Richard Katz Details SB 375 Targets, 30/10 Political Process

This month, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released staff recommendations for emission reductions targets mandated by SB 375. You've been involved in this issue for some time now. Talk about your role as a member of the Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC). What should our readers know about where the SB 375 process stands today?

It's still in font of ARB. They're still looking at recommendations, doing hearings, and working to finalize their recommendations. There are a few concerns that a lot of us have, particularly for areas like L.A. L.A. has already done a lot of things to reduce vehicle miles traveled, moving in the direction of SB 375. We want to make sure that when it comes time to measure, folks who didn't wait for the state mandate don't get carded for what they've already done. On the other hand, we want to make sure that the targets that are set in accord with SB 375 can be achieved. It doesn't do anyone any good to have pie in the sky targets that no one has a hope of meeting. We tried to walk a fine line in terms of achieving greater benefit for everyone in the region, making sure we can get there.

What might those targets look like? What has the RTAC been focused on?

The RTAC focused on the part of SB 375 that I disagreed with, and it's part of the bigger question that we all have to grapple with. SB 375 sets out a target, but they've also been building into SB 375 an alternative planning process, which is what you go through if you can't meet the target. That to me has always sounded like a prescription to fall short. If you give people a layout that's less, that is where folks are going to end up. I would much rather see a process-much like we did years ago with gas tax dollars that encouraged self-help counties-that says, "Here's our target. If you exceed that target, there are additional revenues or additional regulatory relief." That provides an incentive to go above and beyond.

Even if we meet SB 375 when it is set, we still have a long way to go to have the kind of air quality and mobility we want in Southern California. The way the process was set up is a little frustrating. Having said that, we will soon have goals and targets, and then we can discuss strategies for getting there.

The RTAC didn't believe we should be prescribing solutions because they are going to be different in every part of the state. We should, however, set performance goals and let local areas decide the best way to get there. Solutions will be different in agricultural areas, rural areas, urban areas, or desert areas-wherever it may be.

Was there a consensus from the RTAC?

The RTAC report that was forwarded to the ARB a while ago had, pretty much, a unanimous vote from the RTAC by the time we were done. We spent a year doing hearings around the state. We spent way too much time discussing modeling, which is like angels dancing on the head of a pin. At the end of the day, the recommendations going forward for VMT reductions and strategies are solid; they recognize how different the state is from one end to the other.

CARB estimated that Southern California, along with other metropolitan regions in the state, should reduce GHG emissions per capita by 7-8 percent from 2005 levels and by 13-16 percent by 2035. How achievable, in this new economic environment, are these Southern California targets, and what might it take on the part of utilities and consumers and business to get there?

For instance, if 30/10, the mayor's transportation vision for building 12 mass transit projects in the next ten years in L.A. County, is enacted and we build those projects, we will beat the target for Southern California. One of the great inconsistencies from the governor and the legislature is in passing things like AB 32 or SB 375 and then eliminating funding for mass transit operations-for the bus drivers and the mechanics that keep the buses and the trains going. Mass transit is the easiest way to meet those targets. On the one hand the legislature mandates targets and goals that we all would like to achieve, but on the other hand they are taking away one of the primary funding sources for meeting those targets and goals.

A lot of good words are being said locally and in Washington D.C. about 30/10, but it seems to be stuck, without a conclusion. What is your assessment of where 30/10 stands?

30/10 is making progress, and we are already seeing results from the effort. Federal DOT has said that the subway expansion will be treated as one project, even though we are going to build it in three segments. That is critical because it saves time: probably two years in the EIR process. It saves money because we are doing it as one project. It makes the project much more competitive because the overall number of boardings on the subway makes it a very, very cost effective project. If you did it in segments, it would be less so.

There was the announcement by Congresswoman Harman yesterday about some airport money that is getting re-directed for airport access and the Crenshaw Line. There are going to be more announcements coming up regarding TIGER dollars. We are getting things moving as a result of 30/10 already.

We expect several more announcements by DOT before the end of the year. Senator Boxer has been taking the lead on this Washington-just pounding on everybody. We are getting better and better responses, and we are picking up more and more support because, as Secretary LaHood has said, this is a new way to think about transportation funding and a new way to think about urban renewal and rebirth: using smart investments in mass transit and creating projects as a way to also stimulate the economy and improve health through better air quality, particularly for children and in environmental justice communities.

A companion interview with Congressman Blumenauer (D-Oregon) in this issue of MIR confirms the precedent setting value of the 30/10 plan. Do we have the capacity here in the basin to deliver these projects?

I wish we had a Congress full of Earl Blumenauers. If we did, good policy like this would be the standard, not the exception. He is a great leader, particularly on the transportation side and mass transit advocacy.

We do have the capacity. I also get the question from very conservative republicans who have an unbridled faith in the free enterprise system. If anyone should look at this as a challenge, the private sector will. Very conservative free enterprise folks all believe that we are going to get the money, and I believe the capacity will be there. Because we have money to spend over a ten-year period, folks looking to do business will find us.

That is on top of the fact that we have close to 20 percent unemployment in the city of L.A.-even higher in some parts of the city and the county. Because of that, the Labor Department and federal DOT are looking at giving us more flexibility with local hire provisions as part of 30/10, which will also help bring us out of the recession.

The irony is that the budget crisis in our local governments has created furloughs and lay-offs, with the threat of more on the way. Does the public sector, in light of these circumstances, have the capacity to take advantage of the acceleration of projects?

