An act to amend Section 38561.5 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to greenhouse gases.
AB 491 would amend Section 38561.5 of the Health and Safety Code, which governs California’s natural and working lands climate targets under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The bill would make it the state’s goal to achieve the Natural Resources Agency’s established targets for natural carbon sequestration and nature-based climate solutions by the applicable dates, and it would direct priority toward actions that most quickly, significantly, and cost-effectively increase carbon storage, improve ecosystem function, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The bill also revises the statutory definition of “natural carbon sequestration” to clarify that it includes actions on natural and working lands that remove and store atmospheric greenhouse gases in vegetation and soils or prevent emissions, including preservation, conservation, restoration, and sustainable management practices such as improved forest management, compost application, cover crops, hedgerows, planned grazing, urban forestry, riparian restoration, and wetland restoration. It further requires the state to use standardized methods for tracking emissions reductions and sequestration, to account for climate impacts such as wildfire risk and drought, and to publish progress and expenditure data every two years.
AB 491 would strengthen and clarify the state’s existing natural and working lands framework by turning the Natural Resources Agency’s target ranges into an explicit state goal and by refining how sequestration is defined and measured. It would affect the State Air Resources Board, the Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Food and Agriculture by requiring coordinated implementation, standardized accounting, periodic strategy updates, and public reporting. The bill also emphasizes that emissions reductions used for market-based compliance must be additional and not double-counted, which could affect how land-based climate projects are credited in state climate programs.
The available voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable committee support, advancing on a 9-3 vote to the Appropriations Committee. The bill’s findings and structure reflect a strong policy preference for nature-based climate solutions, climate resilience, and benefits to vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, indicating broad support for the underlying climate and land-management goals. No committee transcript is available, so the recorded sentiment is based primarily on the vote and the bill’s framing rather than on detailed public debate.
The main points of contention likely concern the bill’s policy direction and implementation burden. By making achievement of the Natural Resources Agency’s targets a state goal and requiring standardized tracking, reporting, and expert review, the bill could be viewed as increasing administrative obligations for state agencies. Potential concerns may also involve the reliability of sequestration accounting, the risk of double counting, and whether land-based climate actions can deliver measurable emissions reductions at the scale and timeline contemplated. The 3 no votes suggest some opposition, but the record provided does not identify the specific objections or the members raising them.