Comment Log Display

These comments were also submitted as an attachment. 

March 8, 2013
VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

Ms. Shelby Livingston, Chief
Climate Change Program Planning and Management Branch
California Air Resources Board

Re: Cap-and-Trade-Auction Proceeds Investment Plan Draft Concept
Paper

Dear Ms. Livingston:

California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (CRLA) submits the
following comments on the Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds Investment
Plan Draft Concept Paper issued by the California Department of
Finance (DOF) pursuant to AB 1532 and SB 535.  CRLA is a non-profit
legal services organization that provides legal representation to
low-income residents of rural California, including in many
communities comprised primarily of farmworkers and their families. 


The State of California, through implementation of the Cap and
Trade Auction Proceeds Investment Plan (Investment Plan) must
advance the goals laid out in AB 1532.  These goals include not
only the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also the
stated aims of maximizing economic, environmental and public health
benefits to the state; fostering job creation through green jobs;
complementing efforts to improve air quality; and directing
investment toward the most disadvantaged communities and households
in the state. (Cal. Health and Safety Code Section 39712).  We
submit these comments to support the State’s efforts to administer
the Investment Plan to further all of the goals identified by the
legislature.  

At the outset, we strongly encourage the Investment Plan to focus
maximum resources on disadvantaged communities to further the goals
of 1532 and other GHG emission reduction programs.  To that end,
while SB 535 identified a floor for investment in and for the
benefit of disadvantaged communities of 10% and 25%, respectively,
these numbers should in no way constitute a ceiling for investment
in disadvantaged communities. We believe that the State should
invest more than the statutory minimum levels in and for the
benefit of disadvantaged communities. Doing so will not only better
achieve co-benefits of 1532, but also support the reduction of GHG
emissions and create a stronger and healthier California. 
Furthermore, those funds earmarked to comply with SB 535 must
specifically address the high priority needs of one or more
disadvantaged communities, achieve measurable benefits for them,
and deliver benefits that significantly outweigh any burdens that
will fall on those communities.

The remainder of our comments will focus on the potential exclusion
of several disadvantaged – primarily rural - communities from
Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds and provide suggestions for programs
and activities that will extend the benefits of AB 1532 to all
Californians.  


Exclusion of Rural Communities from Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds

Deficiencies in the CalEnviroScreen Tool

Senate Bill 535 directs the California Environmental Protection
Agency (Cal EPA) to identify disadvantaged communities for purposes
of the Investment Plan.  Cal EPA, through the CalEnviroScreen has
identified such communities by analyzing several environmental and
demographic indicators. The Investment Plan anticipates targeting
investments earmarked for disadvantaged communities to those
communities identified as among the top 10% of disadvantaged
communities (technically ZIP Code Tabulation Area, or ZTCAs)
according to the CalEnviroScreen. 

While we support the use of the CalEnviroScreen to identify
disadvantaged communities for the purpose of SB 535 and AB 1532
implementation, we are concerned that the tool, due to significant
identifiable gaps in the data used to calculate community scores,
underestimates the environmental and socioeconomic burdens on
certain communities, particularly rural communities. Due to this
underestimation, the CalEnviroScreen excludes from the top 10%
certain highly impacted communities that, in the presence of more
robust data and a better-developed tool, would likely be included
within that critical top 10% of highly impacted communities
statewide. 

If DOF defines “disadvantaged community” to mean only those
communities that fall within the top 10 percentiles of the existing
draft of CalEnviroScreen, communities that are inappropriately
excluded from this threshold due to deficiencies in the tool will
be excluded from consideration for critical resources. In
recognition of flaws in the existing draft of CalEnviroScreen, we
urge DOF to expand the definition of “disadvantaged communities” to
those rural communities that score in the top 15% or 20% on the
current draft of the CalEnviroScreen.  If permissible under the
statute, we also urge DOF to include as disadvantaged those
communities that have a mean household income below 60% of State
Median Income.



