About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Our Climate Future: A Forum with California's Next Governor from California Environmental Voters, published July 14, 2026. The transcript contains 15,227 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"Good afternoon, thank you to the over 1,000 people who are streaming right now from home to watch our next governor share their vision on climate justice and environmental protection. I'm Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters, and we are filming live from Pasadena. This is a..."
[00:00:00] Mary Creasman: Good afternoon, thank you to the over 1,000 people who are streaming right now from home to watch our next governor share their vision on climate justice and environmental protection. I'm Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters, and we are filming live from Pasadena. This is a community that survived one of the most devastating climate disasters in our history, just a year ago. Californians across the state are dealing with more regular threats of catastrophic fires, drought, floods, extreme heat, pollution, and more. The reality is the climate crisis is driving an affordability crisis. These unnatural disasters are driving up energy costs, insurance costs, grocery bills, water rates, and more. Corporate greed and climate impacts are creating an economic crisis. California Environmental Voters Education Fund released new polling just yesterday that you can find at envirovoters.org. What we found out from voters, likely voters in November, is that they want their next governor to prioritize investments in clean energy, wind and solar energy. They want their next governor to prioritize protecting our land and biodiversity. They want their next governor to prioritize holding corporate polluters accountable for the cost of their pollution. Here's the thing. We are in a place where this race does not just impact our state. It's a globally relevant race. We are the fourth largest economy in the world, and we have a global responsibility. Our federal government is decimating climate progress and environmental progress internationally and nationally. They are invading other countries for oil. They are dismantling democracy through killing and kidnapping and violence here at home. Whoever wants this job has got to be ready to fight like hell for our right for safe, healthy, affordable, and resilient communities. But here's the good news. The good news is we have the solutions and the technology to solve the climate crisis. We know how to make clean energy. We know how to make our communities more resilient. What we need is the political leadership to do it at the rate and scale that science tells us we have to. That's why this race for California's governor is the most impactful one on the ballot in 2026 across the country. I'm really excited today to hear our candidates' vision for what that leadership looks like. I'm going to hand it over to our moderators, Sammy Roth from Climate Colored Goggles and Louise Bedsworth from UC Berkeley Center for Law Energy and the Environment. But I want to thank you watching from home for continuing to show up and for staying resilient with us. Thank you.
[00:03:08] Sammy Roth: Mary, thank you for that introduction. Again, my name is Sammy Roth. I write the independent newsletter, Climate Colored Goggles, about the intersection of climate and culture. Thank you to everyone who's watching tonight. And thank you very much to the candidates for being here with us. We know there's a lot of scary stuff happening in our country right now. So the fact that you're here with us tonight, that you're making the time for this really shows that these candidates understand how serious the climate crisis is and that they understand that voters are demanding solutions. So we're going to be asking them what they would do as governor to not only make sure that California maintains its status as a global leader, but really grows its ambitions because that is what the science is demanding. So on that note, I'm going to turn things over to Luis to introduce our candidates and explain the ground rules for this forum.
[00:03:57] Louise Bedsworth: Thank you, Sammy. Hi, I'm Louise Bedsworth, Executive Director of the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at UC Berkeley. I want to echo Sammy and Mary's thanks to everyone for joining us, especially the candidates today. It goes without saying that this is an incredibly challenging and upsetting time in our country. We're seeing attacks on science, environmental protection and democracy. One thing we know is that voting is a cornerstone of our democracy and participating in our elections. And so having informed and engaged dialogue around critical issues like climate change is so important, especially at times like these. So at CLE, we have committed to undertaking candidate and voter education around climate, energy and environmental issues over this election cycle. And so we really want to thank you all for being part of that and thank you to the candidates as well. So before we get into the questions, I want to set the framework for today's forum. We invited the top six candidates based on publicly available polling, four of whom accepted the invitation to join us tonight. First we have Javier Becerra, Civil Rights Attorney and former California Attorney General. And then Katie Porter, Consumer Protection Attorney. Tom Steyer, Business Leader and Climate Advocate. And Eric Swalwell, U.S. Representative. Thank you all for joining us. We do want to note that while Tony Thurman, Antonio Villaraigosa and Betty Yee will not be participating in person this evening, each has been invited to submit video responses to the questions we will be discussing so that everyone can hear from them and learn their positions on these issues. More information will be available on how to access those videos after tonight's forum. So tonight we're going to ask a series of questions on climate and energy issues ranging from affordability to public health. Each candidate will have 90 seconds to respond to these questions. After all of the candidates have gone through their response, Sammy or I may follow up. In that case, each candidate will have about 30 seconds to respond. I want to stress that this is a forum and we are not allowing any direct responses from the candidates to one another. And this way we can move efficiently through the questions and maximize what we can hear and learn from each of these candidates tonight and over the next 90 minutes. So with that, I am excited to open the forum with our first question. Seventy percent of likely voters in California believe that the state should lead on environmental protection and affordability, even if the federal government and some other states are not. Roughly the same support investing in clean energy. As governor, how would you speed up clean energy deployment, bring down electricity prices and phase out fossil fuels? We'll start with Mr. Becerra.
[00:07:06] Speaker 4: Luis, thank you very much. Sammy, thank you very much. Well, first, we have to convince that other 30 percent of California that we need to move forward in abundance, in abundance with clean energy, because that is our future. And we have the technology to make it happen. And so the first thing we must do is stop the manmade disasters coming from Washington, D.C., that are preventing us from making the progress that California has already put into law. We have to make sure that we move forward with solar and wind, even if the federal government is willing to slash the subsidies and tax credits that would go to those industries that are ready to move forward with clean energy. We have to tell them we're not going backwards. We're going to continue forward. And so we make that investment. We will find it. We're the fourth largest economy. We have the resources to make it happen. And so the first thing we do is make sure that it's clear we're not going backwards, regardless of Washington, D.C., and persuading that 30 percent of California that isn't quite on board. The second thing we do is start to set in place a statewide policy so that we don't have the interference or the difficulties that come when local jurisdictions stop us from making some of that progress. Oftentimes, California is such a big state, big cities, big counties doesn't move in as one. And we have to do everything we can to ensure that our climate change policy, our progress toward clean and efficient energy is one that is carried out across the board. So we don't have a lot of laggards that are making it difficult. The more we do that, the faster we'll get there.
[00:08:39] Louise Bedsworth: Thank you, Miss Porter.
[00:08:42] Speaker 5: The question about about affordability and the environment really shows that what people want is both of those things. And that is good news because clean energy is less expensive. So if we're going to be able to achieve our climate goals and our affordability goals, we have to move away from the energy sources of yesterday. We shouldn't be doing more drilling. We should be building more offshore wind. We shouldn't be thinking about fossil fuel sources and pipelines. We should be thinking about battery storage and grid expansion. So California needs to continue to lead not just the United States, but the world in not just inventing these technologies, which we've done, but in deploying them. I sometimes hear people talk about they're building something or building a clean energy pack, building a wind farm. Where are you doing that? Too often the answer is Texas, Wyoming, other states. If California wants to continue to make progress on climate and have abundant, stable energy, we need to build those projects here. State leadership is going to matter, especially in this moment where we have the federal government moving us backwards and many localities frozen. I think that California's path is one of investing in clean energy and doing it in a thoughtful way. We need to have some kinds of projects that we can deliver immediately, very, very quickly. We need to have other projects that are a longer term payoff. All of it only works if we have the grid and the storage and the ability to move that clean energy around the state efficiently.
[00:10:15] Speaker ?: Thank you.
[00:10:16] Speaker 6: Mr. Seher. The next goal for California is going to be to take advantage of the technology that's already here. So for instance, I'm talking about breaking up the electric monopolies and driving down prices. That's great. But the way we're going to compete with them is we're going to allow Californians to put solar on the flat roofs across California, take advantage of batteries, and compete with the electric utilities with technologies that are very, very inexpensive. Electric vehicles. Electric vehicles. Electric vehicles are right now, we're on a path to cheaper, they're cleaner, cheaper to maintain, cheaper to fuel. What's the problem? The issue for people who are looking at an electric vehicle is range anxiety. Am I going to be able to get everywhere I want in California? So we're going to have to push really hard on charging stations so people can just look at the comparison and realize cheaper, faster, better. I want an EV. We're going to build a lot of houses in this state. We're going to have to do it in a way that makes sense from a climate standpoint. That means near public transportation, dense, not sprawl. Every decision that we're going to make is going to take into account the question of what is going to be impact going to be on the natural world. And the last thing I'll say is this, if we want to lead, we need to charge polluters for their pollution, and we need to have an ability to reduce climate pollution from the air. We can do that with systems that are straightforward, the technology is here, that's how we lead the world. Mr. Swallow.
