State's signature climate program at a crossroads

[Climate, from A1]

- 

volved in a halting rulemaking process to evaluate changes, including how the program is structured.

“It is hugely consequential — it is a decadal decision,” said Barry Vesser, chief program officer at the nonprofit Climate Center. “Californians overwhelmingly support doing something about climate change. We need the program, and it needs to be strengthened.”

Among critics’ biggest concerns are that the cap is too weak and there are too many credits for polluting companies.

While the program has been instrumental in helping California meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals — including a 14% decline in overall emissions since the first cap went into effect in 2013 — the progress has slowed in recent years.

The state is not on pace to meet its more aggressive future targets, which include a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and at least 85% by 2045.

At the current rate of about 2.5% reductions per year, the state is not on track to meet its 2030 goal, according to an analysis from the nonprofit Next 10, which examines the state’s climate progress each year.

What’s more, emissions would need to fall at about 3.5 times that rate — 8.8% per year — to reach the 2045 goal.

These goals are intended to make sure the fourth-largest economy in the world does its part to maintain a recognizable climate in the future.

“It’s incredibly important that the cap be ambitious enough that it aligns with our 2045 greenhouse gas reduction target,” said Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California state director with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. “Cap-and-trade is the most cost-effective climate policy that California has.”