ECOLOGY LAW CURRENTS

Ecology Law Currents is the online-only publication of Ecology Law Quarterly, one of the nation's most respected and widely read environmental law journals. Currents features short-form commentary and analysis on timely environmental law and policy issues.

SUBSCRIBE

To be notified when the latest Currents articles are published, subscribe to the Currents list serve by emailing here.

SUBMISSIONS

Ecology Law Currents accepts submissions on an ongoing basis. For more information, see our guidelines.

« Lessons Already Learned: An Analysis of Waxman-Markey under Current WTO Case Law | Main | Whale of an Opportunity: Coast Guard Study of Los Angeles/Long Beach Port Access Routes Holds Great Potential for Reducing Ship Strikes within Santa Barbara Channel »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

We hear a lot about how the legislature is trying to cut down on public emission sources of GHG. SB 375 seems like a good step in the direction of reducing GHG emissions coming from private, nonstationary sources that make up a substantial proportion of total emissions. It will be interesting to read more about some of the other "creative" funding schemes proposed to implement SB 375 over the next few months.

This article was a great primer on SB 375.

Of particular interest is the way in which the regional GHG targets program is structured. As the author makes clear, this program is all carrots, no sticks.

The failure of a locality to develop a SCS will, at worst, lower them in the queue to receive federal funds. To the extent that many localities fail at this task, the "stick" of losing federal funds will be relatively meaningless, as all will be in the same boat.

To ensure broad creation of SCSs, it seems that two things would be helpful: 1) active community pressure to develop SCSs; and 2) a willingness by state authorities to actually follow through in de-prioritizing federal fund applications of communities that fail to develop SCSs. Hopefully, this will create competition that causes all of the districts/communities to develop SCSs.

Second, I worry that these regulations will act like SIPS under the CAA - a lot of lofty goals that never get implemented. As the author points out, there are no sticks behind these SCS goals. All Californians are going to have to pressure their local governments to follow through on their commitments if this scheme is to work.

I agree with the above comment. In order to have low socio-economic individuals lessen their VMT, it is important to have accessibility to transportation.

SB 375 has enormous potential to curb GHG emissions while encouraging sustainable growth of California's cities. A point of internal tension, however, is the challenge of meeting ambitious GHG reduction targets while ensuring that new development serves all segments of the population, including the urban and suburban poor. While the bill recognizes that synchronizing housing and transportation planning will reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and thus GHGs, it does not seem to acknowledge that a large portion of VMT comes from low-income residents forced to commute long distances in private vehicles between their homes and jobs because of a shortage of public transit options. Ensuring that the bill's CEQA streamlining provisions require a base level of affordable housing in new transit-oriented development (currently the TPP exemption, unlike the existing infill exemption, does not have such a requirement) would be a step in this direction.

The comments to this entry are closed.