The document discusses California's cap-and-trade program established under AB 32 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and controversies around funding opportunities for disadvantaged communities from revenues generated. It outlines requirements under SB 535 and AB 1532 that a minimum of 25% of investments from the revenues benefit disadvantaged communities with 10% going to projects located directly in such communities. The document also summarizes key provisions and requirements of AB 32, SB 535, and AB 1532 related to targeting funds to disadvantaged communities disproportionately impacted by pollution and climate change.

1. “Cap-­‐and-­‐Trade
Revenues
The
Controversy
and
Funding
Opportunities
for
Disadvantaged
Communities”
October
30,
2013

3. UH
News
Executive
Director
Position
Available
Shared
office
for
rent
@
Urban
Habitat

4. Our
Approach
• Policy
Advocacy
• Mobilizing
and
Educating
Community
Coalitions
around
Policy
• Training
Advocates
to
become
Decision-­‐
Makers

5. The
BCLI
Model
Train
Place
Connect
Recruit
1
2
3
4

6. The
Fellowship
Deep
and
integrated
equity
knowledge
Political
skills
Power
structures
and
influences
Commission
procedures
and
best
practices
SKILLS
KNOWLEDGE
NETWORK

7. What’s
Hot
Today
Current
Issues
Series
Past
panels
include:
Building
Infrastructure
for
Local
Hire
Programs
Understanding
Equity
Issues
in
SB
375
Equitable
Decision
Making
for
Transit-­‐Oriented
Design
Projects
Innovative
and
Equitable
City,
County,
and
Regional
Climate
Action
Initiatives
Encouraging
Community
Support
for
Affordable
Housing
Development
Innovative
Models
for
Quality
Jobs
for
Low-­‐Access
Communities

8. Current
Issues
Series
Network
Critically
question
and
engage
Share
your
perspective
with
our
speakers
Inform
your
communities
and
your
work

9. Guillermo
Mayer,
Public
Advocates

10. Mari
Rose
Taruc,
Asian
Pacific
Environmental
Network

11. Marybelle
Nzegwu
,
Public
Advocates

12. Vien
Truong,
The
Greenlining
Institute

13.
Supervisor
John
Gioia

15. Global
Warming
v.
Climate
Change
• Global
Warming
—
An
overall
warming
of
the
planet,
based
on
average
temperature
over
the
entire
surface;
accelerated
warming
caused
by
increased
emissions
of
greenhouse
gases.
• Climate
Change
—
Changes
in
regional
climate
characteristics,
including
temperature,
humidity,
rainfall,
wind,
and
severe
weather
events.
– Global
Warming
leads
to
climate
change,
but
human
actions
also
impact
climate
change
directly.

16. Global
Warming
Solutions
Act
of
2006
(Núñez)
(AB
32)
• Global
Warming
poses
a
serious
threat
to
the
state’s
economic
and
environmental
well-­‐being,
public
health,
and
natural
resources.
• California
Air
Resources
Board
required
to
“ensure
that
activities
undertaken
to
comply
with
[AB32]
do
not
disproportionately
impact
low-­‐income
communities”
and
to
“direct
public
and
private
investment
toward
the
most
disadvantaged
communities
in
California.”

17. • Air
pollution
exacerbates
localized
climate
change
impacts.
• Major
sources
of
GHGs
emit
co-­‐pollutants
such
as
ozone
precursors
and
PM2.5
that
cause
local
health
impacts
including
cardiovascular
and
respiratory
disease.
Climate
Change
&
Air
Pollution:
Think
Globally,
Act
Locally

18. In
California,
disadvantaged
communities,
“including
but
not
limited
to,
communities
with
minority
populations,
communities
with
low-­‐
income
populations
or
both”
suffer
“disproportionate
impacts
from
poor
air
quality
are
due
to
proximity
to
a
concentration
of
pollution
sources.”

19. Cap
&
Trade:
Market-­‐Based
Compliance
Mechanism
• AB
32
allows
use
of
MBCMs,
but
did
not
require
use
of
cap
and
trade.
– ARB
could
have
considered
other
market
based
compliance
mechanisms
such
as
a
carbon
fee.
• The
“capped
sectors,”
will
be
subject
to
some
direct
regulation,
such
as
improved
building
efficiency
standards
and
vehicle
efficiency
measures.
• Additional
reductions
needed
to
bring
emissions
within
the
cap
will
be
accomplished
through
price
incentives
posed
by
emissions
allowance
prices.

20. Cap
and
Trade
&
Hot
Spots

21. AIR
v.
CARB
Represented
essentially
the
entire
Environmental
Justice
Advisory
Committee.
CEQA
claims
successful.
ARB
failed
to
analyze
the
direct,
indirect
and
cumulative
impacts
of
the
Plan
and
failed
to
adequately
analyze
alternatives.
AIR
v.
CARB

22. Environmental
justice
communities:
disproportionately
impacted
by
pollution

23. California
climate
pollution
sources

24. Background
on
SB
535/AB
1532
California’s
Global
Warming
Solutions
Act
(AB
32)
requires:
“direct
investments
to
disadvantaged
communities”

28. SB
535
&
AB
1532
amassed
200
supporters
from
environmental,
environmental
jus@ce,
health,
business,
labor,
immigrant,
housing,
transporta@on
&
faith
organiza@ons,
and
local
elected
leaders

29. SB
535
(de
Leon)
Establishes
a
Framework
to
Direct
Investments
to
Disadvantaged
Communities
ü Directs
CalEPA
to
define
“disadvantaged
communities”
ü Ensures
a
minimum
of
25%
of
the
investments
benefit
disadvantaged
communities
ü Requires
at
least
10%
of
the
investments
are
for
projects
located
in
disadvantaged
communities

30. AB
1532
(J.
Perez)
Establishes
a
Process
for
Allocating
Revenues
from
Greenhouse
Gas
Reduction
Efforts
(AB
32)
ü Establishes
general
guidelines
for
allocating
moneys
–
including
ensuring
they
are
used
to
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions
ü Establishes
general
categories
of
programs/projects
ü Requires
Department
of
Finance
and
State
Air
Board
to
develop
a
3
year
investment
plan
ü Requires
2
public
workshops,
1
CARB
hearing,
and
review
by
the
Legislative
Budget
Committees.

