The 2022 law required regulators to spell out how companies would monitor buried carbon, respond to problems, prove they could cover cleanup costs, and streamline permitting across multiple agencies. Lawmakers set a January 2025 deadline for much of that work. That deadline has now passed by more than a year and a half.

Meanwhile, in May, California Resources Corp., the state’s largest oil producer, began injecting carbon dioxide deep underground at Elk Hills, a century-old oil field west of Bakersfield. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the injections, and federal officials say there is no comparable project anywhere else in the country.

Because California hasn’t finalized its own oversight framework, the state has limited ability to impose standards beyond what federal regulators already require — or to independently verify that the injected gas, which can be dangerous in high concentrations and contributes to climate change if it escapes, stays safely underground.

“If something does go wrong, there are a lot of really important questions about who would actually address those concerns and impacts,” said Michelle Ghafar, an attorney with Earthjustice, which represents groups suing to halt the project. “And we have a history of oil companies not taking responsibility for cleaning up their messes.”

State leaders have embraced the project. Gov. Gavin Newsom praised the Elk Hills injections as proof that “innovation and ambition are the California way.” State Sen. Anna Caballero, who authored the original legislation, has said she never intended the rulemaking process to hold up projects already moving forward.

Carbon capture and storage plays a significant role in California’s long-term climate strategy. The California Air Resources Board, the agency tasked with writing the storage rules, has told CalMatters the state likely cannot reach its goal of cutting emissions 85% below 1990 levels without deploying the technology more broadly — potentially even at natural gas power plants.

Two other agencies also have a hand in overseeing the Elk Hills project: the state’s Geologic Energy Management Division, known as CalGEM, which regulates oil and gas wells, and the EPA, which issued the underground injection permits under federal drinking-water law. But it remains unclear which agency would take the lead if carbon dioxide escaped through one of the field’s many older wells. CalGEM oversees those wells, yet the company’s own emergency response plan calls for notifying the EPA if something goes wrong.

Air board officials say staffing shortages delayed the rulemaking. They point to existing safeguards, including the federal drinking-water permit and a Kern County land-use approval that is currently being challenged in court.

The financial incentives driving the project are substantial. Elk Hills could ultimately generate billions of dollars through a mix of federal tax credits and state climate programs funded largely by California drivers.

“If you’re a driver, you should care how this money is being spent,” said Danny Cullenward, a climate policy expert who serves as vice chair of an independent committee overseeing the state’s cap-and-trade market. “You are also paying a lot of money for very large oil companies to experiment with these technologies in the absence of a regulatory framework.”

Company officials describe the project as complementary to the state’s climate ambitions. “Our goal is to be a partner to the state as it transitions into the future that it envisions for itself,” said Jas Sajjan, CRC’s senior vice president of government affairs.

Elk Hills has been drilled since 1910, and the field’s long history poses its own risks. A recent analysis conducted for the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog by FracTracker Alliance identified 913 oil and gas wells within a mile of the project’s four injection wells — most of them unplugged. Even wells that have been sealed can deteriorate over time, said Kyle Ferrar, the nonprofit’s western program director, who added that incomplete historical records may mean the true well count is even higher.

The concern isn’t new. In 2024, a retired federal geoscientist reviewing the project warned that 204 wells penetrate the rock layer meant to seal the reservoir now receiving carbon dioxide, potentially creating pathways for the gas to migrate upward.

Federal rules require regular integrity testing only on the injection wells themselves, not the hundreds of older wells nearby, according to Forrest Smith, a petroleum engineer who spent six years as the National Park Service’s only engineer overseeing thousands of aging wells. That leaves much of the monitoring burden on the company itself.

“There’s not a lot of going back and checking these old wells until they become a problem,” Smith said. “It’s really making sure that the companies doing this are staying on top of it.”

CRC declined to respond directly to the well analysis or the geoscientist’s earlier warnings, but noted that before injections began, the EPA required roughly 200 wells in the area to be plugged or replugged, relying on records supplied by CalGEM.

The air board released a preliminary outline of its proposed storage rules in May, drawing criticism from environmental groups who say it falls short of what the 2022 law envisioned. The agency says it expects to finalize the rules later this year.

The draft framework would require companies to monitor storage sites, publicly disclose results, and demonstrate financial capacity to address leaks or plug wells for up to a century after injections stop. But because the rules aren’t finished, it’s unclear whether that 100-year standard currently applies at Elk Hills, or whether a shorter federal requirement governs in the interim. The outline also doesn’t specify whether independent verification of company monitoring will be required, or under what circumstances residents would be notified of a leak or seismic event.

