Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cap And Trade topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assemblymember Erwin seeks to lock in federal social cost of carbon estimates for California cap‑and‑trade ceiling
Summary
AB 1207 would require the California Air Resources Board to use the U.S. EPA's 2023 social cost of carbon assessment as one of the factors when setting the cap‑and‑trade price ceiling; supporters said the move keeps policy evidence‑based amid federal data uncertainty and the measure was advanced by the committee.
Get email alerts on the Cap And Trade topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks Erwin presented AB 1207, which would require the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to consider the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2023 assessment of the social cost of carbon (SCC) as 1 factor when setting the price ceiling for the state’s cap‑and‑trade program.
Erwin told the committee the bill is intended to ensure California’s decisions remain evidence‑based ‘‘at a time when scientific and economic data are being deleted across the federal government,’’ and that the cap‑and‑trade program is a cost‑effective state tool that funds resilience and affordability programs through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
Caitlin Rodner Sutter of Environmental Defense Fund supported the bill and said it will encourage fact‑based policy and provide certainty to regulated parties and revenue projections for the GGRF.
Opponents, including environmental justice organizations and coalition partners, urged that reauthorization and retooling of the cap‑and‑trade program must accompany any changes to ensure allowances, offsets and distribution of proceeds better target communities and affordability. Center on Race, Poverty & Environment and other groups requested tighter reforms to free allowances, offsets and redistribution to ensure environmental justice protections.
The committee voted to advance AB 1207 to appropriations; advocates and critics said further public process and broader legislative negotiation on cap‑and‑trade reauthorization is needed.
