April 30, 2025 - Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy and Transportation
February 12, 2025 - In this brief, we assess the Governor’s cap-and-trade expenditure plan for 2025-26 and provide associated recommendations.
May 7, 2025 - This report is intended to help inform legislative decision-making around reauthorization of the cap-and-trade program. It is submitted pursuant to Chapter 135 of 2017 (AB 398, Garcia), which requires our office to report annually on the economic impacts and benefits of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
February 20, 2024 - This posts describes the Governor's $2.3 billion discretionary cap-and-trade expenditure plan proposal.
April 12, 2023 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy and Transportation Assembly Committee on Transportation
March 28, 2023 - Presented to: Senate Committee on Transportation
February 24, 2014 - In order to minimize the negative economic impact of cap-and-trade, it is important that auction revenues be invested in a way that maximizes GHG emission reductions for a given level of spending. In reviewing the Governor's proposed expenditure plan, we find that there is significant uncertainty regarding the degree to which each investment proposed for funding will achieve GHG reductions. This uncertainty is the result of several factors, including there being only limited data and analysis provided by the administration, as well as the fact that the level of emission reductions achieved would depend on the specific projects funded by departments. Given these concerns, we recommend that the Legislature direct ARB to develop metrics for departments to use in order to prospectively evaluate the potential GHG emission benefits of proposed projects, as well as direct the board to establish a set of guidelines for how departments should incorporate these metrics into their decision making processes.
March 12, 2024 - Presented to: Senate Committee on Transportation
March 11, 2024 - Presented to: Assembly Committee on Transportation
March 2, 2023 - This post summarizes the Cap-and-Trade Expenditure Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund revenue estimates.
March 6, 2014 - The Governor’s budget provides a total of $16.7 billion from various fund sources—the General Fund, special funds, bond funds, federal funds, and reimbursements for various transportation departments and programs under the Transportation Agency in 2014-15. This is a decline of $560 million, or 3.2 percent, below estimated expenditures for the current year. In this report, we review the Governor’s 2014-15 budget proposals for various transportation departments and programs, including the California Department of Transportation, the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the California Highway Patrol, and the Department of Motor Vehicles. We identify concerns with several of the proposals and make recommendations for legislative consideration. For example, we find that the Governor's high-speed rail proposals raise several issues. Specifically, we find (1) using cap-and-trade auction revenues for high-speed rail may not maximize greenhouse gas reductions, (2) there currently is not a funding plan to complete the project’s Initial Operating Segment, (3) it is unclear how much cap-and-trade revenue will actually be available for high-speed rail in the future, and (4) that bond funds approved in Proposition 1A for high-speed rail currently face legal risks.
February 13, 2024 - Presented to: Senate Environmental Quality Committee Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy
February 14, 2018 - In this report, we assess many of the Governor’s budget proposals in the resources and environmental protection areas and recommend various changes. Below, we summarize our major findings and recommendations. We provide a complete listing of our recommendations at the end of this report.
March 13, 2020 - In this report, we identify a number of key issues for legislative oversight. First, we point out that the near‑ and long‑term schedules identified in the draft 2020 business plan appear ambitious. Second, we identify some near‑ and long‑term funding challenges confronting the project. Third, we raise concerns that HSRA’s plan to use a third‑party public entity to operate interim service from Merced to Bakersfield appears to be inconsistent with the spirit of Proposition 1A. Forth, we identify some of the key assumptions made by the ETO that affect its assessment of alternatives. Fifth, we identify some key actions that HSRA plans to take in the coming months that will significantly limit the state’s flexibility to change its approach to the project in the future.
March 8, 2022 - Presented to: Senate Transportation Committee and Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation
March 30, 2023 - Presented to: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy