Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ggrf Spending topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Experts and advocates outline competing proposals for GGRF spending: nature, agriculture, transit, housing and revolving infrastructure funds
Summary
Panelists and public commenters urged lawmakers to prioritize different sets of greenhouse‑gas‑reduction fund programs — from nature‑based solutions and agricultural climate investments to transit, affordable housing near transit and clean‑energy infrastructure that could be financed as revolving loans.
SACRAMENTO — The hearing featured a detailed debate over which GGRF investments should be guaranteed and which should remain competitive or discretionary. The choices carry practical trade‑offs: some programs deliver low cost per‑ton greenhouse‑gas reductions; others deliver local co‑benefits that build political support.
What witnesses proposed:
- Nature‑based solutions: The Nature Conservancy and other groups proposed a dedicated, ongoing allocation (panelists suggested figures in the neighborhood of 25% of GGRF in testimony) to scale forest health, natural and working lands and other sequestration projects. They argued nature can provide large‑scale sequestration and resilience benefits.
- Agriculture and organic/soil programs: Farming coalitions and climate‑agriculture groups asked for a continuous 15% set‑aside for agricultural climate solutions — healthy soils, livestock methane reductions, organic transition, and food processing energy upgrades. Panelists noted some ag programs are among the most cost‑effective greenhouse‑gas reductions in the current portfolio.
- Transit, infill and affordable housing: Coalitions representing affordable‑housing developers, transit districts and regional planners urged preservation of continuous appropriations for Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC), transit capital (TIRCP) and local transit operations. AHSC proponents said the program reduces vehicle miles traveled, supports low‑income tenants and leverages other funds.
- Revolving infrastructure financing: Net0 California and other speakers recommended shifting some GGRF dollars from grants into a capitalized, revolving clean‑energy infrastructure fund that would provide low‑cost loans and crowd in private financing. Net0 illustrated a scenario in which $5 billion in initial public capital, revolved and leveraged, could mobilize many times that amount over decades.
Panelists cautioned that some continuous appropriations reduce flexibility to address new priorities and that securitizing future GGRF flows presents borrowing risks because revenues have been volatile in the program's history. Officials and analysts recommended a mix of continuous funding for proven, oversubscribed programs and discretionary funds for pilot and emerging technologies.
Many public commenters pressed for continued support for composting and organic waste infrastructure (SB 1383 goals), dairy and manure projects, the farmer program and other high‑impact, short‑term methane reductions.
