READ BELOW TODAYS NEWS FOR INFO ON WHAT YOU CAN DO TO STOP CAP AND TRADE IN CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA BECOMES FIRST STATE TO ADOPT CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM
The California Air Resources Board, in a unanimous vote, adopts landmark regulations of greenhouse gas emissions to curb climate change and meet targets for reducing pollution.
The California Air Resources Board, in a unanimous vote, adopts landmark regulations of greenhouse gas emissions to curb climate change and meet targets for reducing pollution.
The Non-Green Jobs Boom
Forget 'clean energy.' Oil and gas are boosting U.S. employment.
So President Obama was right all along. Domestic energy production really is a path to prosperity and new job creation. His mistake was predicting that those new jobs would be "green," when the real employment boom is taking place in oil and gas.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported recently that the U.S. jobless rate remains a dreadful 9%. But look more closely at the data and you can see which industries are bucking the jobless trend. One is oil and gas production, which now employs some 440,000 workers, an 80% increase, or 200,000 more jobs, since 2003. Oil and gas jobs account for more than one in five of all net new private jobs in that period.
The ironies here are richer than the shale deposits in North Dakota's Bakken formation. While Washington has tried to force-feed renewable energy with tens of billions in special subsidies, oil and gas production has boomed thanks to private investment. And while renewable technology breakthroughs never seem to arrive, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have revolutionized oil and gas extraction—with no Energy Department loan guarantees needed.
The oil and gas rush has led to a jobs boom. North Dakota has the nation's lowest jobless rate, at 3.5%, and the state now has some 200 rigs pumping 440,000 barrels of oil a day, four times the amount in 2006. The state reports more than 16,000 current job openings, and places like Williston have become meccas for workers seeking jobs that often pay more than $100,000 a year.
Or take production in Pennsylvania's Marcellus shale formation, which the state Department of Labor and Industry says created 18,000 new jobs in the first half of 2011. Some 214,000 jobs are now tied to a natural gas industry that barely existed in the Keystone State a decade ago. Energy firms are also rushing to develop the Utica shale in eastern Ohio, and they are expanding operations in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, among other places.
|
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_19413362?source=rss
For vets returning to US, green energy jobs await
Saturday, November 26, 2011
(11-26) 09:28 PST Columbus, Ohio (AP) --
Ben Noland served in the U.S. Marine Corps for eight years, then spent 18 months looking for a job.
"I've probably put my resume in to 300 places in the past year," the 33-year-old Kenton resident said.
"The farthest I've ever got was a phone interview."
Noland finally landed a job installing solar panels at Tipping Point Renewable Energy, a Columbus-based solar power company that is hiring only military veterans for its installation crews at a time when unemployment among former service members is outpacing that of civilians.
Tipping Point's efforts echo those of companies and groups nationwide to hire veterans in the green energy industry. Denver-based nonprofit Veterans Green Jobs is one of the largest, having trained or placed 370 veterans in the last four years.
And a pilot program by five of the nation's largest energy providers, called Troops to Energy Jobs, provides training and credentials to military veterans, as well as college credit for their military training and experience.
About 240,000 veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have returned to the U.S. and are unable to find work. They make up a growing chunk of the 850,000 veterans overall who are out of work. The White House expects an additional 1 million service members to return to civilian life by 2016.
The veteran unemployment rate in October was 12.1 percent, compared with 9 percent for the U.S. overall. For veterans ages 18-24, that rate was 30.4 percent.
The renewable energy industry is growing fast — solar and wind energy have grown more than tenfold in the last decade — and military veterans often make good fits for green jobs.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/26/national/a092645S26.DTL#ixzz1evlqNbES
EDITORIAL: What others are saying
· Story
Posted: Saturday, November 26, 2011 5:00 am | No Comments Posted
State GOP's problem isn't unfair districts
California is a decidedly blue state, but the state Supreme Court is no Democratic stronghold. Six of the seven justices were appointed by Republican governors. But that didn't change the outcome of the state GOP's blatantly political challenge to new congressional and state Senate districts.
The districts were drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission, the independent panel established by voters to take over the decennial process of updating boundaries to reflect population changes. ...
Taking control of reapportionment from the people with the most at stake in the outcome ---- elected officials themselves ---- is an overdue reform. Much of the credit goes to the California Republican Party, an enthusiastic supporter of the ballot measures in 2008 and 2010 that created the commission.
But principle gave way to partisanship once the lines were drawn. A lawsuit filed by the state GOP alleged that the congressional and state Senate lines violated the Voting Rights Act ---- an ironic claim considering the usual Republican antagonism for efforts to protect the interests of racial and ethnic minorities. ...
But the problem for the Republicans isn't unfair boundaries. The problem is a shrinking party.
GOP registration in California has declined to about 5.3 million from 5.4 million a decade ago. That's barely 30 percent of registered voters.Democratic registration, meanwhile, has increased from about 7.1 million to 7.6 million. ...
-- The (Santa Rosa) Press Democrat (Nov. 23)
Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-what-others-are-saying/article_2b178aee-e2ee-52da-81ff-2c2dfafb0040.html#ixzz1evmJfE6F
Congress divided over continuing subsidization of wind power
·
By Rob Hotakainen | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Washington state sometimes has too much of a good thing: power. In a state that relies heavily on water and wind for its electricity, Mother Nature can be too generous, and it has been causing headaches for energy producers.
Wind producers are irked that the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal agency, can cut off wind generation when there's a surge in river flows, resulting in too much hydropower — that happened last spring.
Against this backdrop, one of the state's Republican congressmen, Rep. Dave Reichert, wants to extend tax credits for more wind power through 2016. Unless Congress acts, the subsidies will expire at the end of 2012.
But with Congress facing a big test in cutting the federal deficit by at least $1.2 trillion in coming weeks, Reichert's plan is causing division within his own party. Opponents say it's time for the federal government to stop subsidizing all energy projects and to let the marketplace decide which ones succeed.
Reichert rejects the argument.
"This bill isn't about picking winners or losers," he said. "This bill is about giving America every opportunity we can give those businesses out there to innovate and to surge ahead in this race for the next new energy."
Reichert called it "a big issue for the country" and particularly for his state, where "we're very sensitive to clean, renewable, environmentally friendly energy."
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/14/130279/congress-divided-over-continuing.html#ixzz1djJgVapz
Jerry Brown names PG&E official as his senior adviser
Gov. Jerry Brown has appointed a Pacific Gas and Electric Co. official as his senior adviser for cabinet and external affairs.
Dana Williamson, who was PG&E's director of public affairs, "will be responsible for working with members of the Governor's cabinet especially on projects requiring cross functional collaboration," Brown's executive secretaries, Nancy McFadden and Jim Humes, said in an email to staff on Tuesday.
Williamson, 39, will also oversee the governor's external affairs operation and the administration's Washington, D.C., office.
Like Brown, Williamson is a Democrat. She is to be paid $147,900 a year, the governor's office said.
McFadden and Humes said in the email that Williamson "brings 15 years of political, policy and communications experience in government, campaigns, non-profits and business."
McFadden also came to the administration from PG&E, where she was a senior vice president.
Luring renewable energy is a tale of fits and starts
By Greg Lucas | 11/03/11 12:00 AM PST
Back in 2005, Oakland-based BrightSource Energy had what it thought was a bright idea – a solar array in the Mojave Desert that would generate 440 megawatts of electricity – nearly doubling the amount of solar thermal electricity being produced in the United States.
The $1.3 billion project, initially designed to cover over 4,000 acres near the
dry Ivanpah Lake on the California-Nevada border, would also help California
meet its goal at the time of 20 percent of electricity sold by investor-owned
utilities coming from renewable sources.
An application was submitted in December 2007 to the California Energy Commission
and subsequently to federal regulators. The project is sited on Bureau of Land
Management property in eastern San Bernardino County.
Construction, which at its peak is estimated to create 1,000 jobs, began just
over one year ago October 27, 2010.
Along the way, environmental studies had to be conducted. A cooling system
designed to use less of the area’s scarce water supply. Lawsuits were filed
against the project that are still winding their way through the courts.
