Mixed bag for climate bills as California lawmakers wrap 2023 season

Many laws championed by environment advocates are now waiting on Newsom’s signature. Others have died or been kicked to next year.

California lawmakers passed several precedent-setting climate and environmental bills before the 2023 legislative session ended on Thursday, September 14.

This includes a groundbreaking bill requiring large corporations to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. Others would make it more difficult for oil companies to drill along the coast or abandon old wells, while still others would make it easier for offshore wind projects to move forward.

To become law, those bills must be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom by mid-October. If they are not vetoed, they will be added to the list of climate bills signed by Newsom earlier in the session, which includes one that allows California regulators to penalize oil companies that gouge drivers at gas pumps and another that protects Joshua trees.

In addition, state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, D-Long Beach, recently introduced legislation to support the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a global call to end new fossil fuel exploration and expansion, phase out existing production, and promote clean energy alternatives. This makes California the largest global economy to support the proposal, which has now been endorsed by more than 100 governments worldwide.

“All in all, the legislature did some good work, and the governor has some important bills to sign,” Christina Scaringe, a legislative specialist with the Center for Biological Diversity, said of the session.

“But, as the climate emergency rages all around us — with every day bringing new stories of some terrible storm, fire, flood, or other catastrophe — the (California) Legislature needs to think bigger and do more.”

This is because other bills supported by Scaringe’s organization and others, such as a proposal to require California’s public pension funds to stop investing in oil companies, were not included this year.

This summer, lawmakers also passed a budget that cut $6 billion from climate initiatives. Last month, regulators delayed the closure of three gas-fired power plants while increasing the amount of gas that SoCalGas is allowed to store at the Aliso Canyon facility, both of which were opposed by environmental groups and many local residents.

So, while climate activists are celebrating some significant progress this year, they are also hoping to do even more in 2024.

“As exciting as some of these victories are, they are not enough,” said Mary Creasman, executive director of California Environmental Voters.

“We are ready to work with leaders in January to ensure that every year as we approach our 2030 climate deadline is a year of bold policy action that benefits families at home while also having a global impact.”

In the hands of Newsom

Here are a few of the major climate and environmental bills that have been sent to the governor’s desk this session. All were authored by Democrats, and the majority were passed largely along party lines, though a few, such as one requiring lead testing in school water fountains and another to study building solar projects along highways, received strong bipartisan support.

• S.B. 253: If Newsom signs it, businesses with annual revenues of more than $1 billion will be required to publicly report how much greenhouse gas they emit by 2025 and how much their entire supply chains emit by 2027. California would be the only state with such broad disclosure laws, according to state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco.
• A.B. 1167, also known as the Orphan Well Prevention Act, would require oil companies to obtain bonds covering the full cost of plugging oil wells and remediating the area whenever ownership is transferred. The goal of Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo’s (D-Los Angeles) bill is to keep costs for so-called orphan wells from being passed on to the state and, ultimately, taxpayers.
  • A.B. 249: Assemblymember Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, introduced this bill, which would require lead tests at all water fountains and faucets in schools built before 2010, with the goal of reducing lead levels in school water systems to zero.
• S.B. 704: This bill, sponsored by state Sen. Dave Min, D-Irvine, would repeal a nearly 50-year-old law that requires projects along the coast to obtain special development permits in order to protect the sensitive coastal ecosystem.
• S.B. 261: If this bill from state Sen. Henry Stern, D-Los Angeles, becomes law, companies with annual revenues of $500 million or more would be required to disclose climate-related financial risks and the measures they’ve taken to mitigate those risks.
• A.B. 1373: Under this bill by Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia, D-Coachella, California could act as a centralized buyer for both offshore wind and geothermal energy. This would provide developers with a more secure market, potentially speeding up projects in both sectors.
• A.B. 363: This bill would give the Department of Pesticide Regulation until July 2024 to complete a comprehensive study on how consumer use of neonic pesticides affects pollinators, water systems, and human health. In addition, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-San Ramon, proposed legislation that would require the department to adopt rules for using those products by July 2026.
• S.B. 337: Min’s second bill on this list would codify Newsom’s executive order to make California a “3030” state, pledging to conserve at least 30% of its lands and coastal waters by 2030.
• A.B. 3: Under this bill from Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, D-Hollywood, the state would be required to develop a plan to prepare ports for offshore energy and investigate the possibility of manufacturing offshore wind power equipment in California.
• A.B. 727: If Assemblymember Akilah Weber, D-La Mesa,’s bill becomes law, toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS will be banned from cleaning and floor sealing products sold in the state within a few years.
• A.B. 1628: If Newsom signs this bill from Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, D-Inglewood, all washing machines sold in California after Jan. 1, 2029, must include fine microfiber filtration systems to prevent microplastics from entering the water supply.
• A.B. 1322: This bill would broaden California’s ban on the most dangerous types of rat poisons to include diphacinone. Assemblymember Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, introduced the bill following the death of P-22, a mountain lion found to have rat poison in his system.
• S.B. 48: Under this bill by state Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park, state regulators would be required to develop a plan by July 1, 2026 to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in large buildings.
• S.B. 49: Becker’s second bill on this list would encourage the installation of solar power infrastructure in highway right-of-ways by requiring state agencies to assess the potential. The bill was passed in response to a recent report that found enough viable space for solar projects along Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Diego county roads to power more than 270,000 homes.
• S.B. 605: According to state Sen. Steve Padilla, D-San Diego, state regulators would be required to study the potential of offshore wave power along California’s coast and develop a plan to harness it. The report would be due on January 1, 2025.

These bills must be signed or vetoed by Newsom by October 14. Historically, he has signed the majority of bills passed by lawmakers. However, he has vetoed dozens of bills each year, including some that were closely scrutinized.

Overriding vetoes is possible, but it requires two-thirds of members in both the Senate and the Assembly to agree, which rarely happens.

No dice this year

Here are some of the high-profile climate bills that did not make the cut. A few have been converted into two-year bills, with the entire legislative session lasting until the fall of 2024. Others were quietly killed in committee, which means authors won’t be able to reintroduce them until the 2025-26 legislative session begins.

• S.B. 556: Under Gonzalez’s bill, Californians who live within 3,200 feet of active oil wells and develop health conditions linked to drilling, such as cancer, respiratory illnesses, and birth defects, would have the right to hold some oil companies liable for up to $1 million. It was defeated in committee.
• S.B. 252: Under this bill, the state’s two largest public pension funds would be required to divest, or stop investing in, major fossil fuel companies by 2031. This has been made a two-year bill, which means it will be revisited next year.
• S.B. 12: Under this Stern bill, the state’s target for reducing statewide greenhouse gas emissions would be raised to at least 55% below 1990 levels by the end of 2030, replacing the current state goal of 40%. It was defeated in committee.
• S.B. 707: The Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2023 would make California the first state to establish a “stewardship program” for its fashion and textile industries, requiring manufacturers to set up collection sites and then donate, repair, or recycle items. State Senator Josh Newman, D-Fullerton, amended it to make it a two-year bill.
• S.B. 511: This bill, introduced by state Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, would require the state air board to create inventories of greenhouse gas emissions for cities and counties to use in developing climate action plans and taking other steps to reduce local emissions. It was killed in committee.
• A.B. 1042: To close the so-called “treated seed loophole,” which is the subject of a current lawsuit against the state, the Department of Pesticide Regulation would be required to develop regulations for pesticide-treated seeds before they are planted under this Bauer-Kahan bill. This one has been converted into a two-year bill and will be reintroduced in 2024.