31. Cal/EPA
&
OEHHA
“Cal
Enviro
Screen”
mapping
tool
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/
ej/cipa080612.html

32. Cal/EPA
&
OEHHA
“Cal
Enviro
Screen”
mapping
tool
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/
ej/cipa080612.html

33. Background
on
SB
535/AB
1532
California’s
Global
Warming
Solu3ons
Act
(AB
32)
requires:
“direct
investments
to
disadvantaged
communi3es”

34. SB
535
(de
Leon)
Establishes
a
Framework
to
Direct
Investments
to
Disadvantaged
Communities
ü Directs
CalEPA
to
define
“disadvantaged
communities”
ü Ensures
a
minimum
of
25%
of
the
investments
benefit
disadvantaged
communities
ü Requires
at
least
10%
of
the
investments
are
for
projects
located
in
disadvantaged
communities

35. AB
1532
(J.
Perez)
Establishes
a
Process
for
Alloca3ng
Revenues
from
Greenhouse
Gas
Reduc3on
Efforts
(AB
32)
ü Establishes
general
guidelines
for
allocating
moneys
–
including
ensuring
they
are
used
to
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions
ü Establishes
general
categories
of
programs/projects
ü Requires
Department
of
Finance
and
State
Air
Board
to
develop
a
3
year
investment
plan
ü Requires
2
public
workshops,
1
CARB
hearing,
and
review
by
the
Legislative
Budget
Committees.

36. How
does
the
Money
Flow?

37. What
is
a
Disadvantaged
Community?

38. SB
535
passed
–
Now
What?!
Implementing
SB
535
• Starting
10/2013:
Statewide
education
and
organizing
efforts
• Webinars
• Survey
• Starting
10/2013:
Influencing
the
Budget:
the
inside/outside
game
• Jan.
2013:
CalEPA
releases
CalEnviro
Screen
to
identify
top
10%
of
CA’s
most
“disadvantaged”
communities
• 1/2013
–
4/2013:
California
Air
Resources
Board,
3
-­‐yr
Investment
Plan
(released
5/2013)

39. Surprise!
Brown
Budget
Borrows
Funds
• 5/2013:
Governor
borrows
$500
million
of
cap
and
trade
revenues
• SB
535
“Quad”
demand
for
return
and
allocation
of
funds
–
legislators,
allies,
and
media
push
• 6/2013:
SB
605
(Lara)
calls
for
funds
above
$500
million
–
up
to
$125
million
–
to
be
invested
into
disadvantaged
communities
– Offsets
&
Short-­‐Lived
Climate
Pollutants
– 9/2013:
• SB
605
à
SB
726
(Lara)
• 2-­‐year
bill

40. Next
Steps
• Meeting
with
regulatory
agencies,
Administration,
and
legislative
leaders
to
shape
budget
• Coordinating
with
regional
efforts
• Long-­‐term
game!
– Beyond
the
25%
– Beyond
2014:
• Next
Investment
Plan
• Next
budget
plan
• ASKS:
– Support
from
organizations
– Support
from
YOU!
• Email
your
legislators
on
the
importance
of
environmental
investing
in
disadvantaged
communities

41. Plan
Bay
Area
and
Cap
&
Trade
Funds
SB
375
–
Sustainable
Communities
Strategies
– Land
use
and
transportation
planning
to
reduce
GHG
emissions
– Region
has
estimated
it
could
receive
around
$3.1Billion
dollars
of
cap
and
trade
revenue
for
SCS
implementation
Gioia’s
Amendment
to
Plan
Bay
Area
commits
the
region
to
“a
transparent
and
inclusive
regional
public
process”
for
allocation
of
Cap
and
Trade
revenues
in
the
region.
Guarantees
that
“at
least
25
percent
of
these
revenues
will
be
spent
to
benefit
disadvantaged
communities
in
the
Bay
Area.”

42. 6
Wins
for
Social
Equity
Working
since
2010
on
the
Bay
Area’s
SCS
to
ensure
the
needs
of
disadvantaged
communities
are
met.
Cap
and
Trade
revenues
provide
our
region
with
an
important
opportunity
to
allocate
funds
to
a
variety
of
projects
that
reduce
GHG
emissions
and
improve
public
transit,
land
use
patterns,
public
health
and
quality
of
life.

43. Cap
and
Trade
Investment
Principles
To
meet
the
objectives
of
both
state
law
and
regional
policy
–
and
to
achieve
a
better
Bay
Area
for
all
our
residents
–
Cap
and
Trade
revenue
allocation
should
be
governed
by
the
following
principles:
• Ensure
Full
Transparency
and
Accountability
in
Decision
Making.
• Prioritize
the
Needs
of
Communities
Suffering
the
Greatest
Toxic
Exposures.
• Ensure
that
all
Cap
and
Trade
Revenue
Benefits
Low-­‐Income
Families
Across
the
Region.
• Leverage
All
Funding
to
Create
Quality
Jobs
and
Economic
Opportunity
for
Those
Who
Need
it
Most.

44. “Cap-­‐and-­‐Trade
Revenues
The
Controversy
and
Funding
Opportunities
for
Disadvantaged
Communities”
October
30,
2013