Climate Propositions and Measures in San Diego County

October 29, 2024

min

Mustafa Al Ghanimi

As climate change and its consequences become increasingly apparent, local governments are urged to take proactive and preventive measures to address its impacts. In San Diego, a variety of propositions and initiatives have been introduced to confront climate challenges, ranging from renewable energy efforts to policies that may entail some focus on climate change-related issues. At Hammond Climate Solutions Foundation (HCSF), we continuously analyze these options to better understand what is best for our community and how we can expedite positive change toward a just and livable future. We believe that it’s essential for citizens to be informed about the options available on this year's 2024 ballot.

Proposition 4

In recent years, environmental groups and renewable energy advocates have pushed for increased investment in climate action, particularly after Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature approved a $54.3 billion plan known as the "California Climate Commitment" in 2022. However, due to budget constraints, this commitment was scaled back to $44.6 billion for the current fiscal year.

Proposition 4 is a significant measure on California's ballot, proposing a $10 billion bond aimed at addressing the state's most pressing environmental challenges. If passed, the bond would provide funding for projects related to drought, flood prevention, wildfire mitigation, and sea-level rise, among other climate-related concerns. The initiative is part of California’s broader commitment to lead in climate action. However, the bond raises concerns about long-term financial implications, particularly given the state's existing deficit.

Key Goals

The largest portion of the bond, $3.8 billion, would be allocated to projects related to drought, flooding, and water supply. These funds aim to improve water availability and quality, reduce the risk of flooding, and upgrade water facilities. Specific initiatives include enhancing water recycling and transforming wastewater into potable water for homes and drinking.

In addition, $1.5 billion would go toward "Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention," focusing on strategies like tree thinning and the removal of overgrown vegetation to reduce wildfire risk, a particularly urgent issue for the state.

Another significant portion, $1.2 billion, would be used to address sea-level rise and coastal restoration efforts. The goal is to mitigate the risks posed by rising ocean levels and to protect coastal ecosystems and fish populations.

Other notable allocations include:
$1.2 billion for land conservation and habitat restoration.
$850 million for renewable energy infrastructure, including offshore wind energy.
$700 million for expanding and repairing local and state parks.
$450 million for reducing the impacts of extreme heat on communities.
$300 million to help farms respond to the effects of climate change and adopt sustainable agricultural practices.

Fiscal Impacts

While the proposed bond addresses a wide range of pressing environmental concerns, the financial implications for California’s taxpayers are significant. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the state would incur an additional $400 million annually over the next 40 years to repay the bond, potentially increasing the state’s existing deficit. This comes at a time when California is already facing a projected $46.8 billion in its budget.

This could lead to difficult decisions in future budget allocations, as funds will need to be diverted to service the debt from the bond. While the environmental projects are undeniably important, voters will need to weigh these benefits against the financial strain that Proposition 4 could impose on the state’s economy.

Balancing Climate Action and Fiscal Responsibility

Proposition 4 represents a critical investment in California’s climate future, but it also highlights the tension between taking immediate climate action and managing long-term fiscal health. The bond would finance necessary projects to combat drought, wildfires, sea-level rise, and other pressing environmental issues, potentially making California more resilient to climate change. However, the reliance on debt financing raises questions about whether the state can sustain these investments without exacerbating its fiscal problems.

Voters may also consider alternative approaches to achieving these climate goals without incurring additional debt. Options like community-based climate initiatives, rooftop solar projects, and more efficient water management could provide cost-effective and sustainable solutions. Proposition 4’s goals are well-aligned with California’s commitment to addressing climate change, but its reliance on debt may not be the most financially prudent path forward. Voters will need to carefully balance the need for immediate climate action with the state’s long-term fiscal responsibility

Measure E

Measure E is a proposal by the City of San Diego to implement a 1% general transactions and use tax (sales tax) increase. If passed, this would raise the current sales tax in San Diego from 7.75% to 8.75%, with the potential to generate an estimated $400 million annually for the city’s General Fund. Unlike a special tax, which would be earmarked for specific purposes, Measure E is a general tax, meaning the revenue could be used for a wide variety of city services and initiatives.

