Legislative Session Wrap-up

Now that the 2016 legislative session has ended, we’re celebrating some victories: four of the five main climate bills we supported, SB 32, AB 197, SB 1383, and SB 1279, have all been signed into law. SB 1279 prohibits the use of state transportation funds for new bulk coal terminal projects, and SB 1383 sets emissions reductions targets for “super pollutants.” The passage of linked bills SB 32 and AB 197 ensures that California’s leadership in building a clean energy economy continues with a growing commitment that all Californians are full partners in this transition, including those in the state’s disadvantaged communities who often live with the legacy of fossil fuel industry pollution and some of our dirtiest air quality.    


Victories: SB 32, AB 197, SB 1383, and SB 1279


By passing SB 32, California’s leaders renewed the state’s commitment to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonizing our economy. SB 32 extends California's emissions target to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Like AB 32 before it, SB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in a comprehensive fashion.  (You can find out more about SB 32 by checking out a previous 350 East Bay blog post).However, there are a few important differences between SB and AB 32. AB 32 required the state to develop a “market mechanism” to bring about GHG emissions trading and reduction for the largest polluters— this became known as the the “cap and trade” program.  As it moved through the Senate and Assembly in 2016, SB 32  was simplified by the author, Senator Fran Pavley, who took out SB 32’s original goal of 80% emission reduction by 2050 and removed the cap and trade program. This means that the state will need to examine in coming years whether cap and trade will be continued as it is, reformed in some way, or replaced with other some other mechanism. (Note: The draft 2016 AB 32 scoping plan update gives some insights into possible pathways post 2020).

SB 32 was tied to passage of another bill, AB 197, authored by Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia. According to an 8/24/2016 floor analysis, AB 197:  


  • places additional legislative oversight on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) by creating a joint legislative committee on climate change policies, and adding two legislators as non-voting members of the Board;

  • requires CARB to prioritize direct emission reductions and consider “social costs” when adopting GHG reductions measures;

  • gives CARB additional reporting duties on the sources of GHGs and other pollutants;

  • establishes six-year terms for voting members of CARB;


From the bill text, “social costs” are defined as “an estimate of the economic damages, including, but not limited to, changes in net agricultural productivity; impacts to public health; climate adaptation impacts, such as property damages from increased flood risk; and changes in energy system costs, per metric ton of greenhouse gas emission per year.”  

SB 1383 is aimed at reducing emissions of a special class of “super pollutants”methane, black carbon (soot) and fluorine gases (HFCs). The bill directs CARB to implement a strategy to reduce methane by 40%, HFCs by 40%, and human-caused black carbon emissions by 50% below 2013 levels by 2030. In order to reduce methane emissions, the bill also mandates a 50% reduction in the statewide level of organic waste (below the 2014 level) by 2020, and a 75% reduction in the level of statewide disposal of organic waste by 2025. Also per SB 1383, California will need to recover the amount of edible food it discards by 20%. Although the dairy industry will need to reduce its methane emissions by 40% before 2030 per SB 1383, regulations on methane emissions from the dairy industry are subject to various constraints and will not be implemented until 2024. For background on SB 1383, check out a previous 350 East Bay blog post.  

Support for SB 1279 arose out of concerns about a developer’s  proposal to ship 9 million tons of coal annually from the West Oakland Army base. This July, following a year long, community-wide campaign by the No Coal in Oakland  Coalition, the Oakland city council passed a zoning ordinance banning the proposed shipping and handling of coal and petcoke for export from West Oakland. Senator Hancock continued pushing to pass her two coal-related bills, SB 1277 and SB 1279. In the end, SB 1279 passed and will make sure that, by 2017, state transportation funding are longer be used to support coal shipments to and from ports in California. (Coal is currently being shipped from terminals in Richmond, Stockton and Long Beach, but far less than the amounts that were proposed for Oakland.)

SB 1277 became mired in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in mid August did not go to a floor vote. This bill would have required that a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to consider and mitigate the environmental impacts of proposed coal shipments from the West Oakland port. Although, as mentioned previously, Oakland’s city council passed a zoning ordinance banning the proposed coal shipments, Hancock is concerned that the developer may contest the ordinance in court. Hancock contends that passage of SB 1277 is still necessary to protect workers and residents in West Oakland if the developer is successful in a lawsuit against the city of Oakland.


