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 a happy family in front of an ongoing solar installation at their home

Solutions for Overcoming Barriers to Solar Adoption in Communities of Concern

The state has said that California needs to triple the amount of rooftop solar in order to meet our climate goals and that will not happen if we don’t include solutions for our communities of concern.

As California, America’s leading solar state, continues to evaluate its future solar agreement (net energy metering), it is important to acknowledge the current gaps in adoption of clean energy technologies. Although rooftop solar has become increasingly accessible to low-and-moderate income households in recent years due to a decrease in solar prices, increased financing options and an attractive current solar agreement known as net energy metering 2.0, there are still a number of barriers to adoption. The state has said that California needs to triple the amount of rooftop solar in order to meet our climate goals and that will not happen if we don’t include solutions for our communities of concern. 


1. Overcoming the barrier of homeownership through on-bill financing, community solar and incentives for multifamily solar

The primary barrier to the adoption of solar is home ownership and in order to overcome this barrier, we need to be creative and rethink the traditional financing structures for solar. Thankfully, other states have already addressed this barrier successfully and have developed innovative financing structures that allow renters to receive the benefits of solar. The first strategy is on-bill solar financing which ties re-payment for solar and energy efficiency upgrades to the meter, rather than an individual. Hawaii has successfully created the Green Money $aver program (GEM$), which is the first on-bill financing program that requires no upfront cost or credit check which are two other large barriers to adoption. Renters will enjoy an estimated 10 percent reduction on their utility bill at no upfront cost to the tenant or property owner and the credit can be transferred to the next renter. Another innovative way to overcome the barrier of homeownership is community solar, where renters can subscribe to a portion of a community solar project which will then credit against their utility bill, saving them money and letting them get their energy from clean sources. While California has excelled as the nation's number one solar state, we have fallen behind in our ability to enact legislation that supports community solar projects. Finally, the market for multifamily solar, which makes up about 30 percent of California’s housing market, cannot be ignored. Previous statewide incentive programs played a huge role in rapidly accelerating adoption for single family homes but the adoption for multifamily hasn’t had as much success. The Solar on Multifamily Affordable Housing (“SOMAH”) program is addressing this barrier by providing incentives for multifamily affordable housing that can cover the entire cost of the system. The program is funded through state cap-and-trade funds and has a billion dollar budget over the next 10 years. 

2. Addressing cost barriers through upfront incentive payments 

Another large barrier is high upfront costs for rooftop solar for cash purchases or for portions of state rebates and the 26 percent federal tax credit. California has put billions of dollars behind incentive programs that offer rebates for going solar, however rebates are usually distributed once the system has been installed and interconnected and usually after a lengthy application process, leaving homeowners and property owners to pay the costs for installation and permitting before they ever see a rebate check. Offering upfront payments for incentive programs can eliminate this barrier altogether. Since incentive programs for single family homeowners are beginning to sunset, it's important to also consider no upfront cost financing to address this barrier moving forward, especially for the multifamily sector. Jurisdictions could offer bridge financing programs to address this barrier, which some philanthropists and foundations are currently working to address on a smaller level. 

3. Mending relationships and lack of trust in communities of concern through partnerships with community based organizations

While many solar companies have good intentions, the solar industry has created a barrier because of the lack of trust they have created in communities of concern, which has been plagued by misinformation about solar programs and issues with some less than reputable contractors. Those few bad apples have given the industry a black eye and it’s hurting solar adoption in communities that could benefit from solar the most. It is extremely important that the solar and storage industry, along with program administrators, begin to repair the relationship with communities of concern by partnering with trusted community voices who can provide reliable information to community members in ways that are culturally appropriate and in native languages. The states’ Solar on Multifamily Affordable Housing program has done a good job recognizing this barrier and contracts with local and statewide community-based organizations to conduct education and outreach to property owners and tenants to provide information about the program and overall benefits of clean energy. Partnering with trusted community partners, in addition to offering solar marketing materials, proposals and contracts in various languages, is a starting point to start building trust. 

4. Protecting existing solar customers from evolving solar policies

Finally, expanding access to rooftop solar will not happen when statewide legislation and changing statewide solar policies continue to threaten the investment that people have made or are considering making. Fighting for strong policies for new solar customers and ensuring that solar continues to grow is one fight, but when policies threaten the contracts that people have signed and been promised, it creates a distrust in the government and cities who have pushed for people to go solar and solar companies who promised customers their contracts would last for 20 years. The investor-owned utilities are getting bolder in their attempts to kill rooftop solar, weaponizing communities of concern in their attempts to kill rooftop solar, forcing utility-scale solar to be a main solution to meeting 100 percent clean energy targets, which would increase rates for all ratepayers. 