BrightSource agreed to pay $44 million to mitigate any adverse impact on
endangered desert tortoises. That averages out to nearly $250,000 for each of
the 177 tortoises found on the site.
To protect tortoise habitat, the project’s total acreage was whittled down to
3,600 and megawatts generation fell from 440 to 392. The tortoises also halted
construction briefly earlier this year as a new headcount by federal wildlife
officials required more environmental safeguards from BrightSource.
“You can’t describe it as getting done fast but we were the first ones through
this process so it did take a little longer than the project that came after us
and the projects we now have before the commission,” said Keely Wachs, a
BrightSource spokesman. “But now the state is really making headway.”
Joe Desmond, BrightSource’s senior vice president for governmental affairs and
communications, said, “there was a lot of information the commission had to get
up to speed on” because it hadn’t sited a solar thermal energy plant in 30
years.
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=1040pw8v4ojx3or
NOV. 2, 2011
By WAYNE LUSVARDI
There it was. A short, possibly historic, email on the website for the Coalition of Energy Users. It was from CEU’s founder, Eric Eisenhammer. The email read:
“Warren and Pam Duffy’s southern California chapter of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT SoCal) has found a legal team who seeks injured parties as potential Plaintiffs in an Anti Cap and Trade-AB32/CARB lawsuits. CFACT will set up teleconference interviews with the attorneys to determine qualifying criteria.”
Duffy was seeking injured parties from businesses affected by the new Cap and Trade that’s part of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law (picture above). Last month, the California Air Resources Board announced it was implementing Cap and Trade beginning on January 1, 2012, but enforcement will be postponed until 2013.
The affected businesses include:
1. Cement production
2. Cogeneration;
3. Glass production;
4. Hydrogen production;
5. Iron and steel production;
6. Lime manufacturing;
7. Nitric acid production;
8. Petroleum and natural gas systems
9. Petroleum refining;
10. Pulp and paper manufacturing;
11. Self-generation of electricity;
12. Stationary combustion.
Affected first deliverers of electricity:
1. Electricity generating facilities: the operator of an electricity generating facility located in California;
2. Electricity importers;
3. Suppliers of Natural Gas;
4. Suppliers of Liquefied Petroleum Gas;
5. Carbon Dioxide Suppliers.
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/11/02/lawsuit-against-cap-and-trade-brewing/
Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times
October 21, 2011
The California
Air Resources Board on Thursday unanimously adopted the nation's first
state-administered cap-and-trade regulations, a landmark set of air pollution
controls to address climate change and help the state achieve its ambitious
goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The complex market system for the first time puts a price on heat-trapping
pollution by allowing California's dirtiest industries to trade carbon credits.
The rules have been years in the making, overcoming legal challenges and an
aggressive oil
industry-sponsored ballot initiative.
The air board met in Sacramento for more than eight hours in a packed hearing
room. Board members listened to sometimes scathing comments from union workers
fearful of losing their jobs and a parade of industry representatives who
likewise characterized the regulations as anti-business. Other speakers called
the proposal historic and groundbreaking.
Late in the day, as the eight board members voted to approve the regulations,
to scattered applause, Chairman Mary Nichols looked up and said, "We've
done something important."
"Cap-and-trade is a new tool that for the first time allows us to reward
companies for doing the right thing," she added.
Cap-and-trade is the centerpiece of AB 32, California's historic climate change
law that mandates a reduction in carbon pollution to 1990 levels by 2020.
Beginning in 2013 the state's largest carbon emitters will be required to meet
the caps or buy credits if they cannot.
A second phase of compliance begins in 2015 and is expected to include 85% of
California's emissions sources.
"Today's adoption of a cap-and-trade program is a major
milestone for California's continued leadership on reducing the world's
greenhouse gases. As I said both when we signed the legislation in 2006, and
when we fought to protect it last year when Texas oil companies attempted to
overturn it with Proposition 23, the most critical phase in the fight against
climate change is diligently, aggressively, and correctly implementing this
law."
The vote was closely watched by other states and, if the program is deemed
successful, it will likely serve as a model for future markets. The U.S. Congress has rejected a similar
national program.
"If California gets it right, others will see it's possible to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions while protecting its economy and while fostering a new
green economy and industry," said Gary Gero, president of the L.A.-based
Climate Action Reserve, a nonprofit that runs North America's largest carbon
offset registry. "People watch what California does and do emulate it.
Future cap-and-trade programs are going to pick up a lot of the design features
we are implementing here. You'll see regional programs develop. They will put
pressure on the federal government. It will send out ripples around the
country."
Many of the details of the cap-and-trade mechanism have changed since the board
adopted the plan in 2008.
Industry heavyweights sought to temper some of the policy's more stringent
requirements and succeeded in some cases. In March a judge ordered the air
board to more comprehensively analyze alternatives to the market-based trading
system, such as a carbon tax or direct regulation. The board in August adopted
a revised analysis.
Environmental justice groups oppose aspects of the program, arguing that
cap-and-trade's market allows refineries, power plants and other large-scale
facilities to continue polluting poor neighborhoods as long as they purchase
credits or offsets.
Explaining
California's cap-and-trade program
How does cap-and-trade work?
Emissions caps were established by collecting three years of emissions data
from the state's largest industries. Those businesses were grouped into sectors
and assigned an average emissions benchmark. Businesses are allowed to emit up
to 90% of that amount in the first year. Companies that operate efficiently
under the cap may sell their excess carbon allowance on the market; companies
whose emissions are above the benchmark must either reduce their carbon output
or purchase credits or offsets.
What are carbon offsets?
Offsets are a way of turning carbon "savings" into tradable equities.
For instance, a forestry company may change its practices so that its forests
store more carbon. That increase in carbon storage can be turned into a
marketable credit. An independent entity would verify that the carbon savings
are real. That additional storage must be maintained for at least 100 years. No
carbon offsets may be purchased from non-U.S. sources.
Who will run the carbon trading market?
The California Air Resources Board will operate the market and hire an auction
host and monitors. By 2016, about $10 billion in carbon allowances are expected
to be traded through the California market, which will be the second-largest
carbon market in the world behind the European Union.
What is leakage?
One meaning is leakage of jobs to other states should businesses find the new
regulations onerous and shut down. Another meaning of leakage refers to
pollution shifting out of state as refineries and other emitters move out of
California.
What will this mean for consumers?
The cost of energy is expected to rise, although economists debate the
magnitude. The Public Utilities Commission allowed investor-owned utilities to
pass on the cost of compliance to customers. The Air Resources Board has a
mechanism to protect consumers from price spikes by capping the auction price
and releasing credits onto the market to drive down prices.
What effect will this have on California's economy?
The independent Legislative Analyst's Office concluded that jobs probably
will be lost because businesses can move elsewhere. Other business leaders
applaud the regulations, arguing that the plan gives industry some certainty
and a mechanism to reduce carbon emissions. Proponents and the Air Resources
Board say the increase in "green" jobs will outweigh short-term
negative effects.
Thanks to Janet Lehr for the research!
Want to Kill Jobs in CA? Go Green
May 05, 2011, 12:57 AM
Democrats hate people,. They prefer folks to be on government assistance instead of being productive, doing real work.
• The study calculates that since 2000 Spain has spent €571,138 to create each “green job,” including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.
• The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created.
• Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro."
Want to kill jobs? Look at Spain or California's AB 32. Guaranteed to harm families--government is NOT your friend, it is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHAT IS AB32?
Assembly Bill 32, "The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006" is a sweeping energy "management" agenda by the state of California to dramatically reduce our output of carbon dioxide. This bill handed an UNELECTED board unprecedented policy making and enforcement powers to make these reductions a reality.
WHO IS CARB?
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the unelected body that is in charge of implementing AB32. They have the power to make laws and policy and decide and enforce penalties and punishments. The taxpayers have almost no recourse against their actions. Get familiar with the name "Mary Nichols"...she holds more power over your life, business and future in this state than the Governor or any elected law maker.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm
HOW MUCH POWER DOES CARB HAVE?