CRC has told the EPA it plans to monitor groundwater and track the underground carbon plume for 50 years after injections cease. The company has posted a $9.1 million letter of credit for well-plugging and site maintenance, along with a separate $24.6 million insurance policy to cover emergency response costs. It has asked regulators to clarify what additional coverage, if any, should be required for a second 50-year period, arguing that risk diminishes once the underground plume stabilizes.

Industry representatives, including the California Chamber of Commerce, have urged the air board to avoid layering new state requirements on top of existing federal rules. CRC has made similar requests in written comments to the agency.

Katie Valenzuela, an environmental justice advocate, has criticized the draft rules for relying too heavily on self-reporting by the companies involved. “What’s the point of having standards and rules if there’s no mechanism in place to ensure those things are being met?” she asked at a recent public meeting.

Matthew Botill, a division chief at the air board, has said the 2022 law never gave his agency authority to override other agencies already permitting such projects, and that budget constraints delayed the rulemaking. Even with rules in place, he said, the air board would not have power to approve or block individual projects — that responsibility falls outside its jurisdiction.

That limitation was intentional. While the legislation was being debated, Caballero sent a letter instructing agencies not to let the forthcoming rules delay projects already underway. In a statement to CalMatters, she said the law was designed to coordinate existing regulatory authority, not create a new veto power, and that California needs projects like Elk Hills to meet its climate targets and support jobs.

“We want to encourage the kind of investment that helps California meet its climate goals while creating and protecting jobs,” she said.

The technology’s footprint could expand well beyond Elk Hills. CRC currently captures carbon from its cryogenic gas processing plant on-site, but the company also plans to draw emissions from a nearby natural gas power plant and is lobbying state utility regulators to classify gas-fired electricity paired with carbon capture as clean power — a shift that could open new long-term supply contracts. CRC’s chief executive, Francisco Leon, called the prospect “a game changer” and “an incredible opportunity” during an earnings call earlier this year.

The company has also signed agreements to store carbon dioxide generated by other businesses, part of a broader strategy to position its statewide storage sites as regional hubs for industrial emissions.

Such expansion would likely require new pipeline infrastructure to move captured carbon to injection sites. California lifted a moratorium on carbon dioxide pipelines last year, and new safety rules from the state fire marshal’s office took effect last month. Those rules don’t require the gas to carry a detectable odor, meaning nearby residents would have no way to smell a leak, according to Liza Tucker, a researcher with Consumer Watchdog.

In a recent report, Tucker argued that carbon storage functions as a lifeline for an industry the state is otherwise trying to phase out. “All it does is entrench us and invest us in keeping fossil fuels alive far longer than we ought to be,” she said.

Injections continue at Elk Hills even as a legal challenge moves through the courts. The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of Kern County community and environmental groups, contends that the project’s environmental review failed to adequately consider where all the carbon dioxide will ultimately come from — including emissions piped in from industrial sources in a region already burdened with some of the worst air quality in the nation.

Ghafar said no single regulatory body is evaluating the full scope of the project’s risks. Federal officials are focused primarily on protecting drinking water, while state agencies oversee separate components, leaving open the question of who would respond if carbon dioxide reached the surface.

“It’s really alarming that they’ve started injection when we don’t have a decision yet from the court on these really important questions about whether the risk of leaks, disasters and proper regulation have been fully addressed,” Ghafar said. “There really is no one agency or one entity that is looking at the full scope.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Turned an Old Oil Field Into Its First Carbon Storage Site — But Who Answers if It Fails? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Several major negotiations are worth watching closely as the deadline approaches.

One involves the state’s climate fund. Lawmakers and the Newsom administration couldn’t reach an agreement on how to allocate that money before the June budget deadline. Last year, the Legislature reauthorized California’s carbon market, which generates revenue by charging polluting companies and funnels that money into climate programs. The fund had been projected to bring in roughly $4 billion annually, but new rules adopted by the Newsom administration this year could cut that figure in half, jeopardizing funding for a range of legislative priorities tied to the program.

Another closely watched issue centers on California Forever, the ambitious real estate venture backed by Silicon Valley investors that hopes to convert vast stretches of Solano County farmland into a brand-new city near the Bay Area. The developers have been pushing for an exemption from certain environmental review requirements to speed up the project, but no legislation has yet emerged to grant that relief. The group’s frustration has grown since a shipbuilding company recently chose to locate in Texas instead of on California Forever’s proposed site. Newsom has signaled support for the project, but lawmakers have yet to act.

A third flashpoint involves utility liability for wildfires. Newsom has floated a new proposal aimed at addressing fire risk, but consumer advocates, wildfire survivors and insurance companies have criticized it as an attempt to shield utility companies from responsibility for blazes they cause. Though no formal bill language exists yet, critics say the plan could cap compensation for fire victims and strip insurers of their ability to seek reimbursement from utilities for wildfire-related costs. Legislators have so far declined to weigh in publicly on the governor’s proposal.

For Inland Empire and Southern California readers who rely on the state budget for wildfire prevention funding, transportation dollars and housing initiatives, the outcome of these negotiations could have direct local impact in the weeks ahead.

In other Capitol news, a fall ballot measure is drawing scrutiny for how narrowly it appears to be written. Proposition 38 would direct $8.4 billion toward immunology research aimed at fighting diseases such as cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. But an analysis found that the measure’s eligibility requirements — including a founding date before 2025, a minimum facility size and an affiliation with a University of California medical center serving a certain patient volume — appear tailored so that only one institution, currently UCLA, would qualify for roughly half the funding under one funding stream.

That set of criteria appears to leave only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy positioned to receive that portion of the money. The nonprofit was co-founded by billionaire Gary Michelson, a major donor to the Yes on Proposition 38 campaign who has already given more than $100 million to the institute. Michelson and an affiliated nonprofit have contributed at least $8.2 million to the campaign, while fellow institute co-founder Meyer Luskin has given at least $5 million.

Meanwhile, a bill moving through the Legislature would place new restrictions on how police departments use automated license plate readers, a technology now deployed by more than 230 law enforcement agencies statewide, including many across the Inland Empire. Supporters say the measure would rein in privacy overreach by limiting how long departments can retain the data — capping storage at 30 days in most cases — and restricting who can access it. The bill would also bar local agencies from signing contracts with camera vendors that automatically grant federal or out-of-state police access to plate databases.

Law enforcement groups oppose the measure, arguing the cameras have proven valuable in solving homicides, recovering stolen vehicles and investigating crimes ranging from armed robbery to DUI cases. The debate is expected to intensify as the session nears its close.

Separately, a new investigative project launching this week will examine California’s rising uninsured rate. Analysts project the state’s uninsured population could roughly double over the next four years, reaching about 15% of residents, as federal and state health care funding cuts take effect — a trend with implications for hospitals and clinics throughout the region, including in San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Race to Finalize Key Legislation Before Session Ends appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The plan would allocate $200 million in one-time special funds for a new point-of-sale incentive program for light-duty zero-emissions vehicles. It was part of a sweeping $348.9-billion state budget proposal released Friday, which also included items to address air pollution and worsening wildfires, amid a projected $3-billion state deficit.

EVs have become a flashpoint in California’s battle against the Trump administration, which moved last year to repeal the state’s long-held authority to set strict tailpipe emission standards and eventually ban the sale of new gas powered cars.

Last year, Trump ended federal tax credits of up to $7,500 for EV customers that were part of President Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. In September, his administration also let lapse federal authorization for California’s Clean Air Vehicle decal program, which allowed solo EV drivers to use carpool lanes.

“Despite federal interference, the governor maintains his commitment to protecting public health and achieving California’s world leading climate agenda,” Lindsay Buckley, spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, said in an email. “This incentive program will help continue the state’s ZEV momentum, especially with the federal administration eliminating the federal EV tax credit and carpool lane access.”

Newsom had previously flip-flopped on this idea, first vowing to restore a state program that provided up to $7,500 to buy clean cars and then walking it back in September. That same month, a group of five automakers including Honda, Rivian, Hyundai, Volkswagen and Audi wrote a letter urging Newsom and state legislators to establish a $5,000 EV tax rebate to replace the lost federal incentives, Politico reported.

During his State of the State speech Thursday — one year after the devastating Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles — Newsom said California “refuse[s] to be bystanders” while China and other nations take the lead on electric vehicles and the clean energy transition. He touted the state’s investments in solar, hydrogen, wind and nuclear power, as well as its recent move away from the use of any coal-fired power.