Overcoming the barriers to solar adoption won’t be easy, but they are necessary in order to ensure that we are meeting local climate action plans and statewide climate goals. Hammond Climate Solutions along with partners at Protect Our Communities Foundation, Brevian Energy and the San Diego Urban Sustainability Coalition, recently submitted a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Grant with a proposal for a program that will expand solar in communities of concern using tactics highlighted earlier in this blog. Communities of concern have long been left out of the clean energy transition and its time to invest resources to accelerate the adoption of clean energy technologies for communities who suffer disportionately from the effects of climate injustices and the climate crisis and are also paying a disproportionate amount of income towards skyrocketing energy bills. Learn more about the current attacks on solar and how you can help defend rooftop solar and expand equitable access to all ratepayers. 

Read more
Image of a large roof-mounted commercial solar system

New Policy on the way for California’s Future Rooftop Solar Customers

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the entity responsible for regulating the investor-owned electric and gas utilities in California, has launched a proceeding to re-evaluate the current net energy metering program (known as “NEM2”) and to decide upon a new NEM program, which will be known as “NEM 3.0.”

In the earlier half of the year, local climate activists rallied to defeat California Assembly Bill 1139 nicknamed the “anti solar bill” in what seemed like a David vs. Goliath Battle, however the utility attacks on solar aren’t going anywhere soon. If you’ve been plugged into the clean energy world, you’ve probably heard about net energy metering (known as “NEM”), the agreement that allows solar customers to be compensated for the excess electricity they share with their neighbors. It is what makes the investment pay off in a relatively short period of time. 


The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the entity responsible for regulating the investor-owned electric and gas utilities in California, has launched a proceeding to re-evaluate the current net energy metering program (known as “NEM2”) and to decide upon a new NEM program, which will be known as “NEM 3.0.”


A total of 17 proposals were submitted to the CPUC for consideration early this year, from parties that range from environmental advocates and climate justice organizations to solar and storage trade associations and of course, the California investor-owned utilities (IOUs). The commissioners will evaluate each proposal based on its cost effectiveness, equity, consumer protection and other guiding principles. Although the batch of proposals is diverse, there are some other factors that have the potential to derail the proceeding. 


The backbone of the proceeding is a study performed by Verdant Associates that analyzes NEM 2.0. The study is flawed in a number of ways but according to comments taken directly from the study, the study fails to take into account a number of externalities, including health benefits from reduced criteria air pollution, the social cost of carbon, out of state methane leakage and land use benefits of reduced rooftop solar as opposed to utility scale desert solar.The study also does not take into account the costs associated with providing reliability and resilience to the grid, which I think everyone can agree, is not equal to zero, as the Verdant Study indicates. Keep in mind, earlier this year the Los Angeles Times reported, How rooftop solar could save Americans $473 billion and how not installing rooftop solar could cost ratepayers $385 billion. 


Furthermore the tool being used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of each proposal is also biased against solar and actually undercuts the value of solar by two thirds compared to the 2020 version of the calculator. The Avoided Cost Calculator was developed by E3 consultants, which have contracts with the utilities and regularly put out bias materials. The CPUC has slipped this update under the radar, without thorough vetting and labeled the update as minor and despite over 7,000 public comments in opposition, the commission voted unanimously to approve the updates. 


With the odds stacked against rooftop solar, a key solution to stopping the climate crisis, reducing rates for all ratepayers and providing grid stability and resilience, it is more important now than ever to make sure we use our voices to fight against utility profits and put the focus where it should be - expanding solar access to communities of concern who bear the brunt of climate change as well as climate injustices and are spending a disproportionate amount of income on utility bills. Please visit our NEM3 toolkit for up-to-date information about the proceeding and for important calls to action.

Read more
Photo of solar advocates at a rally in front of a large inflatable monopoly man

Local Climate Activists Defeat Special Interests in David vs. Goliath Battle

Local climate activists that took on special interests in a statewide David vs Goliath battle have won, protecting rooftop solar and climate resiliency in California. San Diegans grew a statewide coalition to oppose Assembly Bill 1139, which failed to garner enough votes to pass through the assembly this year.

Today, California Assembly Bill 1139, nicknamed the “anti-solar” bill, has failed after unsuccessfully garnering enough votes to leave its house of origin, the assembly, by the deadline.  Community leaders, climate justice advocates, school and teacher unions, nonprofits and residents have been working to build opposition to Assembly Bill 1139 since the bill was introduced by San Diego Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez in February of this year. 


Assembly Bill 1139 would have devastated the economics of going solar in California, threatening thousands of solar jobs and billions of dollars of economic benefits across the state.  The bill would have hurt working families, schools, small businesses, community centers, municipalities and nonprofit organizations, while making solar inaccessible to low-to-moderate income families.  By eroding the economics of going solar, Assembly Bill 1139 would have also increased environmental injustices from fossil fuels while accelerating the climate crisis, which often impacts communities of concern first and worst. 


