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.

Nature-Based Solutions in San Diego

Nature-based solutions are actions to help protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges while simultaneously providing benefits for people and the environment. As the most biodiverse county in the continental United States, San Diego County is well positioned to utilize nature-based solutions. These actions can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve societal co-benefits.

Nature-based solutions aim to enhance the natural function of ecosystems to provide multiple societal co-benefits such as improved public health through cleaner air and water as well as the availability of open space, improvements to habitat for wildlife and plants, flood risk reduction and other ecosystem services that enhance the resiliency of our environment. Natural and working lands are vital in the carbon cycle in San Diego and throughout California. Healthy ecosystems that include vegetation and soil microbes capture and store carbon from the atmosphere. In contrast, changes that alter or damage ecosystems, including land use modifications, deforestation and wildfires, can release sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere, accelerating the climate crisis. To balance between carbon stored and carbon released determines whether natural lands and ecosystems function as net sources or net carbon sinks. Protection of natural environments from land use and disturbances helps promote the functioning of forests, wetlands and oceans as carbon sinks that absorb more carbon than they emit.

San Diego has initiated multiple nature-based solutions projects already. However, the need to develop and scale up these projects is ever increasing as San Diego and California face impacts of the climate crisis. The United States Economic Development Administration’s Economic Integrator helped catalyze a nature-based solution project focused on upstream improvements to reduce runoff and debris deposited into San Diego’s stormwater infrastructure. This project helps mitigate the impact of flooding in the urban center while enhancing outdoor recreation and economic development for the County. The project focuses on Maple Canyon, nestled between Balboa Park and San Diego International Airport, a green space that buffers business with nature inside the urban core of San Diego. As flooding during storm events occurs, runoff and debris impact the downstream commercial enterprises, transportation networks and natural habitats. Restoration efforts have minimized flooding and stormwater runoff, helping protect vital urban infrastructure and important urban and natural landscapes.

As a coastal city, enhancing the resiliency of our coast is vital to managing climate change impacts such as sea level rise, coastal erosion and storm surges. Coastal wetlands throughout San Diego County are essential ecosystems that not only help with flood protection but are also some of the most productive ecosystems that play an integral role in the ecology of our watershed. Coastal wetlands are also considered “blue carbon ecosystems,” which include habitats like salt marshes and seagrass meadows that help capture and store more atmospheric carbon per acre than terrestrial forests. Nature-based solutions that preserve and restore these wetlands help build community resilience to the impacts of climate change by sequestering carbon and helping enhance the resiliency to sea level rise and coastal flooding. The Blue Carbon Collaborative, founded by the nonprofit organization Wildcoast, is a network of organizations working on the conservation, research and policy developments for blue carbon ecosystems and nature-based solutions. 

Only 10 percent of California’s original wetlands remain, yet they are some of the best ecosystems on the planet for taking carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it in the ground for a long time. Restoration of these wetlands provides an opportunity to enhance these ecosystems' production and utilize their potential as a natural climate solution. Aligning nature based solutions with the 30x30 plan to conserve 30 percent of our land and coastal waters by 2030 to protect biodiversity will expand access to nature while lessening the impacts of the climate crisis.

Cover photo credit: IUCN

Read more
Credit: Bryan Olin Dozier/NurPhoto/Reuters (found on CNN)

The Biden Administration has decided the fate of Alaska’s Northern Slopes, and it’s not good

The Biden administration has issued their decision on ConocoPhillips’ proposed Willow Project, and it's not good

The Biden administration has issued their decision on ConocoPhillips’ proposed Willow Project. In case you haven’t heard about it yet, this is a huge long-term oil drilling investment by the petroleum refinery company in the northernmost borough of Alaska that would produce over an estimated 600 million barrels of oil, and close to 300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere over the next 30 years. This is equivalent to emissions from roughly 70 coal fired power plants, or from 56 million vehicles over one year –  a “carbon bomb” some have labeled – and the President has signed off on its approval.

This is a major setback in President Biden’s commitment to end oil drilling on federal land, a pledge campaigned during his 2020 election season. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released their final environmental impact statement last month, recommending a reduction in the number of drilling pads from five to three, and the planting of trees to offset the carbon emissions. With the increase in pushback from the public and environmental groups this past year, the administration considered lowering the scope of the project to two pads, however, ultimately stuck with three to make it economically viable. Even with the newly announced protections of the U.S. Arctic Ocean and surrounding land surface, this will not prevent the degradation caused by oil drilling.

So, what are they saying in Alaska? The conversation is rather divided in the state, with the voice of legislators seeming to dominate. Major arguments in support of this development are concerned with the potential for massive revenues, job opportunities, and domestic energy production that would benefit the state. They are looking towards the estimated $1.25 billion in taxes to fund infrastructure improvements, and another $2.5 billion for a grant program for community initiatives to frame the Willow Project as a net benefit. One coalition of Alaska Native groups has extended their support, regarding this as an opportunity to gain basic services such as education, healthcare, and law enforcement.

