California deal with cap and trade faces the opposition impetus at the last moment

From Maya K. MillerCalmness

This story was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

California legislators are competing to finalize a last-minute deal, which will extend the remarkable program to reduce the greenhouse gases of the state-known as CAP and Trade to 2045.

At the Center of this year’s reauthorization Fight are a number of Controversial Concessions That Former Gov. Jerry Brown Gave To Various Industries – Including Oil and Gas – When the Legislature Last Renewed The Program in 2017. Those Include Giveaway That Allow Fossil Fuel Companies and Otherers Charge, As Well as Permission For Some Market Participants to Purchase dubiously effective Carbon compensation to achieve emission objectives.

The grief of environmental defenders, Gavard Gavin News earlier this summer Proposed program redirection As it is, an early sign flowering of friendliness With the combustion industry as it watches a presidential offer in 2028.

A twist? No Bill. And even if the text of the legislation comes out to the deadline to introduce it, opponents claim that such a critical policy should not be rushed at the last moment.

“We are in the last week of the session and no one has seen the language of what a program would look like,” read a pamphlet, which the business community lobbyists are distributing to members of Capitol on Monday. “The hurry of a bad deal to determine the next 20 years is the climate policy is a wrong approach.”

Even some environmental defenders who want to see the updated program have caught the opacity of the negotiations that have unfolded mostly behind closed doors. While the Assembly distributes a project in a language that is very similar to the Newsom proposal, the Senate holds its tongue under lock and key. According to two people familiar with the negotiations, the President of the Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuireThe staff only allowed members to look at the proposed legislative text personally and forbid them from bringing copies – printed, digital or photos – back to their staff.

Environmental justice advocates have long criticized the restriction and trade program for not reducing pollution of refinery and other industrial sources, which are often located in low -income and minority communities. So can continue to work In low -income neighborhoods without improving air quality or reducing emissions

Swift Reatorization supporters say the carbon market needs certainty that the program will continue to exist to continue to pull revenue. In the last 11 years, Nearly $ 13 billion The auctions for restriction and trade have paid for electric vehicles, public transport, clean energy and other projects to reduce greenhouse gases and adapt to climate change.

Appeal to legislators to legislators

When the MPs entered the Capitol on Monday, a welcoming committee of lobbyists and defenders descended on them, armed with pamphlets, calling on members to stop negotiations for restriction and trade and to kick the conversation by next year.

The opponents included representatives of the fossil fuel industry, business groups and even the influential unions of the state, who often have Democrats’ ear in Sacramento, but many of whose members were hired by the oil and gas industry and other large pollutants.

They argued that a hasty plan to re -allow the CAP and Trade would unnecessarily increase the cost of industries ranging from the production of cement to oil and gas and production and would pushed them out of California. This, according to the groups, would lead to job loss as well as higher prices, as companies are going through their increased costs with consumers.

“No deal is better than a bad deal,” read a notice sent to members of California’s Construction and Construction Board Board and received from Calmatters. “Negotiations on this complex and essential policy must be suspended and canceled in the latest days of 2026, when the legislature is restored.”

The Union claims that the proposals of the legislature will lead to a “large -scale loss of jobs in the industry” and a “increase in fuel and retail costs” that will harm families in California.

“We are disappointed that the legislature has failed to work with construction transactions and the energy industry to improve the purely expanding the restriction and trade that prioritizes accessibility,” says the pamphlet.

Thehe California Chamber of CommerceA business intercession group, which often turns out to be on the opposite side of the Union of Trade, agreed that the shortened timeline was not sufficient to create a “healthy and responsible” legislative act.

“We have heard promises for months that the problems affecting California’s accessibility have been on the list,” said Jennifer Barrera, president and executive director of the group. “But this vital question will have to wait.”

While the main environmental groups such as the Environmental Protection Fund as a whole support the re -authorization of the program, they are annoyed by the vague nature of the negotiations. Meanwhile, the defenders of the environmental justice say that the last-minute lobbying flood to delay the re-authorization has come because they are finally making progress in the negotiating table.

“They say they lose position,” says Katie Valenzuela, a lobbyist for environmental justice groups. “These people have unprecedented access to members in the building and therefore to claim that there should be more public process is simply comical.”

“Everyone is still on the table and working for a negotiation proposal,” said Santa Barbara’s democrat. Monique LemonIncoming President of the Senate. “While everyone is still working together, the opportunity to do so remains.”

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.