The additional revenue could be critical for addressing major city needs, but it comes at a cost. The sales tax is regressive, meaning it disproportionately affects lower-income households who spend a larger percentage of their income on taxable goods. For San Diego residents already dealing with inflation and high costs of living, this could add to their financial burden, making the decision about Measure E a challenging one for voters.

Key Goals

The primary goal of Measure E is to generate additional revenue to fund the city’s broad array of public services, including:
Public Safety: Enhancing fire, police, and emergency services.
Infrastructure Repair: Allocating funds for the maintenance and improvement of streets, sidewalks, storm drains, and other city infrastructure.
City Services: Supporting parks, libraries, recreational facilities, and other community resources.

While there are no legally binding restrictions on how the funds will be spent, the city has indicated that the proceeds would be used to maintain or improve upon the existing level of services, rather than replacing current spending.

Fiscal Impacts

If Measure E is approved, the additional $400 million annually would boost the city’s financial resources, providing more flexibility to address both immediate needs and long-term projects. The new revenue would be subject to the same auditing and oversight as other General Fund revenues, with annual reports to the City Council ensuring accountability. This could allow for more sustained investments in infrastructure, public safety, and community programs.

However, the measure has sparked concerns about the potential burden on consumers, particularly low-income residents. Sales taxes are regressive, meaning they disproportionately impact lower-income households, who spend a larger percentage of their income on taxable goods. This could create financial strain for some residents, particularly in the context of economic challenges like inflation.

Balancing Climate Action and Fiscal Responsibility

Although Measure E is not explicitly tied to climate-related projects, the revenue it generates could be leveraged to support the city’s broader environmental and sustainability goals. For example, funds could be allocated to infrastructure improvements that enhance climate resilience, such as upgrading stormwater systems to handle extreme weather or investing in sustainable public spaces.

At the same time, the financial impact on residents must be considered. Sales taxes tend to disproportionately affect lower-income residents, and in a time of inflation and economic uncertainty, some may question whether the tax is the best approach. Still, the measure offers a way for the city to address infrastructure deficits and other challenges without relying on borrowing or incurring long-term debt, a contrast to Proposition 4’s bond-financed approach.
In addition, while the increased revenue could support long-term sustainability and resilience efforts, the regressive nature of the tax could exacerbate financial inequities. As with any tax proposal, voters will need to weigh the potential benefits to the potential city services and infrastructure against the economic impact on households, particularly those already struggling with the high cost of living.

Measure G

Measure G is a proposed half-cent sales tax increase on the November 5, 2024 ballot aimed at transforming transportation across San Diego County. The measure is expected to raise approximately $900 million annually, funding critical infrastructure improvements including fire protection, road maintenance, public transit, and environmental preservation. At Hammond Climate Solutions Foundation (HCSF), we have endorsed Measure G due to its alignment with sustainability goals and its potential to significantly enhance climate resilience.

Key Goals and Fund Allocation

Measure G prioritizes a wide range of transportation and environmental improvements, with funds allocated as follows:
50% toward major public transit infrastructure projects, promoting sustainable transportation and reducing traffic congestion.
27% for capital projects to improve road and highway traffic flow and community safety.
7% for local street maintenance and repair, addressing San Diego’s crumbling infrastructure.
12% for transit operations and maintenance within the Metropolitan Transit System and North County Transit District.
2% for the repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of infrastructure within the rail transit system.
2% or less allocated for general administrative services.

These funds would be placed into a “lockbox,” ensuring that they are used exclusively for the designated projects. If any funds are misused, the oversight committee can refer cases for criminal prosecution.

Fiscal Impacts

If approved, Measure G would raise the countywide sales tax to 8.75%. While this increase may pose a financial burden on some residents, particularly lower-income households, the long-term benefits could include reduced traffic, enhanced safety, and improved infrastructure. By securing additional state and federal matching funds, Measure G would maximize local investments in transportation and environmental sustainability, ensuring a more sustainable and expansive public transportation system.