Other bills you should know about


Unfortunately, 350 East Bay did not have the resources to campaign for all the important climate legislation heard by the legislature this session. Here are some additional bills that we’ve followed (not a comprehensive list, by any means):


SB 1387


Senate pro tem Kevin De Leon proposed SB 1387 in order to better represent those in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) most impacted by poor air quality. The bill, which died in the Assembly, would have added three new state appointments to the SCAQMD board. As amended on August 19, 2016, SB 1387 requires these appointees to “reside in and work directly with communities in the South Coast Air Basin that are disproportionately burdened by and vulnerable to high levels of pollution and issues of environmental justice, including, but not limited to, communities with diverse racial and ethnic populations and communities with low-income populations.”

Currently, according to an action alert sent out by the Sierra Club’s Allen Hernandez. “nearly all of the thirteen current members of the SCAQMD live in areas that enjoy clean air year-round. And despite the fact that the region's population is more than three-fifths Latino — many of whom are disproportionately affected by pollution —there is not a single Latino board member.” In April, the LA times reported on a controversial appointment made by the SCAQMD: “(...) the Southland's air quality board continued its shift toward more business-friendly regulation (...) by choosing an industry consultant as its new executive.” The SCAQMD board was characterized as“pollution tolerant” in a recent LA Times article.


AB 1110


As amended on August 10, AB 1110 was opposed by 350 Bay Area and Californians for Energy Choice, a group that advocates on behalf of the state’s community choice aggregations (CCAs). Californians for Energy Choice said that AB 1110 would favor “polluting monopoly utilities” over CCAs. Marin Clean Energy, a local governmental agency administering the first CCA in the state, concluded that passage of AB 1110  “would lead to inaccurate calculations of GHGs, prescribes a detailed unworkable methodology, and discourages aggressively meeting and exceeding RPS standards.” (A Renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is a regulation that requires the increased production energy from renewable energy sources.)  

Fortunately, AB 1110 was amended later in the session so that “(d)ecisions on greenhouse gas reporting standards will now be made by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) through an open public process." It was approved by the Governor on September 26th.


AB 2163


This emergency bill, which is currently stalled in a Senate committee, would have reinstated net metering for Imperial Irrigation District (IID) customers whose net metering program was abruptly ended. Currently, municipal utilities like IID are not compelled to offer net metering under the same terms as the investor-owned utilities. AB 2163 would have resolved this problem for IID's customers and set a precedent for net metering programs in municipal utilities around the state. You can find out more about this bill on the 350 Bay Area website.


SB 1161


SB 1161, the "Exxon knew" bill, would have extended the statute of limitations for lawsuits against “entities that have deceived, confused, or misled the public on the risks of climate change or financially supported activities that have deceived, confused, or misled the public on those risks.” Called “A landmark bill” by the Washington Times, SB 1161 was introduced by senator Ben Allen and supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists and other environmental groups. SB 1161 died in June, after the Senate failed to take it up before a deadline.  


Add your reaction Share

SB 32 – Climate Pollution Reduction Beyond 2020

SB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to limit statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. At its heart, this bill is an effort to align state policy goals with the recommendations of most climate scientists, who agree that we must reduce GHG emissions to 80 - 90% below 1990 levels by 2050 in order to avoid catastrophic warming. The passage of SB 32 would allow state agencies to continue the work they began in 2006 under AB 32, which is “the first program in the country to take a comprehensive, long-term approach to addressing climate change.”


Existing Law: AB 32


AB 32, the Global Warming Climate Solutions Act, requires CARB to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (about a 20% reduction). (Much of the following discussion of existing law comes from a 6/24/2016 analysis of the bill, which was written for the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.)