“We must continue our prudent fiscal management, funding our reserves, and continuing the investments Californians rely on, from education to public safety, all while preparing for Trump’s volatility outside our control,” the governor said in a statement. “This is what responsible governance looks like.”

Several environmental groups had been urging Newsom to invest more in clean air and clean vehicle programs, which they say are critical to the state’s ambitious goals for human health and the environment. Transportation is the largest source of climate and air pollution in California and is responsible for more than a third of global warming emissions, said Daniel Barad, Western states policy manager with the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.

“As federal attacks threaten California’s authority to protect public health, incentives are more essential than ever to scale up clean cars and trucks,” Barad said. “The governor and legislative leaders must act now to fully fund zero-emission transportation and pursue new revenue to grow and sustain climate investments.”

Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California senior director with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, called it “an essential step to save money for Californians, cut harmful pollution, spur innovation, and support the global competitiveness of our auto industry.”

The post Newsom’s budget includes $200 million to make up for Trump’s canceled EV rebates, among other climate items appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In a 51 to 44 vote, the Senate overturned a Biden-era waiver that enabled California and a contingent of Democrat-led states to enforce zero-emission requirements for the sale of new passenger vehicles. After several hours of debate and testimony, legislators struck down a landmark regulation that aimed to drastically accelerate electric vehicle sales in California and nearly a dozen other states that chose to follow its lead, substantially reducing air pollution and planet-warming carbon emissions from tailpipes.

The Advanced Clean Cars II rule, enacted in 2022 by the California Air Resources Board and granted a federal waiver by the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency in December 2024, required car manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission or plug-in hybrid vehicles to California dealerships over the next decade. Starting next year, the rule would have mandated that 35% of all new vehicles supplied to California dealerships be zero-emission vehicles or plug-in hybrids. By 2035, it would’ve prohibited the sale of new, gas-only cars statewide.

By invalidating the rule, Republican senators stamped out one of California’s most ambitious environmental policies and, more broadly, challenged the state’s authority to enact vehicle standards to combat its notoriously unhealthy air quality. If the measure is signed into law by President Trump and survives impending legal challenges, the vote would serve as a coup de grace to the state’s decades-long efforts to comply with federal smog standards in Southern California and meet California’s own ambitious climate goals.

The zero-emission requirements were expected to eliminate nearly 70,000 tons of smog-forming emissions and 4,500 tons of soot statewide by 2040, preventing more than 1,200 premature deaths and providing $13 billion in public health benefits, according to the California Air Resources Board. It also was expected to prevent the release of 395 million metric tons of carbon emissions — roughly the amount released by 100 coal plants in a year.

Ahead of the vote, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) warned that nullifying this rule and stripping California’s regulatory power would have serious health effects across the state.

“We are sowing poison seeds for the future,” Schiff said. “Seeds that will grow to be more asthma and more sickness and more hospitalization and more death. That is the bleak but blatant reality of what we are debating here today.”

Republicans, however, argued that California’s zero-emission requirements threatened to cripple the American auto industry and significantly limit the options for car buyers. In the coming days, Republicans plan to undo additional California clean-air rules that require the state’s heavy-duty truck fleet to adopt cleaner engines and a growing percentage of zero-emission vehicles.

“Democrats have this delusional dream of eliminating gas-powered vehicles in America,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said Tuesday from a lectern on the floor of the U.S. Capitol. “They want to force-feed electric vehicles to every man and woman who drives in this country. Well, Republicans are ready to use the Congressional Review Act to end this Democrat electric vehicle fantasy.”

Republicans moved ahead with the vote despite the warnings from the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian that the waivers could not be overturned with the Congressional Review Act — a law that was meant to allow legislators to inspect and potentially block federal rules adopted in the waning days of a previous presidential administration.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, said the vote was a flagrant abuse of the Congressional Review Act. He threatened to block or delay the confirmation process for four Trump nominees to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency if Senate Republicans voted to overturn California’s vehicle emission standards.

“It appears that Republicans want to overturn half a century of precedent in order to undermine California’s ability to protect the health of our residents by using the Congressional Review Act to revoke California’s waivers that allow us to set our own vehicle emission standards,” Padilla said. “Republicans seem to be putting the wealth of the big oil industry over the health of our constituents.”

Environmental advocates, many of whom had spent years supporting California’s emissions standards, expressed their disappointment in the vote.

