Latest news with #LegislativeAnalyst'sOffice
Epoch Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Epoch Times
California State Analysts Recommend Delaying Governor's Proposal Expediting $20 Billion Water Project
California's Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), an independent government agency, has recommended that policymakers wait to implement Gov. Gavin Newsom's recent proposal to expedite the state's Delta Conveyance Project. 'Deferring actions would allow the Legislature more time and capacity for sufficient consideration of the potential benefits, implications, and trade-offs,' the LAO said in a
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
California's $100bn railway to nowhere exposes the stunning costs of Democrat incompetence
The latest broadside in the seemingly unending war between President Trump and California Governor Newsom came with a presidential attack on the state's long-delayed, over-budget high-speed rail project. Trump, who seems determined to stop federal funding for the project, even suggested that its dire problems will pose a challenge for Newsom as he gets ready for a run for the 2028 Democratic nomination. If Newsom were prone to self-reflection, he'd admit that the line – intended to connect LA and San Francisco – is an embarrassment. The rail authority estimated in 2008, when voters approved $9 billion for the system, that it would cost $33 billion and start running by 2020. The projected cost has since ballooned to over $100 billion. Governing magazine, hardly a voice for less public spending, placed the blame largely on incompetence – 'uncoordinated planning' that ignored basic construction logistics and bent to the need to please political factions. Indeed, the route was in large part sold to people in the state's hard-pressed interior as an economic boon, which ignores the nature of the area, whose economy is largely based on agriculture, manufacturing and oil. Wider truck lines for congested freeways would make far more economic sense. Many projects go over budget, but, as the president has suggested, for once plausibly, the California high-speed train may be 'the worst managed project' he'd ever seen. Even progressives are aware of this failure. The first to jump off the train, so to speak, was Kevin Drum at Mother Jones a decade ago, who called the project 'ridiculous'. He assaulted the cost overruns and absurd ridership projections. More recently, the train was singled out for infamy by the authors of Abundance. This new progressive bible, which embraces all the memes of the Left, for example on urban density and climate, expresses horror at how the train has been delayed and has escalated in cost. Today, even Democrats like former California State Speaker Anthony Rendon admit that there is 'no confidence' in the project and have been far from anxious to pour more good money after bad. Unless there is an unanticipated flow of state funds, the Legislative Analyst's Office suggests that the project could grind to a halt within 15 months. There is now only enough money, and perhaps not even that, for a line from agriculture and oil-dominated Bakersfield to even more rustic Merced. Not exactly the glamorous LA-San Francisco route originally mooted, much less something to rival the lines connecting Tokyo to Osaka or Paris to Lyon. Despite being described by Hoover Institute economist Lee Ohanian as 'the greatest infrastructure failure in the history of the country', the California disaster does admittedly have a great deal of competition. A similar pattern can be seen in the slow pace of repairs to the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore's Harbour. Boston's Big Dig (Central Artery/Tunnel Project) was plagued by cost overruns and delays, eventually coming in at nearly $25 billion, $10 billion more than previously reported. In fact, the entire transit industry, a favourite target for investment among progressives and greens, is stymied by what the Marron Institute at New York University found were 'among the highest transit-infrastructure costs in the world' – far higher than not only China, which can ascribe to less cumbersome processes, but the likes of Sweden, Italy, and Turkey as well. Phase one of New York's Second Avenue Subway, Marron notes, clocked in at 8 to 12 times more expensive than what the international analysis suggested should be the baseline cost, reflecting strict overtime rules, local union agreements that limit the available labour pools geographically, and an unwillingness to address staffing and labour agreements. But even in this world of lavish overruns, Newsom's California stands in a league of its own. Back in 2015, UC Berkeley scholar Karen Trapenberg Frick outlined how the cost of replacing the eastern section of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge rose from an estimated price of $250 million in 1995 to $6.5 billion by September 2013. This was in part due to political pressures from elected officials, according to a report prepared for a state Senate committee. But nothing quite matches the incompetence and overspending of Newsom's choo-choo. It has likely undermined support for building a national network of high-speed trains, something promoted in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal. Despite