Under AB 32, CARB has to identify GHG emissions targets, develop a Scoping Plan every 5 years for achieving the required emissions reductions, adopt regulations to help achieve this goal (including “market-based declining annual aggregate emission limits”; more on that later), and convene and/or appoint various committees. AB 32 also directed CARB to continue reducing GHG emissions beyond 2020 (more on this as well).

Two years after AB 32 passed, CARB approved its first Scoping Plan.  In order to reduce emissions by 80 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent,the plan called for, among other measures,


  • a cap-and-trade program, which was approved in late 2011;

  • a low carbon fuel standard, which was adopted in 2009;

  • light-duty vehicle GHG standards;

  • expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs;

  • expanding and strengthening existing building and appliance standards;

  • a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS); and

  • regional transportation-related GHG targets.


California is on track to achieve AB 32’s 2020 goal, according to an update to the scoping plan that was approved by CARB on May 22, 2014. The scoping plan offered some new strategies and built upon others that had already been established  across 5 sectors: Energy, Transportation, Agriculture, Water and Waste Management. The plan calls for continued expansion of renewable energy, implementation of a Sustainable Freight Initiative, diversion of food and other organic waste from landfills, conservation of natural and working lands, and many additional actions (which are detailed in the updated scoping plan).


Existing Law: Executive Orders


Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05 in 2005, which called for GHG emissions reductions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050; however, there's no statute establishing specific requirements to achieve the goal or consequences if it's not achieved. Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15 in 2015, which established an interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to help meet the 2050 target.  


Global Context


The 2050 goal of reducing GHG emissions by 80% of 1990 levels, the minimum amount required to limit global warming to 2 degrees celsius, is the global warming target set at the COP21 Climate talks in Paris in 2015. Reducing GHG emissions by 80-95% is also the goal of the Under 2 MOU, a partnership initiated by California before COP21, which brings various states and regions throughout the world to make commitments to lowering their GHG emissions. The 2 degree target is not as ambitious as many would like; indeed, it is intended to help us avoid only the most catastrophic effects of climate change.


Political Context


Recent discussions around SB 32 center around expanded legislative oversight of CARB, the future of cap and trade, and whether AB 32 provides the authority for CARB to continue its efforts to compel GHG reductions post 2020. Some powerful interests oppose California’s climate policy goals, and would prefer to kill or delay their implementation — in fact, according to the Better World Group/California Delivers, the oil industry spent over $22 million in 2015 to weaken clean air standards in SB 32 (which was pulled that year by its author, Fran Pavley, after amendments became too onerous) and SB 350 (which passed after a key goal, cutting gasoline use in half by 2030, was removed from the bill).


AB 197 “co-joined” with SB32


 In an unusual measure, SB 32 has been  amended so that it can become operative only if AB 197 is enacted. So, what is AB 197?

In an effort to address concerns about AB 32’s complex and wide-ranging administrative reach, AB 197 contains a number of amendments which members of the Assembly either requested or insisted upon. According to an analysis of AB 197 presented to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality on 627/2016, the bill will require that CARB prioritize emissions reductions from refineries and the transportation sector, and it will place additional legislative oversight on CARB’s activities.


Cap And Trade


Cap and Trade, also referred to as a “Market Mechanism,” is California’s method of making polluters pay for their use of California’s airsheds. Carbon emissions are capped, and a price is placed on the emissions released below that limit. You can find a good discussion of Cap and Trade in a recent article from Vox.

In 2012, the California Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit claiming that Cap and Trade is essentially a carbon tax; according to California law, the state legislature requires a 2/3 majority vote to pass any new tax. The argument was rejected in 2013 and is currently being appealed.

Cap and Trade has been controversial both for covered industries and some environmental and EJ groups; even the Pope and climate scientist James Hansen have spoken out against Cap and Trade. However, the system enjoys strong support from Governor Brown. Unless California can pass a carbon tax, which would require a 2/3 majority vote in the legislature, Cap and Trade may be our best way of collecting on the debt polluters owe to us. However, in an effort to streamline SB 32, cap and trade was removed from the bill.


Can CARB continue cutting GHG emissions without SB 32?