Carb has proposed a regulation that will "forbid" anyone with an opposing view. "Penalties" are included in this regulation. Jon Coupal reports that the, "resolution, which CARB dubs, 'prohibition on false statements,' is frightening in that it would actually sanction communications to the agency during hearings or in the presentation of studies that CARB disagrees with. Apparently, CARB’s legal staff missed that whole bit on the First Amendment. In America, we don’t jail people for making “counter-revolutionary statements."
http://www.flashreport.org/featured-columns-library0b.php?faID=2010112909401103
CARB plans to institute “feebates” (taxes) on vehicles they deem to cause global warming. Trucks, minivans, SUV’s, and sports cars are likely to be targeted.
CARB proposed regulations requiring that your car tire pressure be checked to make sure they are at a state-mandate pressure. Before this proposal was withdrawn, CARB’s proposed punishment for noncompliance was a $1000 fine and 6 months imprisonment.
CARB has enacted regulations beginning next year that will put programmable thermostats into every new home and into the homes of those who choose to replace their furnace.
Family-run Nor-Cal produce in West Sacramento did nothing but fail to file a report with CARB. The business was socked with $43,400 in penalties. CARB eventually reduced the penalty to $32,550 because of the business’s “cooperative actions.”
HOW LEGITIMATE IS CARB AND ITS BOARD MEMBERS?
CARB used a $57 million legislative appropriation to adopt regulations rationing greenhouse gas emissions, but is unwilling to account for how these funds have been used. A bill was introduced to find out how $30 million in unaccounted for funds were spent, but it was defeated by CARB’s political allies.
CARB has 1176 employees, and the average salary is over $85,000 a year. While teachers are being laid off and nearly all agencies face cuts, CARB has added hundreds of new employees
WHAT WILL AB32 ACTUALLY DO?
CARB has already outlined a long, LONG list of regulations for every business in California. All of the UNFUNDED MANDATES for companies (i.e. employers). Everything from equipment modifcations, energy usage reporting, new fuel standards (higher gas prices)...you name it...if it uses energy of ANY kind, CARB is in charge of it and plans to make it more expensive to use. See a full list of their "programs" here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/programs.htm
The most draconian policies are set to go into full implementation in 2011. They even have an "environmental justice advisory committee."
AB32 IS ALSO CAP & TRADE
Included in AB32 is a Carbon Trading scheme. Expect this to be a company and job killer.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm
WHAT IS CAP & TRADE?
Wikipedia: "A central authority (usually a governmental body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. The limit or cap is allocated or sold to firms in the form of emissions permits which represent the right to emit or discharge a specific volume of the specified pollutant. Firms are required to hold a number of permits (or carbon credits) equivalent to their emissions. The total number of permits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Firms that need to increase their emission permits must buy permits from those who require fewer permits (Stavins 2001, p 4.).[1] The transfer of permits is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions. Thus, in theory, those who can reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest cost to society"
Too bad the "caps" are set by arbitrary bureaucrats and is a job killer and fails everywhere it is tried. The wealthiest investors in the world stand to profit handsomely while the California tax payers will suffer with higher costs and fewer jobs.
WHAT WILL AB32 COST MY FAMILY?
According to Cal State Sacramento AB32 will:
- Cost California up to 1.1 million jobs
- Cost the average family $3,857 a year in greatly increased expenses for housing, transportation, food and energy
- Cost $49,691 per small business
- Result in a total loss of output of $182.649 billion
- Devastate budgets of California social services agencies through massive losses in tax revenue
WHAT ABOUT THE GREEN JOBS THAT ARE PROMISED?
The truth is that the only growth in green jobs is state jobs. Actual "green" companies are leaving California...along with the federal subsidies they've earned. Learn more:
http://articles.ocregister.com/2010-05-21/economy/24560434_1_green-jobs-tax-credits-schott-solar
http://www.jobspectrum.org/news/regional/californias-green-jobs-mirage.html
http://itmakessenseblog.com/2010/11/24/business’s-leave-california-in-droves/
http://co2insanity.com/2010/11/04/ab32-green-jobs-in-california-already-dying/
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Please take action by visiting Suspend AB32 and learning more. Sign up for their email alerts. And contact your California Law Makers and demand that AB32 be suspended...at least until we are out of the current economic crisis. Californians cannot afford higher costs and job loses.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calif. Delays Cap And Trade Until 2013
UPDATED: 6:50 am PDT June 30, 2011
SAN FRANCISCO -- California regulators on Wednesday said they would give power plants, refineries and other major polluters another year to comply with a new state program that provides financial incentives to emit fewer greenhouse gases.
Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the Air Resources Board, said in testimony before a state Senate committee that the government is giving California's major polluters until 2013 to comply with its cap-and-trade program.
Most polluters previously were to have begun cutting emissions under the program in 2012. The program was passed in December by the board, which said it hoped other states would follow suit since Congress had failed to pass national climate change legislation.
"This would not affect the stringency of the program or change the amount of emission reductions that the program will achieve, keeping us on track to meet the 2020 target required by AB32," Nichols said.
Cap and trade is the key piece of the California's 2006 climate law - called AB32 - and will cover 85 percent of the state's worst polluters.
Nichols said the state would still initiate the regulatory framework for cap and trade in 2012, pending the outcome of an appeal of a lawsuit challenging the program.
In general terms, California's cap-and-trade program works by requiring companies that produce pollution, such as a utility or a refinery, to buy permits from the state that allow it to send a specified amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air each year. Those permits could then be bought and sold by the polluters in a marketplace.
If a company in Long Beach is 20 percent under its pollution allowance, for example, it can sell the unused portion to a company in San Francisco that has exceeded its quota.
Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/28406120/detail.html#ixzz1QmM8jzQM
Water for Central Valley farms plentiful, but drought signs remain
BY GOSIA WOZNIACKA, The Associated Press | Tuesday, Jun 28 2011 07:00 PM
Last Updated Tuesday, Jun 28 2011 09:31 PM
Jaclyn Borowski / The Californian
Signs protesting the water cut to Central Valley farms are posted off I-5 at Stockdale Highway. Though these were posted in a empty lot, many have been spotted alongside farms both on I-5 and Hwy 99.
Jaclyn Borowski / The Californian
Signs protesting the water cuts to Central Valley farmers are posted at an empty lot on Stockdale Highway just off Interstate 5. Similar signs are posted at farms along Highway 99.
FRESNO -- Drive on Highway 99 or Interstate 5 between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and you will see plastic banners scattered among wine tasting ads and billboards hawking the latest pesticide.
"Man-made drought," the banners draped across fences and cotton trailers proclaim in large, bold letters. "Congress-created dust bowl" and "Food grows where water flows."
The signs in the Central Valley, which provides many of the nation's fruits and vegetables, are a reminder of California's decades-old water war, a conflict stemming from large numbers of people living and farming in areas where the resource is scarce.
Some signs, put up by farmers long ago, are weathered from rain and faded from sun. Several hundred others went up in recent weeks, courtesy of an advocacy group for farmers.
But in a year of heavy rains and a formidable Sierra snowpack, with California's three-year drought officially over and most farmers getting all their contracted irrigation water, the signs strike some as odd.
"I just drove on the highway and those signs have a backdrop of green fields, green grasses," said Jim Metropulos, an advocate at Sierra Club California. "I said wow, these fields seem to be planted with a commodity crop, farmers seem to be irrigating. Where is the drought?"
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x1928173741/Water-for-Central-Valley-farms-plentiful-but-drought-signs-remain
New climate change case headed to Supreme Court
BY MARK SHERMAN, ASSOCIATED PRESS
SUNDAY, APRIL 17, 2011 AT 5:21 A.M.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration and environmental interests generally agree that global warming is a threat that must be dealt with.
But they're on opposite sides of a Supreme Court case over the ability of states and groups such as the Audubon Society that want to sue large electric utilities and force power plants in 20 states to cut their emissions.
The administration is siding with American Electric Power Co. and three other companies in urging the high court to throw out the lawsuit on grounds the Environmental Protection Agency, not a federal court, is the proper authority to make rules about climate change. The justices will hear arguments in the case Tuesday.