the green visions, high-speed trains seem a bit of a step back – the St Louis Post-Dispatch labelled them 'a bridge to the 19th century'. In a world where most people drive, and many commute from home, the idea of sinking tens of billions into high-speed projects seems a poor bet, as Britain has already found with the cancellation of large parts of the HS2 project. Even in China, where political opposition is verboten, the choo-choos have been plagued by corruption, rising costs and massive indebtedness. Under Biden, Newsom enjoyed large lumps of gravy for his train, but under Trump, he is now likely to have to choose between funding the money-mad rail network or doing such basic things as balancing his budget and facing California's gargantuan public employee pension costs, as well as paying for healthcare for the state's estimated 2.5 million undocumented immigrants. The overpriced choo-choo reflects the ultimate dilemma for Democrats like Newsom. In the 1930s and 1940, under Democrats, American ingenuity produced the infrastructure that underpinned the world's largest industrial economy – the Hoover Dam, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and countless bridges, roads, and other critical infrastructure. Today's presumed heirs of FDR still talk big about infrastructure, but are loath to offend public unions, green lobby groups and progressive non-profits. Most of the successful case studies on infrastructure come from red states like Florida, which built its new train lines at something approaching original costs and deadlines. If you want to advocate for more government, perhaps it's best to prove that you can do this efficiently. Newsom's high-speed rail line proves that, for now, the progressives are prisoners of their own massive incompetence. Joel Kotkin is presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and senior research fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom Wants To Make the Country's Most Expensive Gas Even More Expensive
California Gov. Gavin Newsom released his revised state budget proposal for FY 2025–2026 on Wednesday. After having a roughly balanced budget in January, the state must now "close an estimated $12 billion shortfall to balance the budget" because of President Donald Trump's tariffs, which have "driven a downgrade in both the economic and revenue forecasts" and increased spending for the state's Medicaid program. Despite this shortfall, Newsom's budget calls for maintaining or extending expensive government programs, including the state's cap-and-trade program, which was set to expire in 2030. Launched in 2013 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the state, the program sets a GHG emissions cap for "covered entities," which includes electricity generators, oil refineries, and manufacturing facilities. Entities must comply with this annual cap either by voluntarily reducing their GHG emissions or by purchasing allowances (essentially permits to emit 1 ton of carbon dioxide equivalent) at quarterly auctions. Most of the money generated from these auctions goes to the California Climate Investments program, which has funded $12.8 billion worth of environmental and energy projects since 2014. The California Air Resources Board estimates that these projects have prevented over 1,000 premature air pollution-related deaths. At the same time, cap-and-trade has been prohibitively expensive for consumers. While some auction funds go toward utility bill rebates, the program has increased energy costs for Californians. The state's Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that it adds 23 cents per gallon to gas prices, which could increase to 74 cents per gallon if the state decides to pursue more aggressive GHG reductions. The state currently has the highest gas prices in the country. Wayne Winegarden, senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, tells Reason that the program is a "bad tradeoff." Compared to when California launched the cap-and-trade program, "total energy related CO2 emissions in California is down 6.2%. This is around the national average (5.4% decline). It is way behind states like West Virginia that saw a 14% decline." While some Climate Investment money has funded environmentally beneficial projects like wetland restorations, the program has mostly prioritized funding for politically preferential projects and social programs. State law mandates that 25 percent of auction revenues ($7.4 billion since 2014) go toward California's high-speed rail project, which, after nearly two decades has yet to transport a single passenger. In his budget proposal, Newsom calls for "at least $1 billion annually" to be provided for the project. Another 20 percent of program revenues ($2.2 billion since 2014) are mandated to fund the state's Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. The program has over 13,000 affordable housing units under contract and has reduced GHG emissions in the state at a price of $4,100 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The state's urban tree plantings, meanwhile, have reduced GHG emissions in California for a cost of $54 per metric ton of CO2. The program's ineffectiveness is further compounded by the underlying policy issues that stymie environmental