California Emissions, Carbon Neutrality Plan Draws Strong Criticism

California air regulators are likely to hear a barrage of criticism Thursday on a plan to slash fossil fuel use and reach carbon neutrality by 2045, a proposal that would require a sweeping shift in how the state powers its massive economy in the face of climate change.

It will be the California Air Resources Board’s first public discussion of this year’s draft scoping plan, which is updated every five years and lays out a roadmap for the state to reach its climate goals. The 2045 goal is among the most ambitious in the nation, but the proposal has many critics beyond the oil industry, which says the strategy has too many bans and mandates.

The economy of the State of California is the largest in the United States, with a $3.4 trillion gross state product as of 2021. It is the largest sub-national economy in the world. If California were a sovereign nation, it would rank as the world’s fifth largest economy,

A wide range of environmental advocates say the plan does far too little to quickly lower planet-warming emissions.

“California can do better than this,” Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, a Democrat, wrote in a letter about the proposal he is circulating for colleagues to sign.

Reaching carbon neutrality means the state would remove as much carbon from the air as it emits. That would happen by a combination of lowering fossil fuel use and using technology to remove any remaining emissions from the air. Board staff estimates it would reduce petroleum demand across the economy and the use of fossil natural gas in buildings by 91% by 2045.

Doing so would require 30 times as many electric vehicles on the road compared to today, six times more electric appliances in homes, four times more wind and solar generation and 60 times more hydrogen.

Even with such a sweeping transition, the plan estimates California will still emit at least 94 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — about 22% of state emissions today — by 2045. All of that would also need to be removed from the air.

The criticisms from environmental groups center on key themes: The plan doesn’t call for deep enough emissions cuts, relies too heavily on unproven and energy intensive carbon removal technology and lacks a focus on whether the state is poised to hit its more urgent 2030 emissions targets.

The air board created an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, but many members of that committee said the plan falls far short.