On the other side, previously impacted residents of past ConocoPhillips ventures urged the President to reject any form of this project. The city of Nuiqsut, the closest residential area in proximity to the proposed site of the new drilling pads, is heavily concerned about the health and environmental risks posed. Just last year, the company’s oil field at the Alpine Central Facility had a methane gas leak, eight miles away from Nuiqsut. This prompted some of the 500 residents to flee the area, and now they are worried the Willow Project will bring even more dangers.

In any case, developing the Arctic Alaska for oil drilling purposes will threaten our global atmosphere, the local wildlife of the region, and push the global ice caps beyond the point of return. Many petitions have been passed through social media to urge the administration to put an end to the project; the #StopWillow campaign on Tiktok has reached over 50 million views, landing itself on the trending page where anybody on the platform can engage with it. Environmental organizations are preparing to challenge this decision legally, and we encourage you to stay up to date on this topic as we continue the fight against climate change.

Read more

CA’s deadline to go solar to maximize savings is upcoming

The NEM 3 decision includes a “sunset period” that ends 120 days after the approval of the final decision, meaning anyone who goes solar before the sunset period date is still eligible for NEM 2.

In case you missed it, in December 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued a decision that ended a nearly two-year long battle between the investor-owned utilities and environmental groups over the future of rooftop solar in California. Although there was a coalition over 600 strong comprised of environmental and climate change organizations, nonprofits, schools, cities, churches, businesses and elected officials who spent two years urging the CPUC to keep solar growing sustainably, as instructed by law, the CPUC ultimately decided to side with the investor-owned utilities and made significant cuts to agreement solar customers go on, known as net energy metering. You can read more about the coalition here

Under the new net energy metering (NEM) agreement (known as NEM 3), solar customers will get about 75 percent less from the utility for the clean, local and reliable excess energy they share with their neighbors (which the utilities still charge their neighbors full transmission and distribution fees for). Just to give you a sense of how the new tariff compares to what solar customers are receiving currently, compensation for energy will go from an average of $.25/kWh all the way down to about $0.05/kWh. NEM 3 customers will also be forced to go on rates that have higher rates in the evening. All in all, these changes will nearly double the time it takes to pay off a residential system.  

There is some good news.  

If you already have solar, these changes will not affect you! All NEM 1 and NEM 2 customers will continue to receive benefits until their agreement expires, which is 20 years after the system was turned on. The only scenario that would make a customer lose their current NEM status is if a customer adds additional panels that exceed the allocated amount. 

The NEM 3 decision includes a “sunset period” that ends 120 days after the approval of the final decision, meaning anyone who goes solar before the sunset period date is still eligible for NEM 2. In order to go solar and receive maximum benefits, a solar contractor must submit a completed interconnection agreement without significant errors and a signed contract by April 14, although we recommend getting this submitted as soon as possible in case there are errors that need to be resolved. The solar power system can be installed after the cutoff date, so long as the application is submitted by April 14 and it is approved by the utility, however, if any significant changes are made to the equipment being used or system size, that would trigger a new application and cause the customer to lose their NEM 2 status.    

As the proceeding currently stands, customers should be prepared to go solar by the cutoff date, April 14, in order to receive the maximum benefits, however, there is a small possibility that this decision could be reversed entirely. Last month, the Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Working Group and Protect Our Communities Foundation filed a formal appeal to reverse the CPUC’s final decision. The appeal highlighted ways in which the CPUC violated the law. 

The first and perhaps most obvious issue is that the decision violates a California law requiring the sustainable growth of rooftop solar. The California law is very clear in stating that the new NEM tariff must “ensure that customer-sited renewable distributed generation continues to grow sustainably,” During the course of the proceeding, some commissioner’s even stated that this decision may slow rooftop solar adoption but the CPUC has to consider other issues as well. The appeal rightfully argues that this decision is not the CPUC’s decision to make, as the law is very clear. 

The second issue is that the decision violates another California law that requires the CPUC to put forward an alternative option that would increase solar in communities of concern. The current California law states that any changes to NEM must include an option that will grow solar in “disadvantaged communities.” Not only does the decision actually make rooftop solar more expensive for everyone and disproportionately impacts communities of concern, but the CPUC promises funds to disadvantaged communities that are not available unless the legislature allocates them and are only for battery storage, not rooftop solar. 

  

The overarching issue of the entire proceeding is that the CPUC completely failed to account for all of the benefits and costs of rooftop solar. Any changes to NEM should have been based on the costs and benefits to all ratepayers and the CPUC not only disregarded the benefits of rooftop solar, but also misrepresented the impacts of long distance transmission lines. The appeal claims that in disregarding evidence presented to them, they violated their own process and precedent.  

What's next? 

Although the appeal is strong in its merits, this appeal is simply administrative, meaning that the CPUC has no real timeline to respond to the appeal or make any decisions. If the CPUC fails to respond within 90 days, the organizations that filed the appeal can escalate the appeal to an appeals court, which representatives have stated is the plan. 

The appeal is strong, and has already gained support from groups like 350.org and Solar Rights Alliance, however appeals similar to this have been filed in previous CPUC proceedings and were ultimately dismissed by a court of law and the CPUC. While we should remain optimistic about the appeal, customers should still plan to follow the current deadlines on the table to ensure they don’t miss the opportunity to go solar.   

Bottom line is that if you can go solar now, we recommend it as you’ll be able to maximize your savings and start producing clean energy soon!

Read more