progress in the Golden State. Despite throwing $1.5 billion toward wildfire prevention through the cap-and-trade and additional money in annual budgets, the state continues to experience damaging and expensive wildfire seasons because of stringent environmental regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Getting a restoration project approved "often involves years of analysis, public comment, and litigation before projects can even begin," writes Shawn Regan, vice president of research at the Property and Environment Research Center, in City Journal. These delays increase fire risk and put more people in harm's way. "In 2020, for example, the Berry Creek area in California was devastated by the North Complex Fire while critical thinning projects were mired in CEQA reviews. The fire killed 16 people," explains Regan. State and private land managers in California have set a goal to conduct prescribed burns on 400,000 acres annually by this year, reports The New York Times. In 2023, the most recent year in which data are available, federal and state agencies and private property owners completed prescribed burns on close to 260,000 acres. As California has looked to reduce its energy sector emissions through renewable energy projects and mandates—which have forced Californians to pay some of the highest electricity rates in the country—the state has made it illegal to build clean and reliable nuclear power plants. The state's remaining nuclear power plant—Diablo Canyon—generates about 9 percent of California's electricity and is scheduled to shut down in 2030 unless state lawmakers step in. In a little over a decade, California's cap-and-trade program has increased energy costs for the state's residents while doing little to significantly reduce GHG emissions. With a $12 billion budget shortfall, it could be time for California lawmakers to reevaluate the program. "There are simply better ways to reduce emissions without imposing such a large cost on the state," says Winegarden. The post Gavin Newsom Wants To Make the Country's Most Expensive Gas Even More Expensive appeared first on
San Francisco Chronicle
24-04-2025
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
California is now 4th largest economy in world, surpassing Japan
California is now the fourth-largest economy in the world, surpassing Japan in latest data released Wednesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom's office announced Wednesday. The International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook data for 2024 found that California had a nominal gross domestic product of $4.1 trillion, behind only the United States, China and Germany when compared with nations worldwide. 'California isn't just keeping pace with the world—we're setting the pace,' Newsom said in a statement. 'Our economy is thriving because we invest in people, prioritize sustainability, and believe in the power of innovation.' California's new standing as fourth — up from fifth — among the world's economies comes as Newsom pushes back against tariffs imposed and threatened by President Donald Trump, which Newsom said could devastate California businesses. Trump announced earlier this month he would use emergency powers to enact massive tariffs on most countries, prompting market chaos, before backtracking and announcing a 90-day pause on most import taxes. China is still subject to Trump's 145% tariff, while other countries face 10% tariffs as they go through negotiations. 'While we celebrate this success, we recognize that our progress is threatened by the reckless tariff policies of the current federal administration,' Newsom said. 'California's economy powers the nation, and it must be protected.' Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a federal lawsuit last week seeking to stop the tariffs, arguing that Trump does not have the authority to impose the import taxes without congressional approval. Newsom said, while announcing the lawsuit, that more than 36,000 manufacturing companies in California employ more than 1.1 million people and are 'disproportionately going to be hurt by this.' The recent data also found that California had an economic growth rate of 6%, higher than the 5.3% rate for the United States, 2.6% rate for China or 2.9% rate for Germany. India, which currently has a gross domestic product of $3.9 trillion, is projected to overtake California's standing as fourth by 2026, according to preliminary data, Newsom's office said. Newsom used Wednesday's news on California's economic strength to emphasize the state's role in 'powering' the country. Newsom said that California sends more than $83 billion more to the federal government than the state receives back in federal funding. California is also facing impact from Trump's tariffs as the state legislature and the governor's office draft a state budget. While a budget projection in January from the California Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst's Office found the budget to be 'roughly balanced' after years of deficits, the outlook has been degraded and may likely result in a budget deficit. Newsom's office said that tariffs would shrink the U.S. economy by $100 billion each year, making higher costs for businesses and consumers a growing concern.