[00:11:47] Speaker 7: Growing up as a kid in the Bay Area, I used to dread when the mailman would come by, because I knew that every month you'd get that utility bill. And I'd look at my mom, who would work as many jobs as she could during the day to bring home as many groceries as possible at night, and I'd try and read her face, because I knew that if it was too high, that the power could get shut off. And that had happened. So I'm running for governor because in our state, people are scared and prices are high. They're scared because we have an administration that has declared war on our state, and it's pulled funding particularly that has sought to bring down greenhouse gas emissions and lower costs through clean energy deployments of technology. I will be a fighter protector every single day for Californians, the way I have done in Congress over the last 10 years. But I will also work to do what I did as a city council member in Dublin, where we green the city, and we made investments with third-party contractors to bring LED lights, upgraded HVAC systems, and to put solar on every rooftop of every city building. And we saw millions of dollars of savings in just the next couple of years. We will make those investments in wind, in solar, in storage across the state. And I'm going to do it as a day one Democrat. I will recognize the urgency of this issue, and my most important job is to bring down the cost.
[00:13:18] Sammy Roth: So a lot of big ideas there and a lot of good ideas, unfortunately, things that we have questions that we can circle back to and unpack even further. For now, staying on the affordability theme, let's talk about gas. Gasoline demand has been falling in California and nationally, increased vehicle efficiency, more people driving EVs, more people working from home. And partly as a result of that, we've seen some major oil refinery closures in California recently. So the question is, how do you accelerate the transition from fossil fuels while ensuring reliable and affordable gas supplies in California? And we're going to switch up the order here and start with Mr. Swalwell.
[00:13:53] Speaker 7: Well, we have to lead because the federal government has declared war on our funding. So we have state programs right now. One is called EPIC. One is called CARB. For example, there's a company called Stax that takes the exhaust from ships at port. And they have, from CARB funding and initial seed funding in California, they've taken 1,000 tons of carbon emissions out of our air. And so California is going to have to stand up a research fund. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask the best of Californians, including your members, to be ambassadors and to go worldwide and seek investment in California so we can deploy that capital into California companies so we can bring down greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately use the revenue to bring down the cost of electricity. A couple other things that I will do. I think it's really important that we make it easier for you to onboard solar on your rooftop and for you to get more money back. The NEM 2.0 to NEM 3.0 has been devastating for solar in our state. Essentially, it takes a lot longer to have solar on your rooftop and consumers, households, get a lot less back. California right now is a blue state held down by red tape. And I'm going to do everything possible to cut that tape to accelerate the clean energy solutions that will bring down the costs. Mr. Steyer?
[00:15:23] Speaker 6: So it's important to know when we're talking about gasoline and we're talking about electric vehicles where we are. Right now, about 25% of new car sales in California, 25% are EVs. Compared to the rest of the United States, that's a home run. But the implication is that 75% of new car sales, three out of four, are internal combustion engines. So we have to take care of the costs. California is a gasoline island. We have a very small number of refineries and they are built for the kind of gasoline that Californians require. And as a result, the companies that own those refineries kind of have us by the neck. They are threatening to close them. They're threatening to raise costs really a lot. It's going to be important for the governor to protect the people in the state of California who don't drive EVs. And of course, we want to move to EVs as fast as possible. But it's going to be important to develop different sources of gasoline that meet our requirements. Does that mean going to Washington state? Maybe. Does that mean going across the Pacific? Maybe because it's very inexpensive to ship gasoline. But as we make the transition to EVs, it's absolutely critical for the pocketbooks of working Californians that we don't let a monopoly practice, the way it's choking us in the electric monopolies, choke us in terms of gasoline, and that we develop competitive offerings from other states or other countries as soon as possible.
[00:16:52] Speaker 5: It's absolutely true that it's not affordable today for many people to choose an EV. I don't think range anxiety is what's driving it. I think it's the fact that particularly with expiring federal subsidies and the cuts that Trump has made, an electric vehicle often costs eight or $10,000 more. If we want people to choose EVs, we have to close that gap. We have to make sure that electric vehicles are as affordable as gas vehicles at the point of sale. Because many families, you might accrue that savings over time by having less gas costs, by having lower maintenance costs. But that doesn't feed your kids when your car payment is higher because you chose an electric vehicle. I do think California needs to also embrace our land use planning as part of thinking about how we reduce the amount of fossil fuel emissions from internal combustion engines. So this means thinking in smart ways about development and about transit, about investing in ways for people to be able to move where they need to go to work or to home without having to get in a car in the first place. The last thing I'll say is we have to work to decarbonize some of the large and heavy equipment and vehicles that we have trucks equipment at ports. Those are big emission emission vehicles. And we need to think about how we're going to move to lower emission sources or clean sources for those larger vehicles. I think that's a really important part of this.
[00:18:17] Speaker 4: So there are two parts to that question in terms of an answer, a good answer, complete answer. First is how do we maintain stability as we do this transition and we try to accelerate the transition? How do we do it so that we can keep families with us? How can they believe that they can have the confidence that while they have that gas vehicle, their prices won't spike? How can we guarantee them that as they're ready to shop for a new, more efficient vehicle, they can afford it? Well, first and foremost, we have to stabilize that market for the petroleum that those who do have gasoline powered vehicles will have to rely on. That means making sure that as we continue to shrink our footprint, we have the availability through storage, through importation and where we do have some production that it is disseminated as we need it. So that way the supply is there for those who need it. But as we transition on the demand side, you have to make sure that you're giving people a marketable product, something that they want. Which means even though Washington D.C. is ready to cancel subsidies, we have to push and fight to get them in place anyhow. When people want to buy that car, the electric vehicle, they have a place at their home where they can charge quickly or on the road as well. And then finally, you really have to tackle diesel. If we don't tackle diesel, we talk only about passenger vehicles. We're missing a boat because diesel is the most polluting form of fuel that is on our roads and we have to tackle diesel.
[00:19:50] Sammy Roth: I'm going to do a quick follow up here because several of you brought up Miss Porter in this answer and Mr. Steyer previously in your first answer. The issue of sprawling development and long car commutes and how that contributes to climate change and housing density as well. What would you all do as governor to tackle that issue and to prioritize funding for public transit and for transit oriented communities and walkable communities as well that make it easier for people to get around without driving? And we'll just do the same order here and start with Mr. Swalwell on this end.
[00:20:22] Speaker 7: Californians are spending too much time in their cars and not enough time with their family. And that's why I have prioritized during my time in Congress regional rail projects. And so I have delivered over $10 million in earmarked funding to what we call ValleyLink. It connects the Bay Area to San Joaquin Valley. It's about 50 miles of hydrogen rail and it takes 30,000 people off the road each day. However, because of federal funding being threatened, we are going to need a governor who will get inventive on how we find public and private funding so that regional rail projects like that can connect the disconnected. For the disconnected in -- go ahead if you have a follow. Oh, thank you.
[00:21:09] Sammy Roth: That's, I think, time there. Unfortunately, it's a short follow, but I appreciate that. Mr. Steyer.
[00:21:14] Speaker 6: I think it's really important that we consider zoning and permitting so that, in fact, the houses that we need to build, and I've said we need to build a million houses, are built around public transportation, are built in walkable communities, and do not include sprawl. Because as we look forward, we need to drive down the cost of housing, yes, but we also need to do it in a way that preserves our natural resources, our open spaces, and reduces the use of fossil fuel. Thank you. Mr. Porter.
[00:21:49] Speaker 5: You can't really address climate without having a vision of land use and how you will put land to use in order to meet those complex needs of housing and transit. One of our challenges in California is that we have very, very diverse communities that were built in very different periods of history. This means that rail might work for some parts of California, but it won't work for others. So thinking about the variety of transit, you mentioned things like walking, bicycling. I would add micro transit to that as another strategy, another tool that we have to recognize the geographic variation in California. Mr. Boucher.
[00:22:24] Speaker 4: Our planning is going to be very important, and we have to make sure that we do the transit hubs and all the rest. But quite honestly, the people who are most impacted right now are the people who can't afford to buy a place one way or the other. What we need to do is what Mayor Mamdani hit on, which is public transportation. Make it available so people can get around even if they can't afford a car or they can't change their gas guzzling car for an electric vehicle. We have to make public transportation available universally so we can get on that road to cleaner energy.
[00:22:57] Louise Bedsworth: Thank you all. Parts of California experience some of the worst air and water quality in the nation, from the Central Valley to Los Angeles to the East Bay. And many activists worry that we're backsliding in our commitment to environmental justice, especially given recent laws approving more oil drilling and streamlined environmental reviews for advanced manufacturing. What actions would you take to hold corporate polluters accountable and strengthen protections for low income communities and people of color impacted by high pollution burdens? We'll start with Miss Porter.
[00:23:31] Speaker 5: I served on the House Natural Resources Committee in Congress for four years and was really proud to sign on to the Environmental Justice for All Act, which centers communities and their environmental concerns about air quality, clean drinking water, and other concerns in how we think about environmental justice. This isn't a concept that we can put one size does not fit all different communities are going to have different ideas about what that looks like for them. Holding big polluters to account is important. That's why I have never taken money from big oil and from fossil fuel companies. And I don't take corporate PAC money because you're not going to be willing to stand up to the entities that fund your campaign. I think in Congress, I passed a bill to raise the rates on big polluters to make them pay what they should for the damage that they do to their environment. And I think California should be looking at taking a similar approach.
[00:24:24] Louise Bedsworth: Mr. Becerra.
[00:24:27] Speaker 4: So I'll tell you what we must do by telling you what I did when I was attorney general. I established the Environmental Justice Bureau at the Department of Justice for this very purpose. Because those who are worst hit, first hit are the folks we're trying to bring with us in this new transition. And they won't follow us unless they know they can survive economically. And so one of the things that we did through this bureau is take on the actions that were causing pollution in their backyard. So for example, when the small town of Arvin right there where the just south of Bakersfield, which is surrounded by oil wells, was trying to just pass an ordinance that would require a setback of about 300 feet for any oil drilling by their schools and neighborhoods. They were having the toughest time. So we came in and said, you know what, you're on the right course. And if anyone tells you otherwise, we're here to tell you legally, we are there to help you out. And as a result, Arvin for the first time passed an ordinance that actually told the oil companies don't get closer than 300 feet. None of us would want to live anywhere within a thousand feet, but they were happy they got a 300 foot setback. What else did we do? We went after local governments who didn't understand CEQA, who didn't understand environmental laws. And we're allowing others, their attorneys, the advocates for these developments, to move forward with projects that didn't protect their families. We stepped into the Environmental Justice Bureau and said, cities, you have to follow the rules. You can do things, but you first have to follow the rules. Easy to protect. You just got to know the rules.
[00:26:03] Louise Bedsworth: Mr. Swalwell.
[00:26:05] Speaker 7: I was a part of a district attorney's office for seven years in Oakland that had an environmental justice unit. And we aggressively went after polluters. And that's the kind of governor that I am going to be, to make sure that we have the enforcement funding in place in our state to do that, that we have accountability and results for the people of California. But I've also had a record in Congress. And right now, the record of passing the cleanest, greenest climate agenda is under assault from the president. So here's what I'm going to do as governor. It's what I saw Nancy Pelosi do in her second speakership in Donald Trump's last two years. She used every opportunity to leverage every budget negotiation to claw back what had been taken in the first two years. I was on her leadership team. I chaired the biggest committee in our caucus, the Steering and Policy Committee. And I have a direct relationship with Hakeem Jeffries. And this the speakership that he's going to take when we take the majority is going to be so important for Californians. And my relationship with Hakeem is going to make sure in every negotiation we bring back as much as we can, particularly on clean energy solutions that can reduce the overall emissions in our state. Also, my campaign is chaired by Jimmy Gomez. He's one of the biggest racial justice champions as it relates to climate. And he'll always be at the table with me as we make big decisions affecting the state.
[00:27:35] Louise Bedsworth: Mr. Steyer.
[00:27:37] Speaker 6: So this is a fairly straightforward question. Polluters have to pay. And in California, we have a cap and trade system that was set up in 2007 that basically makes climate polluters pay. And two oil companies came to California and tried to get rid of it. And traditionally, oil companies are rich. They have incredible lobbyists. They have incredible lawyers. Nobody wanted to take them on. I co-chaired the fight to beat the oil companies and protect our polluters pay deal. No one thought we could win and we smashed them. I am absolutely prepared to stand up to the polluters of this state because I don't take a penny from them and I don't need them. But what turns out to be true is that cap and trade system delivers disproportionate money to frontline communities who have been structurally and racially disadvantaged over the years in terms of pollution. 30% of that money goes right off the top to frontline communities. In addition, when an oil company was trying to build another dirty gas plant in Puente, California and take advantage of a Latino community, I went down and worked with the mayor and the people of the city council to stop that plant because it was wrong. This is very simple. There's been structural racism. They've put the dirty plants in black and brown communities. That has to end. But the big deal is polluters have to pay 100%. And I guarantee you, I will bring them to justice and I've done it before and I'll do it again.
[00:29:10] Sammy Roth: So continuing with environmental justice and adding an element of water here as well. What would you do as governor to ensure that environmental justice communities with polluted and over pumped groundwater aquifers have clean and reliable water supplies and also to make sure that parts of California that are frequently stricken by drought have reliable and clean water supplies. And Mr. Steyer, we're going to start with you here.
[00:29:33] Speaker 6: So when we think about water in the state of California, let's talk about how different this state is, how varied it is and the places where we have real drought. So for instance, in Southern California in the big cities, those are very dry places. And in fact, they've used water collection, water reuse. They have done an amazing job in changing whether people can have lawns. So the big urban cities have been able to do a great job in terms of solving this problem and becoming to a very large extent water independent. The issue that Sammy's really asking about is in the Central Valley where we have rural communities, often farm communities that have been depending on groundwater. So groundwater is the aquifer. It's not the water that's running in a stream. It's the water that's under the ground. And as they've used it up, there has been no water. The only way we're going to solve that is by connecting them to other communities that have surplus water and making it possible. Right now in parts of the Central Valley, they're literally shipping in, in trucks, you know, water bottles for people, for drinking, for washing. We have to do better than that. We have to connect them to other centers where there is water. But ultimately, we're going to have to measure groundwater. We're going to have to make sure that it doesn't get all the way drawn down. And we're going to have to use it very carefully. Mr. Swovo.
[00:31:02] Speaker 7: I have led in Congress the reduction of PFAS in our community. That's a toxin that affects the drinking water for people in the East Bay and we're finding out all over California. And I'll be a leader to make sure that we survey our exposure to that and that we invest in removing it. However, I have also seen, as I've gone across California, that we are the fourth largest economy in the world because we are the strongest agricultural economy in the world. And I'll be a governor for all Californians, but I won't pit the Bay Area against the Central Valley or Southern California. Instead, I will use inventive ways that no governor has used before. And I'm going to do it on day one to get more water for our growers and our farm workers who feed all of us. For example, we can put solar across the 400 miles of aqueducts in our state. It turns out that the panels need to be cooler. And it also turns out that we lose a lot of water that moves through the state to the Central Valley because it evaporates. A big idea project like that, a big investment can deliver more water to people in California who are feeding us. And we'll make sure that we don't shrink as far as what we produce as a state, but that I can be a governor who delivers growth.
