October 24, 2023 - This post answers commonly asked questions about cap-and-trade—one of the state’s key programs to address greenhouse gas emissions—and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
January 4, 2023 - This brief evaluates the California Air Resources Board's plan for achieving statewide 2030 greenhouse gas reduction goals.
February 20, 2019 - Presented to: Senate Environmental Quality Committee
January 21, 2016 - In this report, we describe and assess the relationship—from both a legal and policy perspective—between the cap–and–trade regulation and the auction revenues that are generated as a result of the program.
February 23, 2022 - This brief provides our assessment and recommendations on the Governor's proposed 2022-23 zero-emission vehicle package.
December 12, 2017 - In this report, we (1) provide background information on cap‑and‑trade and the recent extension of the program to 2030, (2) identify key administrative implementation decisions that could affect program outcomes and the need for legislative oversight, (3) identify potential opportunities to increase the effectiveness of a new advisory committee created by AB 398, and (4) describe potential state cap‑and‑trade revenue scenarios through 2030.
March 4, 2020 - Presented to: Senate Environmental Quality Committee Hon. Benjamin Allen, Chair and Senate Transportation Committee Hon. Jim Beall, Chair
January 6, 2020 - In this report, we assess the effects of the state’s major policies intended to reduce emissions from the generation of electricity.
December 15, 2021 - Chapter 135 of 2017 (AB 398, E. Garcia) requires our office to annually report on the economic impacts and benefits of California’s statutory greenhouse gas emission targets. This report provides our assessment of the effects of major programs in the agricultural sector that are aimed at reducing emissions and sequestering carbon, as well as identifies key issues for the Legislature to consider as it makes future policy and budget decisions.
January 6, 2023 - This post provides an overview of newly enacted legislation addressing the state's greenhouse gas emissions and clean energy goals, energy sources, and oil and gas extraction policies.
December 21, 2018 - Chapter 135 of 2017 (AB 398, E. Garcia) requires our office to annually report on the economic impacts and benefits of California’s statutory greenhouse gas (GHG) emission goals—statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This report provides our assessment of the effects, of major policies in the transportation sector intended to help meet these goals, as well as identifies some key issues for the Legislature to consider as it makes future policy and budget decisions. In a companion report, Assessing California’s Climate Policies—An Overview, we describe the general types of economic effects of state climate policies, key challenges in measuring these effects, and broad issues for the Legislature to consider when designing and evaluating its climate policies.
February 13, 2017 - In this report, we provide comments and recommendations related to the Governor’s proposal. We recommend the Legislature authorize cap-and-trade (or a carbon tax) beyond 2020. If the Legislature approves cap-and-trade, we recommend the Legislature strengthen the allowance price ceiling and provide clearer direction to ARB regarding the criteria that the board should use to determine whether a complementary policy should be adopted. We also recommend the Legislature approve cap-and-trade (or carbon tax) with a two-thirds vote because it would provide greater legal certainty and ensure ARB has the ability to design an effective program. With a two-thirds vote, we recommend the Legislature broaden the allowable uses of auction revenue because it would give the Legislature flexibility to use the funds on its highest priorities. When finalizing its 2017-18 cap-and-trade spending plan, we recommend the Legislature (1) reject the administration’s proposed language making spending contingent on future legislation, (2) consider alternative strategies for dealing with revenue uncertainty, and (3) allocate funds to specific programs rather than providing DOF that authority.