To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
February 9, 2018 - In this report, we (1) provide background material on the types of training and educational opportunities the CCC offers and how the CCC is funded, (2) discuss the CCC’s goals and objectives for improving its training and work program and the corpsmember outcomes it currently tracks (3) assess the lack of corpsmember outcome data and the feasibility of establishing meaningful corpsmember outcome measures and (4) recommend steps the Legislature could take to improve outcome measurements for corpsmembers and to improve the overall performance of the department.
December 12, 2017 - In this report, we (1) provide background information on cap‑and‑trade and the recent extension of the program to 2030, (2) identify key administrative implementation decisions that could affect program outcomes and the need for legislative oversight, (3) identify potential opportunities to increase the effectiveness of a new advisory committee created by AB 398, and (4) describe potential state cap‑and‑trade revenue scenarios through 2030.
November 14, 2017 - In this report, we provide background information on ZNE buildings as well as the administration’s approach to meeting the executive order’s goals for state‑owned ZNE buildings. Then, we assess the administration’s approach to these buildings. Finally, we recommend that the Legislature adopt its own policies related to ZNE for state buildings and take steps to ensure that it has adequate information to evaluate future administration proposals for state‑owned ZNE buildings.
August 24, 2017 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review, Subcommittee No. 2
August 23, 2017 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Resources and Transportation
June 26, 2017 -
Provides various analyses related to an oversupply of allowances in the state's cap-and-trade program. Specifically, the letter:
June 14, 2017 - Presented to Joint Committee on Climate Change Policies
May 11, 2017 - Presented to Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife; Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review; and Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Resources and Transportation
May 10, 2017 - In this post, we provide more detail on federal funding for the state’s natural resources and environmental protection programs, with a focus on the five state departments that receive the most federal funds last year.
May 10, 2017 - Presented to: Senate Environmental Quality Committee
May 3, 2017 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Resources and Transportation
April 25, 2017 - Presented to: Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife
April 10, 2017 - Since January 1, 2016, over 300 “convenience zone” (CZ) recycling centers—those generally located within a half mile of supermarkets—have closed. CZ recycling centers are an important part of California’s Beverage Container Recycling Program (BCRP). They provide a convenient location for consumers to recycle beverage containers and have their deposit—the California Redemption Value, or “CRV”—repaid. This post examines the closures by reviewing programs in other states and identifying options to improve convenient recycling options in California.
April 4, 2017 - In light of concerns about the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s execution of its responsibilities in recent years, the Legislature has held numerous hearings to monitor the performance of the department’s programs. The Legislature has also approved additional funding and positions for the department to address deficiencies in some of these programs. In this web post, we discuss the department’s progress to date in addressing these deficiencies, as well as provide questions for legislators to ask the department in future budget and policy hearings to determine the degree to which the department is improving program performance.
April 3, 2017 - Answers two questions regarding the potential future effects of having fuels in California’s cap-and-trade program: 1) How much would gas prices increase under different cap-and-trade allowance price scenarios included in the administration’s regulatory analysis documents? and 2) What would be the additional costs borne by consumers under these allowance price scenarios?