“This is a major blow to the decades-long public health protections delivered under the Clean Air Act,” said Will Barrett, senior director of nationwide clean air advocacy for the American Lung Assn. “It is more important than ever that California and all other states that rely on Clean Air Act waivers continue to cut tailpipe pollution through homegrown, health-protective policies.”

Because of its historically poor air quality, California has been an innovator in clean car policy, enacting the nation’s first tailpipe emissions standards in 1966. California was later granted the special authority to adopt vehicle emission standards that are more strict than the federal government’s under the Clean Air Act. But the state must seek a federal waiver from the U.S. EPA for any specific rule to be enforceable.

In the five decades since then, the state has enacted dozens of rules to reduce air pollution and planet-warming greenhouse gases. Padilla stressed that these rules were largely meant to alleviate lung-aggravating smog, which was a persistent threat where he grew up in Los Angeles.

“On a pretty regular basis, we would be sent home from grade school because of the intensity and dangers of smog that settled over the San Fernando Valley,” Padilla said. “That’s the case for far too many Californians, still to this day. But it’s the reason why, decades ago, Congress recognized both California’s unique air quality challenges and its technical ingenuity, and granted California special authority to do something about it.”

Due to its enormous economy and population, automakers have conformed to California’s rules. In addition, many Democrat-led states have chosen to adhere to California’s auto emissions rules, applying more pressure on car companies first to make cleaner engines and later to manufacture more electric vehicles.

California leads the nation in zero-emission vehicle sales. In 2023 and 2024, about 25% of new cars sold in California were zero-emission or plug-in hybrids, according to the California Energy Commission. This year, the share of zero-emission vehicle sales has slightly slumped, making up only 23% of light-duty vehicle sales.

But the Advanced Clean Cars II rule would require a jump in zero-emission sales next year, with at least 35% of vehicles supplied to car dealer lots to be zero-emission or plug-in hybrids.

Mike Stanton, president of the National Automobile Dealers Assn., contended that consumer demand for electric vehicles falls far below California’s requirements, in part, because of unreliable charging infrastructure.

“Banning gas and hybrid cars is a national issue that should be decided by Congress, not an unelected state agency,” Stanton wrote in a letter to senators, referring to the California Air Resources Board.

In February, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin brought the Biden-era waivers to Congress, suggesting that they were federal rules that had not been reviewed. However, none of California’s waivers for the state’s vehicle emission standards had been brought before Congress for review, because they were largely regarded as administrative orders.

The House of Representatives voted this month to advance the resolution to the Senate. Thirty-five Democratic lawmakers, including California Reps. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce) and Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), joined with the Republican majority.

In the Senate, the 51-44 vote was split along party lines.

Experts say the Senate vote could have lasting implications for congressional procedures.

To topple California auto emission standards, Senate Republicans controversially invoked the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that allows an incoming Congress to rescind major federal rules approved near the end of a previous presidential administration. This process notably allows federal legislators to bypass a filibuster and requires only a simple majority to repeal federal rules rather than the typical 60 votes.

However, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government watchdog, said federal waivers for California emission standards were not subject to the Congressional Review Act, because the federal waiver is technically not a rule; it’s an order. The Senate Parliamentarian, a non-partisan advisor to the congressional body, upheld that interpretation, ruling that the Senate couldn’t use the Congressional Review Act to repeal California’s waivers.

The Senate vote proceeded in defiance of the parliamentarian’s ruling, marking a stunning rebuke of congressional norms.

The decision by Republican senators amounted to a “nuclear option” that would set a dangerous precedent, Padilla said.

“The old adage says, ‘What goes around comes around,’” he said. “It won’t be long before Democrats are once again in the driver’s seat, in the majority once again. And when that happens, all bets would be off.”

The post Senate votes to overturn California’s landmark ban on new gas-only car sales appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California air regulators voted to approve changes to a key climate program aimed at reducing planet-warming emissions that has a wide swath of critics and could increase gas prices statewide.

The California Air Resources Board voted to make significant updates to the low carbon fuel standard, or LCFS, which requires the state to reduce the environmental impact of gas and other transportation fuels by incentivizing producers to cut emissions.

The plan approved late Friday at the end of a 12-hour meeting will increase the state’s emission reduction targets and fund charging infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles. It also will phase out incentives for capturing methane emissions from dairy farms to turn into fuel.

Environmental groups have criticized the program for stimulating the production of biofuels, which are derived from sources including plants and animal waste, when they say the state should focus more on supporting power for electric vehicles. They argue the proposal fails to adequately address those concerns.

