Climate Roundup: Brown's Budget Plan Light on GHG Fund Specifics

Gov. Jerry Brown provided few details during his Jan. 10 press conference on his proposed 2018-19 budget for the state and its climate protection and energy agencies.

Brown did note that $1.25 billion from the carbon cap-and-trade auction would be dedicated largely to climate protection work in disadvantaged communities.

Details of this allocation of 40 percent of the greenhouse gas money are to be revealed during the Governor’s State of the State Address on Jan. 25, according to California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Matt Rodriquez.

The other 60 percent of the carbon auction revenue is not discretionary. It’s earmarked by lawmakers for continuous funding of designated programs within various energy and environmental agencies.

California has a considerable budget surplus, but Brown stressed it largely needs to be stashed in the state’s rainy day fund to address any upcoming recession. “Let’s not blow it now,” Brown insisted.

The fiscal blueprint doesn’t factor in the loss of money from the newly-enacted federal tax package because the extent of the hit won’t be known until next year, according to Department of Finance Director Michael Cohen. * * * * *

Exxon took San Francisco, Oakland and other cities and counties to court in response to their lawsuits last year charging the oil giant with covering up climate change impacts and seeking recovery of damages caused by rising sea levels, flooding and erosion as a result of burning fossil fuels.

In a pre-suit motion filed in a Texas District Court in Tarrant County Jan. 8, Exxon claims community politicians and individuals conspired to impose their views on climate change.

Exxon’s complaint alleges that “the members of this conspiracy chose to advance their political objectives by imposing unlawful burdens on perceived political opponents,” in violation of the oil major’s First Amendment rights. The oil giant also accuses the cities and counties of abusive law enforcement tactics.

In addition to San Francisco and Oakland, San Mateo, Marin and Santa Cruz Counties and the city of Imperial Beach also sued Exxon, along with the other oil majors. They claimed the companies’ climate change damage and denial have allowed them to continue reaping massive profits.

“It is repugnant that oil companies might sue public servants personally in an attempt to intimidate them from protecting their communities and environment,” John Beiers, county counsel for San Mateo County , told the San Francisco Chronicle .

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s spokesman John Coté added that it’s “exactly what you would expect from a company like Exxon.”

Exxon claims the California courts lack jurisdiction and wants the court in Texas to allow it to depose a group of named individuals who five years ago met at a conference in La Jolla to hatch “a uniform perspective on climate policy” to advance “their political objectives by imposing unlawful burdens on perceived political opponents.”

Exxon’s legal filing also alleges state attorneys general in New York, Massachusetts, and the Virgin Islands “eagerly implemented the La Jolla ‘playbook’.” — Elizabeth McCarthy

Over 11K Stories!

| Independently Powered Energy News

Climate Roundup: Brown’s Budget Plan Light on GHG Fund Specifics

William J. Kelly

Related Posts

Op-Ed: Before and After Net Energy Metering 3, A Thought Experiment

Auld Lang Zine

Air Regulators 2022 Scoping Plan to Slash Emissions is a Go

Shorts