Connect with us

California

CA lawmakers approve nation’s most sweeping emissions disclosure rules for big business

Published

on

CA lawmakers approve nation’s most sweeping emissions disclosure rules for big business


SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Major corporations from oil and gas companies to retail giants would have to disclose their direct greenhouse gas emissions as well as those that come from activities like employee business travel under legislation passed Monday by California lawmakers, the most sweeping mandate of its kind in the nation.

The legislation would require thousands of public and private businesses that operate in California and make more than $1 billion annually to report their direct and indirect emissions. The goal is to increase transparency and nudge companies to evaluate how they can cut their emissions.

“We are out of time on addressing the climate crisis,” Democratic Assemblymember Chris Ward said. “This will absolutely help us take a leap forward to be able to hold ourselves accountable.”

UN releases alarming report on greenhouse gas emissions

Advertisement

The legislation was one of the highest profile climate bills in California this year, racking support from major companies that include Patagonia and Apple, as well as Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the United Nations convention behind the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

The bill received 41 votes in the Assembly, just enough to pass and send it back to the Senate for a final vote before it would reach Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. Lawmakers backing the bill say a large number of companies in the state already disclose some of their own emissions. But the bill is a controversial proposal that many other businesses and groups in the state oppose and say will be too burdensome.

Newsom declined to share his position on the bill when asked last month. His administration’s Department of Finance opposed it in July, saying it would likely cost the state money that isn’t included in the latest budget. Newsom has advanced California’s role as a trendsetter on climate policies by transitioning the state away from gas-powered vehicles and expanding wind and solar power. By 2030, the state has set out to lower its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below what they were in 1990.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat who introduced the disclosure bill, said in a statement that it would allow California to “once again lead the nation with this ambitious step to tackle the climate crisis and ensure corporate transparency.”

California has a lot of big companies that export everything from electronics to transportation equipment to food, and most every major company in the country does business in the state, which is home to about one in nine Americans. Newsom often boasts about the state’s status as one of the world’s largest economies.

Advertisement

The policy would require more than 5,300 companies to report their emissions, according to Ceres, a nonprofit policy group supporting the bill.

About 17 states, including California, have inventories requiring large polluters to disclose how much they emit, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. California’s climate disclosure bill would be different because of all the indirect emissions companies would have to report. Additionally, companies would have to report based on how much money they make, not how much they emit.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proposed rules that would make public companies disclose their emissions, up and down the supply chain. But the California bill would go beyond that, by mandating that both public and private companies report their direct and indirect emissions.

Vulnerable groups will be most impacted by climate change, EPA says

The legislation would make large companies disclose their own greenhouse gas emissions and emissions released indirectly from sources including employee business travel, the transport of products and waste disposal. For example, a major retailer would have to report emissions from powering its own buildings, as well as those that come from delivering products from warehouses to stores.

Advertisement

Opponents of the bill say it is not feasible to accurately account for all of the mandated emissions from sources beyond what companies are directly responsible for.

“We’re dealing with information that’s either unreliable or unattainable,” said Brady Van Engelen, a policy advocate at the California Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber, which advocates for businesses across the state, is leading a coalition that includes the Western States Petroleum Association, the California Hospital Association and agricultural groups, in opposing the bill. They argue many companies don’t have enough resources or expertise to accurately report emissions and say the legislation could lead to higher prices for people buying their products.

Hundreds of companies in California already have to disclose their direct emissions through the state’s cap and trade program, said Danny Cullenward, a climate economist and fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. The decade-old program, which allows large emitters to buy allowances from the state to pollute and trade them with other companies, is one of the largest in the world.

Here’s how Bay Area researchers are using plants to fight climate change

Advertisement

Cullenward said the disclosure bill could lead to similar proposals in other states as federal regulators, faced with possible lawsuits in the future over disclosure mandates, “are going to be under pressure to not overreach.”

