{"id":211866,"date":"2025-09-09T04:04:09","date_gmt":"2025-09-09T04:04:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/211866\/"},"modified":"2025-09-09T04:04:09","modified_gmt":"2025-09-09T04:04:09","slug":"california-cap-and-trade-deal-faces-last-minute-opposition-push","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/211866\/","title":{"rendered":"California cap-and-trade deal faces last-minute opposition push"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Maya C. Miller<\/a>, CalMatters<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\"""\"
\n\t\t\t\tLobbyists and advocates are filling the halls of the Legislature this week as negotiators work on a last-minute deal to extend California’s cap-and-trade program. Photo by Rahul Lal for CalMatters<\/p>\n

This story was originally published by CalMatters<\/a>. Sign up<\/a> for their newsletters.<\/p>\n

California lawmakers are scrambling to finalize a last-minute deal that would extend the state\u2019s landmark greenhouse gas reduction program \u2013 known as cap and trade \u2013 through 2045.\u00a0<\/p>\n

At the center of this year\u2019s reauthorization fight are a number of controversial concessions that former Gov. Jerry Brown gave to various industries \u2013 including oil and gas \u2013\u00a0when the Legislature last renewed the program in 2017. Those include giveaways that allow fossil fuel companies and others to emit greenhouse gases free of charge, as well as permission for some market participants to purchase questionably effective<\/a> carbon offsets to meet emissions targets.<\/p>\n

To the chagrin of environmental advocates, Gov. Gavin Newsom earlier this summer proposed reupping the program<\/a> as-is, an early sign of his blossoming friendliness<\/a> with the fuel industry as he eyes a presidential bid in 2028.<\/p>\n

The twist? There\u2019s no bill. And even if the text of legislation comes out by the Wednesday deadline to introduce it, opponents argue that such a critical policy should not be rushed through at the last minute.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are in the last week of session, and no one has seen the language of what a program would look like,\u201d read a pamphlet that lobbyists from the business community were circulating to members in the Capitol Monday. \u201cRushing a bad deal to determine the next 20 years of climate policy is the wrong approach.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even some environmental advocates who want to see the program renewed have griped about the opacity of the negotiations, which have primarily unfolded behind closed doors. While the Assembly has circulated draft language that closely resembles Newsom\u2019s proposal, the Senate has kept its language under lock and key. According to two people familiar with the negotiations, Senate President Pro Tem\u2019s Mike McGuire<\/a>\u2019s staff\u00a0 has only allowed members to view the proposed legislative text in person and prohibited them from bringing copies \u2013 printed, digital or photos \u2013 back to their staff.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Environmental justice advocates have long criticized the cap-and-trade program for failing to reduce pollution at refineries and other industrial sources, which are often located in low-income and minority communities. Because cap and trade allows companies to comply with greenhouse gas limits by buying credits, large polluters can continue operating<\/a> in low-income neighborhoods without improving air quality or reducing emissions<\/p>\n

Proponents of swift reauthorization say the carbon market needs certainty that the program will continue to exist in order to keep pulling in revenues. Over the past 11 years, almost $13 billion<\/a> from cap-and-trade auctions has paid for electric vehicles, public transit, clean energy and other projects to reduce greenhouse gases and adapt to climate change.<\/p>\n

A flurry of appeals to lawmakers<\/p>\n

As lawmakers entered the Capitol on Monday, a welcoming committee of lobbyists and advocates descended on them, armed with pamphlets urging the members to halt negotiations over cap and trade and kick the conversation to next year.<\/p>\n

The opponents included representatives from the fossil fuels industry, business groups and even the state\u2019s influential trade unions, who often have the ear of Democrats in Sacramento but many of whose members are employed by the oil and gas industry and other major polluters.\u00a0<\/p>\n

They argued that a rushed plan to reauthorize cap and trade would unnecessarily raise costs on industries ranging from cement production to oil and gas and manufacturing and push them out of California. That, the groups argue, would result in job losses as well as higher prices as companies pass their increased costs along to consumers.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cNo deal is better than a bad deal,\u201d read a notice sent to members from the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California<\/a> and obtained by CalMatters. \u201cNegotiations on this complex and essential policy should be halted and picked back up in the earliest days of 2026 when the Legislature reconvenes.\u201d<\/p>\n

The union argued that the Legislature\u2019s proposals would lead to \u201cmassive industrial job losses\u201d and \u201cskyrocketing fuel and retail costs\u201d that would harm California families.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are disappointed that the Legislature has not been able to work with the Building Trades and the energy industry to advance a clean extension of cap and trade that prioritizes affordability,\u201d the pamphlet read.<\/p>\n

The California Chamber of Commerce<\/a>, a business advocacy group that often finds itself on the opposite side of the trades union, agreed that the shortened timeline wasn\u2019t sufficient to produce a \u201crobust and responsible\u201d piece of legislation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cFor months, we have heard promises that issues affecting California\u2019s affordability were at the top of the list,\u201d said Jennifer Barrera, group\u2019s president and CEO. \u201cBut this vital issue will have to wait.\u201d<\/p>\n

While mainstream environmental groups like Environmental Defense Fund generally support reauthorizing the program, they\u2019re irked about the obscure nature of the negotiations. Meanwhile, environmental justice advocates say that the flood of last-minute lobbying to delay the reauthorization came because they were finally making progress at the negotiating table.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019re saying that because they\u2019re losing ground,\u201d said Katie Valenzuela, a lobbyist for environmental justice groups. \u201cThese folks have unprecedented access to members in the building, and so for them to argue that there needs to be more public process is just comical.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cEveryone is still at the table and working towards a negotiated proposal,\u201d said Santa Barbara Democrat Sen. Monique Lim\u00f3n<\/a>, the incoming Senate president. \u201cSo long as everyone is still working collaboratively, the possibility to get this done remains.\u201d<\/p>\n

This article was originally published on CalMatters<\/a> and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives<\/a> license.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"By Maya C. Miller, CalMatters Lobbyists and advocates are filling the halls of the Legislature this week as…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":211867,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[2836,1853,746,3345,159,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-211866","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-environment","8":"tag-air-pollution","9":"tag-california-legislature","10":"tag-environment","11":"tag-oil-and-gas","12":"tag-science","13":"tag-united-states","14":"tag-unitedstates","15":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115172361094653085","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211866","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211866"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211866\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/211867"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211866"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}