Remember when I said earlier that “AB 32 also directed CARB to continue reducing GHG emissions beyond 2020”? CARB may use language from AB 32 to continue regulating GHG emissions under after 2020, regardless of the status of SB 32. The Legislative Analyst office, however, has ruled that AB 32’s authority “sunsets” in 2020.


Sound complicated? It is.

 Let me reiterate that 350 Bay Area supports SB 32 because, in essence, it extends the state’s climate goals— goals that place the state on track to do its part to avoid catastrophic warming. We are working with other organizations to track and analyze amendments or related legislation, including participating in the CA Green Lobby Day on August 2nd.  We will continue to provide updates on our 350 East Bay Facebook page.

The legislative session ends August 31, so all of this is playing out over the next 3 weeks. Until then, we’ll be meeting with local Assembly members  and organizing phone banking and letter writing efforts to show our support for SB 32.  Please feel free to contact Kathy Dervin (dervin.kathy@gmail.com) or Judy Pope (jpope4@gmail.com) to find out how you can help us pass this important climate bill. We are fighting for the passage of SB 32 despite the opposition; the climate crisis is not waiting and neither should the Legislature.  




Bill Text (as amended on June 30, 2016): SB 32

CARB Overview of AB 32

Bill Analysis

Climate Action Team description from State of California Website

CARB’s Initial Scoping Plan

CARB’s First Update to the Scoping Plan

Information on the Sustainable Freight Initiative, from CARB

Governor Schwarzenegger’sExecutive Order S-3-05

Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-30-15

Bill Text: AB 197

LA Times article about the passage of SB 350

6/27/16 Analysis of AB 197

Cap and Trade article from Vox

Statement about SB 32 from the California Environmental Justice Alliance

Statement about Cap and Trade from the Vatican

Sacbee article about AB 32 and its authority to regulate CO2e after 2020

Sacbee article about AB 32’s authority after 2020

CARB Scoping Plan

Under 2 MOU

Add your reaction Share

SB 1383: Short-lived Climate Pollutants

Short-lived climate pollutants, such as black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane, create a number of hazardous effects on air quality, public health, and climate change. SB 1383, which will be heard by the California Assembly Appropriations Committee after the July 1-August 1 recess, is intended to help reduce California’s SLCP emissions by 2030. Essentially, SB 1383 requires the California Air Resources Board to implement the Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy developed under SB 605.


SB 605 was authored by Senator Ricardo Lara (as SB 1383 was) and signed by the governor in 2014. On April 11, 2016, CARB published the Strategy, which is scheduled for adoption in September. In addition to setting the 40/40/50 targets for key SLCPs, the Strategy proposes specific measures, including:

  • removing and replacing old fireplaces and woodstoves;

  • implementing a sustainable freight strategy;

  • creating regulations for best management practices for new dairies;

  • creating financial incentives for manure management and dairy digesters;

  • requiring organics diversion from landfills;

  • creating regulations to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas production, processing and storage;

  • creating financial incentives for low-GWP refrigerant early adoption; and

  • banning the sale of very-high GWP refrigerants and prohibitions on new equipment using high GWP gases.

According to the Strategy, growing SLCP emissions threaten to erode the State’s progress towards the GHG limits set in AB 32, and continued emissions will put increased pressure on the remainder of ARB’s regulatory structure to maintain overall emissions below the GHG limit and to continue reductions. SB 1383 would help the state meet the 2020 GHG emissions reductions targets set by AB 32: the Strategy developed under SB 605 is identified in the First Update to the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan as one of the recommended actions to achieve additional GHG emission reductions. Additionally, SB 1383 would regulate black carbon as a GHG, and it would extending AB 32’s target reductions in Methane and HFCs from 2020 to 2030.

Current bill

The Strategy developed under SB 605 aims to make substantial cuts in statewide emissions, as compared to 2013, by 2030. SB 1383 would set the following 2030 emissions reduction targets:


  • methane would be cut 40 percent,

  • hydrofluorocarbon gases would be cut by 40 percent, and

  • anthropogenic black carbon would be cut by 50 percent.

All the regulatory measures implemented by CARB under SB 1383 SLCP Reduction Strategy would undergo public review and economic and environmental evaluations.