Supporters of the disclosure bill acknowledge it’s not a “perfect” solution that would guarantee flawless emissions reports. But they say it’s a starting point. California Environmental Voters, which supports the bill, says the legislation would put pressure on companies to move faster in lowering their emissions.

“Our state can’t just take 2023 off in terms of climate action,” said Mary Creasman, the group’s chief executive officer.

The California Air Resources Board would have to approve regulations by 2025 to implement the bill’s requirements. Companies would have to begin publicly disclosing their direct emissions annually in 2026 and start annually reporting their indirect emissions starting in 2027. Companies would have to hire independent auditors to verify their reported emissions releases.

A similar proposal introduced last year passed the state Senate but failed in the Assembly. Wiener, the San Francisco Democrat who introduced the legislation both years, has said proponents of the bill built a stronger coalition this year to have a better outcome.

Advertisement

A key committee in the state Assembly blocked legislation earlier this year that would have sped up the state’s timeline for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Lawmakers are also weighing a bill that would require companies making more than $500 million to disclose how climate change could hurt them financially.

___

Sophie Austin is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin @sophieadanna



Source link

Advertisement

California

California regulators propose plan that could close Aliso Canyon. Or is it just 'kicking the can'?

Published

on

California regulators propose plan that could close Aliso Canyon. Or is it just 'kicking the can'?


The California Public Utilities Commission this week unveiled a proposal that could potentially close the Aliso Canyon gas storage field in the coming years, but local activists and politicians say it doesn’t provide a fast or clear enough timeline to shut down the site of the largest natural gas leak in American history.

Residents in Porter Ranch and surrounding San Fernando Valley communities have been clamoring to close the Southern California Gas Co.-owned site ever since the leak took place over a four-month period in late 2015 and early 2016. The disaster spewed about 100,000 tons of methane and other chemicals into the air, forcing more than 8,000 families to flee their homes, with many reporting headaches, nosebleeds and nausea.

On Wednesday, the CPUC unveiled a proposed decision regarding the future of Aliso Canyon. The plan, which will be discussed at the commission’s Dec. 19 meeting, calls for moving ahead with potentially closing the site once Southern California’s demand for natural gas declines to a level at which peak demand can be served without Aliso Canyon.

Demand is expected to continue its downward trajectory in the coming years as California increases its utilization of renewable energy sources.

Advertisement

The CPUC proposes initiating proceedings to review and potentially close the facility once the peak demand forecast for two years out decreases to 4,121 million metric cubic feet per day — and a biennial assessment shows that doing so would not jeopardize natural gas reliability or reasonable rates. Current peak demand forecast is 4,618 million metric cubic feet per day, and that is expected to drop to 4,197 million in 2030, according to a CPUC information sheet.

“We continue to review the decision but share the commission’s view that Aliso Canyon is a necessary part of California’s energy infrastructure today,” SoCalGas spokesperson Chris Gilbride said in a statement Friday.

Several politicians who represent Porter Ranch and support closing Aliso Canyon said they are frustrated by what they see as a lack of urgency and clarity around when the site will realistically cease operation.

“The optimism part is that there is a path to shut it down,” Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo (D-Chatsworth) said in a phone interview. “The skeptical side, however, is there really is no timeline. It’s unclear.”

State Sen. Henry Stern (D-Calabasas) said he wants the CPUC to provide evidence for why a gradual timeline is in the public’s best interest.

Advertisement

“The burden is on the CPUC to prove to the public that this proposal to extend the life of Aliso Canyon is not just a give away to the SoCalGas Company at the expense of the community,” he said in a statement on X.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath called the draft decision “unacceptable” in a statement, and said it “fails to prioritize the health and wellbeing of a community that bore the brunt of the worst natural gas leak in American history.”

“My position is unchanged: We need a clear end date and plan for full closure,” she said.

This sentiment was echoed by Matt Pakucko, the president of the advocacy group Save Porter Ranch, which has fought to close the storage facility since shortly after the leak.

He said the commission was “kicking the can down the road” with its proposed biennial assessment process.