[00:32:28] Speaker 4: Mr. Becerra. There are some 800,000 Americans that live in our state who don't have drinkable water. 800,000 Californians who can't turn on that faucet and drink the water that comes out. We know what's going on. The infrastructure for those communities is not there. Typically, they're not the big cities. It's usually the outlier towns. It's usually in the Central Valley. And what we find is what I mentioned earlier. We have local governing councils, whether it's a city council or their county supervisors who are not following the rules. And what we need to do is simply have them obey the rules, whether it's the Clean Water Act, whether it is CEQA, because what's happening is they are putting developers and the interests of others before those community members and their water. And so what we must do is fight to make sure that local community leaders understand the laws so they don't issue ordinances and pass laws that allow development to occur that doesn't take into account the families who need water. The second thing we must do is I, too, worked on PFAS. In fact, I was the attorney general who required public disclosure of those forever chemicals if they were going to be used. And the final thing I'll mention is this. We have to do a far better job of recapturing stormwater. We have to do a far better job of letting water percolate back underground so we can have better water when we need it, not just for consumption by humans, but for agriculture as well.
[00:34:04] Speaker 5: Water is fundamentally a justice issue. It is fundamental to life and to the quality of life, and it is unjust and immoral that 750,000, 800,000 Californians do not have access to clean water. And then another one to 1.8 million are at risk of it. We do need to invest in our water infrastructure, but I would do it a little differently than some on this stage rather than trying to pop off about one big project that you can do on day one. I would look to local communities to do scalable projects that actually can get built quickly projects that take into account the different environmental impacts of water projects and projects that recognize the different terrain of water. There is a lot of room for innovation in water in California or the city of Irvine where I live, for example, where I fought to bring home resources, millions of dollars to build the nation's largest water recycling plant. As its population has tripled, its water usage has been cut in half. We are now able to send that recycled water in some cases back uphill into the Central Valley to be used for crops. I think that's an example along with stormwater capture, groundwater recharge, wetlands. Our local water districts, many of them have fabulous plans. They are simply waiting for the resources to do that that for too long have been tied up in one big water project that has proven impossible decade after decade to get off the ground. Thank you.
[00:35:31] Speaker ?: Thank you.
[00:35:32] Sammy Roth: Thanks.
[00:35:33] Louise Bedsworth: So now we're going to turn to talk a little bit more about climate impacts. California is going to need to spend billions of dollars to build resilience in our communities and infrastructure to protect them from climate impacts like catastrophic wildfire, flood, drought, sea level rise, pollution and extreme heat. This is not going to be cheap. And as we've heard, the federal government is pulling back money for these types of projects. Where should the money come from? And we'll start with you, Miss Porter.
[00:36:02] Speaker 5: So as we see our technology change in our economy change, we're going to see incredible wealth produced. AI has the potential to make society much more wealthy. And we need to capture that wealth to address the not only the environmental consequences of data centers and of AI, but the longstanding environmental challenges that we face. So I think it's really important as we think about how do we allow these sectors of the economy to grow that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, which is asking taxpayers and communities to subsidize very large, very profitable industries. That is what we have done too often and we need to change direction here. So I think there's a great opportunity there. AI is going to generate tremendous wealth. And the question is for whom and how will that be distributed? I think that's one place that we could do it. I think the other you heard me mention is trying to move the needle on shovel ready smaller projects quickly because green energy is cheaper. Water recycling ultimately is cheaper than imported water. So if we can get these projects off the ground, there's a startup cost to them, but they are often cheaper in the long run. So thinking about this is an investment. We put some money in now to helping a community rural, urban, suburban get these projects going. They ultimately have savings from that. And those projects are self-sustaining. Mr. Swalwell.
[00:37:25] Speaker 7: In California, we have five seasons. The other four and fire season. And the next governor is going to have to do everything left of the next fire to make sure that we're resilient and we're ready. So, yes, we can always be the fourth largest economy in the world. But what does that mean if the biggest beneficiaries of that are creating more problems than they're solving? There has to be an expectation that if you're going to benefit from being in the fourth largest economy in the world, the greatest workforce in the world, the most educated talent in the world, that you have to contribute to solving the problem. We also must have accountability and requirements for the utility companies that they do everything to cap their lines, that they invest in reconductoring, which actually, turns out, delivers energy two to three times more efficiently and ends up being cheaper for the users and is better for fire resilience. And right of a fire or right of a disaster, we have to make sure that the utilities are a part of making communities whole. We saw in the Bay Area after a number of fire seasons that when they made investments in capping the lines and undergrounding the lines, we saw a reduction in fires. You have to -- and also, by the way, managed outages. They have to have a managed outage plan so that the lines are not live during the most harsh conditions. That's the kind of accountability I will bring to the utilities as government.
[00:38:58] Louise Bedsworth: Mr. Steyer.
[00:38:59] Speaker 6: Look, California is short of revenue on multiple levels. One of the things that I have said is I will close two corporate tax loopholes that will bring in $15 to $20 billion a year to California that absolutely deserve to be closed and it's a justice issue. But let's talk about how we'll solve the fire issue because it's right in front of us and it's the one that's most obvious. It's going to be a multi-level response. First of all, the utilities are going to have to clean up their act. And there's multiple ways to think about it. I don't think they're doing it the way that I would do it. They're doing it much more expensively, but they're going to have to clean up their act. That's number one. Number two, the state. The state has a macro role in this. And that really is to make sure that we do prescribed burns, that we take away the risk of catastrophic fire because we're in a fire ecosystem and it's been that way in California for hundreds of years. The third part is homeowners. Homeowners are going to have to harden their homes. And that's something that we know how to do. The technology is here. The process is here. People need to do that. But then there's the last part of this. We need a governor who will go to the insurance companies and insist that they take into account the reduced risk. Insurance companies want to make money. They're not allowed to rip off Californians. We need a governor who's going to go and say, look at those first three things. It's a completely different risk. That has to show up in the price that Californians are paying for house insurance.
[00:40:33] Louise Bedsworth: Mr. Becerra.
[00:40:35] Speaker 4: So let's face a fact here. The biggest challenge we have here is Donald Trump. The fact that Donald Trump is making it difficult for California to do its work by getting California's fair share. Because we pay more taxes than any other state, yet the Trump administration is not sending it back to us in California. And so the first thing we have to do is fight like the Dickens to make sure we're getting our fair share. Nothing more than our fair share. But we shouldn't just say we're going to have to do it on our own. We need to get the money back from Washington, D.C. first and foremost. Secondly, what we have to do is recognize that we can't continue to do piecemeal policy. California has to act like a state, and that means we can't have small jurisdictions, regional governments get in the way of having a statewide approach to how we attack these big issues. We need resilience. We need forecasting. We need stability. And that requires a state to act together in concert with our local governments, but moving together. And then finally, we can't leave the hardest working, lowest earning families behind. They have to be part of this process and believe that whatever we do will help them. That's why I said in the first hundred days, one of the first moves I'll make is to freeze utility rates and freeze insurance premiums on homes. Because I think the California public is now due a clear, transparent response on why those costs have gone so high before we move forward.
[00:42:08] Sammy Roth: So we do have a question coming right up here on insurance and wildfires. But before we get to that, just to follow up here, I mean the question was about budgeting for climate resilience and finding money. Does anyone want to follow up and have anything more to say on where to find money for that? It's expensive. It's challenging. You know, saving out money from the budget is super, super hard. And Mr. Bessera, you raised your hand there.
[00:42:30] Speaker 4: Yeah, Sammy, I think it's very obvious. I just mentioned hardest working, lowest paid. We have billionaires who are paying tax rates that are lower than those hardest working, lowest paid. No one who's making a billion dollars or, you know, wealthy should be paying at tax rates that are lower than the nurse, the firefighter, the teacher in California. Everyone should pay their fair share. And that you are doing well, we applaud you. We want to have folks who are successful, but you need to do your fair share. We need revenue.
[00:42:59] Sammy Roth: We'll put it to good use. Okay, seems like everyone wants to go here. Should we just go down the, go down the line? Yeah.
[00:43:04] Speaker 5: I mean, I think in my answer, I did address what I would do on revenue, which is making sure those who are using more energy and using more resources are paying the full cost of that. If they're going to need much more energy than we've ever needed before, they should be footing the bill for building that infrastructure. That more, that additional energy is going to have climate consequences and they should be paying for this. So we need to have a clear state plan to do this, but we do have the potential for tremendous wealth to be unleashed in this country and in this nation, in our state in the upcoming months and years.