Balancing Climate Action and Fiscal Responsibility

Measure G includes stringent fiscal safeguards such as independent citizen oversight, public transparency, and annual audits. All funds remain under local control, and for every dollar generated, two dollars in additional funding will be secured from state and federal sources, ensuring billions for local improvements.

At Hammond Climate Solutions Foundation, we endorse Measure G because it offers significant opportunities to advance climate action. The measure’s emphasis on expanding public transit infrastructure, protecting natural habitats, and improving transportation safety aligns with our mission to promote sustainability. It also addresses the increasing wildfire risk by improving evacuation routes in vulnerable areas.

While the proposed tax increase poses a financial consideration, the long-term benefits of improved roads, enhanced transportation safety, and stronger environmental protections make Measure G a vital investment in San Diego County’s future. Whether the measure will fully prioritize climate action remains to be seen, but its potential for positive, lasting environmental impact is undeniable.

With the 2024 ballot offering important decisions on a variety of issues, including those related to climate and infrastructure, it is crucial for voters to engage with the options available. These measures will have long-term implications for how San Diego will address environmental concerns, public safety, and community needs.

At Hammond Climate Solutions Foundation, we encourage all citizens to stay informed and take part in the voting process. Your participation helps shape the direction of our community and ensures that we continue working toward a sustainable future.

For more information on local ballot measures and how to vote, visit the San Diego County Elections website.

‍

All Posts

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Screenshot of the San Diego City Council's virtual meeting on the NEM 3.0 proceeding

San Diego Becomes the Largest City to Advocate for Continued Access to Rooftop Solar

Advocacy

November 15, 2021

min

San Diego Becomes the Largest City to Advocate for Continued Access to Rooftop Solar

On November 15, the City of San Diego became the largest city in the state to weigh in on the net energy metering proceeding, which is currently underway at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). A proposed net energy metering (NEM) decision is expected to be made by next month on the future rooftop solar agreement in California, known as net energy metering 3.0 (NEM 3.0).

The net metering resolution, which urges the CPUC to create a structure that will keep rooftop solar growing sustainably while expanding solar access to low-and-moderate income communities, was approved unanimously by the San Diego City Council today after receiving unanimous support during the San Diego Environment Committee last month. Local organizations SanDiego350, Climate Action Campaign, Protect Our Communities Foundation, CED Greentech and the San Diego Democrats for Environmental Action joined the Hammond Climate Solutions team in making verbal comments in support of the resolution today, emphasizing the importance of this decision in the middle of a climate emergency. Last month over 60 people made comments in favor of the resolution.

“Rooftop solar is a lynchpin in the city's legally-binding Climate Action Plan,” said Matthew Vasilakis, Co-Director of Policy with Climate Action Campaign. “We need to incentivize rooftop solar and storage with a strong NEM program and paired investments in communities of concern. That's how we build a climate resilient 100 percent clean energy system.”

Councilmember Raul Campillo, who was one of the first elected officials in the state to issue a letter to Governor Newsom advocating for a solar-friendly net metering 3.0 agreement, called out the importance of this resolution during his remarks today.

“This {resolution} ensures that the City of San Diego has communicated its priorities to the state on this matter, and we cannot afford any changes to this {net metering} policy that slows down the process or limits accessibility to clean energy. This resolution speaks loudly and clearly that the City of San Diego wants to protect the environment, create good paying, high-skilled jobs, improve our energy resiliency and save ratepayers billions of dollars."

Beyond the obvious carbon emissions reduction, local grid reliability and cost savings that come from the increased adoption of rooftop solar and energy storage, the San Diego region has thousands of local jobs at stake with this decision. Jake Marshall, Operations Manager with CED Greentech San Diego, a distribution company out of Mira Mesa, called in to support the resolution. Marshall’s comment highlighted the potential massive job loss that could result if the industry is forced to slow down.

“I personally employ 75 people in Mira Mesa, we have run the numbers and with the {investor-owned utilities’ anti-solar} proposals, our numbers will go down to 22 people.”

