 Well, thank you so much. Good afternoon, teacher and everyone of you. It is indeed an honor and pleasure to be here with all of you. I want to give a very special thank you to Danny Cullenward and John Wyatt for the invitation to be here with all of you here at Stanford University, to all these team faculty members here at Stanford, and to all the incredible students here, whether you are in the process of securing your BA, whether you're a master's or your PhD. I'm just in awe to have an opportunity to be here with all of you here today. I'm looking at the screen right there, and it sort of has the backdrop of the Tonight Show. I think that's a little fun and interesting, but I was thinking perhaps maybe if you allow me, I can start off today's lecture with a little about myself to provide a little context for today's lecture on the issue of climate change, the environment, environmental justice, how do we get to 100% zero carbon energy by the year 2045, and sort of the status of California, the fifth largest economy in planet Earth, as well as our role, which is an outsized role in the United States of America, as a subnational and throughout the world, especially with the climate talks at the United Nations or the climate conference, I should say, at the United Nations in New York this week. For those who don't know me, again, my name is Kevin De Leon. I'm the youngest child of a single immigrant mother with a third grade education. My mother had the courage of her convictions to cross a border to come to the Golden State to seek for a better life, a better life for herself as well as for her children. My mother was a woman who worked her fingers to the bone. She was a housekeeper as well as a hotel worker. She cleaned homes in a very wealthy enclave in Southern California, La Jolla, specifically a residence or community, I should say, in San Diego, home to a palatious estate on top of a hill overlooking the panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean. But it was there that I learned the value of hard work and about my mother's very strong work ethic. She was a woman again, a single mother with a third grade education who worked her fingers to the bone, who paid to put the roof over my head, the clothes on my back, and the food on the table. Now, I say this because I grew up in a neighborhood in San Diego called, for those who are from Southern California and from San Diego, called Logan Heights, which is adjacent next to Tijuana, Baja California, where I also grew up some years as well in Tijuana. And I would cross the border, which was something that was quite natural for us when you live next to the border. But I grew up in a neighborhood that had a dearth of parks, open space, no trees for shade, just cement, concrete, and asphalt. So it was a neighborhood that had no grass, no open space at all. Again, no trails for walking like the dish right next door, no trees for shade, concrete, asphalt, and cement. And the neighborhood I grew up was, I wanted to say it was not unique, but I think it was par for the course, if you will, for many lower socioeconomic communities, not just throughout California, but throughout the United States of America. But that had a huge impression on me, very much so. So I would say that I am a accidental environmentalist in a non-traditional way when I came to the California State Legislature. And for disclosure purposes, especially to the esteemed faculty present here today, especially to the students, I can tell you that my knowledge base on the issue of GHG CO2 carbon dioxide, carbon, 14 years ago, was very limited to non-existent. I thought carbon was for carne asada, you know, literally. That's not a joke either. I thought when you're talking about carbon, we're talking about briskets, we're talking about cooking carne asada, calentando las tortillas, warming up the tortillas, and having that barbecue in the backyard or at the park. So my knowledge base, again, was limited to non-existent when it came to the issue of carbon greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide. The difference between CO2 and carbon monoxide, I had no clue at all whatsoever. But when I became elected for the very first time back in 2006, I accidentally fell into the issue of climate and environmental justice. There was a huge debate in the state capital, your state capital, Sacramento, and it was a debate surrounding the issue of putting a price on carbon, a market-based mechanism we know today as cap and trade. I won't go into the details of the complexities of this market-based mechanism and how we put a price on carbon, whether it's just or not just. There are some folks who are huge fans of this issue of putting a price on carbon through a market-based mechanism. Again, we know as cap and trade, other folks subscribe to a carbon tax. It hasn't been feasible politically as of yet. Other folks subscribe in their own ways righteously towards a command and control system. So there's a variety of ways to deal with the issue of carbon. But through cap and trade is when I started my eyes perked up, if you will, with regards to the issue of climate. When we knew that through the auction revenues on an annual basis or quarterly basis, that there would be not tens of millions, but hundreds of millions and not billions of dollars that would