TRADE WINDS: Chris Hannan is steering California’s largest construction worker advocacy organization at one of the trickiest moments in its history.

He was elected president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council in July, putting him in the position of navigating a renewable energy transition that’s expected to eliminate thousands of fossil fuel jobs in the future.

Hannan earned a reputation for supporting clean energy projects in his previous role as leader of the Trades council in Los Angeles and Orange County. But he’s already made it clear that the state Building Trades, with more than 450,000 members, won’t easily give up on fossil fuel jobs that have offered well-paying careers to union workers for decades.

Hannan spoke with POLITICO about the energy transition, state legislation and the unions’ goals in the near term.

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

California has ambitious goals to slash emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by 2045. That has intensified a discussion about how we transition workers in fossil fuel-intensive industries to new jobs. Where are your thoughts on this transition?

We do have thousands of members who are working in refineries. We have thousands of members who work on the contracted construction maintenance in those refineries, the turnarounds and the upgrades. Right now, there are millions of cars on the road in California alone. And we believe those resources are still going to be used for some time, and we believe that you can do them in California with the highest standards, not only for labor, but also the highest standards for the environment and air quality.

On renewables, we’re marching towards those 2030 goals. Our building trades are leading the way to deliver those renewables to meet those goals, as well as the 2045 goals. We have thousands and thousands of members working on clean energy projects, and we believe that we have to have a broad portfolio to be able to get there.

You’ve seen a lot of lead-up in the California Legislature towards offshore wind. Our members, we’re preparing the framework for that with the passage of AB 1373.

There have been efforts to open some projects to non-union workers, amid concerns that there aren’t enough workers to build out renewable energy infrastructure. Are there enough union workers for California to reach its goals?

There’s no doubt in my mind we’re not going to have any shortages. Our building trade unions have over 450,000 of the best trained members in construction, period. Right now, we’re training over 65,000 union construction apprentices in the state of California. That’s more than the next three largest states combined. And we could train more if we had more opportunities to put people to work. We would be talking about 85,000 apprentices if we had the opportunities to put those members to work.

We believe we’re still going to be working in the oil and gas space for the foreseeable future, but we do see the trend towards renewables, and we’re fighting to make sure California workers have a place building out that renewable portfolio.

Some renewable energy companies, most notably in rooftop solar, have balked at the idea of using union workers for decades. How do you deal with that opposition?

Companies that say there’s not enough workforce, that’s a complete lie. There were companies saying we didn’t have enough workers during the Great Recession, and that’s because of greed. We can see through that, and our building trades unions, the labor movement, we’re gonna fight and we’re gonna open their eyes.

Workers who work on rooftop solar, they deserve to have the same things that I’ve had in my career. They deserve to get the training to work not just on one roof, not just on a project this year, they deserve the training for their whole career. And they deserve a wage they can be proud of, they deserve health care that keeps their family healthy and they deserve to retire with dignity and not have to leave the state. — AN

RAILYARD MOU NO MORE: California’s largest regional air quality regulator said today that it abandoned negotiations with two major freight companies over a voluntary agreement to slash emissions at rail yards.

Wayne Nastri, South Coast Air Quality Management District’s executive officer, surprised members of the agency’s mobile source committee and public speakers by announcing that he’d ended negotiations with BNSF Railway and Union Pacific — the region’s major freight haulers — over a last-minute ask for the agency to provide funding for new locomotives. Nastri said after that demand was rebuffed, one company asked for an additional six months to explore funding options.

“This was not part of the original discussion, and to expect the South Coast AQMD to commit to any level of funding was unacceptable in my view,” he said.

Nastri did not specify which company made the request, but a spokesperson for Union Pacific said in a statement that it “expressed an interest in pursuing public funding opportunities in partnership with SCAQMD, consistent with other public/private partnerships that have been successfully completed in California.”

SCAQMD will instead focus on developing regulations that would require the phase in of low- and zero-emission locomotives and equipment in rail yards. That process is opposed by BNSF and Union Pacific, and is likely to face litigation.

Environmental justice groups that were ready to argue against an MOU proposal at the hearing instead praised the agency for cutting ties with the railroads, and called for it to move quickly to develop mandatory rules. — AN

CAP-AND-TRADE WINDS: Some jaws were on the floor at a California Air Resources Board workshop yesterday after attendees saw models of chart-topping potential future carbon prices tied to possible changes to the cap-and-trade program. Whether the prices reach those heights depends on a multitude of yet-to-be-decided factors, including if the program continues past 2030.

Since last summer, CARB has been talking about reducing the future supply of allowances, or permits to release carbon, that high-emitting companies have to buy under the program.

At yesterday’s meeting, James Bushnell and other professors at the University of California, Davis presented models of potential future prices based on the three reduced allowance budgets CARB is considering to better align cap-and-trade with state targets. (CARB noted that the models did not constitute a forecast or reflect the agency’s opinion.)

In all CARB’s scenarios where the program continues through 2040, allowance prices would quadruple or more, hitting or coming close to the 2040 ceiling of ~$180 per ton of carbon. In those scenarios, 2030 prices would rise significantly too.

“The projected increase in allowance prices from $39 [per ton] today to well over $100 [per ton] in 2030 highlights the importance of healthy price containment reserves and high-quality carbon offsets,” said climate economist Clayton Munnings, who runs a carbon market consulting company called Elevate Climate. Munnings noted that factors like carbon capture and storage, direct air capture and other future technological innovations, which he didn’t see in the modeling, could bring down the costs. (Currently the prices for direct air capture far exceed the cap-and-trade price ceiling.)

Danny Cullenward, a climate economist and member of CARB’s emissions market advisory committee, noted that there is ongoing uncertainty around whether or not the program has the legal authority to continue past 2030. He pointed out that the models forecast a likely net surplus of allowances through 2030, absent a reduction in allowances and a guarantee that the program would continue.

“If the program were to end in 2030 people could emit substantially more than the program caps and comply with the rules because there would be a cumulative surplus of allowances,” said Cullenward. “The question of what intervention you want to make is closely linked to whether or not the program continues.” — BB

HONKS FOR SCIENCE: With protest signs ranging from “My pay went extinct” to “I inspect your meat,” California state scientists continued to draw attention — and lots of honks from passing cars — as they wound down a historic strike today.

The scientists’ union, representing 4,200 state employees including over half who are women, started the strike Wednesday for raises of up to 43 percent. The action began at the California Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Sacramento Wednesday morning and expanded across the state through Friday.

Many of the scientists scanned QR codes at the CalEPA building each day. At that location alone, the union logged 931 strike sign-ins Wednesday, 1,381 on Thursday and 1,260 as of mid-afternoon today, said California Association of Professional Scientists spokesperson Jon Ortiz.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration tried to put a stop to the walkout with a filing at the Public Employment Relations Board, but the board hadn’t ruled on it by Friday afternoon, when the strike was scheduled to end.

The California Human Resources Department said Friday afternoon that “operations and public services continued through the strike,” adding the state plans to continue bargaining in good faith ahead of a Nov. 28 mediation session. — WV

— Habitat-friendly horizontal levees, like this one profiled in Palo Alto, are rising across the bay, although many face permitting hurdles.

—The San Diego County Water Authority has dropped its lawsuit against the towns of Rainbow and Fallbrook that voted to divorce from the water seller earlier this month.

— H2B2 Electrolysis Technologies has opened its first green hydrogen facility in California — it says state incentives make it cheaper to produce hydrogen with biogas than with solar, even though it uses both.

Correction: Yesterday’s newsletter referred to Chamberlain Segrest as a man in a piece about the Sacramento City Unified School District. Segrest is a woman.