The resolution states that the City of San Diego “supports a CPUC NEM 3.0 decision, which emphasizes the sustainable growth of customer sited solar electric and energy storage facilities in order to meet California’s clean energy targets, particularly residential customers in disadvantaged communities” while also advocating to “reject elements of any proposal which will stifle sustainable growth of customer sited renewable generating facilities including high monthly fixed charges and avoided cost models which insufficiently account for the societal value of customer sited renewable generation.”

The resolution includes strong equity provisions, and Councilmember Monica Montgomery Steppe highlighted the importance of making solar jobs more accessible to communities of concern.

Council President Jennifer Campbell ended the discussion by calling out the intentions of the investor-owned utility companies.

“It's clear the investor-owned utilities are working hard to hamper solar energy growth, which is very short-sighted of them, as they could utilize this extra energy obtained to provide energy for other people in geographic areas that do not have as much sunshine as we have. The cost shifting that {the investor-owned utilities} are proposing will hurt our climate action goals, will hurt our green job growth and the affordability of those who wish to push solar on their roofs. Unfortunately it seems that their immediate bottom line is more important to them than a cleaner, green San Diego in which all income levels can participate in our abundant sunshine. Let the {C}PUC know that San Diego stands on the side of rooftop solar, especially in communities of concern, and all the benefits of it, from good paying local jobs to healthier neighborhoods and increased clean energy production as solar energy brings.”

Once again, the only comment that was not emphatically in support of protecting rooftop solar was from one San Diego Gas & Electric employee who urged the council to meet with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an organization who is known to side with the utilities on this issue (learn more in this blog post, How an Environmental Group Aligned with Monopoly Utilities to Squash Rooftop Solar).

The City of San Diego weighed in just in time before the anticipated proposed decision by the CPUC in December, while other cities and organizations in San Diego county have already gone on the record in support of protecting access to rooftop solar and energy storage. In September, the City of Solana Beach became the first city in the state to issue a resolution standing up for a strong net energy metering with a unanimous vote. San Diego Community Power, the community choice energy program for the cities of San Diego, Imperial Beach, Encinitas, La Mesa and Chula Vista, also submitted a letter jointly with San Jose Clean Energy, which highlighted the fact that the net metering proposal by the investor-owned utilities would result in fees that community choice energy customers would not be able to avoid. Earlier last week, the City of Chula Vista voted unanimously to send a letter and approve a resolution calling for the CPUC to create a policy in which solar is able to continue to grow, and this week, Imperial Beach Mayor Serge Dedina released a letter in support of a strong net metering 3.0 agreement.

As the proposed decision by the California Public Utilities Commission rapidly approaches and the final decision expected by February of next year, local activists are hoping this resolution will lead to San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria weighing in as well to leverage his existing relationship with Governor Gavin Newsom.

For latest information and up-to-date calls to action, visit our net metering toolkit at www.HelpCleanEnergy.org

The City of San Diego’s Environment Committee Stands up for Rooftop Solar

Policy

October 21, 2021

min

The City of San Diego’s Environment Committee Stands up for Rooftop Solar

Today, the City of San Diego’s Environment Committee took a huge step in supporting rooftop solar by passing a resolution that advocates for a strong net energy metering 3.0 (NEM 3.0), the future solar agreement in California that is being determined by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). If the resolution is adopted by the full city council, the City of San Diego could be the second city in the state, following Solana Beach, to issue a resolution that advocates for the continued growth of solar, rejecting the investor-owned utilities’ proposal to extend payback periods for all solar projects, even in communities of concern, and impose the highest monthly solar fees in the nation.

The resolution passed unanimously in a 4-0 vote, urging the CPUC to reject any proposal that would stop rooftop solar from continuing to grow while urging the commissioners to consider alternatives that would expand solar access in communities of concern. Over 60 public comments, both written and verbal, were heard from local organizations that were overwhelming in support of a strong net metering, including comments from representatives of Climate Action Campaign, SanDiego350, GRID Alternatives San Diego, San Diego Democrats for Environmental Action, Protect Our Communities Foundation and others, all of which urged the committee to approve the resolution. The key role NEM 3.0 has in increasing the adoption of rooftop solar and moving away from consuming dirty, harmful fossil fuels was noted by speakers.