The court is taking up a climate change case for the second time in four years. In 2007, the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. By a 5-4 vote, the justices said the EPA has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under that landmark law. The same reasoning applies to power plants.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/17/new-climate-change-case-headed-to-supreme-court/
Basic guide to paying for solar power
BY JEN LEBRON KUHNEY
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2011 AT 9:44 A.M.
Installing solar panels on the roof of a house might make homeowners feel good about the environment, but paying for it can be a roadblock for many.
A system costs about $30,000 for an average-sized single-family home, and the price can increase quickly depending on how powerful the system needs to be and what types of panels are purchased. Also, if a system doesn’t produce enough power, solar owners will still get an electricity bill, adding to the costs.
In a lot of ways, paying to install solar panels is like getting a car: the three main options are to pay for it in cash, finance it or lease it. There is one alternative option, though, a power purchase agreement.
The federal government is giving a carrot to anyone thinking about purchasing solar panels. Anyone purchasing a system can receive a 30 percent uncapped tax credit. For a $30,000 installation, that’s $10,000 back during tax time.
Also, state subsidies give purchasers a credit of 35 cents per watt, which is a measure of a system’s capacity. A typical system has 4,500 watts, which would equal a $1,575 rebate.
Even with kickbacks, not everyone can afford to buy a solar power system, so companies are offering alternatives in the forms of leases and power purchase agreements.
Here are some of the major ways to pay for solar panel installation and their pros and cons
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/14/basic-guide-paying-solar-power/
Green energy law will increase rates for Californians, utilities say
By Rick Daysog | The Sacramento Bee
California consumers could see sharp electricity rate increases under sweeping new legislation that would require them to ramp up their energy supplies from wind, solar and other green sources, local utilities said.
On Thursday, the state Assembly voted 55-19 to approve a measure requiring power companies to obtain up to 33 percent of their energy supplies from green sources, up sharply from the current 20 percent. The state Senate already has passed the bill.
The measure, which requires the approval of Gov. Jerry Brown, aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California while boosting jobs in the state's fast-growing green economy.
But utilities say they face steep cost increases to comply with the measure.
"We're looking at (an additional) cost over $120 million by 2020," said Michael Bloom, Roseville Electric's assistant electric utility director.
Bloom said Roseville Electric, which gets about 20 percent of its supply from renewable sources, would have to increase rates for its 55,000 customers as much as 5 percent over the next two years. By 2020, Bloom estimated, the utility would have to raise rates a total of 15 percent.
Read More . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
UC Merced hosts green energy trade conference
Six businesses inducted into group's hall of fame
By YESENIA AMARO
yamaro@mercedsun-star.com
Hundreds of green industry leaders gathered at UC Merced on Friday for the inaugural International Green Industry Hall of Fame conference.
Six green businesses were inducted into the Hall of Fame for their efforts to improve the quality of life by reducing their carbon footprint.
The six businesses are: the American Council on Renewable Energy; Duke Smart Home Program; Grundfos; Josh Dorfman, The Lazy Environmentalist; Drip Tech; and the city of Fresno's recycling program.
"To me, we are still right at the very beginning of it," Dorfman said of the green industry. "This is the starting moment."
He said leaders must be more creative and innovative to advance the green energy industry.
Rod Diridon, executive director for the Mineta Transportation Institute, was the keynote speaker. The United States, he said, has a long way to go to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions.
"America is way above other countries (in emissions)," he said. "We are not doing a lot better yet."
Diridon said it's going to be up to the current generation to fix the problem.
"Global warming is occurring seriously," he said, and used the Himalayas as an example. The mountain range has lost a significant percentage of its glaciers since 1950, he said.
Diridon said California has an opportunity to become more sustainable with its high-speed rail project. The first phase of the project will connect Borden and Corcoran in the San Joaquin Valley. "We've got to expand it quickly," he said.
Read more: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2011/03/26/1826945/uc-merced-hosts-green-energy-trade.html#ixzz1HkutMWKB
Feds: Taxpayers Pay for Electric Car Energy, NOT Car Owners
Feds: Taxpayers Pay for Electric Car Energy, NOT Car Owners
Written by CA Political News on February 20, 2011, 11:35 AM
More Government Interference in the Automobile Industry
Capitol Commentary, 2/19/11
Economics electric cars Liberals market distortions power grid
Where all that "green" energy comes from... coal.
Electric cars have been slow sellers. The new term for our age is “Range Anxiety.” That’s where you’re tooling around in your battery powered car and aren’t sure you’ll have enough juice to either make it there or home. Range Anxiety will surely worry male electric car drivers more than Erectile Dysfunction. This is why few people want to buy such a car. The Government thinks it should get even more involved. That’s why many cities are installing free charging stations. Electric car drivers would pay $25.00 and get all the juice they need for six months. Who pays the bill? You guessed it… the taxpayer.
Of course there are several problems with this approach. The biggest problem is that the taxpayer foots the bill so somebody else can drive for free. In Kalfiornia for many years hybrid car drivers could cruise the carpool lanes sans passengers and many people chose to buy such a car just for the sticker. In fact, I remember several people who paid more money for their used hybrid just because it had the sticker on it.
The second problem with the $25.00 fee is that it’s only going to work while few people choose to buy an electric car. If these types of vehicles ever take off the charging stations will be so swamped that the program will most likely end and the entire “I drive with free electricity” plan comes crashing down.
The third problem is that our wonderful roads are paid for by taxing gasoline and diesel. If you get a lot of people driving cars which don’t use gasoline or diesel this will reduce the amount of money available from fuel taxes to pay for the roads we all take for granted. Where will the shortfall come from? The taxpayer. And states won’t be too happy about it, either
http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/7777
California and the International Green Energy Racket
Last week, the premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, paid a visit to the California State Legislature. He spoke at length about his province’s green energy partnership with California in supplying California with electricity while helping the state meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals.
I listened to the leader of the Western Canadian province of 4.4 million people and I found myself asking, “What is he selling?” So, I decided to follow the money. What follows is a summary of an international green energy scam that costs California taxpayers millions while robbing California of jobs due to higher electricity costs and electricity imports.
The Scam
Decades ago, the West Coast began exchanging electricity. During the summer, when air conditioning use spiked in California, Washington State and British Columbia would ship hydropower down to the Golden State. Later in the year, during California’s mild winters, when rivers levels were low in the Northwest, California would return the favor. The power exchange worked well for everyone.
During California’s 2000-2001 energy crisis, our northern neighbors took Enron-like advantage of us. BC Hydro, a state-owned utility, through its marketing and trading subsidiary, Powerex, aided in the rampant market manipulation that ended up costing California consumers millions. Bill Lockyer, then California Attorney General, sued. In March 2005, Powerex settled and refunded a fraction of the profits they made at the expense of California ratepayers.
The current version of this energy scam is breathtaking in its scope. Further, the victim, California, actually knows most of what’s going on and either doesn’t care or doesn’t want to know the messy details.
California has become America’s largest electricity importer. With 37 million people producing about 13 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, California imports about 23 percent of its electricity. This situation is compounded by the state’s environmental laws which, if a power plant can be built at all, typically consume seven years for permitting and construction vs. three years in competing Texas.
Complicating matters are a trio of California energy policy laws passed in 2006: AB 32, SB 1368, and SB 107. AB 32 mandates a 30 percent reduction in California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (BC Premier Campbell was particularly enthusiastic about this law). SB 1368 outlaws the renewal of coal-fired electricity contracts—imported coal energy powered about 16 percent of California’s grid in 2008. While SB 107 accelerated the requirement that California derive 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources this year, renewable being defined as small hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, and biomass (we missed the target, meaning utilities, read ratepayers, get dinged).
Enter government-owned BC Hydro and its Powerex subsidiary. With abundant hydro power potential, British Columbia is seeking to become the Saudi Arabia of “green” energy. California environmentalists don’t see the irony in British Columbia damming rivers to provide power to California, while in California, environmentalists fight to demolish dams as unsightly threats to salmon.