For folks who ride bikes or climb mountains, every time you think you are at the top of a ridge, there is always a bigger one behind it. The 30/10 effort reminds me of that. Ultimately it will come to, once we get the funding mechanism and get the dollars, the ability of the city and the county to process the paper fast enough to move these projects. Mayor Villaraigosa has been thinking about that for a while. We're looking at some things in this budget and the next city budget where we can create a task force, if you will, of city employees necessary to process the 30/10 paper to be sure that we deliver those projects on time. We are looking at a lot of creative public-private partnerships. We are looking at different ways to do program management. All of that is designed to maximize the opportunity under 30/10. I can assure you that if the federal government does their part, we will do out part to make sure these projects get built.

Prop. 23, which would suspend AB 32, is on the ballot in November. The VERDEXCHANGE, which you have been a part of, will be in January, and a lot of international and national players are trying to appreciate what the November election will mean in terms of the pace of the green economy. How do you think AB 23 will do in November, and what will be the pace of California's efforts to lead the green economy will be going forward?

Prop. 23 is sponsored by two oil companies. It not only rolls back the clock in terms of California's progress, it penalizes businesses that have already greened their business practices. Prop. 23 rewards those who are staying with the old way of doing things at the expense of those who have been enlightened and progressive in going environmental. Prop. 23 would be a huge set back nationally and internationally, not just in California, for the movement to clean the air and for the movement to be innovative.

You have been a leader, though VERDEXCHANGE, for the last several years, in highlighting the new technologies and companies. Each year, your program gets bigger and attracts more people, not just because it is a great program, but there are more people with more interest and more action. If California were to repeal AB 32 by passing Prop. 23, it would be a huge setback. You would see a lot of folks questioning investments in R&D and green technologies because they would figure that if California is walking away from it, a lot of other folks are going to follow. This is very important for all of us who live and work here. But it is also important for the message it sends to world about not retreating from improving the environment where we live.

TPR/MIR did an interview with California High Speed Rail CEO Roelof van Ark in June. What is the status of high-speed rail in California?

High-speed rail is evolving. You were one of the first to interview Roelof van Ark because he appreciated the outreach and the good stuff that you and TPR/MIR have done on these issues and bringing them to the forefront of people's minds. He has brought a very, very good business sense and a track record of having built complicated, large international projects in high speed rail. He is evaluating everything that has been done before. At the same time, we are moving forward to meet the ARRA deadlines to spend money over the next two years. I believe we are going to do that.

We will start with, probably, L.A. because L.A. to Anaheim is the furthest along. But the federal government is encouraging us to look at a number of the different projects and use all our money to start one or start a couple at the same time. It is complicated. It is difficult. It is huge. There is a new report that just came out today from the University of California of Irvine showing the economic benefit to Southern California of high-speed rail between L.A. and Anaheim. It is significant. We are going to get this done.

The Federal Railroad Administration has put forward strict requirements for the delivery of planning and construction to receive the promised ARRA funds for high-speed rail. Is that just one of a number of challenges?

High-speed rail faces challenges everywhere. Part of it is because in the early years the Authority focused on passing the bond measure and keeping it alive, while the engineers were still working on the project. They tended to do a lot of work in isolation, without as much public outreach as they should have done. As a result, there are a lot of areas in the state that feel like haven't had their chance to have their say. We have the dual challenge, which we are trying to meet, of going back and getting more public input at the same time as pressing forward with the schedule for routes and EIRs so we can keep on the schedule that the federal government has laid out.

Web Exclusive

Water is another matter you have been deeply involved with. At the governor's urging, the Legislature approved a bill that removes Prop 18, the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, from the November ballot. What are its prospects in the years to come?

We need to pass the measure. We need the environmental and the water fixes contained in that measure. The voters need to approve it. It is understandable that people are fearful that bonded indebtedness is a problem in this economy. But you need to take a long-term view. The water bond is similar to the kinds of investments that our parents, Governor Pat Brown, and his administrations made in infrastructure for the future of California. The Delta, which is the main piece of the water puzzle and a very, very environmentally sensitive habitat, is criss-crossed with critical infrastructure-from gas pipelines to fiber optics to electricity-all of which is at risk. The levees in New Orleans were eight feet below sea level. Most of the highlands in the Delta are more than 20 feet below sea level. If there is a tsunami, an earthquake, or a major storm that disrupts that system, Southern California could be without access to its main water supply for ten years or more. The fixes that are embodied in that water bond for the Delta and water supplies for California are critical to our future as a state-not just to accommodate growth, but also to accommodate people who live here today.

The Department of Water and Power in the city of Los Angeles has been in turmoil for quite a number of years now. What is DWP's potential for future leadership?

The DWP reflects the challenges and the difficulties that most cities are facing throughout the country. As with most things, because it is Los Angeles, it is larger, harder, and more complicated than in other places. Frankly, it is more transparent than most places, if you see all the warts and blemishes along with the good news. L.A. DWP and the citizens in L.A. have done some remarkable things. We use the same quantity of water in Los Angeles today that we used in 1990, yet there are millions more people living here. We accomplished that through conservation and smart investment in low flow toilets, shower heads, and irrigation. That saves us water, and because we are using the same amount of water, we avoided spending $400 million on a water treatment plant to process water for all those additional people who have come since 1990.

The DWP has done a lot of things and is on the cutting edge. It will be a leader in the renewable portfolio standard. The DWP today averages about 20 percent. The mayor's initiative pushed that to 20 percent. They are trying to push it higher. We have challenges. We have an older system. We have pipes that are old. But the DWP has the ability to be on the cutting edge and set a new standard.

The city recently announced that they are in the process of working out an agreement between the city of Los Angeles DWP and the State Water Board on the issue of once-through cooling. As this agreement is finalized over the next month or two, you are going to see DWP leading the way and showing how you get off ocean water cooling and still cool power plants reliably but in a much more environmentally sensitive manner.