be auctioned. And the question is, where would these monies go? And that's when I got involved and I realized we needed to apply equity and I viewed the policymaking through the lens of equity. Should those dollars go towards those communities that are disproportionately impacted by both CO2, greenhouse gases, which is atmospheric, as well as other criteria pollutants? This is what we breathe into our lungs every single day. That's that ugly haze, that smog that you may see here in the Bay Area or if you're from Southern California or the Central Valley. All that brown haze that knocks the socks, particularly matter 2.5, those hidden, you know, molecules that you cannot see with the naked eye that get lodged in someone's lungs. So that was my introduction, if you will, into the world of climate change and environmental justice. The district I represented in Los Angeles has eight major freeways. The 2, the 5, 10, the 60, the famous Hollywood 101 freeway, the 710 freeway, as well as the 134 freeway. Now, and as well as, I should say, the 210 freeway. Eight major freeways that crisscross the district like a serpent that chokes the air, the oxygen out of a young girl's lungs. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles combined are the largest port, is the largest port in America, fifth largest in the country. So if you live in, for example, in Paducah, Kentucky, or if you live in Bloomington, Indiana, and if you go to a Walmart store, if you go to a Target store, if you go to any store to buy tennis shoes, if you buy a table set for your dining room, if you buy furniture, if you buy a blazer, if you buy underwear or socks, silverware. Probabilities are very high that those goods came through the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles combined through the Pacific Rim, from the Pacific Rim. And that means that 710 and 110 corridor, those lungs have subsidized, if you will, the low price points for those convenience stores, and the Midwest and elsewhere when it comes to logistics and the cargo containers that transport that commodity to the different distribution points throughout the country. So you have a lot of young folks whose lungs have been blackened as a result. And the number one reason for absenteeism in our public school system in California is due to asthma. And it can be the difference between a single mother, a housekeeper who loses her ability to pay the month's rent and therefore loses the ability to be housed. If you are a single mother, and let's say you clean homes or you're a housekeeper in the Pacific Palisades in Santa Monica and Malibu, and right here in Palo Alto or Woodside or Melo Park or Atherton or Los Altos, Los Gatos, and they pay you cash, and your daughter has an asthma attack, and you have no health insurance, no HMO, no PPO, whether it's Kaiser, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, HealthNet, et cetera. And you have to rush your daughter to the emergency room of the County Medical Center, in this case BMC, Valley Medical Center, down in San Jose. You could lose a day's work. And this has impacted because of our emissions, our tele-pop emissions, as well as other sources of GHG and other criteria pollutants. So according to the American Lung Association, California is home to seven of the top 10 most polluted cities in America. So we have made major advancements. There's no question about it. They're relative with a major asterisk. We have made advancements. But California still is home to seven of the top 10 smugest cities in the nation. I came from the number one smugest city in the country today from Los Angeles, California. And I gave you that sort of that visual description of the eight major freeways that crisscross like a serpent just in my district alone. That's just my district alone. But I happen to have all of these freeways that are concentrated. And these are public policy decisions that have been made by politicians and by planners and planning commissioners. They've made their rationale as to where freeways should be and where freeways should not be. So these are highly subjective and political decisions that are made for those who are public policy majors here. Those are going to be planners and so forth at local, state or federal government levels. Now, I would say this. However, in just a few short years, we have made equity as a driving principle in our policymaking in the state of California. And what I made a reference to cap and trade, whether folks are fans of cap and trade or not fans of cap and trade, whether you have mixed feelings, which I've had mixed feelings about cap and trade for a very, very long time. You know, in California, we take Senate Bill 535, which takes a baseline of 25% of all auction revenues. And we invest those dollars in communities that are disproportionately impacted by both CO2 as well as other criteria pollutants. So what does that investment mean specifically? Those investments mean specifically to be rooftop distributed generation solar for low income folks who don't have the FICO score or the ability to secure a particular financial product that will give them the capital necessary to purchase or lease, if you will, the rooftop distributed generation solar panels. It could be the difference between planting trees and creating parks in low income communities