Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cap And Trade topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Administration seeks cap‑and‑invest extension and proposes GGRF shifts to fund high‑priority items, prompting sharp legislative debate
Summary
The May Revision proposes extending California's cap‑and‑trade program (branded in documents as 'cap‑and‑invest') and directing at least $1 billion annually to high‑speed rail plus shifting portions of Cal Fire funding to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund; LAO urged caution and called for more legislative process and statutory specificity.
The administration’s May Revision asks the Legislature to extend the state’s cap‑and‑trade program (referred to in materials as a proposed “cap‑and‑invest” reauthorization) to 2045 and to adopt a greenhouse gas reduction fund (GGRF) expenditure plan that would redirect certain state costs currently covered by general fund — most prominently a portion of Cal Fire’s current general‑fund budget — into GGRF receipts and dedicate at least $1 billion per year to the High Speed Rail Authority.
Department of Finance officials said the administration’s approach would provide a stable revenue stream that could be used to support climate and transportation priorities and to reduce general fund pressure. Finance representative Matthew Mesito told the committee the mayor’s vision proposes “at least $1,000,000,000 per year” for high‑speed rail and that the administration is prepared to work with the Legislature on a GGRF expenditure plan.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended a cautious, deliberative approach. LAO staff said the administration’s trailer language largely continues existing CARB delegation to set program details and recommended that the Legislature articulate its priorities in statute to ensure those priorities are implemented. LAO analysts urged spare use of continuous appropriations, detailed review of funding scenarios under differing allowance‑price paths, and statutory safeguards or notification triggers should the GGRF fail to produce expected receipts and make Cal Fire or other programs short of funds.
Heated exchange on terminology and governance The proposal drew sharp remarks from some Assembly members. One lawmaker said the program had evolved into a “tax‑and‑spend” mechanism and pressed for clearer, public debate about whether revenue from auctioned allowances should be treated like a general revenue source. Other members emphasized that climate investments, including healthy forests and wildfire prevention, can have direct greenhouse‑gas benefits and argued for preserving a nexus between the program and emissions reduction outcomes.
Policy trade‑offs and next steps LAO warned that reauthorization decisions are high‑stakes, potentially lasting decades, and advised that the Legislature take the time it needs to set spending priorities explicitly. The LAO also highlighted three practical issues: the statutory delegation of many specifics to CARB (versus legislatively set priorities), the volatility of allowance prices, and the need to evaluate securitization proposals carefully if the Legislature contemplates borrowing against a future GGRF stream.
No bill was enacted during the hearing. The committee and LAO asked the administration for clarified trailer‑bill text and for modeling of alternative allowance‑price scenarios and fiscal trade‑offs before the Legislature commits to an extension or to large, ongoing redirections of GGRF receipts in the budget.