The oil industry, state lawmakers and others have said the agency hasn’t been transparent about how the proposed updates could increase gas prices.

Agency staff released a cost-benefit analysis last year estimating the initial proposal could have led to an increase in gas prices by 47 cents per gallon by 2025. But the staff has not repeated the analysis since later updating the proposal and the agency contends it cannot accurately predict gas prices.

“If you’re going to ask drivers to pay a lot, which is what this program proposal is going to do, I think you need to be able to make the case that it’s worth paying for,” said Danny Cullenward, a climate economist with the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. “What concerns me most about this is I think a lot of the things that are being credited do not actually help the climate.”

Gas prices could increase by as high as 85 cents per gallon by 2030 and $1.50 per gallon by 2035 under the proposal, according to an estimate from Cullenward. Cullenward said his figures and the estimates initially released by board staff are not an apples-to-apples comparison, in part because his projection uses 2023 dollars and the board staff used 2021 dollars.

State Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Republican representing Palmdale in Southern California, said at the meeting that his constituents cannot afford an increase in gas prices.

“On behalf of the people of the 34th Assembly district, I ask you to not approve this rulemaking and find other alternatives that won’t cost us quite that much,” he said.

The California Air Resources Board says the program will ultimately lower the cost of sustainable transportation fuels.

The agency first approved the low carbon fuel standard in 2009, the first of its kind in the nation. It is part of California’s overall plan to achieve so-called carbon neutrality by 2045, meaning the state will remove as many carbon emissions from the atmosphere as it emits. The state has passed policies in recent years to phase out the sale of new fossil-fuel powered cars, trucks, trains and lawn mowers.

“The low carbon fuel standard has already successfully created lower-cost, lower-carbon alternatives, and the benefits of the proposal vastly outweigh those costs,” Steven Cliff, the agency’s executive officer, said last month.

Suncheth Bhat, chief commercial officer for EV Realty, an electric vehicle infrastructure company, called the program “one of the most powerful, transformational policies” to speed up the transition to electric vehicles.

The vote comes a day after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom called the state Legislature into a special session to protect some of California’s environmental and other liberal policies ahead of former President Donald Trump’s second term in office.

“CARB’s justification for this version of the LCFS as a bridge for combustion fuels while we transition to zero-emissions needs to be reconsidered in light of the profoundly altered landscape we suddenly landed in this week,” Adrian Martinez, deputy managing attorney at environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, said of Trump’s election win.

The Trump administration in 2019 revoked California’s ability to enforce its own tailpipe emissions standards. President Joe Biden later restored the state’s authority, which was upheld in federal court.

Future challenges from the Trump administration could lead to long court battles, said David Pettit, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute.

“In the meantime, I think we still need something … to enhance the development of electric vehicles and the electric vehicle infrastructure,” Pettit said. “The LCFS is a way that we might be able to do that.”

The post California air regulators approve changes to climate program that could raise gas prices appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

When they list measures that are making the most difference, it lines up with policies Trump has said he’ll target.

These rollbacks will come as more lives are being lost in heat waves, record amounts of climate pollution are accumulating in the atmosphere, the United States has been hit with what may be two of its most expensive hurricanes, and nations, which will meet in Baku, Azerbaijan next week for climate negotiations, have failed to take strong action to change these realities.

Here are some of the measures.

The Inflation Reduction Act, the nation’s landmark climate law

This law is significant because it is expected to reduce U.S. emissions by about 40% by 2030, if it unfolds as planned in the coming years.

It funnels money to measures that substitute clean energy for dirty. One major way it does so is by giving credits to businessespeople who build new solar and wind farms.

But it’s not limited to that. It encourages developers of geothermal energy and businesses that separate the carbon dioxide from their smokestacks and bury it underground. It incentivizes the next generation of nuclear power. It gives a $7,500 tax credit to people who buy electric cars. People who buy their cars used can get a credit too, as long as they don’t earn too much to qualify.

Trump, by contrast, has summed up his energy policy as “drill, baby, drill” and pledged to dismantle what he calls Democrats’ “green new scam” in favor of boosting production of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal, the main causes of climate change.

He vows to end subsidies for wind power that were included in the landmark 2022 climate law.

If Trump does target the climate law, there are provisions that are likely safe. One is a credit for companies in advanced manufacturing, because it is perceived as “America first and pro-U.S. business,” said David Shepheard, partner and energy expert at the global consultant Baringa. Incentives for electric vehicles are likely most at risk, he added.

