Volts podcast: Danny Cullenward on California's shaky climate plans

In this episode, policy analyst Danny Cullenward of CarbonPlan talks about the disconnect between California’s ambitious climate goals and its actual practical plans for achieving them.

(PDF transcript)

(Active transcript)

Text transcript:

David Roberts

California has long been known, nationally and internationally, as a leader on climate policy. The sheer scale of its economy and the stringency of its emissions targets have made it a model for other states with climate ambitions. As a role model, its successes (and failures) reverberate far beyond its borders.

So it matters a great deal whether California has a practical plan to meet its aspirations. This year offers something of an answer, and … it’s not great.

Volts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Every five years, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) issues a “scoping plan,” laying out how it intends to meet the state’s targets.

The last one, in 2017, raised serious questions about whether the state’s cap-and-trade system could do the emission-reduction work that the state planned to require of it through 2030. This year’s draft scoping plan (there’s still time for public comment) answers none of those questions, and instead, looking out to 2045, raises new questions about whether carbon-dioxide removal (CDR) can do the work the state plans to require of it.

That’s a lot of questions. To hash through them, and get a sense of just how prepared California is to meet its climate targets, I called up Danny Cullenward, a long-time policy analyst in the state. (Volts fans will remember him from one of the very first Volts posts.) He is currently policy director at the nonprofit CarbonPlan and a research fellow at American University’s Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy.

Cullenward and I discussed what policies have worked to reduce emissions in California, whether the cap-and-trade program can do what’s asked of it, why the current scoping plan leans so heavily on CDR, and whether there’s still time to improve the plan before it’s locked in for five years.

Without any further ado, Danny Cullenward. Welcome to Volts. Thanks for coming.

Danny Cullenward

Thanks for having me on, Dave.

David Roberts

Danny, you were the first interview I ever did for Volts a couple of years ago. And as far as I know, now you're the first return guest.

Danny Cullenward

And the first to pivot to audio. This is fun.

David Roberts

Yeah, the first to pivot to audio. I'm sure this is the kind of accomplishment you used to dream about as a young man.

Danny Cullenward

If I were still an academic, it would be going on my CV.

David Roberts

Alright, so the purpose of our conversation here today is to get a handle on California and climate, sort of where it's been, where it says it's going, and whether it is in fact prepared to go where it says it's going. Before we get there, though, let's do just a little sort of scene setting, a little background. I think everybody hears about laws coming out of California all the time. California is doing this, doing that, and it becomes a little bit of a blur. So let's just sort of clarify what are the targets to which California is committed by statute, and sort of what are its other targets which are less statutory.

Danny Cullenward

I think that's the formal legal definition. That's great.

David Roberts

Semi statutory.

Danny Cullenward

Well, so there's a reason people talk about California and also why people, I think, sometimes get confused about exactly what's going on. And the reason that it matters is California was one of the first states to move forward on some of the macro climate policy issues, and many states are either copying or learning from its experience. So what it does turns out to matter a lot to sort of what other people start to do. I think the story begins in earnest in climate policy with the passage of AB 32. Our famous climate law back in 2006.

David Roberts

Under Arnold.

Danny Cullenward

Under Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a progressive Democratic legislature came together, found common ground on this bill, did a couple of things.

It set a target to reduce emissions back down to 1990 emissions, by the year 2020. And it empowered the climate regulator, the California Air Resources Board, with the authority to undertake new regulations, including a cap-and-trade program, as well as to coordinate with other agencies, like our clean energy regulators that had already been pushing on renewables in the past. And that sort of set up the meta-framework and delegated the planning exercise to this regulator. So that's target number one. Target number two is about a decade later. In fact, one of the same principal legislators, then-Senator Fran Pavley, led a bill called SB 32, which codified a target of 40% below 1990 levels by the year 2030.

So both of those are statutory targets. They're legally binding. The regulator is obligated to plan to and meet those targets. And then in 2018, we had the passage of SB 100, our zero-carbon grid bill. That was much celebrated. At the signing ceremony for that bill, Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order that said, let's go carbon neutral by the year 2045 on a statewide basis as well. And it's under the auspices of that executive order, and some more recent executive order and direction activity from the current governor, Gavin Newsom, that the state of California is thinking about its long-term climate goals.

So we have statutory target for 2030, and we have non-binding aspirational executive orders for the post-2030 period.

David Roberts

So, just to be clear, those executive orders are hotatory. Is that the word? They're meant to inspire action, but they have no legal force, there's no penalty.

Danny Cullenward

That's right. You can't create new policies or programs from those executive orders that aren't separately authorized by existing law. And it's really easy to say, "That that's dumb. It means they're nothing." On the other hand, the statutory targets we have followed from earlier executive orders, so there's a history in this state, and in many other jurisdictions, you set the aspirational goal and you codify the parts of it you can, you sort of push ahead and you iterate in ratchet. So I don't want to discount the importance of that. But the practical takeaway is that nothing can be done to implement those targets other than talking and using existing authorities.

You can't create new law with an executive order.

David Roberts

Right, so the legislature will have to follow up on that. So the first target you mentioned was by 2020, that was returned to 1990 levels. Did California hit that?

Danny C