Featured Items
Staff
- Helen Kerstein
-
(916) 319-8364
Air Quality, Energy, Climate Change, and High-Speed Rail - Brian Metzker
-
(916) 319-8354
Forestry, Parks, and Agriculture - Sonja Petek
-
(916) 319-8340
Water, Coastal Development, and Fish and Wildlife - Frank Jimenez
-
(916) 319-8324
Highways and Roads, Recycling, and Toxics - Rachel Ehlers
-
(916) 319-8330
Deputy Legislative Analyst: Environment and Transportation
Publications
Environment and Natural Resources
To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
Cap-and-Trade Market Issues
- Format:
June 29, 2011 - Presented to Senate Select Committee on the Environment, the Economy,and Climate Change
Funding Public-Purpose Water-Related Activities
- Format:
May 3, 2011 - Presented to Water Plan Finance Caucus
The Renewable Resource Trust Fund
- Format:
March 30, 2011 - Presented to Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications
Funding Public Benefits of Water Investments
- Format:
March 22, 2011 - Presented to Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
Resources Bond Overview
- Format:
February 10, 2011 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection,Energy and Transportation
Overview of the Beverage Container Recycling Fund
- Format:
February 4, 2011 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection, Energy and Transportation
Public Interest Research Program Review, Letter to Senator Padilla
- Format:
February 3, 2011 - This responds to Senator Padilla's request that we conduct an independent review of the Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) program at the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (CEC). This program, which will automatically expire unless extended through legislative action, provides grants for research to develop energy technologies that benefit the environment, provide greater electricity system reliability, and lower system costs. We find that (1) the CEC has not demonstrated that there has been a substantial payoff to date from the state’s investment of more than $700 million in ratepayer funds, (2) there is a role for the state to continue to support public interest energy research, and (3) if the Legislature decides that there should be a continuing state role in this area of research, improvements could be made to the implementation of this role, including tightening funding eligibility parameters and changing the process by which research funding is allocated.
Improving Management of the State’s Groundwater Resources
- Format:
February 2, 2011 - Presented to Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee
Governor’s Proposed Realignment of Fire and Emergency Response Activities
- Format:
February 2, 2011 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Resources and Transportation
Proposition 23: Suspension of “Assembly Bill 32” Until California’s Unemployment Rate Is 5.5 Percent or Less for a Year
- Format:
October 1, 2010 - Presented to Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Assembly Natural Resources Committee
AB32: Letter to Assembly Member Dan Logue Regarding Evaluation of the ARB's Updated Economic Analysis
- Format:
June 16, 2010 - This responds to Assembly Member Logue's request that we provide an evaluation of the updated economic analysis prepared by the California Air Resources Board of its Scoping Plan for implementing AB 32 (Núñez).
Implementation of the 2010 Water Bond—Issues in Conference (Agenda Pages 19, 24, and 29)
- Format:
June 7, 2010 - Presented to Budget Conference Committee
SBX7 8 (Steinberg) Bond Appropriations (Agenda Pages 21 and 24)
- Format:
June 7, 2010 - Presented to Budget Conference Committee
California Jobs Budget: Securitization of “Bottle Bill” Monies Overview of the Bottle Bill Program (Agenda Page 11)
- Format:
June 7, 2010 - Presented to Budget Conference Committee
AB32: Letter to Assembly Member Dan Logue Regarding Potential Economic Leakage
- Format:
May 13, 2010 - This responds to Assembly Member Logue's request that we conduct a qualitative analysis of the costs of California taking actions to address the climate change issue, without there being a shared consensus and involvement across the nation in terms of how the issue is addressed. Specifically we were asked to look at the costs California would likely incur following the implementation of AB 32 through the California Air Resource Board’s Scoping Plan, compared to states that do not have similar policies in place.