In a call Wednesday morning, Scott Segal, head of a communications group at the law firm Bracewell LLP, which represents the energy industry, said the climate law is not likely to be repealed.

Dan Jasper, a senior policy advisor at Project Drawdown, said repealing parts of the climate law could backfire because most of the investments and jobs are in Republican congressional districts.

Pollution from electric power plants

The main U.S. rule aimed at reducing the climate change that comes from making electricity at power plants that burn coal is also considered vulnerable. This rule from the Environmental Protection Agency, announced in April, would force many coal-fired plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions or shut down within eight years, Shepheard said.

It was projected to reduce roughly 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2047, along with tens of thousands of tons of other harmful air pollutants.

Industry groups and Republican-controlled states have filed legal challenges to a host of EPA rules including this one and Trump’s victory means the Justice Department is unlikely to defend it.

Under a Trump presidency, it is unlikely to survive, Shepheard said.

The United States has been reducing carbon dioxide emissions primarily by replacing coal-fired power plants with clean, renewable power, said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who chairs the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tracks countries’ carbon dioxide emissions.

“I hope that we don’t lose sight of the benefits of clean energy,” he said. “It’s not just about the climate. It’s about our lives and our health.”

Limiting leaks from damaging methane, or natural gas

The Biden administration was under pressure to reduce one of the main pollutants contributing to drought, heat waves, flooding and stronger hurricanes — methane or natural gas. It leaks out of oil and gas equipment, sometimes deliberately when companies consider it too expensive to transport.

The Biden administration issued the first national rules on this.

Industry groups and Republican-leaning states have challenged the rule in court. They say the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority and set unattainable standards.

The EPA said the rules are squarely within its legal responsibilities and would protect the public.

Fuel-efficient vehicles

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued its strongest rules on tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks under the Biden administration.

While it is unclear who will head the EPA under Trump, the agency is considered likely to begin a lengthy process to repeal and replace a host of standards including the one on tailpipe emissions, which Trump falsely calls an electric vehicle “mandate.″ Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental laws as president and that number is likely to grow in a second term.

Trump has said EV manufacturing will destroy jobs in the auto industry and has falsely claimed that battery-powered cars don’t work in cold weather and aren’t able to travel long distances. Trump softened his rhetoric in recent months after Tesla CEO Elon Musk endorsed him and campaigned heavily for his election.

Even so, industry officials expect Trump to try to slow a shift to electric cars.

Drilling in Alaska refuge

Trump is almost certain to reinstate oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, continuing a partisan battle that has persisted for decades. Biden and other Democratic presidents have blocked drilling in the sprawling refuge, which is home to polar bears, caribou and other wildlife. Trump opened the area to drilling in a 2017 tax cut law enacted by congressional Republicans. No drilling has occurred in the refuge, although the U.S. Bureau of Land Management on Wednesday proposed a lease sale by the end of December that could lead to oil drilling. The sale is required under the 2017 law.

Transition to cleaner energy, transport will continue

Trump, who has cast climate change as a “hoax,” has said he will also eliminate regulations by the Biden administration to increase the energy efficiency of lightbulbs, stoves, dishwashers and shower heads.

Dan Jasper, a senior policy advisor at Project Drawdown said climate action will continue to move forward at the state and local level.

Zara Ahmed, who leads policy analysis and science strategy at Carbon Direct, agreed. While there may be an abdication of leadership at the federal level on climate, she’s optimistic that states including California will continue to lead.

Clean Air Task Force Executive Director Armond Cohen said on Wednesday that states, cities, utilities and businesses that have committed to net zero emissions will keep working toward those goals, driving record installations of wind and solar energy.

Governors of both parties are also interested in ramping up nuclear energy as a carbon-free source of electricity, Cohen said.

Trump has said he, too, is interested in developing the next generation of nuclear reactors that are smaller than traditional reactors.

Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator who was Biden’s first national climate adviser, said Trump will be unable to stop clean energy such as wind, solar and geothermal power.

“No matter what Trump may say, the shift to clean energy is unstoppable and our country is not turning back,″ McCarthy said. Advocates for clean energy are bipartisan, well-organized “and fully prepared to deliver climate solutions, boost local economies, and drive climate ambition,′ she said.

The post In new term, Trump set to go after measures that are doing the most to fight climate change appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.