Miami Herald
20-04-2025
- Automotive
- Miami Herald
Should California drivers get charged by the mile? A pilot program is looking into it
The California Department of Transportation is crunching the data from a pilot program it wrapped up earlier this year that addresses one of the most controversial topics in the Golden State - creating a per-mile road charge that drivers across California would pay. Backers say it's worth considering because revenue collected from the primary source of funding for roads and highways - the per-gallon excise tax charged at gas stations - keeps declining because of more fuel-efficient cars and trucks and the growth in adoption of electric vehicles. The pilot project by the department, known as Caltrans, is designed to explore completely replacing the excise tax on gasoline with a road charge. But some critics worry the state will keep the excise tax in place in some form or another, and that a newly created road charge will simply add to the heavy tax burden Californians already shoulder. To help pay for maintaining and upgrading the state's roads and highways, California's gasoline excise tax charges drivers 59.6 cents per gallon. That's the highest gas tax in the country, with Pennsylvania coming in second at 57.6 cents a gallon. Despite that, California's Legislative Analyst's Office foresees "notable revenue declines" of some $5 billion over the next decade from the state's gasoline excise tax if the state stays on track to meet its carbon reduction goals. Under an executive order issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom nearly five years ago, no new gasoline-powered vehicles will be allowed to be sold in California by 2035. In addition, starting with model year 2026, at least 35% of manufacturers' new passenger car and truck sales must be electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids or hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles, known as ZEVs (zero-emission vehicles) for short. The percentages step up each year until hitting 100% in 2035. California already accounts for the largest number of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids of any state in the country, with ZEVs making up 25% of all new car sales last year. Since electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles don't run on gasoline, that drives down the amount of revenue generated by the state's excise tax. And because of higher fuel efficiency standards, gas-powered cars and trucks get better mileage than they used to. That means drivers make fewer trips to the gas station, further driving down collections from the excise tax. The Legislative Analyst's Office, in its December 2023 report, anticipated revenue from the gasoline excise tax falling 64% compared to what was collected 10 years prior. Budgets in other states are feeling the pinch, too. The National Association of State State Budget Officers recently reported that motor fuel taxes raised 35.9% in transportation revenue in fiscal year 2024, down from 41.1% in 2016. In 2021, the California Legislature passed and Newsom signed Senate Bill 339 that established a pilot program "to identify and evaluate" the issues in creating a road charge. Caltrans conducted the pilot, lining up 800 drivers of either gasoline or electric passenger vehicles to "drive normally" from August 2024 through the end of January of this year and report how many miles they racked up. The drivers could choose among several methods to report their mileage - a monthly reading of their odometers, a plug-in device or in-vehicle telematics. Participants were split into two rate groups - one with a flat per-mile fee of 2.8 cents per mile or one with an individualized fee based on the miles-per-gallon fuel economy of their vehicles. "A potential road charge tax is meant to address the way we collect revenue and not as a backdoor to increase the burden on motorists," Caltrans spokesperson Chris Clark said in an email to The San Diego Union-Tribune. The data from the pilot project is now being compiled and analyzed. As per the provisions of SB 339, Caltrans will present a final report to the Legislature no later than the end of next year. Another study just came out Last month, a nonprofit advocacy group for the transportation construction industry released its own study. "Transportation infrastructure is the backbone of how we live and move in the state," said Kiana Valentine, executive director of Transportation California, based in Sacramento. "So this seemed like the natural next step for us to get involved in terms of helping policymakers address this situation. The 131-page analysis, conducted by NEWROAD Consulting, identified three "viable funding options" for the state to consider. The first would expand the current pay-at-the-pump tax