[00:43:37] Speaker 6: So, I want to build on what Javier was saying, because we have the richest state in the country, we probably have the richest state in the world. But the truth is, we also have the highest percentage of people in poverty in the United States, and we have the most inequality in the United States. So, when we're looking at that, the idea that we don't have enough money to deal with this is just not true. And when I said I'm going to close corporate loopholes, that's just the beginning. The money is there, it is in the rich people, it is in the huge corporations, and it's absolutely fair that we treat them fairly in a society that is drastically unequal.
[00:44:13] Speaker 7: I'm going to bet on Californians, and I'm going to stand up a California research fund, and I'm going to go around the world with the best of California as our ambassadors to seek investments in California. I know that the best educated workforce in the world and the most diverse workforce in the world is worth betting on and investing in. And through those investments, the return revenue is going to go to the state, it's going to go to energy infrastructure, it's going to go to wildfire management. It's going to go to bringing down the dam costs. Thank you all.
[00:44:47] Sammy Roth: So, now we're going to play a video from a wildfire survivor from the L.A. fires a year ago that's going to touch on insurance and fossil fuel accountability.
[00:44:57] Speaker 8: My home has smoke damage and heavy metal contamination from the L.A. fires. I've been dealing with delays, denials, and outright lies from my insurer. What will you do to make insurance fairer and make fossil fuel companies who've caused more intense fires and extreme weather help pay to fix the problems they've caused instead of victims like me? My home has smoke damage and heavy metal contamination.
[00:45:22] Sammy Roth: All right, so I'm just going to add on very briefly to that question that we've had a lot of interest from people who are watching this event, specifically in the bill, Make Polluters Pay, which would, or Climate Superfund Act, which would create a fee on fossil fuel companies, some of the largest polluters to fund climate resilience and clean energy. So, I'm curious if anyone would support that, but adding that onto the listeners question, we're going to start with them. Mr. Steyer.
[00:45:53] Speaker 6: So, there are two questions here. One is the insurance companies and one is the fossil fuel companies. So, let's start with the fossil fuel companies because obviously they should be paying for their existing pollution right now in full. And I've said, I've pushed for that in the past. I've made it happen in the past. I'll make it happen in the future. But then there's all their past pollution that they knew about that they went forward and did. They were suing them. They owe the state of California hundreds of billions of dollars for the damage that they did. It's not hard to figure out percent of emissions, total damages. Okay, do the math. That's what we're owed. So, I absolutely believe we should be going after them aggressively to get that money. In terms of insurance companies, look, BIMA is not paying the money to the people of California for the damages. The insurance companies are stonewalling people. I absolutely believe that the governor's responsibility along with the attorney general is to represent the people of California and to not let that happen. That is absolutely shameful. It should be brought up in court and we should be pushing on timing and amount. And I think that what we're seeing is corporate power, corporate arrogance, and a sense that they don't have to obey the law. In the state of California, that absolutely can't be true. And it's got to be the governor's job to prioritize the needs of people who've been damaged and to make sure that the people that have responsibilities, the companies, live up to their legal responsibilities and their moral responsibilities. Ms. Porter.
[00:47:29] Speaker 5: I want to acknowledge the hard work of Enviro voters and other groups who have put bills in place in the legislature in California to address some of these insurance issues. For a lot of the wildfire victims, it is coming too late, but we are laying the groundwork to hold insurance companies to account better. If you've seen me with a whiteboard, you know I'm not afraid to press people to follow the rules. There's no exception for insurance companies there, but we also have to recognize that some of the kinds of harms that that wildfire victim described are not harms that are clearly covered by insurance policies. So this goes to modernizing what is covered to modernizing how we process and pay claims so that we can meet the needs of victims of wildfires because it's not a wildfire season. It's not a fifth season. It is present with us all year long. So I think there's absolutely room to both hold insurance companies to account, but also to work in conjunction with the legislature and the insurance commissioner to modernize our insurance system. I have already said I think polluters need to pay the full cost of both the energy that they're using and the damage that they are creating for too long that those costs have been born by regular Californians, especially brown black Californians and tribal communities. So we absolutely have to adjust how we charge energy users and how we how we think about what we're putting into our cap and trade program from those polluters.
[00:48:53] Speaker 4: Mr. Sarah, Rosanna, the first thing we have to do is that, as I just mentioned, it means freezing the rates you pay on your utility bill. It means freezing the premiums you pay for your home insurance, because when you get devastated this way, the last thing you should worry about is how you're going to pay all these bills. And the second thing you should be demanding is justice and understanding why your rates can continue to go so high. And so that's the most important thing is stabilize things for people who were harmed so we can get to the bottom of this. Pull back the curtain. Let's see how these different companies, these different industries operate so we can see what they should pay, how we should handle this moving forward before they decide they want to up your rates. The second thing I'd say is we have to make sure that everyone is at the table, including the polluters, because we want everyone to pay their fair share, as I said earlier. And so what we must do is make sure everyone is accountable. And that means giving everyone a chance at the table to explain themselves. But one way or the other, we will uncover the truth. We will find out what it costs. We will find out how we get out of this mess. And we will make sure that especially, as I said, for those who work the hardest and make the least, we give them the benefit of the doubt that their government is working to make sure they're not left behind. That's how we bring everyone together and move forward. And everyone still wants to stay in California. We'll make it happen. We just have to be fair. Mr. Swalwell.
[00:50:27] Speaker 7: My heart breaks and beats for the people of Altadena, Pasadena, and the Palisades. And before I came here, I went to Book Alley. And I talked to the owner. And as I was talking about small businesses, he told me he lost his home in Altadena. And he asked me, why didn't we see this coming? Why wasn't I notified? Why wasn't the power turned off? And what are you going to do about it? I was a prosecutor before I ever went into elected office. And I have a prosecutor's sense of justice. And as governor, I will hold accountable the utility companies to make sure that they invest in the left of disaster improvements that they have to make. That we socialize the idea of managed outages. That we all understand that there will be times where the power cannot be on. But that's because there's high winds and brush. And that we are in fire season. And we all have to sacrifice. We do that in the Bay Area. And on insurance companies and the utilities. I will make sure with that prosecutor mindset that justice is delivered for those who need to be whole. The fire victims know that their homes will never come back the way that they knew. But they want to know that the next governor gets it and will fight for them. And that's what you're going to get me gives me as a prosecutor's sense of justice in the governor's office.
[00:52:02] Sammy Roth: Very quick follow for Mr. Becerra and Mr. Swalwell. I hope you won't mind my putting you on the spot here. But should fossil fuel polluters have to pay for climate damages?
[00:52:11] Speaker 4: Yes, they will be at the table, but they will definitely have to pay their fair share. Yes. Just checking. Thank you.
[00:52:20] Louise Bedsworth: So another area where California has been leading is in conservation and protection of biodiversity. California has committed to protecting 30% of its lands and waters by 2030 to protect wildlife habitat and intact landscapes. How would you achieve that conservation goal, especially as the Trump administration is rolling back protections for national monuments and other public lands and the need to cite large scale renewable energy projects, transmission and other infrastructure that's needed to meet our climate goals.
[00:52:53] Speaker 7: And we'll start with Mr. Swalwell. I have a record of conservation. I've served while I was on the city council in Dublin on the Tri-Valley Conservancy and the entire goal of that conservancy was to put into permanent trust as much land as possible to keep it from ever being developed. And we did that while we also met our housing need in Dublin and we did a lot of transit oriented development, particularly near our East Dublin BART station. We found that it wasn't an either or that we were able to do both. In fact, my very first vote as a city council member, I think I was the only one who voted the way I did. It was for a development project in a valley that the community wanted to be protected. And if you know Dublin as you drive along 580 going east, we've got our beautiful rolling hills and we wanted separation between Dublin and Livermore and to not have development there. And I was the lone vote against that project. And that first vote I took as an elected official, I hope you will see will always be my guiding principle in any public office that I serve in, including and most importantly, as governor, that we can protect public lands and expand them as the federal government tries to contract that, but also to meet our housing, transportation and clean energy needs.
[00:54:24] Louise Bedsworth: Mr. Steyer.