The draft resolution states that “San Diego City Council supports a CPUC NEM 3.0 decision, which emphasizes the sustainable growth of customer sited solar electric and energy storage facilities in order to meet California’s clean energy targets, particularly residential customers in disadvantaged communities” and urges the CPUC to reject any proposal that undervalues the societal benefits of renewable generation.

Today’s vote is a big win for over 30 local San Diego environmental and advocacy organizations, schools, cities, student organizations and equity groups who are working tirelessly to advocate for a strong NEM 3.0 to keep rooftop solar as a key climate solution and a tool to reach 100 percent clean energy targets. Rooftop solar also provides local green jobs, supports the regional economy, offers grid resilience and helps ratepayers avoid rate increases from additional utility infrastructure, which the IOUs get a guaranteed return on investment from. A recent Vibrant Clean Energy Study shows that California ratepayers can save $120 billion from rooftop solar while reducing the risk of wildfires, which ratepayers now must pay for.

This decision comes just after the San Diego Community Power Board of Directors issued a letter to the CPUC commissioners and Governor Gavin Newsom stating similar concerns over the high fixed monthly charges included in the IOUs’ proposal and the devastating impacts that could have on rooftop solar adoption. The resolution is now headed to the full city council for a vote, which is anticipated to take place before the CPUC’s proposed decision is released by mid-December of this year. The City of Chula Vista is expected to vote on a similar resolution in the coming weeks.

For latest information and up-to-date calls to action, visit our net metering 3.0 toolkit.

Comic strip illustrating the absurdity of trying to kill solar adoption during the climate crisis

How an Environmental Group Aligned with Monopoly Utilities to Squash Rooftop Solar

Policy

October 7, 2021

min

How an Environmental Group Aligned with Monopoly Utilities to Squash Rooftop Solar

A half-century old nonprofit organization is flaunting its laurels to obscure its support of anti-climate, pro-utility legislation. Blind esteem for this organization is actively derailing clean energy legislation and climate policies. So why would an organization dedicated to protecting the earth support anti-climate policies? Let's take a look.

California’s legislative session has closed for 2021 and elected officials are beginning to discuss 2022 legislative priorities, undoubtedly strategizing about which groups will likely support or oppose their bills. As many California elected officials ran on progressive platforms, getting buy-in from environmental groups will be a big priority for many Democratic lawmakers.

One group that’s getting a lot of attention from climate activists is the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which has a mission to “safeguard the earth—its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends and has always been traditionally looked at as an environmental organization.” Historically, NRDC has been highly respected and considered a reputable climate organization, with taglines like “Earth’s best defense” and with big wins like preserving critical species and securing broad legal protections for wildlife and marine protected areas. In 2010, NRDC helped to craft the first ever national ocean policy, which improves coordination among states and created a National Ocean Policy. Internationally, NRDC worked with partners to develop a first-of-its-kind United Nations agreement that requires the regulation of bottom trawling. NRDC has done some great work in the climate space.

NRDC was established as a nonprofit organization 51 years ago and its support or opposition is highly valued, however, its seniority and past wins have allowed the organization to support anti-climate, pro-utility legislation while still being regarded by many as a reputable environmental group, derailing legislation and climate policies. Why would an organization dedicated to protecting the earth support anti-climate policies? While it’s not well known, NRDC has a history of siding with the investor-owned utilities to advance a fossil fuel agenda, although more individuals and organizations are taking notice as of late.

After John Bryson co-founded NRDC, he served as a commissioner for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and eventually went on to become the CEO of Edison International, which founded the Edison International Institute (EII). EII is a utility-backed organization, which has produced studies biased against rooftop solar and led the attacks on the industry over the years. Taking a deeper look into NRDC’s history, Ralph Cavanagh, a senior lawyer from NRDC, set up the “California Collaborative Process” in 1989, which according to the San Francisco Bay Guardian, enabled key environmentalists to "meet behind closed doors with top executives from private utilities to smooth over their differences and hammer out energy-efficiency programs.”

