To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
February 2, 2011 - Presented to Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee
February 2, 2011 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Resources and Transportation
October 1, 2010 - Presented to Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Assembly Natural Resources Committee
June 16, 2010 - This responds to Assembly Member Logue's request that we provide an evaluation of the updated economic analysis prepared by the California Air Resources Board of its Scoping Plan for implementing AB 32 (Núñez).
June 7, 2010 - Presented to Budget Conference Committee
June 7, 2010 - Presented to Budget Conference Committee
June 7, 2010 - Presented to Budget Conference Committee
May 13, 2010 - This responds to Assembly Member Logue's request that we conduct a qualitative analysis of the costs of California taking actions to address the climate change issue, without there being a shared consensus and involvement across the nation in terms of how the issue is addressed. Specifically we were asked to look at the costs California would likely incur following the implementation of AB 32 through the California Air Resource Board’s Scoping Plan, compared to states that do not have similar policies in place.
April 14, 2010 - The state's major climate change legislation—commonly referred to as "AB 32"—is approaching a crossroads in its implementation. The state's AB 32 activities, currently carried out mainly by the Air Resources Board (ARB) but also by eleven other state agencies, will be shifting from the development of plans and regulations to program implementation and enforcement. Legislative oversight of the overall size and components of the AB 32 program budget is very important, particularly given this upcoming shift in the program's focus. In this budget-focused brief, we provide details of the Governor's AB 32 budget proposal and ARB's plan to pay for most of the AB 32 program administrative activities from a new fee. We also offer recommendations to ensure that (1) sufficient resources are devoted to economic analysis of AB 32 measures and (2) future AB 32 expenditures and fees are justified and set at appropriate levels.
March 24, 2010 - California’s water system is facing a series of challenges affecting water availability, reliability, and delivery. Reevaluating how groundwater is managed is necessary if it is to achieve its full potential as a reliable source of water. In this report, we present the Legislature with a series of actions that would be phased in over a period of time to address current and emerging groundwater management issues, including bringing science and law together to accurately reflect the physical interconnection of surface water and groundwater.
March 18, 2010 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 On Resources, Environmental Protection, and Energy and Senate Environmental Quality Committee
March 18, 2010 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 On Resources, Environmental Protection, and Energy and Senate Environmental Quality Committee
March 18, 2010 - Since July 2009, the Beverage Container Recycling Program has faced severe cuts, necessitated by a projected $157 million fund deficit for 2009‑10 in its primary funding source—the Beverage Container Recycling Fund (BCRF). In February 2010, the Legislature enacted a number of measures in the special session to begin addressing the funding challenges in this program. In this report, we review the Governor’s budget and policy proposals to address the deficit, recap the enacted special session changes to the program in both the current year and the budget year, and offer our recommendations for additional budget-year actions, including long-term changes to the program.
March 9, 2010 - This responds to Assembly Member De León's request relating to California’s regulatory environment and AB 32 (Núñez), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006). Specifically, you have asked that we analyze the methodologies, data, and reliability of the findings of two studies by Varshney and Associates. In our response, we summarize the methodologies and analyses contained in these two studies, discuss their findings, and provide our assessment of the analyses supporting their conclusions.
March 9, 2010 - Presented to Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, and Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Resources