[00:54:25] Speaker 6: So California is the most beautiful place in the world. So there's a gigantic reason for us to preserve it just, just for that reason because we all love it so much. But when we look at it, what does it look like in terms of how do we do that? Well, it is, it's the housing question I've been asking. Don't allow sprawl, build, build more densely, build around public transportation. Um, it's also when we think about, you know, building out huge solar arrays. Why don't we do that in the existing footprint on the top of flat roofs? All of those decisions are actually about land use, about protecting land, public lands all over this state, because they're beautiful. But that's not just the beauty. What we've seen since 1970 is that we've lost 75% of our wildlife. And people, the projections that scientists make about how much we're going to lose are we could lose up to a third of the species on the planet Earth before 2100. So when we think about this, we don't actually know how the future is going to work out. We know our land is beautiful. We know we can build in a responsible way that's cheaper for people, that cuts down on gridlock on the roads, that makes it less expensive to live here, gives us walkable communities and neighborhoods. And at the same time we're taking a place where we're preserving the natural world and knowing that our beautiful California will be intact going forward.
[00:55:59] Speaker 5: Miss Porter. Conservation is very popular with Americans of all political stripes because they enjoy the opportunity to have lands for recreation. They appreciate that we are preserving species and spaces for wilderness. This has been a strong bipartisan issue, despite what we've seen out of Washington pushing us the other direction. On the House Natural Resources Committee, where I chose to spend my time in Congress, I served on the Public Lands Committee working on issues, not just of expanding conservation, but expanding accessibility and access to conservation. That included having hearings about disability access on public lands and leading legislation every year for the Every Kid Outdoors program to help fund kids getting out into our public lands. Because we say they are lands for the public and the question is which public? Who actually gets to use them? Part of my 30 by 30 strategy would include having a strong environmental justice lens. We have too many cities in California that have no shade canopy and no green space at all. So thinking not just about preserving big parcels of land, which is incredibly important for species conservation, but also thinking about how to do that in an equitable way that creates green space for everybody. The water conservation piece of this is also critical. And so thinking about it every juncture and every transportation project, every kind of a housing project. What is the opportunity to do conservation as part and parcel of that building and that construction?
[00:57:30] Speaker 4: The water conservation piece of the water conservation piece of the water conservation piece of the water conservation piece. The water conservation piece of the water conservation piece of the water conservation piece of the water conservation piece of the water conservation piece. of our coastal waters by 2030 for the benefit and the beauty of Californians, we have to also be prepared to take on the battles, the attacks that will continue to come from Washington, D.C. That's why when I was attorney general, when Donald Trump was president the first time, I sued him. I took him on when he tried to change the definition of waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act so that they could allow development to occur in what otherwise are protected lands and protected waters. I took him on when it came to enforcing the pollution coming from methane gas, where they were trying to deregulate when it came to how we cover for the type of pollution that comes from methane gas, one of the most polluting elements that we have today. I also took on the effort by the federal government under Donald Trump to re-up coal leases so that we could see more coal being used. And so time after time after time, we had to take on Donald Trump. We'll take on the foes, but we have to continue to partner with those who want to make sure our land and our coastal waters are there for Californians so we can all benefit from them. We need someone who won't just say it and promise it, but actually did it and delivered.
[00:58:55] Louise Bedsworth: So one follow-up on that, one way for California to continue to lead would be the state is on track to meet its 20, the 30 by 30 goal, would you all consider a 50 by 50 goal because that would, you would surpass that 20, 30 milestone in your tenure as governor. So just maybe we could go down the line, Mr. Smallwell.
[00:59:15] Speaker 6: Yes, absolutely.
[00:59:17] Speaker 5: For me, it would be about looking at what we are accomplishing with 30 by 30, whether we have done the job and the work that we need to do. So it's going to be data driven. Where does 30 by 30 leave us on species? Where does 30 by 30 leave us on public access to green space? Absolutely committed to expanding and fighting for public land, but I think it would be irresponsible until we understand where all that green space is, whether it's being equitably used by Californians, whether we are achieving our conservation goals. It may be that we need to conserve much more water, for example, than a traditional 30 by 30. So I might be willing to adjust. I think I would want to adjust those goals potentially to reflect the progress we've made and what the next batch of goals and science tells us. Mr. Becerra.
[01:00:03] Speaker 4: California is an ambitious place. We are the leader. What goes in California will ultimately go in the rest of the nation. So we should strive to continue to up the game that we play. At the same time, we're going to make sure everyone's at the table so we can hear the best information, make the best decisions based on everyone participating. Because, as I said before, if you want to have real progress, you have to make sure everyone's had a seat at the table. So when we move, there's no going back.
[01:00:31] Sammy Roth: So in a minute here, we're going to get to a lightning round of questions, a shorter 30-second answers that we'll go through a little more quickly. But before we do, circle back to a topic that we touched on a bit at the beginning, which is electric vehicles, and go into a little more detail there. Obviously, the biggest proportion of emissions, greenhouse gas emissions in California is transportation. 65% of California voters, polling by California environmental voters, say they want to see electric vehicles made more affordable. So two-part question: Specifically, would you fight the Trump administration's efforts to block the rule in California requiring 100% of vehicles be electric or zero emission by 2035? Would you fight to defend that rule in California? And more broadly, what would you do to make electric vehicles an affordable option for millions more Californians? Let's start with Ms. Porter.
[01:01:20] Speaker 5: Hell yes, I will fight the Trump administration on this one. This is one of our hardest-fought victories in California, and we cannot continue to lead, not just the nation, but the world, and to be a global leader if we are being pushed backward by the Trump administration. It is Californians who are breathing air and breathing and dealing with the water and the pollution, so we absolutely have the right to think about how to correct that. We have made great strides with vehicles, and our work is not done. We need to continue to push that forward, and the federal government shouldn't be allowed to stop us. With regard to electric vehicles more generally, I think there are a couple of issues. One is, you heard me mention, it's just the cost at the point of sale. That is a big issue for a lot of people. Yes, there are cost savings over time, but at the point of sale, when they're looking at that monthly loan payment, that's where we lose too many Californians, because that monthly loan payment is simply hundreds of dollars or a hundred dollars or more higher each month. I also think with electric vehicles, we have to address charging stations. We have a lot of renters in this state. If we're going to build more dense housing, for example, we need to be thinking about what would that charging infrastructure look like to support that. California has built charging stations, but we are not anywhere near what we need to be at. And those charging stations are not necessarily located in all of the communities they need to be in, in order for us to make progress. So thinking about what can we do with regard to charging stations in apartment buildings? What can we do with regard to charging stations in our public spaces and workplaces? To make that really possible for people to not just afford that electric vehicle, but charge it.
[01:02:53] Speaker 4: Mr. Becerra.
[01:02:54] Speaker ?: Absolutely.
[01:02:55] Speaker 4: And once again, it's not just because that's what I want to do. That's what I promised to do. It's because what I did. California has the highest standards when it comes to emissions of any place in the nation. And in fact, many states, some 17 to 20 states have decided to follow California's tailpipe emissions rules because it's best for their families. When Donald Trump tried to erase those when he was president the first time, we took them on and we kept them in place. Now he's at it again. Absolutely. We have to fight because we're not going to give up. We know our future is in clean energy and in making our environment as clean as possible. So we will be there to take them on. But the second part, as Katie said, is we've got to make it affordable for families. They have to believe that we've included them in the game. That those who work very hard and barely have enough to keep that 10 year old vehicle, gas guzzling vehicle with them, can somehow afford to have that electric vehicle. Can afford to have the charging station in their home and will have enough charging stations wherever they travel that they don't have to worry. Can they get to their destination? But here's where I think it's really important to point something out. Hoylets. And I mentioned toilets because today most of us have very efficient flushing toilets. But every once in a while, you'll go to some home or someplace where they use four or five gallons of water to flush. And you think to yourself, oh, my God, what's going on here? Because we're so accustomed now to seeing efficient toilets. Well, we pay to help people transition. We will do the same when it comes to electric vehicles.
[01:04:28] Speaker 7: Mr. Swalwell? Will I fight Donald Trump, you ask? Well, that's the reason he goes after me or his administration goes after me almost every single week. That's why he has put me under the same nonsense investigations he's put Adam Schiff, Tish James, Lisa Cook, and so many others under. That's the reason my three little kids can't play in the front yard is because of the death threats that he inspires against me. But I do not flinch. I do not back down. I do not hide under the bed. And the way that I have gone after him and been a fighter protector in Congress is what I will do as governor on behalf of California, recognizing that that fight and that spirit will bring back results to lower electricity costs, to expand electric vehicles, to make sure we leverage being in the majority in Congress, something I've done in the past working alongside with Speaker Pelosi, so that it's always benefiting California, and particularly as it relates to EVs. I strongly believe that if we build like crazy, if we add more infrastructure at more places where Californians go, we will see a greater rate of adoption.
