This website uses cookies to analyze site navigation and improve user experience.  We take your privacy seriously, and never collect any personally identifiable information, nor do we ever sell or share anonymized data with any third parties.  Click “Great!” to remove this banner.

Climate Propositions and Measures in San Diego County

Policy

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

Category
Select field
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Image of the City of San DIego logo in front of solar panels

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.

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

Read more
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

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.

Read more
Image of sunset over a roof mounted solar system

City of Solana Beach Becomes a Statewide Leader Standing up for Rooftop Solar

On September 8, the City of Solana Beach became the second jurisdiction in the Golden State to approve a resolution standing up for rooftop solar, sending a strong message to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which will be making a decision later this year on changes to the net energy metering policy in California.

On September 8, the City of Solana Beach became the second jurisdiction in the Golden State to approve a resolution standing up for rooftop solar, sending a strong message to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which will be making a decision later this year on changes to the net energy metering policy in California.  The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors approved a similar resolution earlier this year. Net energy metering is a billing arrangement between rooftop solar producers and their energy providers that credit customers with the excess energy they send back to the grid and debits customers for energy taken from the grid.  This agreement is what has allowed solar to become increasingly accessible to working-class families, small businesses, cities, schools and nonprofit organizations. 


The resolution urging the CPUC to make changes that will keep solar growing sustainably while expanding solar access to low-and-moderate income communities was approved unanimously by the Solana Beach City Council members in a 5-0 vote after hearing public comments overwhelmingly in support of passing the resolution.  Local organizations Climate Action Campaign, SanDiego350 and CleanEarth4Kids joined the Hammond Climate Solutions team along with residents from Solana Beach and the Solar Rights Alliance in calling in to make public comments, letting the Solana Beach City Council know they were in full support of the resolution.  Many others submitted written comments in support of the resolution. 


The only comment that wasn’t emphatically in support of the resolution was unsurprisingly from a San Diego Gas & Electric employee, and the other speakers addressed SDG&E’s disingenuous equity arguments, which council members acknowledged were passionately and accurately relayed. 


“SDG&E and Sempra are trying to mislead the public by citing studies that lack credibility to eliminate rooftop solar, a cost-effective, proven solution that reduces climate racism in California and slows the climate crisis, which often impacts communities of concern first and worst - all of this is to increase their profits,” said Tara Hammond, Hammond Climate Solution’s founder and CEO, “Don’t be fooled by their greenwashing campaigns and disingenuous concerns about equity and raising rates.  It’s proven that rooftop solar reduces rates for all ratepayers and is a net benefit to society.”


In the resolution, the City of Solana Beach “urges the CPUC to strengthen NEM to expand access to all households, particularly of low-and-moderate income; expand access to other clean energy technologies that pair with solar, such as batteries; ensure that the solar installations continue to grow in order to meet State and City climate goals; and exclude provisions set forth in the investor-owned utility companies’ proposal such has high monthly fixed fees, and reducing or eliminating credits for sharing electricity with the power grid.” 


The success of rooftop solar relies heavily on a strong net energy metering, and drastic changes that are being proposed by California’s three investor-owned utility companies have the ability to completely disrupt solar adoption across the state.  Slowing down the transition to clean energy means that we will continue to need more dirty energy to meet our needs which will not only further exacerbate the climate crisis but also climate injustices caused by dirty energy, mainly fracked methane gas.  Beyond the environmental benefits clean energy provides, rooftop solar reduces rates for all ratepayers (estimated by Vibrant Energy to the tune of $120 billion for Californians), strengthens the energy grid when paired with storage, provides local green jobs and reduces the risk of wildfires. 


The decision to approve the resolution comes right after President Joe Biden’s administration released a blueprint to produce 45 percent of the nation’s electricity through solar energy by 2050 as a critical part of the effort to fight climate change.  Meeting this goal will require the U.S. to install an average of 30 GW of solar capacity per year between now and 2025 and 60 GW per year from 2025-2030.  If the utility companies are successful in making drastic cuts to net energy metering in California, the nation’s top solar state, meeting this ambitious goal will likely not be possible. 


As the net energy metering proceeding is heating up at the CPUC during the current proceeding where a proposed decision is expected in November and a final decision is expected in January, more organizations and elected officials are publicly coming out in support of a strong net energy metering that will keep rooftop solar growing. 


Just last month, San Diego City Councilmember Raul Campillo released a letter he sent to Governor Gavin Newsom and the CPUC commissioners stating “Please protect NEM. Drastic changes by the California Public Utilities Commission will negatively impact customers, perpetrate environmental injustices, accelerate the climate crisis, and shatter California’s clean energy industry.”  Last week Business for Good San Diego released a letter supporting net metering.  Many San Diego organizations are a part of a statewide coalition of 347 organizations ranging from small business to equity to climate advocacy groups representing a true grassroots movement, which recently issued a statement of support to protect rooftop solar in California. 


With the City of Solana Beach leading the way for Southern California, local activists and organizations are pushing for other cities in the region to adopt similar resolutions and send a strong message to commissioners.  Tomorrow, the San Diego Community Power Community Advisory Committee will vote on a net energy metering letter, and on Monday the City of Chula Vista will discuss the future of net energy metering at its Sustainability Commission meeting. 


Other cities and organizations are expected to speak out as well since the stakes are so high.  Ending rooftop solar would impact regional Climate Action Plans’ 100 percent clean energy targets and local community choice energy programs while taking away future opportunities for San Diegans to go solar and exacerbating the climate crisis. 


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

Read more