The irony gets even deeper, though. British Columbia, perhaps due to Premier Campbell’s business-friendly tax and regulatory policies, is growing. That, combined with a severe drought (yes, when California gets a good water year, British Columbia often sees a drought) means that BC Hydro will be importing $220 million more electricity than it did last year. You read it correctly, hydro energy colossus British Columbia will be importing almost a quarter billion dollars more electricity this year than last. In fact, BC Hydro has imported more energy than it has exported in 10 out of 11 years. And, from where does this energy come? Washington State and Alberta Canada. And, what is the source of this electricity? Brace yourself. Coal and gas-fired plants.
Electrons in a grid, like dollars in an account, are fungible, meaning that “clean green” electrons cannot be separated from “dirty coal” electrons and both are mixed in with electrons from nuclear power plants. So, when the Premier of British Columbia comes to California to urge us to continue to make our state even more dependent on his province for electricity as we strive to make the planet better we shouldn’t fool ourselves. The fact is, BC Hydro is buying “dirty” power and then, in an act I’ll dub “electron laundering” is repackaging it for the silly, naïve, environmental-minded Californians as pristine green hydro power—with a nice mark up, of course (Canadians have to pay for their national healthcare after all).
If Canadian reselling of coal power to California wasn’t enough of an insult to common sense and the environment, then here’s one more. Many British Columbians oppose their government’s push to make their province an energy colony of California by submerging more tree-lined river valleys. From a greenhouse gas perspective, they’re probably right. Some studies suggest that hydro electric dams built in forested valleys aren’t a great way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is because the dams drown carbon-impounding trees, which, in turn, rot when they are submerged, releasing large amounts of methane, a gas that is 80 times stronger than carbon dioxide in the greenhouse effect.
The Solution
Rather than practice electrical grid colonialism, simply importing power while sending jobs and emissions elsewhere, Californians need to get serious about generating more of their own affordable and reliable power. In many places around the world, this means modern nuclear power. California needs to lift the state moratorium on building new nuclear power plants signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown in 1976.
Chuck DeVore is a California State Assemblyman. He is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army (retired) Reserve and served as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon. He co-authored the novel China Attacks. He can be followed on Twitter @chuckdevore and his Facebook account is facebook.com/DeVoreForCalifornia.
Cutting Corners in Ocean Protection
Written by Jim Martin
August 4, 2010
Jim Martin is a trustee of the California Fisheries Coalition and the West Coast Regional Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance.
Environmental groups, long the champions of upholding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), have instead been working to short-cut environmental protection.
That's correct: environmental groups actively sought to sidestep environmental law which requires openness in analyzing negative environmental impacts of projects.
Usually, these groups fight to ensure complete compliance with CEQA - they repelled numerous legislative attacks by developers, and even Governor Schwarzenegger, already this year. But ironically, some have apparently decided CEQA doesn't apply to projects they favor.
Recently, the legally required CEQA review process got underway in Southern California in connection with adopting new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). And many expected this scientific analysis to be completely transparent.
Instead, the Department of Fish and Game decided it didn't need to hold an open "scoping" meeting. It didn't need to allow other public agencies, special districts, or interested public the opportunity to discuss and share ideas surrounding the range of issues that must be covered in an Environmental Impact Report (those famous EIRs).
But fortunately, the law is clear; projects affecting the coastal zone are projects of statewide significance, and projects of statewide significance require at least one CEQA scoping meeting.
http://www.publicceo.com/index.php/local-governments/151-local-governments-publicceo-exclusive/1780-cutting-corners-in-ocean-protection
New language ordered for initiative to suspend state climate change law
By Rick Daysog
rdaysog@sacbee.com
Published: Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2010 - 12:53 pm
Last Modified: Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2010 - 2:22 pm
A state judge today ordered the attorney general's office to change its wording of a ballot initiative to roll back the state's landmark climate change law.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley agreed with measure proponents charging that California Attorney General Jerry Brown used misleading language when his office drafted the initiative, Proposition 23.
Frawley said use of the term "major polluters" in election materials carried negative connotations with voters and ordered Brown's office to use the less loaded term "major sources of emissions."
Frawley also said the state inaccurately described the proposition as "abandoning" California's climate change law, or AB 32, and ordered it to substitute the term "suspends."
"My concern is that the word 'polluters' suggests something that comes out of a smokestack. That's where the prejudice lies," Frawley said.
Proposition 23 seeks to suspend California's global greenhouse gas reduction law until the statewide unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent for a year. Supporters of the measure say AB 32, which aims to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, will lead to job losses and higher energy costs
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/03/2933928/new-language-ordered-for-initiative.html#ixzz0vejQpP2h
Poll Shows Support for Climate Law
July 28, 2010 • Posted By Craig Miller • Filed Under Air, Economics, Policy
An expansive new poll on environmental attitudes suggests that despite the recession, Californians are holding fast to their environmental priorities.
Among the findings in the report released this week by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California is that support for the state's climate change strategy remains strong, even in the face of a well-financed campaign against the law known as AB 32. Two-thirds (67%) of the respondents support the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California--about the same level as when PPIC polled the question last year.
What's different this year, though, is that opponents of AB 32 are ramping up a statewide campaign to suspend the act's regulations until the state unemployment rate drops to 5.5% or less and remains there for a year. It's currently more than 12%. The question will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 23.
The PPIC poll did not ask directly about Prop 23, as the measure was not yet officially titled when the polling began earlier this month. Proponents of Prop 23 have filed suit against the state, claiming that the planned ballot description overstates the measure's intent. The current language was chosen by Attorney General (and gubernatorial candidate) Jerry Brown, who supports AB 32.
According to PPIC President Mark Baldassare, the state's climate legislation could become a key issue in the campaign for the statehouse between Brown and Republican Meg Whitman:
http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2010/07/28/poll-shows-support-for-climate-law/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+kqed%2FClimateWatchBlog+(KQED%27s+Climate+Watch+Blog)&utm_content=Google+Reader
Opinion: Green chemistry program must be strong, efficient and open to public
By Bill Allayaud | 07/29/10 12:00 AM PST
California’s Green Chemistry Initiative, launched by AB 1879 (Feuer, 2008) has been touted as an innovative move toward more effective regulation of chemicals in consumer products. It is intended to protect consumers, workers, and the environment while spurring development of safer alternatives that will be the foundation of a vibrant green economy.
But the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s draft regulations to implement the Initiative fall far short of meeting its worthy goals. In their current form, these regulations would perpetuate the worst flaws of an ineffective regulatory system: too weak, too slow, and stacked against the public in favor of industry.
In comments on the draft, nearly 50 environmental, public health, consumer, and worker safety advocates strongly objected to the lack of public participation and oversight, and the dominant control industry will have over the process. Their concerns were echoed by the Green Ribbon Science Panel, a group of technical experts in chemical science and policy set up to advise the program, and from a group of prominent scientists, including the author of the landmark University of California white paper that set the Initiative in motion.
The draft regulations will allow chemical companies and consumer product makers to keep hidden, as “trade secrets,” much valuable data on chemical hazards and safer alternatives. Companies, or their hired consultants, will be allowed to conduct their own assessments of safer alternatives. The completed alternatives assessments will not be made public. If a hazard determination is made, companies themselves will suggest the appropriate regulatory response.
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=z0p7fshs2o5usj
Climate law adds jobs to state payroll
Share
By Rick Daysog
rdaysog@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Jul. 26, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Monday, Jul. 26, 2010 - 7:28 am
The state's landmark global warming law has yet to create the promised bonanza of green jobs, but it has boosted payrolls in another sector of the economy: state government.
At a time of budget cuts and state worker furloughs, the state agency primarily responsible for regulating global warming has bulked up its staff as it prepares to enforce AB 32, the climate change law signed in 2006 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Since 2007, the California Air Resources Board has added more than 150 employees, an increase of 12.5 percent. The additions include dozens of scientists, engineers, technicians and other air pollution experts.