More about SCLPs

SCLPs are responsible for an estimated 40% of present global warming effects, and actions to reduce SLCP emissions globally could cut the amount of warming that would occur over the next few decades by half (for a discussion of these statistics and how California’s SLCP reduction efforts tie in with possible global actions, check out the Introduction of the Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy starting on page 13). CO2 emissions must be steadily reduced for long-term climate stability, but a global commitment and near-term actions to dramatically reduce SLCP emissions over the next 10–15 years are also essential (CARB, 2016).

These toxic air contaminants are also a significant environmental risk factor for premature death, and reducing these emissions can have an immediate beneficial impact on public health. The American Lung Association’s 2015 State of the Air report found that the top five US cities most impacted by unhealthy ozone days are in California, as are the top seven cities burdened with unhealthy particle pollution days. Health impacts of air pollution range from asthma attacks and hospitalizations for  lung and heart illnesses, cancer, and premature death; these health impacts of air pollution cost billions annually. Disturbingly, the Lung Association concluded that air pollution contributes to over 7,000 premature deaths per year in California.

Black Carbon has a global warming potential 3200 times that of CO2 on a 20-year time scale. The primary sources of black carbon, or soot, are diesel and gas emissions from the transportation sector, emissions from the industrial and energy sector, heavy machinery, and fireplaces.  Black carbon contributes to chronic respiratory health problems, and accelerates global warming. However, soot is not currently listed under AB 32 as a greenhouse gas under AB 32.

Fluroinated gases (f-gases), including Hydrofluorocarbons, are man-made gases used primarily in aerosols, air conditioning, and refrigeration systems. HFCs, on average, have a global warming potential 1600 times that of CO2 on a 20-year time scale. Currently, HFCs are a small fraction of the total climate forcing, but they are the fastest growing source of GHG pollution.

Methane, which is approximately 80 times more powerful as a global warming pollutant than CO2 on a 20- year time scale, is a significant driver of climate change; methane is also the main precursor of tropospheric ozone (O3), leading to respiratory illness in humans and contributing to heart disease, bronchitis and emphysema.  The most significant sources of methane in California are manure from agriculture, dairy cows, landfills, and leakage from oil and gas operation pipelines. Methane leaked from oil and gas operations is accompanied by toxics such as benzene, toluene, and formaldehyde, pollutants that are linked to health impacts ranging from lung damage and asthma attacks to premature deaths. Many major sources of methane emissions, including dairies, landfills, and natural gas distribution, are unregulated. A 2014 Stanford University study found that methane emissions are at least 50% higher than official estimates from the US EPA.

In late 2015, a massive leak at the Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Field released an estimated 97,100 metric tons of methane near Porter Ranch, a community in Los Angeles. At its peak, this single emissions source doubled the methane emissions rate of the entire Los Angeles Basin. Research reported in an LA Time article estimates that the Aliso Canyon leak gave off enough methane, integrated over 100 years,  to produce the same amount of global warming as 572,000 passenger cars in the US in a full year. (A New York Times article placed the estimate at 1,735,404 passenger cars in a full year; the article also stated that “If well SS-25 were a nation-­state, it would have contributed to global climate change at a rate exceeding that of Senegal, Laos, Lithuania, Estonia, Zimbabwe, Albania, Brunei, Slovenia, Nicaragua, Panama, Jamaica, Latvia, Georgia, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Costa Rica, Honduras, Tajikistan, Armenia and Iceland. SS-25 would rank just behind Mali.”.) The leak continued for 4 months and resulted in more than 6,000 people being evacuated from their homes.  


Bill Text- SB 1383

Bill Text- SB 605

Bill Analysis: Senate Environmental Quality (4/04/16), Senate Appropriations (5/02/16), Senate Floor Analysis (5/2816), and Assembly Natural Resources (06/24/16)

Senator Lara’s Website

CARBs Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy

First Update to the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan

Health Group Support Letter

New York Times Article on the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak

LA Times Article on the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak

2014 Stanford Study on Methane Emissions

Add your reaction Share

Legislative Update

The 350 East Bay Legislative Committee is working to gain support in the California Assembly for four priority bills: SB 1383, SB 1277, SB 1279, and SB 32.

