XPost: ca.environment, alt.politics.democrats, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, sac.politics   
   From: leroysoetoro@americans-first.com   
      
   https://smdp.com/news/environment/should-californias-climate-budget-pay-   
   for-high-speed-rail-and-firefighters-newsoms-new-plan-triggers-fiery-   
   debate/   
      
   California Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to tap at least $2.5 billion from the   
   state’s climate fund to pay for state firefighting crews and the long-   
   troubled high-speed rail project.   
      
   In his budget proposal unveiled last week, Newsom announced that he is   
   seeking to extend the state’s landmark cap and trade program, which is   
   funded by credits bought and sold by major polluters, through 2045. But   
   the allocation of the money is already triggering a fervent debate among   
   state lawmakers.   
      
   Large polluters, such as oil refineries and power plants, pay for their   
   greenhouse gases through a market system of auctioned credits called cap   
   and trade. Over the past 11 years, almost $13 billion from cap and trade   
   auctions has already been spent on electric vehicles, public transit,   
   clean energy and other projects to reduce greenhouse gases and adapt to   
   climate change.   
      
   The governor’s new plan would commit $1.54 billion of the 2025-26 climate   
   funds, and more in later years, to pay for Cal Fire’s “fire prevention,   
   fire control, and resource management activities.” That would amount to   
   more than a third of the state fire agency’s $4.47 billion budget,   
   according to the governor’s proposed budget. Wildfires have grown more   
   extreme because of climate change, straining Cal Fire’s resources.   
      
   In addition, through 2045, the governor’s plan would earmark at least $1   
   billion a year of the climate funds to the California high-speed rail   
   project, which aims to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco. The project,   
   which has been beset with construction delays, cost overruns and fights   
   about the route for years, was allocated $407 million of cap and trade   
   money last year.   
      
   Combined, the firefighting and high speed rail costs could consume more   
   than half of the projected $4.8 billion that cap and trade would provide   
   in the next fiscal year.   
      
   Newsom’s proposal to extend California’s cap-and-trade program, which   
   expires in 2030, for 15 more years could spark one of the year’s most   
   consequential fights in the Legislature over climate change.   
      
   The push to extend the program is bound to be contentious, particularly if   
   Newsom seeks a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, as various groups   
   jostle for a slice of the funding. Watchdogs, policy analysts and   
   environmental justice advocates also have raised concerns about how the   
   program is structured and who benefits the most.   
      
   Many legislators have already expressed concerns about the use of climate   
   funds to pay for firefighters and high speed rail. Some lawmakers and   
   other critics and analysts say diverting the money would mean cutting   
   other priorities, such as the transition to electric vehicles.   
      
   “You’re going to have some tough choices,” said Helen Kerstein, who tracks   
   the cap and trade program for the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s   
   Office. “You can’t add $1.5 billion — and growing — and not take anything   
   away, at least in the near term, given current projections.”   
      
   Assemblymember Lori Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City, said she is   
   concerned that using climate fund money to pay for Cal Fire’s activities   
   could crowd out spending that has already been promised to reduce   
   emissions from cars and trucks and fund mass transit.   
      
   Transportation “is the largest single source, but the hardest to   
   decarbonize,” Wilson said. “And the whole point is to transition, which is   
   why those investments (are) necessary.”   
      
   A coalition of environmental justice groups said the governor, by using so   
   much money for high speed rail and general fund expenses, is leaving   
   inadequate money “for extreme heat impacts, affordable housing, clean   
   drinking water, and other critical environmental programs that reduce   
   greenhouse gasses and clean up contaminated air, water and soil that pose   
   direct threats to public health.”   
      
   The cap and trade proposal came as California faces a $12 billion budget   
   deficit. By proposing the cap and trade extension as an addition to the   
   budget bill, which moves through the legislative process faster than   
   standalone bills — Newsom could sidestep what might otherwise be a longer,   
   more contentious climate debate.   
      
   The move links the reauthorization of the program to broader budget   
   negotiations — boosting the governor’s leverage but reducing legislative   
   oversight and public input.   
      
   Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Irvine, protested the   
   governor’s moves at a committee meeting on Thursday.   
      
   “This is probably the most challenging budget situation the state of   
   California has faced in at least the last seventeen years. We are going to   
   be grappling with some very, very tough choices, very tough decisions,”   
   she said. “Trying to then layer in, and shoehorn in, the reauthorization   
   of our landmark climate cap and trade — cap and invest — program seems   
   kind of insane to me.”   
      
   Newsom’s proposed extension of the program — which he wants to rename “cap   
   and invest” — comes after President Donald Trump attacked it in an   
   executive order targeting blue-state climate initiatives. The order   
   singled out California’s cap and trade program as forcing businesses to   
   meet “radical requirements.”   
      
   Newsom framed his cap and trade proposal in the resistance language   
   reminiscent of clashes during the first Trump era. “California won’t bend   
   the knee to a federal administration hellbent on making America polluted   
   again,” Newsom said in a statement.   
      
   But some state lawmakers are already questioning key parts of the plan.   
   Assemblymember Steve Bennett, a Democrat from Oxnard, questioned during   
   the hearing Thursday whether revenues from cap and trade could   
   realistically cover all of Newsom’s promises.   
      
   “So, in a sense you’re proposing more money than we’re saying we have?”   
   Bennett, chair of the committee, asked Newsom administration officials   
   from the state Department of Finance.   
      
   Bennett was also openly skeptical of continuing to use cap and trade money   
   to pay for the high-speed rail project, which has ballooned to a cost of   
   $128 billion. “We need to… make sure we don’t have a train to nowhere,” he   
   said.   
      
   Through 2030, 25% of all cap and trade money is earmarked for high speed   
   rail under state law. A bill in the Assembly authored by a Republican that   
   would eliminate that earmark has not moved forward.   
      
   Newsom said at his budget briefing Wednesday that his “commitment (to high   
   speed rail) is firm.”   
      
   “Real tracks are being laid…so I want to get it done,” Newsom said.   
   “That’s our commitment. That’s why it’s still reflected in the cap and   
   trade extension.”   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)