Other state agencies, such as the California Energy Commission and the Department of Resources Recycling Recovery, have added 29 positions as part of the climate change initiative.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/26/2914294/climate-law-adds-jobs-to-state.html#ixzz0uomG7Glr
Excloo: Powerhouse Dem donor puts $5 million in -- and joins GOP icon George Shultz -- to save AB32
The election year battle over California's groundbreaking climate change law AB32, already expensive and combative, just got more intense with news that powerhouse Democratic donor Tom Steyer will put in $5 million and join forces with Republican icon George Shultz to beat back the November ballot measure which would suspend the landmark law.
The Chronicle has learned that the two San Franciscans -- Steyer, the Democratic billionaire hedge fund manager and Shultz, the Republican former Reagan Administration Secretary of State -- have formed a bipartisan team to co-chair Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs, the effort to fight Prop. 23 on the state's November ballot.
The collaboration is a political first for two men who have often been on opposite sides of the battleground. Steyer, who founded San Francisco-based Farallon Capital Management, has used his money to donate millions to philanthropic causes and his political muscle to back Democratic presidential candidates including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Kerry; he's now supporting Democrat Jerry Brown for governor and Barbara Boxer for U.S. Senate.
Shultz, who backed 2008 presidential candidates John McCain and George W. Bush, as well as Republican Tom Campbell for U.S. Senate, is now the co-chair of GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's campaign.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=68625#ixzz0uopStwzb
On 7/17/10 there was an editorial in the San Diego Union "Air Board Still Scandalous" that discussed how CARB staff ignored scientific evidence submitted to them http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/17/air-board-still-scandalous/
On 7/24/10 James Goldstene, the Executive Director of CARB responded with this scathing editorial http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/24/letters-california-air-resources-board-responds/
You may wish to write to the Union in response to Goldstene's editorial, especially if you have a science background, which Goldstene does not (here is his bio - degree only in Government, no formal science background)
http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/org/eo-bios/bios/jamesgoldstene.htm )
If you wish to write the San Diego Union in response to the editorial, here is the link to the letter's policy and guidelines (it is on right side of page). We encourage everyone to respond... http://recall.uniontrib.com/news/op-ed/letters/index.html
Air board still scandalous
Contrary evidence on diesel rules seems to be ignored
BY UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD
SATURDAY, JULY 17, 2010 AT 12:02 A.M.
In December 2008, this editorial page reported that Hien Tran – the lead California Air Resources Board scientist on a study used to justify sweeping, costly new rules on diesel emissions – had lied about his academic credentials. The scandal seemed to unfold in slow motion. Finally, 10 months later, two members of the air board – Fresno cardiologist John Telles and San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts – denounced the regulatory agency for not disclosing Tran’s dishonesty before the vote to adopt diesel rules based on his work. This helped prompt the suspension of the rules.
Now, 10 more months have passed, and something extremely curious is unfolding.
Contrary to promises made by air board Chairwoman Mary Nichols, the accuracy of Tran’s central premise – that PM2.5 (tiny soot particles from exhaust, smoke and dust) causes thousands of premature deaths each year in California – has been found wanting. In February, a CARB-commissioned outside study was released that found no evidence for his claim. This corroborated independent scientists who said Tran’s theory was flawed because it was based on studies from Eastern states, where sulfates are common and may interact with PM2.5 to harmful effect.
Yet this finding doesn’t seem to have had any effect on regulators, who have informally made clear to industry groups that they still want to impose Tran’s rules even though they will bankrupt hundreds of small businesses that can’t afford expensive new engines or engine retrofits.
This isn’t right. Roberts’ spokesman said Friday that the supervisor plans to raise questions at a board meeting next week about the air board staff’s reaction to the contrary evidence. In disturbing ways, the reaction parallels the staff’s reaction to confirmation of Tran’s deceit and its decision to pursue a cover-up. It may be time for Telles and Roberts to give another lecture to Nichols on honesty and professionalism.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/17/air-board-still-scandalous/
'Climategate' fallout may impact legislation
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, July 19, 2010
Five investigations into the "Climategate" scandal have now cleared a group of scientists accused of twisting data in an effort to prove the world is getting warmer.
But many environmentalists and climate researchers fear the damage has already been done.
The scandal spawned big headlines and heated blog posts when it erupted last fall after hackers released a stash of unflattering e-mails from a climate research lab in Britain. In one message, a scientist wrote of using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperature-proxy data from tree rings. Global warming doubters claimed vindication.
British and American investigations have now largely exonerated the scientists, saying they did not warp their studies to reach a pre-determined end. But the public may not buy it. Some polls show the public's belief in the reality of climate change has ebbed, although other surveys disagree.
"Despite multiple denials from people in the field, this has really hurt," said Daniel Kammen, a UC Berkeley professor who contributes to reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The accuracy of the IPCC's reports, long considered the most authoritative on global warming, came under fire during Climategate.
"Even though the science of climate change hasn't changed, the public perception of it has," Kammen said. "You have less than 50 percent of people strongly believing in something that 99.99 percent of climate scientists agree on."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/19/MNNS1EFLDU.DTL&feed=rss.news_pageone#ixzz0u9a3ED2s
Noted environmental advocate to speak at mayor's monthly 'green' meeting
By Ryan Lillis
rlillis@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Jul. 19, 2010 - 9:46 am
Last Modified: Monday, Jul. 19, 2010 - 11:59 am
Author and environmental advocate Van Jones will be the featured speaker at Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson's monthly green initiative meeting on Tuesday.
Jones, author of "The Green Collar Economy" and co-founder of three nonprofit organizations, will discuss the national green movement and ways he says it can help break down social and economic inequalities as well as work to protect the environment.
The monthly Greenwise meeting will be at the California EPA building in downtown Sacramento. Cal EPA secretary Linda Adams and Assembly Speaker John Perez also are scheduled to speak.
The Greenwise initiative, started earlier this year by Johnson, is meant to promote the region's green technology sector.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/19/2900150/noted-enviromental-advocate-to.html#ixzz0uA1xB7Jt
California's pioneering e-waste program a model gone wrong
By Tom Knudson
tknudson@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Jul. 18, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Sunday, Jul. 18, 2010 - 9:40 am
It seemed a perfect symmetry: California, the world's high-tech capital, would lead the way in recycling the debris of our digital revolution.
But five years after its launch, the state government-run electronic waste program stands out not as a model of the green innovation for which California is famous but as an example of good intentions gone awry.
By paying more than $320 million to collect and recycle computer monitors and televisions, the state has built a magnet for fraud totaling tens of millions of dollars, including illegal material smuggled in from out of state.
"I don't think anybody could have forecast the greed that has poisoned the program," said Bob Erie, chief executive officer of E-World Recyclers north of San Diego and once an enthusiastic supporter of the state effort.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/18/2897609/californias-pioneering-e-waste.html#ixzz0u3Wwo5LS
Saving the environment and the economy
BY CARY LOWE
SUNDAY, JULY 18, 2010 AT MIDNIGHT
Environmentalists and business interests are battling over whether efforts to promote renewable energy sources and “green” jobs are stimulating or undercutting the state economy. Actually, with the right focus, we can save both the environment and the economy.
The top issue on the environmental front is climate change. Reports from virtually every scientific organization confirm that global warming is worsening, yet efforts to combat climate change are stalled. The recent Copenhagen climate summit produced no international agreement. Congress can’t coalesce around even the pallid legislation proposed to date. And California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) is threatened by a pending ballot initiative.
The other looming environmental challenge concerns water supply. The Sierra Nevada snowpack and rainfall throughout the state have been shrinking steadily and cannot adequately replenish our rivers and reservoirs. Water deliveries from the Sacramento Delta have been slashed. Access to Colorado River water has been reduced. The resulting shortage is blocking new real estate developments, causing agricultural areas to be fallowed and forcing domestic water use reductions.
At the same time, the state economy is struggling.
There is, however, no need for despair.
The answer lies in our residential and commercial buildings, in particular the ones built before contemporary energy efficiency standards came into effect. California currently has approximately 13.4 million homes and about a half million commercial buildings. Two-thirds of the homes and a majority of the commercial structures were not subject to any energy efficiency requirements at the time of construction, though some have been upgraded since then. The California Air Resources Board estimates that residential and commercial buildings are responsible for about 22 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, not counting the emissions associated with water delivery.