SB 1383 would require the California Air Resources Board, or CARB, to limit emissions from three classes of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) with a high Global Warming Potential, or GWP. (GWP is a measure of the total energy that a gas absorbs over a particular period of time, compared to carbon dioxide). SB 1383 would give CARB until 2030 to cut statewide emissions of target pollutants, including black carbon (soot), methane, and fluorinated gasses, below 2013 levels; black carbon (soot) emissions would be halved, while methane and fluorinated gas emissions would be reduced by 40%.

Several California medical and health organizations, including the American Lung Association in California and the California Nurses Association, expressed support for the bill in a letter sent to Senator Lara this spring. The letter states that reducing emissions of target SLCPs will directly benefit the health of California residents, particularly those in disadvantaged communities. Reducing emissions and curbing climate change will also help prevent health impacts from climate change-caused increases in air pollution, extreme heat events, drought, wildfires, vector-borne diseases, flooding, water and food insecurity.

SB 1277 and SB 1279 were authored by Senator Loni Hancock to help block a proposal to ship coal from a port at the Oakland Army Base in West Oakland.

  • SB 1277 would require a supplemental environmental impact review (EIR) of the use of the West Oakland terminal for the shipment of coal, and

  • SB 1279 would require that the California Transportation Commission (which decides whether Trade Corridor Improvement Funds should be spent on the West Oakland port) shall not allocate state funds for any new bulk coal terminal proposed in 2017 or after.

On June 27th, the Oakland City Council voted unanimously to block the proposed project in West Oakland (yay!); this decision is expected to be confirmed by a second vote on July 19th. Regardless, SB 1279 may still help prevent other proposed bulk coal terminals from receiving state funds. The 350 East Bay Legislative Committee will continue promoting SB 1279 even if the City of Oakland rejects plans for a coal facility in West Oakland.

You can find out more about these bills from Senator Hancock's website (much of the text that follows comes from two fact sheets written in support of the bills; you can find these pdfs by scrolling to the bottom of the linked page). Senator Hancock opposes the use of state funds for coal infrastructure because she believes that supporting the coal industry runs counter to California's environmental goals. Furthermore, coal ports pose a serious health threat to nearby residents: coal transport spreads coal dust, and coal dust causes cancer, heart disease, asthma, and other lung diseases.

SB 32 is a substantive bill requiring CARB to limit statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. You can find out more by reading the Natural Resource Committee's analysis of the bill, as amended on June 10, 2016.

Most scientists agree that we must reduce GHG emissions to 80 - 90% below 1990 levels by 2050 in order to avoid catastrophic warming. Simply put, existing law requires CARB to adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to the 1990 level by 2020; SB 32 extends these goals. You can find an excellent discussion of California's climate laws and emissions targets on 350 East Bay's FAQ's for California page.

SB 32 was one of the more contentious of several California climate bills during the 2015 legislative session. The bill was ultimately withdrawn by its author after the the bill’s opponents— namely oil industry interests and legislators with close relationships with oil— were able to amend it last August to take away power from CARB and from the governor.  The current version of SB 32 has been streamlined to mainly address the extension of CARB’s authority to reduce GHG emissions by 40% by 2030.   350 East Bay's legislative committee will be following this bill closely and is working with other organizations to track and analyze amendments or related legislation intended to weaken the bill.

After passing through the senate, three of these bills (SB 1383, SB 1277, and SB 32) were discussed in the Natural Resources Committee hearing on Monday, June 27th, and the fourth (SB 1279) was heard by the Transportation Committee on the same day. All of these bills were sent to the Appropriations Committee after the June 27th hearings, and they will be heard following the July 1- Aug 1 recess. Stay tuned for updates!

If you’re interested in working with the 350 East Bay Legislative Committee, you can email Judy Pope at jpope4@gmail.com.

Add your reaction Share

350 Bay Area
We are building a grassroots climate movement, working for deep reductions in carbon pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area & beyond.

Sign up to Volunteer

Find us on Facebook