Opinion: Don't let CEQA thwart California action on addressing ... - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Opinion: Don't let CEQA thwart California action on addressing climate emergency - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Opinion: Don’t let CEQA thwart California action on addressing climate emergency

Will lawmakers actually follow through and work with Newsom to flesh out his proposals

The editorial board operates independently from the U-T newsroom but holds itself to similar ethical standards. We base our editorials and endorsements on reporting, interviews and rigorous debate, and strive for accuracy, fairness and civility in our section. Disagree? Let us know.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s push for the state to comprehensively address the climate emergency — from preparing for chronic water shortages to phasing out the sale of new fossil-fuel vehicles in 2035 to using electricity only generated by carbon-free sources by 2045— has been embraced, at least rhetorically, by most of his fellow elected Democrats.

Echoing the consensus of climate experts, the governor has said for months that there’s an urgent need to start right away in building related transportation, clean energy and water infrastructure. He believes that much of the cost of a 10-year, $180 billion plan for such projects will be paid for by the massive federal funding approved in 2022 by Congress to help states prepare for a hotter, drier future. “The question is,” he said, “are we going to screw it up by being consumed by paralysis and process?”

But on May 25 — after Newsom asked lawmakers to limit regulatory obstacles to clear the way for an aggressive construction timetable for these projects — a Senate committee declined to advance his package of legislation. Members said they did so because the governor wanted to use a dubious tactic to quickly enact his proposals — placing them in so-called “budget trailer” bills that are often passed in the final days of the fiscal year with little scrutiny.

Their objection is entirely reasonable. It remains incredible that it wasn’t until April that Californians were informed that the Legislature had voted in June — 10 months earlier — to allow the state’s giant investor-owned utilities — San Diego Gas & Electric, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison — to charge customers for electricity based on income. The provision was buried in a “budget trailer” bill covering energy policies. Of course the governor’s far-reaching plan deserves more than the cursory scrutiny he appears to hope it gets.

But will lawmakers actually follow through and work with Newsom to flesh out his proposals, as was promised by Sen. Josh Becker, D-San Mateo? That’s an open question to be answered by September. Becker’s assertion in remarks to the Senate committee that there is “overwhelming agreement” in the Legislature “that we need to build clean faster and cut green tape” is not borne out by history.

Many of the same environmentalists who have long urged climate action show an almost-reflexive opposition to efforts to weaken the California Environmental Quality Act, the well-intended 1970 state law that provides easy ways to stall or kill construction projects. Their allies in the Legislature are sympathetic. While Newsom and predecessor Jerry Brown have managed to win approval of some limits on environmental litigation targeting renewable energy projects, certain types of housing and large sports stadiums, the narrowness of the exemptions is telling. There’s a reason that major CEQA reforms have never come close to passage despite support for such changes from the last six governors. Many environmentalists will oppose Newsom’s proposal, not because of how he hoped to speed it into law, but over its substance. Given that he intends to use the reforms to clear the way for new water storage facilities and desalination plants, they don’t want to lose their most potent tool to stave off these projects — whose environmental impacts they fear.

But given dire predictions of a climate emergency — and reminders like the almost Martian images out of Manhattan last week resulting from widespread wildfires in Canada — there’s a need for tough decisions and an urgent response of the sort that Newsom seeks. If the stakes weren’t so huge, it would be an amusing irony that a law that’s meant to preserve the environment is used to block constructive steps to address the biggest environmental threat in the world. To paraphrase the governor, the question for state lawmakers is this: Are you going to screw up the state’s response to this emergency because you can’t see the forest for the trees? Californians will find out in the next few months.

Get Essential San Diego, weekday mornings

Get top headlines from the Union-Tribune in your inbox weekday mornings, including top news, local, sports, business, entertainment and opinion.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.