulate the economy by producing jobs. Yet our state leaders have cut transit funding to a bare bones level over the past few years. And when the Governor called a special legislative session to deal with the budget crisis, he proposed draining and then eliminating funding for transit operations.

Previous raids on public transportation have exacerbated shortfalls and we are seeing the consequences--agencies around the state have reduced service, deferred maintenance, and raised fares. Transit in some regions is on life support. More cuts could pull the plug on this vital service at a time when it's needed more than ever.

Not only would the Governor's proposal eliminate state support to run environmentally friendly public transportation, it would expedite construction of new roads and highways while skirting environmental review. The Los Angeles Times discusses whether this move conflicts with commitments made in passing SB 375. Investing in roads may create some construction jobs, but without consideration of environmental consequences, public dollars could perpetuate a petroleum-based, backward looking economy at a time when we need 21st century options.

The Surface Transportation Policy Project reports that dollars spent on public transportation create 19% more jobs than the same amount spent on new roads and highways. We must align funding and policies to spur innovation, promote clean energy, create green jobs and provide alternatives to driving. Fortunately, California voters had the wisdom and foresight to pass Proposition 1A, a measure supported by NRDC, which will help build high-speed rail in California. Several local measures also passed in November, demonstrating widespread support for transit. Let's hope California "leaders," who are behind the public on this issue, reject the latest proposal and ensure strong funding for public transportation.

Too Much Direct Democracy?

2008-10-16T22:36:30Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

California voters face a dizzying array of 12 state initiatives this November in addition to regional and local measures that may be on the ballot. The state initiatives cover a wide-range of issues from energy policy to animal confinement to criminal sentencing. These and the other issues on the ballot are complex and would affect California's environment, quality of life and fiscal health. According to polls by the Public Policy Institute of California, Californians value their ability to make state policy at the ballot box partly because they don't think very highly of their representatives in Sacramento. However, many of us who work in the capital city see that all of this direct democracy actually compounds the state's problems by locking in spending formulas and poorly written laws along with many unintended, negative consequences.

California is the only state that does not allow the Legislature or initiative proponents to repeal or amend a ballot measure, so once passed; an initiative can only be changed by another vote of the people. Because there is so little chance to change an initiative, some that do pass are eventually tossed out by the courts. Only 24 states allow voter initiatives in the first place and 11 of those limit measures that impact the state budget. The Initiative and Referendum Institute has a map of initiative states.

The November ballot has two examples of initiatives that seem reasonable at first glance but would actually run counter to their stated goals. Prop 7 says it's about increasing renewable energy but would put the brakes on renewable energy development in California. Read more from Craig Noble about why NRDC and every major environmental organization recommend voting NO on Prop 7.

Prop 10 is another measure that claims to be about renewable energy but is about promoting one fuel, natural gas. NRDC strongly supports policies that bring about a clean energy economy and reduce our dependence on oil, but Prop 10 would provide enormous subsidies, in the form of a $5 billion bond, to natural gas while leaving behind other options that are more efficient and pollute less. Focusing on one fuel over other solutions unnecessarily adds more pressure to drill and is a poor investment. Leading environmental and consumer groups, as well as the state's major newspapers join NRDC in opposing Prop 10.

But before you start thinking of voting NO on all state initiatives this November, there is one that would help California's environment and give us a world class passenger rail system. Prop 1A would provide bond funding to build a high-speed rail line that will allow people to travel from Los Angeles to the Bay Area in about 2 ½ hours. California's population is growing and is expected to reach 50 million by 2030. And since cars and light trucks create a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, replacing car and plane trips with electrified train travel is a key part of the solution to global warming. Prop 1A will help our economy too by creating hundreds of thousands of green-collar jobs in the construction and operation of the system.

California's initiative process could use some tweaks. Limiting the number of measures on each ballot might be a good start! But for the coming election Californians need to decide how to vote on the 12 measures before them. More on the three I've mentioned can be found on NRDC's website.

Governor Schwarzenegger vetoes clean air bill

2008-10-06T18:39:25Z

Victoria Rome, Deputy Director, California Advocacy, San Francisco and Sacramento

My son Evan is four years old and has asthma. When he has an attack he coughs uncontrollably to the point where he can't catch his breath. We then pump steroids into Evan's lungs until he can breathe again. That's why Governor Schwarzenegger's veto of an important clean air bill in the final few minutes before the midnight deadline on September 30 feels like a personal affront. My child is breathing dirty air. Our children are breathing dirty air, and each year more than 1 million of them miss school because they are too sick to go. That's more than 6000 per day.

The bill, SB 974, would have required owners of cargo that passes through our state's largest ports to pay a share of the cost of cleaning up the diesel pollution they cause. Not the whole cost, just a share of the cost. And according to the state's own estimates, the money raised by the bill would have been only about half of what is needed to address the problems of port pollution. Much of the cargo coming through the ports is toys, electronics and apparel from China. Even if the major retailers pass on the fee required by SB 974 to consumers, it would amount to a fraction of a penny on a pair of shoes and maybe a penny or two on a DVD player.

With this veto the governor sided with corporate interests who acknowledge there's a huge health problem because of port operations, but object to sharing responsibility for the solution. The urgent health crisis remains and the California state budget is so out of whack I can't imagine any money coming down for clean air in the foreseeable future. Instead, the state will continue to pay more on the back end when children who can't breathe are treated in emergency rooms. Opponents may have succeeded in killing the most important clean air bill of the session, but NRDC and our allies will not rest until all of our children breathe a little easier.