model to include EVs and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. But the report acknowledges the complexity of folding in a wider variety of vehicle generation, as well as the challenge of capturing at-home EV charging. A second option: Replace all fuel taxes with a "pure" road user charge that would make drivers of all types of vehicles pay, based solely on the distance traveled. While straightforward, the report admits this option would require "significant investments in technology" to track each vehicle and also raises concerns about how the charge would be enforced and who would do it. The third pathway opts for a mixed model that would combine gasoline (and diesel) fuel taxes at the pump with a road user charge for zero-emission vehicles. This option would allow for a gradual transition for policymakers to work out fairness and equity concerns, but the report said "challenges remain," including what to do with out-of-state vehicles. Valentine said there are tradeoffs with each of the three options and thus far her group has not endorsed one over the others. "I think we are still in an exploratory phase of trying to figure out which one would fit best within the state of California," she said. Transportation California was a major supporter in the passage of 2017's Senate Bill 1 that spends $5.4 billion each year on roads, freeways, bridges, transit programs and safety efforts. The San Diego Association of Governments proposed instituting a road user charge under former SANDAG Chief Executive Officer Hasan Ikhrata. But the fee of 3.3 cents per mile traveled received strong pushback and the SANDAG board in September 2023 ditched the plan on a 15-4 vote. In an email last month to constituents, San Diego County District 5 Supervisor Jim Desmond called the SANDAG mileage fee "an outrageous idea" and voiced opposition to creating a statewide road user charge. "Let's be clear: this debate shouldn't be about electric vehicles versus gas-powered cars - it should be about government overspending," Desmond said. "We already pay for our roads through sky-high gas taxes, registration fees and even property taxes. Yet Sacramento continues to spend irresponsibly." When the Legislature passed SB 339, then-Senate Minority Leader Scott Wilk, a Republican, sent Newsom a letter, urging the governor to veto the bill. While acknowledging the state's transportation system and the gas tax that supports it "are fundamentally broken," Wilk said a mileage charge would make things worse for California drivers who have long commutes. "As long as we fail to build housing in adequate supplies to house our workforce near their jobs, then the working poor are still going to be paying far more in vehicle-miles traveled fees than their wealthy counterparts," Wilk wrote. Steven Greenhut of the Pacific Research Institute, a think tank based in Pasadena that espouses free-market solutions to policy issues, thinks a mileage tax is a good idea - in theory. "The state has a legitimate concern that the gas taxes are running out in order to pay for road maintenance," he said. "From a free-market perspective, a user fee based on how much the driver uses the road makes a lot more sense." But Greenhut said the state would need to make sure the mileage fee completely replaces the gasoline excise tax so that drivers don't end up getting "double-taxed." "I just think that the Legislature has proven to us over years that it's never seen a tax it doesn't want to increase," he said. "I'm skeptical of whether the state will actually get rid of the gas tax." Other states have started experimenting with mileage charges. In Utah, drivers of electric vehicles or hybrids pay an annual fee of $143.25 or they can voluntarily enroll in the Utah Road Usage Charge Program and pay 1.11 cents per mile. Drivers in the program will never pay more than $143.25 in a given year, which benefits motorists who drive less. Enrollees can report their mileage through telematics that automatically records the distance traveled by the vehicle or by taking a photo of their odometer every three months. Utah transportation officials said as of last year, about 20% of eligible drivers had signed up. Oregon and Virginia have similar voluntary programs in place. In July, Hawaii will start phasing in a mileage-based road usage charge that applies only to drivers of electric vehicles. The charge will eliminate Hawaii's annual $50 registration fee for EVs, with the odometer checked each year when vehicles are inspected. By mid-2028, all EV drivers will be automatically enrolled. (Steven Greenhut is a member of the editorial board of the Southern California News Group, which is owned by Media News Group, the owner of The San Diego Union-Tribune.) Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