NRDC has issued at least four joint statements with Edison Electric Institute since 2002 regarding all manner of clean energy policy, which NRDC makes no effort to hide. In 2014, NRDC made a deal with the utility industry in which the utilities would stop fighting the existence of energy efficiency and rooftop solar in exchange for NRDC's support for designing these programs so the utilities can maintain their profit margins. Beyond joint statements from NRDC and utility groups, NRDC has also worked with the utilities to draft anti-climate policies. For example, in 2016, NRDC and the utilities jointly filed for changes to the state’s net energy metering program, the rooftop solar agreement that has helped over one million California families, schools, businesses, cities and organizations to go solar. In 2019, as policymakers were debating whether or not Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) should be held liable for the fires PG&E caused, the LA Times reported NRDC’s ‘Cavanagh thinks state legislators should change the law so that PG&E and other utilities aren’t held liable for fires sparked by their infrastructure unless they’re found to be negligent. “Our utility liability rules are unworkable. They menace every utility in California, and they need to be fixed,” he said. “This is not just about PG&E, and it’s a mistake to treat it as such.”’

Fast forward to this year when we watched NRDC undermine rooftop solar by supporting the “kill solar bill” in California, Assembly Bill 1139, and submitting an anti-solar proposal for the state’s net energy metering program, which will determine the future rooftop solar agreement in California. Beyond that, NRDC has made attempts to derail the net energy metering proceeding by suggesting major changes to the tool that determines how the CPUC values rooftop solar. Further, the lawyer representing NRDC in the net energy metering proceeding formerly represented PG&E for 15 years, and represented Pacific Gas Transmission Company, a subsidiary of PG&E, for two years.

Environmentalists and climate justice advocates are beyond frustrated with NRDC’s actions. Not only is NRDC selling out to monopoly utility companies supporting environmental racism and accelerating the climate crisis, which often impacts communities of concern first and worst, its actions are causing decision makers to cite “environmental groups support {insert anti-solar initiative}” when in reality, it’s just one so-called environmental group that has a long-standing track record supporting the investor-owned utility companies. NRDC prioritizing that relationship over advocating to keep a proven climate solution an option for California, is not only disappointing, it has major consequences for environmental justice and climate policies.

When asked about the hypocrisy of NRDC’s disingenuous equity claims about rooftop solar, citing the Vibrant Energy study that shows rooftop solar reduces costs for all ratepayers, and pointing out that the top reasons electricity rates are increasing are because of infrastructure that investor-owned utilities get a guaranteed return on investment on and fire-related costs, NRDC did not address or refute our points and did not provide any facts to defend the organization’s stance. When we asked why over 100 climate and equity organizations opposed Assembly Bill 1139 yet NRDC was the only “environmental group” supporting it, an NRDC employee responded by insinuating that their organization understood the issue better than traditional environmental organizations, which weren’t aware of what exactly they were signing on to. That is not factual and is an insult to the organizations, now a broad, diverse coalition of more than 350 nonprofits, small businesses, labor unions, faith-based groups and other members, many of which meet on a monthly basis to save rooftop solar.

It is clear that NRDC works to push investor-owned utility agendas, therefore it is extremely dangerous for NRDC to continue being characterized as an environmental organization and utilized by decision makers to pass anti-climate legislation and policies during a climate emergency when we need to move away from fossil fuels and towards zero carbon. We urge legislators, CPUC commissioners and other elected officials to not mistake buy-in from NRDC as buy-in from environmental groups, because NRDC does not represent the vast majority of environmental groups nor do NRDC’s actions show it's truly trying to end climate injustices and the climate crisis. Please help us fight for a more just and livable future by spreading the word and by reaching out to NRDC, asking the organization to support rooftop solar as a solution to reduce climate racism and to slow the impacts of the climate crisis. To join us in protecting rooftop solar, please visit www.HelpCleanEnergy.org.