that are dense with, again, concrete asphalt as well as cement. It could be bundling rebates to get access, if you will, to electric vehicles. And this is very important, and I'll talk about this a little later on today. But the reason why is that with the latest and greatest and greenest and most innovative technologies, it's not enough. If you have very high educational attainment and you make a very conscientious decision to purchase a zero emissions vehicle and that you have the financial wherewithal, the FICO score to secure the necessary capital, and you know exactly how to navigate, if you will, the Byzantine sort of bureaucratic maze that is, governments, local, state, and federal to purchase and draw down on the rebates, so that EV, that electric vehicle, is less expensive. Now you try that with someone who's poor, you try that with someone who barely speaks the language, how they're going to be able to navigate that Byzantine bureaucratic maze to draw down on those dollars. So I want to just put that on the side right now about electric vehicles, ZEVs, and transportation electrification, and what this means when we drive equity into the overall principle to meet our macro-global target goals to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. But that is an example of equity in that principle of equity, driving policy when it comes to cap-and-trade programs. Now the RPS, Renewable Portfolio Standard, started actually has roots right here at Stanford University. The former professor, law professor at Stanford Law School, State Senator Byron Sher was the professor and then State Senator in the California State Capitol, Sacramento, who actually initiated the Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, that is decarbonizing our electrical grid. Everything that turns our lights on and off that powers our homes as well as our businesses. When you cool your room because it's too hot, when you warm your room because it's too cold, whether you use that blender, whether you use that hair blow dryer, the hair strainer, whatever it is that's driven by electrons, electrons, that is your RPS, that is the electrical grid. Byron Sher took it from zero to 20%. I want to put this in context because prior to 2002 we had no RPS standard, no Renewable Portfolio Standard existed, either in the United States or in the world. Now the predictors, the doomsday predictors said that you would actually destroy the economy, you would cause high unemployment or underemployment, that utility rates would actually go through the roof. But the opposite actually happened in the state of California. We actually went from the eighth or tenth largest economy in the world and we stood the worst economic recession since the Great Depression and today we've become, Arun had I think mentioned it a few moments ago, to become the fifth largest economy in the world. In this context, there's only four economies large in the United States of America, I should say California. It is the United States of America as an aggregate and I know there's controversy with regards to the measurement of GDP. We could update it better for better, more positive outcomes. Maybe we won't fare as well with a better utilize criteria for the methodology that we use for GDP, but it's U.S. and it's China, Japan, Germany and it is the great state, your state, the state of California. And if you're remotely interested in number six United Kingdom, number seven is France, we've got Italy, Brazil and India somewhere around there and then we have Russia. So California's GDP is larger than that of Vladimir Putin's Russia to put this in context. So it gives you ability to juxtapose if you will the difference between California and progressive innovative policies as well as Russia. So what I did was I took the RPS, the Renewable Portfolio Standard from 33% to 50% through Senate Bill 350, which was 50, 50, 50. 50% energy efficiency economy-wide, 50% Renewable Portfolio Standard. That is renewable energies with our electric grid from all energy retail sellers that's investor-owned utilities as well as munis, municipally-owned utilities as well now as the new disruptor of the status quo right now, the CCAs. And also 50% reduction in the use of petroleum, fossil fuels in California. Now I got two out of three, but for me it wasn't a bad deal. It was like if you had one bill that said, you know what, I'm going to get rid of world hunger. The other part was world pestilence and the other one was childhood poverty and I got two out of three, you know. So I thought it wasn't a bad deal. But I got two out of three because the fossil fuel industry spent an extraordinary amount of money to kill the 50% reduction in the use of petroleum. In fact, they spent $25 million, which is a record in the state capital, to kill the 50%. But again, we got 50% energy efficiency as well as 50% RPS. Now a lot of folks asked me this question. Why did you go from 50% to 100%? I can't tell you that I have a scientific answer to get from here to there yet. We have a lot of smart folks here and a lot of professors and a lot of smart students here who are going to help us get to that pathway. And we're not picking winners or losers, but we're going to figure this out together. But let me give you the reason why I went to 50-100%. It's called the 2016 presidential