Dear Governor Newsom and legislative leadership,

We are writing to you in response to the Governor’s proposed 2024-2025 State Budget. While we commend the Governor's proposal to cut some oil industry tax loopholes, we are deeply disappointed by the proposed delays in funding, fund shifts and outright cuts to the state’s clean transportation investments. For the second consecutive year, equity-focused ZEV incentives, clean mobility and active transportation programs are all slated to be, in effect, cut. 

These delays and cuts will harm California’s most pollution-burdened communities through prolonged exposure to elevated levels of air pollution. Notably, the proposed budget would delay $600 million in equity-focused ZEV and clean transportation investments to the 2027-2028 budget year. By delaying funding, these programs will be zero-funded in the upcoming 2024-2025 budget year – essentially suffering a 100% cut. Further, this proposed budget would outright cut a collective $240 million in investments in the medium- and heavy-duty sector, market development and active transportation, as well as delay $1 billion in funding for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program.

Simply put, these proposed actions would undermine California’s reputation and efforts as a global climate leader. More importantly, however, is that the proposed budget will make it even harder for the state to meet its air quality obligations under the federal Clean Air Act. California is home to the dirtiest air in the nation, and nearly every Californian breathes air that is so polluted it violates federal and state law. The transportation sector is the leading source of air pollution in the state, and its impacts are most acutely felt in low-income and disadvantaged communities. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), approximately 8,600 premature deaths would be avoided annually if particulate matter (PM 2.5) were reduced to background levels and all diesel particulate matter was eliminated from the air. California’s ZEV and clean transportation programs are not merely “nice to haves;” rather, they are vital components of the state’s clean air safety net.

To save lives and prevent the worst outcomes of the climate crisis, we urge you to invest in, rather than delay and cut, clean air. Accordingly, we believe the 2024-2025 Budget should reflect the following:

• The State Budget should avoid further delays and cuts to clean transportation: We again repeat our call to not delay or cut clean transportation even further from last year’s 11% reduction. These proposals will put the state even further off course of fulfilling the $10 billion ZEV package, as well as delaying the emission reductions needed to meet our climate and air quality commitments. While we appreciate the intention to “make good” on this year’s funding in 2027-2028, it still means delayed programs will receive zero funding in the 2024-2025 budget. Further, it is worth noting there is nothing to guarantee that future state leaders will honor commitments made in this year’s budget, especially if challenging fiscal conditions persist, as expected.

• California must cut fossil fuel subsidies as well as freeway expansions and other projects that work against our climate and air quality priorities: We appreciate the Governor’s budget proposal broaching the idea of cutting fossil fuel subsidies. Even in good budget years, it makes zero sense to spend on projects that work against our climate and air quality commitments. Yet, the Governor’s proposal is only a starting point for a much broader discussion. As proposed the Governor’s budget would only save $22 million in the first year, and $17 million each year after. Not only should the budget cut all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, but it must also divert funding away from highway expansion projects. Expanding highway capacity increases pollution (particularly in vulnerable communities) but will not resolve traffic congestion in the long run. Funding currently being wasted on highway expansions should be shifted to public transit, rail and active transportation, freeing up Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund dollars that can be used to restore funding for ZEVs and related infrastructure.

• California must focus its climate investments on equity-centered programs that directly address the needs of disadvantaged and low-income communities: With limited state resources, it is even more important to prioritize communities with the greatest pollution burdens and the highest barriers to clean transportation. Over the last century, these communities have been subject to discriminatory redlining, been bisected by freeways and suffered from chronic underinvestment. California should be lauded for its increased investments in these communities over the past decade. Yet, these proposed cuts will undercut this progress. To ensure that our most vulnerable Californians benefit from limited dollars, California should invest at least 80% of climate investments in low-income and disadvantaged communities.

• California’s climate investment programs must pay more attention to low-income and disadvantaged rural communities: In addition to investing in low-income and disadvantaged communities, California must also consider how to better invest in rural communities, such as the Coachella and Imperial Valleys and Central Coast. In addition to having their own barriers to clean transportation, rural communities are often overlooked for both public and private investment. Rather, public charging and fueling stations tend to be concentrated near major roadways and in high-traffic areas, such as civic centers, transit stops or commercial areas. Additionally, charging and fueling infrastructure is often unreliable, putting drivers at higher risk of being stranded in an unfamiliar area simply because they need to venture further to charge or fuel their vehicle. To overcome this, local leaders and community-based organizations have created innovative clean transportation and charging programs on their own. California should support and set aside funding for such efforts.

• California’s clean transportation programs need a stable, dedicated funding source: Currently, California has three primary sources of revenues for clean transportation: the general fund, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and special fees. Each of these sources, however, have challenges associated with them. General fund revenues are highly volatile, resulting in unpredictable boom-and-bust budget cycles. GGRF revenues, while stable, are under significant pressure from a constellation of programs. Further, GGRF revenues may be borrowed from and diverted away from its core programs, such as in this proposed budget. Meanwhile, special fees are limited in how much revenue they can generate and what they can fund. To ensure consistency in funding, our climate investment programs need a stable and dedicated funding source. Advocates have proposed creating such a funding stream in the past, and discussions of including an air quality component in the proposed climate bond are ongoing. We ask the Administration and legislative leaders to prioritize the creation of this funding stream. Additionally, California needs to aggressively pursue federal funding to supplement state investments in clean transportation.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We understand this is a difficult budget year, and that we are only at the formal beginning of the process. We will continue to engage with the Administration, the State Legislature and state agencies throughout the upcoming budget process and its subsequent implementation. 

Sincerely,

Chris Chavez

Coalition for Clean Air

Román Partida-López

The Greenlining Institute

Bahram Fazeli

Communities for a Better Environment

Laura Deehan

Environment California

Max Baumhefner

Natural Resources Defense Council

Joel Ervice

Regional Asthma Management & Prevention

Will Barrett

American Lung Association

Amanda Millstein

Climate Health Now

Barbara Sattler

California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice

Robert Gould, MD

San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility

Ellie Cohen

The Climate Center

Kevin Hamilton

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Michele Canales

Union of Concerned Scientists

Janelle London

Coltura

Joel Levin

Plug In America

Lisa Swanson

Climate Reality Project, Orange County

Mark Roest

Sustainable Energy, Inc

Marven Norman

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice

Richard Burke

Elders Climate Action (ECA) Southern California (SoCal) Chapter

Todd Weber

Elders Climate Action (ECA) Northern California (NorCal) Chapter

Kimberly McCoy

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Jane Williams

California Communities Against Toxics

Edson Perez

Advanced Energy United

Katherine Park

Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action

Nicole Hutchison

Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action

Mary Leslie

LA Business Council

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair

California Environmental Voters

Susan Stephenson

California Interfaith Power and Light