Simply retrofitting residential structures built before 2006 to current efficiency standards would slash their share of those emissions, without even taking into account other potential gains, such as from converting to solar and other sustainable energy sources. Similar calculations for retrofitting commercial buildings are more difficult, because of the great variation in the standards to which they have been built and renovated. However, the Air Resources Board calculates that adherence to the state’s Green Building Standards Code, expected to become mandatory next year, would result in a 35 percent reduction in the carbon footprint of commercial buildings, far more than is required by AB 32.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/18/saving-environment-and-economy/
(THIS IS THE RHETORIC WE WILL CONTIUE TO HEAR ABOUT THIS ISSUE)
PG&E opposes initiative to block state climate law
By Rick Daysog
rdaysog@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Jul. 7, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 6B
California businesses are beginning to pick sides in the initiative battle over the state's landmark climate change law.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. on Tuesday said it will oppose the November ballot initiative, which seeks to suspend Assembly Bill 32, a law that mandates statewide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
PG&E joins corporations such as Levi Strauss and Co. and eBay Inc. in opposing the rollback.
"Studies show that unchecked climate growth could cost California's economy alone tens of billions of dollars a year in losses to agriculture, tourism and other sectors," said Peter Darbee, PG&E's chairman and CEO.
"Thoughtful and balanced implementation of AB 32 is one of the most important opportunities we have to avoid this costly outcome while spurring new clean-tech investment, innovation and job creation in California."
But a coalition funded by Texas oil companies and California manufacturers wants the law's implementation suspended until the state unemployment rate, now at 12.4 percent, drops to 5.5 percent. Proponents of the initiative, Proposition 23, say implementing the climate change law will cost the state 1.1 million jobs.
A PG&E spokeswoman said it's too early to say whether PG&E will contribute financially to the initiative debate.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/07/2872971/pge-opposes-initiative-to-block.html#ixzz0t0sOyFT9
CALIFORNIA TAKING NEXT STEP ON GREEN CHEMISTRY INITIATIVE
by Greg Lucas
Thu, Jul 08th 2010
California is a step closer toward creating the nation’s most ambitious program to regulate toxic substances in consumer products after publicly releasing in late June the mechanics of how its so-called Green Chemistry Initiative would work.
“Study after study have shown that many consumer products are not safe, resulting with more and more being recalled,” said Maziar Movassaghi, acting director of the Department of Toxic Substances Control, which will implement the program. “This draft regulation is the first of its kind in the nation and it essentially shifts the way government, industry and the public think about the products that end up in our homes,” Movassahi said in a statement announcing the release of the 61-page document called “Draft Regulation for Safer Consumer Products.”
Settling on exactly how the program operates is a contentious issue between environmentalists and manufacturers. Businesses urge the state to move slowly in creating a list of carcinogens, neurotoxins and other harmful compounds found in everything from toys to turbines. Environmentalists and other advocacy groups like the Breast Cancer Fund seek swifter declarations about a chemical being harmful, and speedier removal of the chemical from whatever product contains it.
Nearly two years have already passed since the 2008 passage of the two bills dubbed the Green Chemistry Initiative – an idea initially proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration. The central focus of green chemistry is to find safer alternatives to toxic substances, ultimately shifting the focus of environmental protection from how to sequester those toxic substances at the end of a product’s life to creation of safer products that no longer contain the toxic compounds.
http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/07/08/california-taking-next-step-green-chemistry-initiative
Feds pull plug on cities' green home loans
ROBERT SELNA, CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER
WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2010
San Francisco's new, $150 million program to help property owners finance solar and other energy-saving programs is all but dead, according to city officials, after a federal agency announced Tuesday that the program and others like it across the state are potentially risky and inadvisable for mortgage lenders.
The programs have been widely championed as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy bills and to create green jobs. Generally, the programs allow a property owner to obtain a low-interest loan from local governments that are backed by bonds. The property owner then repays the loan over 20 years through a tax assessment, which is attached to the home, even if it is sold.
Several Bay Area cities embraced the energy retrofit plans, which originated in Berkeley and are made possible by 2008 state legislation. Fourteen additional California counties planned to embark on similar endeavors later this year and cities and counties in other states have pursued similar proposals.
The Department of Energy also has said that millions of dollars in stimulus funds should go to installing the energy-saving systems under the programs, which are referred to as Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE.
San Francisco launched its version of the idea, called GreenFinanceSF, with great fanfare in April and $150 million in financing, making it one of the nation's most ambitions efforts.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/07/MNCI1EA8OI.DTL&feed=rss.news_pageone#ixzz0t0seonkr
PG&E installing SmartMeters across Marin; Fairfax balks
By Richard Halstead
Posted: 07/06/2010 11:09:23 PM PDT
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is beginning to install trademarked SmartMeters throughout Marin this month, but when the Fairfax Town Council meets this week it will consider a moratorium and other action to block installation of the devices there.
The digital meters, which use wireless radio signals to transmit data on power usage from individual homes, caused a minor uprising in late 2009 when PG&E began using them to replace analog meters in the San Joaquin Valley. Ratepayers complained that their bills increased dramatically after installation of the meters. PG&E insisted the bill spikes were caused by hot weather, which increased use of air conditioners.
"There was a lot of controversy down that way, and it's just been percolating up through the community," said Fairfax Councilman Larry Bragman, who put the SmartMeter issue on the council's agenda for Wednesday, July 7.
Paul Moreno, a PG&E spokesman, said the investor-owned utility is installing SmartMeters at homes throughout the county this month and expects to finish the rollout by February 2011. He said PG&E more than a month ago began installing devices on Marin County streetlight arms that will gather data broadcast from homes and businesses and relay that data to PG&E.
The California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates PG&E and approved installation of the SmartMeters at a cost of $2.2 billion, has reacted to questions regarding the billing accuracy of the technology by commissioning an independent
http://www.marinij.com/ci_15454453?source=rss
NEW: Lawmakers Push Backdoor Climate Change
JUNE 29, 2010 By KATY GRIMES
Just in case California’s global warming legislation is suspended in November with passage of California Jobs Initiative 2010, California’s Democratic legislators are leaving nothing to chance. They’ve been busy pushing through plenty of other climate change and green legislation through the Capitol’s backdoor.
SB 1006, currently traveling through legislative committees at the capitol, would further expand the subsidized greening of California through local governments and state agencies, by requiring the Strategic Growth Council to address climate change impacts in its” coordination role” and to “provide information” to local and regional government agencies on climate adaptation strategies.
Legislators continually reference the council as an information-only council, but what information is the group imparting on state agencies?
The purpose of the Strategic Growth Council, (a cabinet level committee), is to “improve air and water quality, improve natural resource protection, increase the availability of affordable housing, improve transportation, meet the goals of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, encourage sustainable land use planning, and revitalize urban and community centers in a sustainable manner,” according to the council’s website. “Existing law requires the council to support the planning and development of sustainable communities, to manage and award financial assistance to a city, county, or nonprofit organization for the preparation, planning, and implementation of a specified urban greening project.”
This goes way beyond mere “information.”
Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, the author of SB 1006, referenced the need for more California “sustainability” in her testimony. Her bill would require the council to take actions to coordinate programs to address the various list of climate change impacts. One bill summary reads, “The bill would require the council additionally to provide, fund, and distribute information to local governments and regional agencies regarding climate change adaptation strategies, projects, or activities, as described.”
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2010/06/29/new-lawmakers-push-backdoor-climate-change/
Streetlight project radiates savings
Efficiency upgrade in SDG&E region
BY MIKE LEE, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2010 AT 9:24 P.M.
SOURCE: CleanTech San Diego
Replacing streetlights might not seem to make a serious dent in pollution, but a regional initiative to install high-efficiency models could eventually do just that.
The goal: to lower emissions of carbon dioxide by 40,000 tons annually and reduce electricity consumption by 60 million kilowatt hours each year.
Potential financial savings also are eye-popping: $10 million annually in energy and operating costs if roughly 145,000 streetlights are replaced throughout the San Diego Gas & Electric service territory in San Diego and southern Orange counties.