[01:05:47] Speaker 6: Mr. Steyer. So, of course, I'm in favor of standing up to Donald Trump anytime he opens his mouth about just about anything. And when it comes to EVs, you can double that. But let's talk about what this means for the people of California. Because the question on everybody's mind in California is, can I afford to live in California? So when we're looking in 2035 at buying a car, if an EV is unreasonably expensive, it's just one more thing after rent and food and electricity and health care that I can't afford. So let's talk about what this really looks like. First of all, an EV is basically a battery with a little car wrapped around it. And the cost of battery went down 80%. Last decade, it'll go down another 80%. So we have the wind at our backs. The other thing we know is this. Chinese EVs cost 20,000 bucks. They're probably down, they go down 1% a month. That's the equivalent of a Lexus car. So we know it's possible to have EVs at the point of sale that are much cheaper than internal combustion engines. So the job of the governor of California, as far as I'm concerned, to make sure that in 2035, we're not adding to the affordability problems of 40 million Californians, is to make sure that the cars are available that are being produced around the world. That may be tricky, it may be complicated, but the facts are on the ground. And by 2035, there'll be $15,000 EVs available, mark my words.
[01:07:26] Sammy Roth: So we're going to move into some short answer questions now. These will be 30 seconds or less. And apologies, we know that's a short amount of time to answer a question and we'll do our best here. Rooftop solar has come up several times during the discussion tonight. And that's a topic that a lot of climate voters in California care about. Rooftop solar installations have gone down quite a lot since the Public Utilities Commission a few years ago in California slash net metering incentives. The question is, do you think California should expand the use of rooftop solar? And if so, how much? And how would you make it as affordable for as many Californians as possible? Mr. Steyer, we're going to start with you on that one.
[01:08:02] Speaker 6: Rooftop solar, incredibly cheap, just so people know. To produce solar energy costs somewhere between one and two cents. And Californians are paying 48 cents for electricity. We have to expand rooftop solar in conjunction with batteries. But how do we do it? Give people a chance to compete, to produce their own solar on their roofs or on the roofs of their warehouses with batteries and use it themselves or sell it to their neighbors, not just back to PG&E. The fact is we've got to break up the monopolies because that's what's holding us down. Mr. Swalwell?
[01:08:34] Speaker 7: Yeah, I see going from net energy metering 2.0 to 3.0 is the cause of fewer rooftop solar and less energy on the grid, which is raising the cost. So I will go back to what we had done before. You know, we had a million households initiative and we need a million more plus. And so it has to be quicker as far as coming on board. And it also has to produce more and put more dollars back in the pockets of the homeowners. And that's how I'll lead on that issue. Mr. Busser.
[01:09:07] Speaker 4: Wholehearted, yes, but two caveats. First, once again, as we move forward, who are the folks who can most easily afford to put solar on the rooftop? Folks like those of us here. Who can't? It's the hardest working, the lowest paid. We have to make sure we do this fairly so everyone gets to take advantage and we don't leave the lowest paid in the legacy platforms. Secondly, we need to go after the shysters. We know that there are people who are out there to swindle families as they talk about rooftop solar. So we have to make sure that that doesn't happen so they get the benefit of solar. Ms. Porter?
[01:09:44] Speaker 5: I think that what we saw the California Public Utilities Commission do with net metering was wrong. We made a promise to folks when they put rooftop solar on that they would be able to capture benefits. And then we saw our Public Utility Commission turn its back on that. I think the Public Utility Commission needs to have a reboot and a refresh. It's lost the faith and the confidence of many of our most dedicated environmentalists, many of our everyday Californians who feel like the Public Utilities Commission is no longer fighting for them.
[01:10:14] Louise Bedsworth: Great. Another big topic and something that's been very challenging in addressing climate change has been how to electrify the state's building stock. And so could you all say a little bit about how you would help to cut red tape and make it easier for households to get heat pumps, electric stoves, and to electrify more of our homes and businesses? And we'll start with Mr. Becerra.
[01:10:38] Speaker 4: When I was Attorney General, one of the things that we had to do was fight back the Trump administration because all of the energy efficiency standards that had been put in place by the federal government and that California adopted and went gangbusters on, the Trump administration was trying to pull back. So we had to fight to preserve those energy efficiency standards so we wouldn't find the difficulties for families to get good products that are energy efficient. We'll continue to do that, subsidize those families so they can come on board. We want those who can at least afford it to be there with the rest of us.
[01:11:12] Speaker 5: Those programs have to be cheaper at the point of sale. When I was in Congress, I voted for a bill that was supposed to make it possible for people to get a heat pump, to be able to do window protection, to keep heat from escaping. The programs were so complicated and so difficult and complex to deploy that they barely even got off the ground before Donald Trump came along and destroyed them. So point of sale is really where you're going to drive this. If it is cheaper when you walk in to get an induction stove than a gas one, people will do it. The technology is there. It's the price point and the complexity of getting those programs that's been the challenge. Mr. Swallow.
[01:11:51] Speaker 7: I want to make sure that more middle class families and lower income families like the one that I grew up in can afford to make these upgrades. And this is where I will bring my experience as a local city government elected official. I think we can partner with city governments and local officials to give them incentives to do that in their communities. They have the best eyes and ears on the needs of their communities, and having a state grant system that puts us in that direction, especially for lower income and middle class families, is going to make the biggest dent in California.
[01:12:23] Louise Bedsworth: Mr. Starr?
[01:12:25] Speaker 6: So here's the good news. There is real-time sensing that's available very cheap. What does that even mean? It means that you can have something in your home very inexpensively that decides when to turn everything on, and it saves you an amazing amount of money. So to me, the question is, all heat pumps, electrics, stoves, absolutely. But the real question is, if we have that kind of real-time information turning things off, we're going to save so much money and reduce so much energy. That is the future for California, the information technology state.
[01:13:01] Sammy Roth: So a question about data centers, which have come up a couple of times here. And 30 seconds is hard, so hopefully organizers won't get too mad at me. If you all go a little over, I'll not interrupt. They're expected to use massive amounts of energy and water. They can also impact electric bills. But as several of you have said, you know, also major sources of economic activity. How do you reconcile those priorities, the environmental impacts, but also the potential benefits? Mr. Swalwell, we'll start with you. Yeah.
[01:13:29] Speaker 7: For data centers in California, they cannot create more problems than they solve. I want us to always be the tech capital of the world, and we have to, and I say this as a parent, solve for the issues on privacy, bowling, copyright, all the issues that come along with AI. We can do that, but if you're creating issues around energy and water, we don't want that in California. So I will work with them to make sure that they're always invested solving those problems first before they're ever built.
[01:14:00] Sammy Roth: Thank you. Mr. Becerra.
[01:14:06] Speaker 4: There's two issues here. First, we have to make sure that those data centers are paying their fair share. They're going to gobble up more energy than most, and so we have to make sure that they're paying their fair share. But at the same time, since they're asking to use so much energy, we should ask them to do more than just pay their fair share. They should help invest in California so we can get out of this energy crisis that we see for so many Americans. The second part of this is that we understand that they rely on diesel generators when there's not enough energy. We need to move away from that because they're burning diesel fuel at a time when we need to get away from that very costly, very polluting energy source. Mr. Steyer.
[01:14:47] Speaker 6: So, of course, I want data centers to pay their fair share in terms of water and in terms of energy costs. Absolutely, that's a given. I think the big point here is California, what data centers are looking for is cost to compute and speed to compute. And the good news is that California's energy is so expensive on a cost basis, they'll never come here. And by the way, the other good news is we're slow, so slow because of these monopolies that run our electricity system that the speed to compute is incredibly slow. So we may talk all we want about data centers, but they're not coming here. Mr. Porter. As I've already said,
[01:15:23] Speaker 5: I think it's important that data centers pay their fair share, but also there's an opportunity here. We know that our energy demand is going to go up by 50%. in the next 20 years. The two biggest consumers of that will be electric vehicle charging, which we've all said that we support, and data centers. There is a real opportunity, as Javier suggested, to use these data centers to drive investment in new and renewable sources of energy. The only way you're going to be able to have affordable energy at the level these AI data centers take is to have it come from renewables.