Advertisement

“They’re checking every two years instead of immediately closing down the facility as residents and our group have been asking for for years,” Pakucko said.

The company has a contentious relationship with the Porter Ranch community and, in the aftermath of the leak, faced a litany of lawsuits alleging it knew about issues at the site and failed to address the problems. Firefighters also filed suits alleging that the company failed to inform them about the extent of their exposure to harmful chemicals when responding to the leak.

In 2016, SoCalGas pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor count of failing to immediately report the gas leak and, in 2021, agreed to pay up to $1.8 billion to settle the claims of more than 35,000 victims.

Since then, the company has implemented a number of safety improvements at Aliso Canyon as part of various legal settlements and agreements with government agencies.

This includes installing an infrared methane monitoring system, having a state agency complete safety tests on all 114 wells, hiring employees to operate new leak-detection systems 24 hours a day, adopting new reporting policies for releases of hazardous materials and increasing employee safety training.

Advertisement

Pakucko said he places the blame for the gas facility’s continual use on Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“This isn’t an energy issue, it’s a health issue,” Pakucko said.

In 2019, Newsom called on the CPUC to look into accelerating the facility’s permanent shutdown. But in 2023, his appointees to the CPUC voted 5-0 in favor of allowing SoCalGas to store far more fuel at the site to help bring down gas rates.

In a 2023 email, Newsom spokesperson Alex Stack said the governor “appreciates the [Public Utilities Commission’s] efforts to maintain affordable and reliable energy for ratepayers, and he continues to encourage the commission to expedite their work to permanently close the facility as part of California’s transition away from fossil fuels.”

Rising natural gas costs were a big issue last winter when SoCalGas said the average bill for its 21.8 million customers in January 2023 was about $300, more than twice the average of January 2022.

Advertisement

The company blamed unusually cold winter weather and constraints on pipelines and gas storage facilities for the spike in prices. Others blamed the company for mismanaging its inventory and increasing exports to Europe to take advantage of high prices due to the Russia-Ukraine war.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Democrat wins House race to retain seat in California's 21st district

Published

on

Democrat wins House race to retain seat in California's 21st district


Longtime Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., has won re-election in California’s 21st Congressional District after more than a week of counting ballots, according to the Associated Press.

He successfully kept his seat against Republican challenger Michael Maher.

The race was one of the final pending House races of the 2024 cycle, called more than a week after Election Day.

Costa has represented the district since 2005, which includes the San Joaquin Valley, but the Democrat’s political work in California stretches back decades. 

Advertisement

REPUBLICANS PROJECTED TO KEEP CONTROL OF HOUSE AS TRUMP PREPARES TO IMPLEMENT AGENDA

Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., speaks during the Bipartisan Defending Borders, Defending Democracies Act news conference in the U.S. Capitol. (Bill Clark)

Costa served in the California State Assembly from 1978 to 1994, before being elected to the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Democrat faced Republican opposition from California native Michael Maher, a veteran and former FBI agent.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Greg Flynn-Applebee’s, California fast-food wage, Cracker Barrel

Published

on

Greg Flynn-Applebee’s, California fast-food wage, Cracker Barrel


Greg Flynn still has faith in Applebee’s. The owner of Flynn Group, a mega-franchisee of the casual-dining chain as well as several other concepts, still believes there is demand for full-service chain restaurants. He said the sector has been overbuilt with concepts that weren’t well differentiated.

California’s $20 fast-food wage has indeed hurt traffic. Fast-food restaurants in the state have raised their prices at twice the national average, according to Revenue Management Solutions.

Cracker Barrel’s performance is looking up. The casual-dining chain reported two quarters in a row of same-store sales and revenue growth, according to its preliminary Q1 results. Cracker Barrel’s same-store sales were up 2.9% while its revenues were up 2.6%.

TGI Fridays is facing a lawsuit over its recent mass layoffs. Two former employees allege that they were fired without proper notice when the chain closed about 50 restaurants last month.

Advertisement

Get all the headlines in today’s Restaurant Daily podcast.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending