Many of these pollutants are associated with cancer, low birth weights, heart attacks, as well as respiratory problems like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.” [8] In addition, SB 535 guarantees that 10% of the 25% of money collected from the revenue can be directed towards reducing pollution and lessening the harmful health impacts from greenhouse gas emissions.

[9] Supporters of the SB 535 bill such as the American Lung Association and Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP) are making efforts to fight the health disparities that are a result from the polluting air.

[10] SB 535 falls under the three year reinvestment plan to use the cap and trade auction proceeds to meet the goals of The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, more commonly known as AB 32.

[11] The process for redirecting cap and trade auction proceeds follows two steps, which is mainly facilitated by the California Department of Finance.

First, a three-year investment plan requires the Department of Finance, California Air Resources Board (ARB) and other state agencies to identify which proceeds from cap and trade programs will be directed towards current greenhouse gas reduction goals, investments for future reductions and allocation of funds to projects located in disadvantaged communities.

[12] In addition, the members of SB 535 Coalition's main committee, Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN), Coalition for Clean Air, the Greenlining Institute, and public advocates which helped co-sign Senator Kevin de León's SB 535, have also provided input to which programs can be included in the state's three-year plan for cap-and-trade revenues.

[15] Studies have indicated that “cap and trade has been a principal part of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to reduce US emissions of sulfur dioxide under the Clean Air Act.”[16] By placing a cap on the amount of pollutants a company can produce, the system encourages companies to be innovative a look for cleaner production habits.

Some groups claim that this system isn't very effective in reducing emissions, but it is supported because of the amount of revenue it generates for the state.

[11] In order to facilitate the identification of low-income and highly polluted areas, the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and CEPA have adopted the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool, more commonly known as the “Cal EnviroScreen.” [21] The use of Cal EnviroScreen will mainly be for SB 535.

[22] A major goal of SB 535 is to make sure that a minimum of 25% of the cap and trade revenue will be distributed to highly impacted communities that face burdens from different types of pollution.

[25] Using such factors make it difficult for the government not to be faced with lawsuits, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the California Civil Rights Initiative, known as proposition 209, when choosing where to invest the funds under sb 535.

The co-sponsoring organizations are the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Coalition for Clean Air, Greenlining Institute, and Public Advocates, and the bill has gained support from a number of groups, including: Groups opposing the bill include: The Coalition for Clean Air has been the main supporter of SB 535.

Opponents of Brown’s decision, such as The Greenlining institute, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups argue that this money should solely go towards programs that were intended to help low-income and disadvantaged communities.

[32] Instead, Sierra Club California Director Kathryn Phillips states "The best use of the cap-and-trade funds is to invest them in projects that are out there now" — such as improving energy efficiency — "that can get us near-term emission reductions.