Failure to Capture Environmental Characteristics in Rural
Communities

CRLA raised several of our concerns with respect to deficiencies in
the most recent draft of CalEnviroScreen in comments to the Office
of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) on February 1,
2013. We have attached those comments hereto for your
consideration. In summary, we are concerned that significant data
gaps make the CalEnviroScreen less reliable in measuring
environmental and population characteristics in rural areas as
compared to urban areas, where data are frequently more robust. In
particular, we are concerned that the following indicators fail to
reflect existing conditions in rural areas of California:
•	Air Quality: Ozone – potentially underestimates burden on rural
areas due to inadequate air monitoring in rural areas
•	Air Quality: PM 2.5 – potentially underestimates burden on rural
areas due to inadequate air monitoring in rural areas, particularly
in agricultural areas that experience unique PM exposures
•	Asthma – use of Asthma-Related Emergency Departments data
potentially underrepresents asthma prevalence in rural areas, where
residents may be reluctant to access ED care except in the most
severe circumstances due to distance from EDs and/or unavailability
of MediCal-accepting EDs.
•	Lack of drinking water quality indicator in existing draft –
fails to represent a significant environmental health hazard
impacting rural communities, many of which rely on private wells or
small water systems rather than on well-resources municipal water
systems.
•	Lack of infrastructure indicator in existing draft – fails to
represent significant environmental health and safety hazards posed
by inadequate wastewater treatment, and dilapidated housing.

As a result of these deficiencies, we are concerned that several
highly disadvantaged communities will be excluded from
Cap-and-Trade Auction proceeds.  Despite exhibiting demographic
indicators demonstrating disadvantage and vulnerability (e.g.
poverty levels) several rural cities and towns do not score in the
top 10% of disadvantaged communities according the CalEnviroScreen
due , we believe, to data deficiencies in rural areas.  Some
examples include Huron (99th percentile among ZTCAs based on
poverty indicators, CanEnviroScreen score of 16-20%), San Joaquin
(99th percentile based on poverty indicator, CalEnvrioScreen score
of 11-15%), Mendota (98th percentile based on poverty indicator,
CalEnviroScreen score of 16-20%), Avenal (97th percentile based on
poverty indicator, CalEnviroScreen score of 36-40%), Dos Palos
(90th percentile based on poverty indicator, CalEnviroScreen score
of 11-16%).  None of these communities, and many like them, will
qualify for Cap-and-Trade Auction proceeds targeting disadvantaged
communities. 

Failure to Capture Environmental Threats on Tribal Lands

We are also concerned that many of the databases used in the
CalEnviroScreen completely fail to capture significant
environmental threats on tribal lands which are outside of the
jurisdiction of California regulatory agencies but which abut, or
even house, sizeable California communities comprised of non-tribal
members who suffer the environmental health effects of threats such
as hazardous waste treatment, tire recycling,
closed-but-not-cleaned illegal dumps and untreated wastewater from
mobilehome parks. This data deficiency is particularly relevant in
the Eastern Coachella Valley, where small tracts of tribal lands
are interspersed with non-tribal lands inhabited by California
residents, mostly low-income farmworker families. The
CalEnviroScreen’s failure to account for environmental hazards on
tribal lands results in significant underrepresentation of the
pollution burden on the communities of Mecca, Thermal, and
Coachella. The following indicators fail to account for
environmental hazards on tribal lands that impact California
communities:
•	Cleanup Sites – EnviroStor database does not include hazards on
tribal lands
•	Solid Waste Sites and Facilities, and Hazardous Waste Facilities
– EnviroStor and Solid Waste Information Systems databases do not
include hazards on tribal lands
•	Groundwater Threats – GeoTracker database does not include
hazards on tribal lands

Deficiencies in Population Characteristics

The CalEnviroScreen relies on several demographic indicators as key
factors in determining a community’s “population characteristic,” a
component of its score for determining its eligibility as a
disadvantaged community.  These indicators include a poverty
indicator, educational attainment, linguistic isolation and age of
population.  The CalEnviroScreen fails to fully and accurately
capture demographic characteristics of rural communities due to
data deficiencies, including significant Census undercounts (see
CRLA comments to CalEnviroScreen, attached) and geographic units
that fail to capture small, disadvantaged communities that are
co-located in a ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZTCA) with better
resourced areas.  

For example, ZTCA 95363 in Stanislaus County includes the
incorporated city of Patterson along with several unincorporated
communities including Grayson and Westley.  Westley, according to
Census data, has poverty levels of around 32%, compared to the ZTCA
as a whole, with poverty rates of approximately 14%.  Similar
disparities exist for other CalEnviroScreen demographic indicators.
 As a result, the community of Westley exhibits an artificially low
“population characteristic” on the CalEnviroScreen.  The tool
assigns the 95363 ZTCA to the 16-20% percentile, thus excluding
Westley from Cap-and-Trade Auction proceeds targeted at
disadvantaged communities.  There are many other communities just
like Westley. 