election because by a margin of two to one, Californians rejected the politics, fueled by resentment, fueled by bigotry, and fueled by misogyny. And we had a president who telegraphed very clearly what he would do if given the opportunity to be the president of the most powerful nation in the world. What I will do to roll back, if you will, Californians' clean air standards, fuel efficiency standards, our RPS, and every other imaginable progressive policy. So what I did as leader of the Senate is I took his word, and I said this guy, if you have an opportunity, will actually attempt to roll back all the progressive policies. Sadly, as well as tragically, he is not disappointed. Just last week, he's attempting to roll back our ability to regulate our clean air standards in California. And the reason why we stand out among all the other subnational governments in the United States is because I stated earlier, we have eight of the top ten worst polluted cities in America. So there was a political decision to go from 50% to 100%. Because the critics, and there were many of them, said, why are you doing this since you just established 50% a year later now, you're going to 100%. You don't exactly have the pathway to get to 100%. Fair enough. But I believe that when President John F. Kennedy stated to the nation as well as to the world that he wanted to put a man on the moon. I doubt very highly that then President John F. Kennedy exactly had the plan and the pathway. And he knew exactly how he was going to put a man on the moon. He relied on that ingenuity, on that innovation, on that creativity, on that can-do spirit that spurs markets and creates the innovative technologies that we would not think would be possible. And that's why we've created a pathway to 100% clean energy for the state of California. I think it's more critical than ever that we continue to stay on this pathway. Because this wasn't just for California, for California to establish a beachhead as 100% clean energy. But it was for the rest of the country. And as a result now, the states of New York, Connecticut, the state of Washington with Governor Jay Ensley, as well as New Mexico have all legally, statutorily committed themselves to 100% renewable slash clean energy. Now we have other states like Illinois and Minnesota and Maryland and Connecticut, who are right now in Pennsylvania of all places, who have already introduced legislation to get to 100%. But the point here I want to emphasize and underscore is if Washington won't lead, California will. With or without Washington, California will continue to lead the nation as well as the world. So it was very important not just to establish a law just for our own public health and to transform the economy as well. But it was very important for us to establish this law to influence other states throughout the country. And that's why the 2016 presidential election and there are consequences as a result of elections was very, very critical to establish this law in the state of California. Now I know I have a couple of minutes and I realize now I'm on page 5 of 12, which I'm going to truncate now. And fast speed everything that I have here because I want to do open up to Q&A and we end so I have an idea of 5.30, 5.20. I want to make sure I allow for Q&A. So today, California is the largest economy on planet Earth that has legally committed itself to 100% clean energy by the year 2045. I feel strongly that with the great minds that we have here at Stanford University as well as throughout the state and the country, we'll actually get there before the year 2045. We have no other choice. We have no other choice. Clean energy is now a pillar in California's economy. In fact, we have created more than 500,000 jobs in the clean energy space. That is 10 times more jobs in the clean energy space than there are coal mining jobs in all of America. 10 to 1. I've been fact checked with this, you know, left and right, you know, by the New York Times and the Washington Post and everybody else, you know. So I stand by my numbers. They're hard figures. There are 10 times more jobs in the clean energy space than there are coal mining jobs in all of California. In fact, we're driving this innovation to regions throughout the state that are economically depressed. And by the way, those states, those regions in California that are most economically depressed also happen to be the regions with the highest concentration of pollution. Drought and heat waves in the highest concentration are the number of asthma cases through the emergency rooms throughout the state of California. So the idea is how do we drive these technologies in these vulnerable communities, which is a euphemism for black and brown communities, for poor communities, whether it's white, black or African American or Asian American. These are vulnerable marginalized communities like the one that I grew up. And that's why viewing policymaking through the prism of equity and how we distribute, if you will, in this case, cap and trade auction revenue dollars. So we impact those who are disproportionately impacted, you know, is, I think, a righteous cause through policymaking. Getting to 100% zero carbon free electrical grid, as we know, won't be easy. We have a baseline of 60% of renewable energies right now per the law. How we get to that bridge to 100% will be dependent again on a lot of the great minds we have present here today, as well as the country. But to get there, there's no doubt about it. What we need to do is we need to continue to electrify our grid. We need to get more zero emissions vehicles, whether it's electric vehicles or whether it is hydrogen fuel cells. We need to double down on our energy efficiency projects by reducing our energy load and not consuming, you know, more dirty electrons. And hopefully there'll be clean electrons by the time we're done with our goal of 100% clean energy. We need to make sure, again, energy efficiency. We need to make sure we double down on our electric vehicles in California as well as other auto technologies. We need to make sure that we set a standard. We have a standard for economy-wide for an entire state of California. A new standard that goes beyond the Global Warming Solutions Act that was established back in 2006, AB 32. Standards are very important because they set the mark. If they don't set the mark, if you have no law that's etched in stone, if you have no law that's statutory, we won't reach our goals. We become complacent. And once you have this law that's etched in stone, then you have the ability to reach towards those goals. And that's why it's absolutely critical that laws like this are established in California and throughout the nation. Let me say the following as I sort of finalize this. The world is watching California, not Washington, D.C. The world is watching for the innovative breakthroughs and the progressive policies that are so meaningful for the nation as well as the world. We have to think bold, we have to think big, and we have to be courageous. We have to have those moonshots that shift the political gravity in our state as well as the world. That's why it's absolutely critical that we move these types of policies. Some folks may say and criticize that it is heuristic for you to do this. How are you going to do this? It's not technologically feasible. You have no empirical evidence, no data points to make sure you can go from point A to point Z. Well, I say that's nothing that's for sure. Nothing's ever certain. But if you don't try and you don't make the next step, you'll never know. We're at a very critical point in our nation's history. I think we need to move policies that radically transform the way we move around the state. We need to move policies that radically transform the way children have an opportunity to breathe clean air into their lungs and drink clean water. Especially those communities of color. More than ever, I think it's vital that we remain the world's exceptional example of beacon of hope and opportunity in a very uncertain world. That we cannot allow, regardless of your political ideology on the political spectrum, we cannot allow one electoral aberration, reverse generations of progress, at the height of our historic diversity, our scientific advancement, our economic output in our sense of global responsibility. I just want to say to each and every one of you from the bottom of my heart, it is truly an honor to share a few words with you. I thank you very much for this opportunity. And I look forward to answering any and all questions that you may have. Thank you very much everybody. Thank you. Questions? We typically like the students to ask first. Any students have any questions for the senator? So I can't go over here. Should you choose? Thank you so much for speaking to us. In your own words, you discovered your passion for environmentalism through non-traditional means. And today you're one of the leading voices in the West Coast environmental movement. How can the global environmental community support and empower people like yourselves who may come from minority immigrant vulnerable low income communities who nonetheless have a deep passion for environmentalism and saving the planet but too often lack a platform? You know, that's a very good question because I was very lucky to have the platform that I just recently occupied that gave me a tremendous amount of power to effectuate what I believe to be the right policy changes critical to the state to this nation as well as the world. I think that if you're a community based organization, if you're a community activist, I think you do what you currently are doing which many of them are the sharp tip of the spear, if you will. They put the pressure on politicians, on policy makers, on regulators to do what's right, whether it's the issue of dealing with the largest sources of emissions, whether you're a stationary source, refineries, power plants, whether it's telepipe emissions, whether it's electrical grid in terms of going towards 100% clean energy, whether it is agriculture. I think that a lot of folks are being active, they're organizing, they're not waiting for their turn, they're not playing by the sort of establishment authority rules, if you will, because this is a very different dynamic. The clock is ticking on us right now and the clock is not in our favor right now. We're actually losing ground as we speak right now. So for those who lack perhaps a bigger platform, my platform was without question a very unique platform that many people won't occupy but I would say make noise and keep doing what you're doing because people do hear, they do listen and sometimes folks don't want to hear it, even those who empathize but the more noise you make the better, I would say. I just answered the question. You want to pick the next one? Oh, you pick, I don't want to get in trouble here. So I hand here. I already got in trouble with being accused of picking winners to lose the 100% clean energy. Hi, thank you for being here. I wanted to ask you one, how crucial do you think it is that our next president has appropriate climate policies and two, which of the candidates do you think has the best climate policy? Well, I mean, listen, you got a lot of folks. You had one presidential candidate. He's a friend of mine. He's a good guy who put forth a robust, courageous plan. He dropped out of the race just recently. That's Jay Ensley who attempted a carbon tax to a ballot initiative. What's it successful? Then he copied SB 100, the template and moved that, you know, in the state of Washington. Objectively speaking, he had a very robust, you know, plan that was transformative. He's a good guy. He's no longer in a race. You have an individual who's recently a board of trustees here who's a presidential candidate right now who had spoken tremendously on the issue of climate. He's a leader in his own right. I worked with him in George Schultz where we co-chaired a ballot initiative, Prop 39, at his Tom Steyer. I have reviewed Kamala Harris's policy platform on the issue of climate. It's a very impressive platform, especially when it speaks to environmental justice. And those, again, are mostly impacted by the negative consequences of smog, pollution, as well as atmospheric carbon. She has a very robust plan, which is very impressive, very impressive. I won't go through all the other presidential candidates. I will say this, is that some candidates, this is not a high priority. You can sort of see them articulating the talking points because they feel like they have to. It's perhaps not a passion. Whoever wins the presidency on the Democratic side, it's my hope that they will bring in good, smart, passionate people into the administration, whether it's GOE, secretary levels of undersecretary. A lot of folks do a lot of the work at the undersecretary level, assistant secretary, whether you're the head of the EPA. I don't believe in the power of executive orders. I think they take you to a certain degree, and that's it. They can be litigated, I believe, in the power of statutory law. I'm biased and subjective because I am a policymaker on the legislative branch. That means that the U.S. Senate would have to be a Democratic U.S. Senate, and the House would have to remain Democratic. So I hope I answered your question best of my ability. Thank you so much for coming to speak today. It's really been a pleasure. Thank you. So you've done great work moving California towards a better future for our electricity system, and obviously our transportation systems are another huge source of emissions that we have to grapple with. And while a lot of people are very excited about electric vehicles and hydrogen-based transportation, this is obviously a very expensive option and one that has some serious equity concerns. And so in light of that, I'd like to hear from you what you would like to see happen in the state of California to decarbonize our transportation systems while keeping them or making them more equitable and what those of us in this room can do to help advance that. It's a very good question. I forgot to mention that prior to 2002, the electric grid, all the power source I'll get to your question right now was primarily coal, large hydro, nuclear, some very small amount of renewables. And we have flipped that. The electric grid accounted for about 50% of all carbon dioxide emissions. That's why when we talk about 100% clean energy, it's really important because it accounted for 50%. Today, it accounts for occurring to Ernie Munise, the former secretary, about 17%, 18% of our output with regards to carbon. That is because of our policies, which leaves us with the largest amount of carbon dioxide and other criteria of pollutant emissions, which is about 40% in California. These are tailpipe emissions. These are individual cars, tens of millions of individual cars, as well as heavy-duty diesel in California. There's a couple of ways about it. One is, I have mentioned, zero emissions vehicle, hydrogen fuel cells, developing a transportation electrification system with our energy retail sellers, that is charging stations. It's always been what comes first, the chicken or the egg. If I have a high educational attainment, I'm conscientious with my choice as a consumer. I know how to navigate. I purchase an electric vehicle. If you're at the lowest economic strata and you drive an older internal combustion vehicle, what chances are you emit much more carbon dioxide. You don't know how to navigate. That's the question of equity, the issue of fairness. I think it's a multitude of policies that you move forward. As I said earlier, transportation electrification, which now the investor-owned utilities, the Munise and CCAs, by the way, because of my Senate Bill 350, for the first time in nation's history, we'll be competing with the fossil industry for the same market share, like auto drivers, in this case, instead of fossil fuels.