Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves bill allowing Coastal Commission to consider 'blue carbon' mitigation; debate centers on cost and regulatory authority
Summary
The California Senate on Friday approved AB 3 99, allowing the Coastal Commission to authorize and consider blue carbon demonstration projects—such as seagrass or salt marsh restoration—as potential mitigation when approving coastal development permits.
The California Senate on Friday approved AB 3 99, a bill that would allow the California Coastal Commission to authorize “blue carbon” demonstration projects and include those projects among mitigation options when issuing coastal development permits.
Supporters said the bill is permissive and limited to projects affecting coastal wetlands or marine habitat. Senator Ben Padilla, presenting the bill on behalf of Assemblymember David Berner, said research shows seagrasses and salt marshes can capture and store carbon at higher rates than many terrestrial systems and that the bill adds another mitigation tool for affected coastal projects. “The language in the bill before us is permissive,” Padilla said, “and only applies to projects that impact coastal wetlands or marine habitat, entirely consistent with the goals of the Coastal Act.”
Opposition focused on cost, timing and expanding regulatory authority. Senator Janet Choi rose in opposition, arguing the measure was “costly and poorly designed” and that the Coastal Commission—“made up of unelected bureaucrats,” in her words—should not receive expanded authority that could slow recovery and rebuilding in coastal communities. “We should pursue carbon initiatives through voluntary, incentive-based programs rather than expanding regulatory mandates,” Choi said.
Padilla and other supporters emphasized that AB 3 99 does not mandate blue carbon projects but only allows the Coastal Commission to add them to a suite of potential mitigations for permits affecting coastal wetlands or marine habitat. The bill’s author said any such mitigation would be considered alongside existing factors under the Coastal Act and used where appropriate.
The Senate recorded a roll call and the measure passed. The bill will return to the Assembly for concurrence on amendments taken in the Senate as required by the legislative process.
The debate highlighted the core policy trade-offs: supporters framed the bill as a narrow, science-informed expansion of mitigation tools that could help preserve habitats and sequester carbon; opponents warned of new regulatory burdens and costs for coastal projects already facing post-disaster recovery pressures.
AB 3 99 does not create a mandate to use blue carbon projects statewide; rather it adds those projects to the Commission’s discretionary toolbox for coastal development mitigation when the Commission determines such measures are appropriate and consistent with the Coastal Act.
A final vote tally was recorded on the Senate floor roll call.