In recognition of the risk of undercounting the vulnerability of
communities such as Westley, the Office of Environmental Health
Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) and the California Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA) have committed to produce future
iterations of the CalEnviroScreen at the much finer Census tract
level, which would more accurately reflect the actual demographics
of small, severely low-income communities that share a ZTCA with
wealthier communities. Since even OEHHA and CalEPA recognize the
current draft’s potential for underrepresenting the local
conditions of small disadvantaged communities due to the use of
ZTCA rather than Census tract, we urge DOF to broaden its
definition of “disadvantaged communities” in order to avoid
inappropriately excluding communities that would almost certainly
fall within the top 10 percentile of the CalEnviroScreen but for
their proximity to wealthier communities. 

In order to allow for full inclusion of those communities that the
legislature intended to benefit with passage of AB 1532 and SB 535,
re reiterate that DOF in its Investment Plan should broaden the
definition of disadvantaged communities to include those rural
communities that do not score in the top 10% of disadvantaged
communities on the CanEnviroScreen due to data deficiencies. 

Proposed Programs and Activities to Promote the Intent of AB 1532

To ensure that the benefits of AB 1532 and SB 535 reach all
Californians, including Californians in rural Communities we
propose the following eligible uses and preferences for funds: 

Proposed Eligible Activities Should Include, but not be Limited to
the Following: 
1. Expand or improve public transit service, including transit and
transportation programs for rural communities such as van pools,
car share and carpool promotion programs, with significant funding
for operations. 
2. Expand bicycle and pedestrian networks, facilities,
infrastructure and programs to promote additional use and safety
and provide access to transit, schools, colleges, health center,
and other essential services. 
3. Provide discounted transit passes in low income communities.
4. Invest in energy efficiency improvements for residential
structures, including multifamily rental homes, owner-occupied
homes and mobile homes affordable to lower-income households. 
5. Engage in planning and investment activities that promote mixed
use development in low-income, rural communities, thereby reducing
VMTs by increasing “access through proximity” to essential goods
and services.
6. Invest in sustainable, basic infrastructure and services,
including drinking water and wastewater services, in existing
communities.
7. Support infill development in existing communities.
8. Develop employment and training programs that prepare low income
residents for green jobs.   

Preferences Should be Given to Projects and Programs That:
1. Avoid or mitigate the disproportionate impacts of environmental
stressors on disadvantaged communities and households. 
2. Provide or support workforce development and long-term job and
economic growth for low-income and disadvantaged communities and
households. 
3. Improve public health by decreasing air pollution, improving
drinking water quality, improving the safety of housing or
transportation systems, improving access to essential services, or
increasing use of active transportation. 
4. Invest in existing communities and affordable housing
opportunities low income people throughout California, including
farmworkers in rural communities who support California’s critical
agricultural industry.
5. Reduce racial and/or economic segregation. 

A note of caution on tying AB 1532 investments to SB 375
implementation 
While we support the development of programs and practices that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions through sustainable community
development, SB 375 implementation and with it the development of
Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) in the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) region and currently in the San
Joaquin Valley has thus far excluded low income, and in particular
rural, communities from the co benefits of SB 375.  Metropolitan
Planning Organizations have directed resources to urban cores and
larger metro areas to the detriment of low income, rural
communities.  In the SCAG region and thus far in the San Joaquin
Valley, SCSs – in various stages of development and adoption – do
not project infill, transportation improvements, and defined growth
in the counties’ most impoverished existing communities, yet
residents of these communities support the region’s agricultural
wealth and are in close proximity to agricultural jobs thereby
contributing to low Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) targets for the
regions.  As such, prioritization should be given to projects that
seek to develop and invest in sustainable planning for these
communities to ensure that they benefit from smart growth and
sustainable planning throughout the state despite their possible
exclusion from Sustainable Communities Strategies.   This would
meet the State’s goals of reducing GHGs, promoting public health,
investing in disadvantaged communities and improving air quality. 


*			*			*			                                         

Thank you for your kind consideration of these comments.  Should
you have any questions, please feel free to contact Phoebe Seaton
at pseaton@crla.org.

Sincerely,
 
Phoebe Sarah Seaton
Attorney at Law