[01:15:57] Sammy Roth: Last question.
[01:15:58] Louise Bedsworth: Last question. So a challenge that is cut across many administrations is the Delta Tunnel Project. And so would you in the Delta Tunnel Project to move water beneath the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, would you support that project and see it through during your administration? And we'll start here with you, Mr. Spolo.
[01:16:19] Speaker 7: As it's designed now, no. But I see and will fight every day for California's ag community. And I know some candidates think that, you know, we're too small to have big ideas. But I have talked to the growers. I've talked to folks who work in solar. They have told me that with the right leadership and the right investment, that we can put solar across 400 miles of aqueducts, deliver more water, and deliver more energy on the grid. And I'm going to be a get shit done governor who does that on day one.
[01:16:52] Louise Bedsworth: Mr. Steyer.
[01:16:53] Speaker 6: Look, I think we have to move much faster than the Delta Tunnels could ever move in terms of solving our water problems in the Central Valley. And I think people are moving on it. I think it really comes down to things like precision ag, regenerative ag. The fact that what we grow in the Central Valley is determined by how much water is available. I think we should be using a lot more information technology in terms of knowing where the water is, when we need to use it, and also making the land itself more resilient. So there's a lot of things at the local level we need to do that actually will solve this problem much faster than building a huge project, which I believe will take a very long time. And I want to say we're going to be building enough things, if I'm governor, that we're not going to be lacking in jobs. There are going to be an awful lot of people building things in the state of California.
[01:17:42] Speaker 5: Mr. Porter. Yeah, the Delta Tunnel has been a problem on two fronts. One, it has held us back from doing all of the immediate and local projects that are ready to go. That do not present the costs, either financial or ecological, that the Delta Tunnel would present. When you talk to agriculture farmers and growers in the Central Valley, some of them oppose this tunnel. They're not united on this. So this is not about ag versus suburban communities. This is not about north versus south. This is about what we can do quickly and on time. The last thing I'll say about the Delta Tunnel is we are simply not in a place to get this done quick enough to make sure that we're going to have the water we need. Mr. Becerra.
[01:18:25] Speaker 4: So we already do transport and importation of water. What we don't do enough of is conservation. We don't do enough of the recycle. We don't do enough of the capture. And we should take all of those things into account. We should never say no to anything until we've examined it completely. And what I don't believe we've done is look at the ways that we can conserve and do things that don't require us to change our ecosystem in ways that could have dramatic impact later on. But everything should be on the table and everyone should be at the table.
[01:18:59] Louise Bedsworth: Thank you. And with that, we'll come to our closing question. So in one minute, could each of you explain what your top three priorities would be to accelerate California's climate progress and to enhance our global leadership? And we'll just go down the line, starting with Mr. Becerra.
[01:19:16] Speaker 4: So as I said, first and foremost, we have to gain the confidence of the California public. Right now, with these wildfires, right now with the man-made disasters coming from Washington, D.C., with the difficulty just not only paying for your energy, but paying for your eggs, it becomes very difficult for folks to have confidence in their elected leaders. And what we need to do is inspire confidence. That's why I believe it's so important that right from the go, we tell folks, you don't trust what's going on with the utilities. You don't trust what's going on with the insurers of your home. OK, let's freeze those rates for you right now. Let's open the curtain and see what's going on so that you know going forward what you will pay and it'll be what you should pay a fair amount. I think we gain the confidence of the public when we do things like that. Secondly, what we have to do is, despite Donald Trump, move forward. We will find ways. We'll have to raise revenue, but we will move forward with the things that make electric vehicles cheaper to buy because we will help subsidize. We will make sure those projects for solar and wind can continue because we will use some of the revenues to make sure we can do it even if Donald Trump doesn't want us to. It's just advancing. That's our future. We'll do it.
[01:20:23] Speaker 5: My top three priorities would be fighting climate change by reducing emissions. That is the touchstone here. We have worked on this for years. We have made so much progress. We cannot afford to go back. So if we do not reduce emissions, the climate challenges we're going to face are going to continue to grow and get more and more difficult. We have to focus in on that. I think it's the single most important thing. My second goal would be climate resilience. We are too far past where we needed to be. We are already going to face flooding, wildfire and other kinds of challenges. So thinking about resilience, thinking about wetlands, thinking about how we are going to be able to withstand home hardening, for example, for wildfires, that resilience piece is going to be really, really important. And then the third piece is environmental justice. This is not a minor issue for me. This has been a big part of my climate and environmental work. We have to make sure that we are addressing the costs and harms that are going on for generations and that we don't make those same mistakes with regard to environmental justice with how we build and deploy green and clean energy. Mr. Steyer.
[01:21:27] Speaker 6: So of course, we're going to have to prepare ourselves for the changes that climate is bringing us. And that is resilience. And it's going to be expensive. And I think we have to hook that up with polluters pay. And they should pay for what they're polluting now. But they also should be paying us for the cost that they're incurring for the people in Altadena, for the people in Pacific Palisades, across this state. So one is polluters pay for our resilience. And what we're going to do is on transportation. Very, very cheap EVs exist in this world that are better than anything we can see. And it's going to be critical for California that we get access to the cheap technology that exists right now and can transform individual transportation in this state. And the last thing I want to say is this. We don't have to just reduce emissions. We need to suck CO2 to suck carbon dioxide out of the air. California can build an immense business in that where we suck tons of CO2 out of the air and stick it into the ground very cheaply. That is a huge step forward for the world. We can do it. We have the technology. And it will be great for us both as a leader and as a source of business profits.
[01:22:38] Louise Bedsworth: Mr. Soho.
[01:22:39] Speaker 7: The three things I'm going to do as governors. I'm going to lower the cost. I'm going to lower the cost. I'm going to lower the cost. I'm going to lower the cost. The cost to your wallet, the cost to our air and water, and the cost to our sense of justice. I'm going to be a fighter protector as I've always been in Congress. I'm going to do that on behalf of Californians. But I'm going to be the CEO of bringing down the costs as I did as a city council member in Dublin when we met our housing needs but also saved the taxpayers money because we invested in green technologies. But I also come from an area that's near Lawrence Livermore Lab. And they invested majorly in fusion energy, the National Ignition Facility. And they just recently achieved it where you get more energy out than you put in. That's the mindset I have and I'm going to take to do this. We don't lack the technology. We lack the policies and the will. And with a pen, a governor, and the will, we can get things done on behalf of California. And I'm going to be an action verb on behalf of the people who want all of their costs to come down.
[01:23:45] Sammy Roth: Well, that's the time we have here tonight. If you were -- if you know anyone who wasn't able to watch and you'd like to share this video with them of this forum, California Environmental Voters is going to be sharing it on their website and on social media. I will also have the video and we'll be doing some analysis of this discussion at climatecoloredgoggles.com in my newsletter. Thank you again for watching and joining us and to the candidates for being here. Luis?
[01:24:09] Louise Bedsworth: Yeah, I would just like to say thank you to the candidates. Thank you to California Environmental Voters. Thank you to everyone for joining us. If you are interested in learning more about these topics, CLIA set up a website called climatevote.org and there are a number of backgrounds, backgrounders, and resources that you can access to learn more about these topics. We'll continue adding to that over the course of the election. So thank you all. Matt?
[01:24:33] Speaker 9: And I just want to say thank you to everybody for joining us. It's clear. California has a role to play as a global leader in addressing affordability and the climate crisis. And the person on this stage today just told you how they plan to do that. The choice is now yours and you get to vote in the primary election on June 2nd for your next governor. And before we go, I just want to say thank you to all the supporters and sponsors who made tonight possible. I want to say thank you to Sammy Roth with Climate Colored Goggles, Louise Bedsworth with the Berkeley CLI, the Water Action Fund, the Climate Center Action Fund, NRDC Action Fund, as well as many other partners tonight. Thank you so much and have a great night.
[01:25:38] Speaker ?: Thank you.
Related Transcripts from California Environmental Voters