Assembly Bill 1139 was introduced to the full assembly for a vote yesterday, on June 2, and the bill was 16 votes shy of the 41 votes needed to pass the bill out of the assembly.  The bill was then asked to be reconsidered for a vote later that afternoon, and again, it failed to receive enough support to pass.  Today, the bill was moved into the state legislature’s Inactive File, meaning Assembly Bill 1139 will not be voted on again during this year's legislative session, but it could be reintroduced in January of 2022. 


“We are thrilled to see that assemblymembers, especially locally, were able to see past the false equity narrative that utilities have been attempting to push for years and stood up for rooftop solar,” said Karinna Gonzalez, Climate Justice Policy Advisor with Hammond Climate Solutions, which spearheaded the statewide effort to oppose this bill with the Solar Rights Alliance and help from local partners.  “This bill would have had devastating impacts, not only for solar customers, but also for jobs and the climate. Looking forward, we hope to continue to work with elected officials locally and statewide to expand solar access to communities of concern.” 


This landmark vote comes after climate justice advocates rallied at the South Chula Vista Library yesterday to call on California state representatives to vote no on California Assembly Bill 1139.  Speakers at the event included Maleeka Marsden with San Diego Green New Deal Alliance, Sonja Robinson with Protect Our Communities Foundation, Matthew Vasilakis with Climate Action Campaign, Karinna Gonzalez with Hammond Climate Solutions and Ian Lochore with Baker Electric Home Energy, a local union contractor and member of the California Solar & Storage Association, the statewide association that mobilized its industry to oppose this bill. 


After yesterday's event in Chula Vista, newly-elected Assemblymember Dr. Akilah Weber, representing California's 79th Assembly District, changed her vote from ‘yes' to abstaining.  Aside from the bill’s author, none of San Diego County’s six assemblymembers voted in support of this bill. 


“I am so grateful to the activists that bravely stood up to special interests and spent countless hours opposing this bill to help protect our vision of a just, livable future,” said Tara Hammond, founder and CEO of Hammond Climate Solutions, who gave a special shout out to SanDiego350, Climate Action Campaign and Protect Our Communities Foundation for their help defeating this bill. “This is a testament to the power of the people and recognition that Californians overwhelmingly support rooftop solar as a key climate solution.  We would like to prioritize helping communities of concern adopt solar and storage, becoming local resilience hubs, and we’re glad that opportunity wasn't taken away by Assembly Bill 1139.”  


San Diego has been ranked the top solar city in America numerous times, in terms of solar capacity and number of installations.  While San Diego is currently ranked second, it’s home to hundreds of local solar companies that employ thousands of local residents and provide over a billion dollars in economic benefits to the region each year.  Local nonprofit organizations Center for Sustainable Energy and GRID Alternatives are administrators of the Solar on Multi-Family Affordable Housing program, which offers state rebates for affordable housing to receive subsidized solar power systems.  These administrators were also in opposition of Assembly Bill 1139 due to the negative impact it would have had on current and future affordable housing solar projects in the region and statewide. 


Today’s news is a big win for local climate activists and green jobs since it means rooftop solar will continue to expand, furthering access to solar for communities of concern.  It also helps keep California on track to reach critical climate targets that are set across the state. 


“The fact that Assembly Bill 1139 did not pass is a huge cause for everyone to celebrate,” said Maleeka Marsden, Chair of the San Diego Green New Deal Alliance and Co-Director of Policy at Climate Action Campaign, two of 30 local organizations that came out in opposition to Assembly Bill 1139 among 150 statewide organizations.  “If Assembly Bill 1139 had passed, we would have gone backwards, not forwards, towards meeting critical climate goals and advancing equity.” 


This outcome surfaced at a time when California is seeing an exponential rise in detrimental consequences from the climate crisis and environmental racism.  A recent report authored by Daniel Kammen, Teenie Matlock, Manuel Pastor, David Pellow, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Tom Steyer, Leah Stokes and Feliz Ventura show that climate change is occurring at a faster, more destructive rate than previously known, requiring California to accelerate statewide climate efforts.  One of the report’s key findings concluded that a dangerous level of climate change, determined by an average temperature increase of 2.7℉, will be reached as early as 2027.


“While we’re relieved the Assembly scrapped this bill, we know that SDG&E and PG&E will continue to follow the utilities playbook in attacking rooftop solar,” said Masada Disenhouse, executive director of SanDiego350. “That’s why we will remain vigilant and committed to fighting those attacks and to working in our communities to develop innovative, equitable solutions to get to zero carbon."


There is interest among local activists and those in the clean energy industry to reform the investor-own utility model, which incentivizes the utility companies to build more infrastructure, guaranteeing a return on investment for the shareholders at ratepayers’ expense. Instead, activists would like to see solar for renters, community solar programs and other investments that address equity and help move the region toward zero carbon. 


To learn more about Assembly Bill 1139 visit www.HelpCleanEnergy.org.


Read more