Such lofty goals could take more than a decade to realize, but several cities and other organizations are off to a fast start thanks to money from the federal stimulus package and additional sources of public financing. About 13,000 eco-friendly streetlights will be installed from Carlsbad to El Cajon starting this summer, and at least 10,000 more trade-outs in the county are planned for the next year.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/29/streetlight-project-radiates-savings/
June 18 ,2010
AB 32 and CARB
CARB GETTING READY TO IMPOSE TAXES ON VEHICLES THEY DON’T APPROVE OF!
The California Air Resources Board recently spent $800,000 on a study concluding they want to go ahead with a "feebate" plan. A feebate is AB 32 bureaucrat speak for a tax on vehciles CARB doesn't approve of.
CARB intends to use taxes to force us from buying vehicles they deem to contribute to global warming. Trucks, minivans, SUV's and sports cars are all likely to be targeted under this draconian scheme.
The feebate plan is just one stark illustration of the way AB 32 bureaucrats will infringe on your personal freedom if not stopped. Let's not let the government tell us what we are allowed to drive!
========================
New CARB Fact Sheet now available!
Our fact sheet is a great overview of the unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy that is taking away our freedoms and destroying our economy.
CARB does so many shady things that limiting the fact sheet to one page was difficult.
The fact sheet is a great resource for you to distribute to meetings of activist organizations and to share with your family, friends and neighbors who are not yet informed. Our success rests on our ability to educate the folks we know. Every person who's informed is one more vote for freedom and jobs.
Please download the fact sheet today, print them out and distribute them far and wide!
http://www.facebook.com/l/807282-OfV1jMn4f9r-n_6-rH3Q;www.suspendab32.org/CARB_Fact_Sheet.pdf
========================
FACEBOOK FAN PAGE NOW APPROACHING 2200 FANS!
The Fan Page is a great way for us to show the strength and power of our movement. Our page currently is nearly three times the size of the page supporters of AB 32 set up. However, we have to remember that far left forces recently built a fan page of over 200,000 in a single campaign.
If we are to win we must disseminate the love and logic of Suspend AB 32 across the internet to everyone we know. The internet is great in this respect. We can quickly and easily send out vast amounts of powerful information through cyberspace and reach citizens with the truth whether the establishment media likes it or not. Please help in this fight right now and:
1. “Like” the California Jobs Initiative
2. Click the “Suggest to Friends” link beneath the awesome truck in the upper left hand corner of the page
3. Invite everyone in your friends list
4. Give yourself a big ol’ pat on the back for helping spread the message of jobs and freedom!
Now fellow patriot, go to the fan page! http://www.facebook.com/californiajobsinitiative?ref=ts
State attorney general demands ex-professor's files from University of Virginia
By Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post, 5/4/10
RICHMOND -- Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II is demanding that the University of Virginia turn over a broad range of documents from a former professor to determine whether he defrauded taxpayers as he sought grants for global warming research.
The civil investigative demand asks for all data and materials presented by former professor Michael Mann when he applied for five research grants from the university. It also gives the school until May 27 to produce all correspondence or e-mails between Mann and 39 other scientists since 1999.
The actions by Cuccinelli (R) -- who has sued the federal government over its regulation of greenhouse gases and has become a leading national voice in alleging that scientists have skewed data to show evidence the Earth is warming -- were cheered by those on the right, who have long targeted Mann as a leading proponent of the theory.
http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/5025
Opponents of AB 32 argue it is a job-killer
By Onell R. Soto, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Monday, May 3, 2010 at 1:14 a.m.
When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed his administration’s signature environmental law in 2006, he spoke of it as a jobs measure.
“Unquestionably, it is good for businesses,” he said then. “Not only large, well-established businesses, but small businesses that will harness their entrepreneurial spirit to help us achieve our climate goals.”
The measure, Assembly Bill 32, put California at the forefront in the effort to fight global warming, calling for the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of roughly 25 percent.
Four years later, the measure is under attack from some quarters as a job-killer that will make it difficult for the state to compete economically.
Today, opponents plan to submit signatures for a proposition on the November ballot that would suspend the law’s provisions until the state’s unemployment rate — at 12.6 percent in March — drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. That has happened only twice in the past 11 years: from April 2005 through August 2007, and from April 1999 through July 2001.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/03/climate-law-debate-centers-on-economy/
MAY 2, 2010 SUSPEND AB 32 HAS QUALIFIED FOR THE NOVEMBER 2010 BALLOT!! WE WILL OVERTURN THIS JOB KILLING REGULATION!
**** 1.11.2010 The vote came down along Party lines on Monday January 11,2010 with all Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee voting to keep the failed plicy of AB 32 in place.
Voter Support for AB 32 Shrinks
By Bill LaMarr
Executive Director of the California Small Business Alliance
Fri, February 5th, 2010
A new poll by the AB 32 Implementation Group showed voter support for California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) has dramatically declined. After hearing arguments for and against the measure, 56% of voters approved of AB 32 and 40% opposed.
The fact AB 32 won’t have any measurable impact on reducing global warming, its price tag of billions of dollars in higher energy costs and hidden tax increases, and its impact on jobs drove voter opposition to the measure.
Voters were particularly concerned about the conclusions from the California Small Business Roundtable’s study of the impact of AB 32 on small business in California. This study found that AB 32 would cost the average small business in California about $50,000 per year and would destroy more than one million California jobs. http://foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/bill-lamarr/6396-voter-support-ab-32-shrinks
The latest on California politics and government
February 5, 2010
Schwarzenegger turns more critical of environmental laws
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prides himself on trying to balance environmentalism with economic considerations, but he has grown more critical of environmental obstructions in this recessionary period, especially as he pushes for a jobs package in the Legislature.
The governor twice this week portrayed environmental regulations as a barrier to job creation, at one point Tuesday suggesting that some environmentalists "become fanatics and they go overboard" when they object to green technology projects. Schwarzenegger has asked lawmakers to give his administration more authority to expedite projects once they have undergone an environmental impact study.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/02/schwarzenegger-147.html
Could Californians finally be serious about turning around their sputtering economy? One hopeful sign is a ballot initiative that would repeal the Golden State's version of a cap-and-trade carbon tax.
This feel-good law to reduce the state's carbon footprint was enacted with great hoopla by the Democratic legislature and Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006 when the state's economy was growing and the jobless rate was 5%. The law requires that starting in 2012 the state must ratchet down its carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The politicians and green lobbies told voters this energy tax would create jobs—the same fairy tale many in Washington are repeating today.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487035809045746381533
42723572.html
We all know that AB 32 ( CA’s failed Cap and Trade policy) is killing our economy in CA and that suspend or halting it will allow a more satisfactory environment for our businesses.
Natural Resource Committee Members who will be hearing AB 118 @ 1:30 Committee Hearing:
Good morning, my name is __________________, and I live in (name your city of residence).
I am asking the Assemblymember to please vote yes on AB 118 at the Monday afternoon committee hearing. Thank you!
Nancy Skinner – Chair-(916) 319-2014, 916-319-2114 fax
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov
Danny D. Gilmore - Vice Chair- (916) 319-2030, 916-319-2131 fax
Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov
Julia Brownley-(916) 319-2041, 916-319-2141 fax
Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov
Wesley Chesbro- (916) 319-2001, 916-319-2101 fax
Assemblymember.Chesbro@assembly.ca.gov
Kevin de Leon- (916) 319-2045, 916-319-2145 fax
Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov
Jerry Hill- (916) 319-2019, 916-319-2119 fax
Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov
Jared Huffman- (916) 319-2006, 916-319-2106 fax
Assemblymember.Huffman@assembly.ca.gov
Steve Knight- (916) 319-2036, 916-319-2136 fax
Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov
AB 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” :
AB 32 will cost our state up to 1.1 million jobs, cost the average
family $3,857 annually, add nearly $50,000 a year to the average
small business’s costs and will result in a total loss of output of
$183 billion.
California’s unemployment rate has now reached 12.1%, one of
the highest in the nation. With jobs leaving the state, AB 32 is
yet another burdensome regulation that will cause more
businesses to relocate.
Scientists agree that because California contributes less than 2% of
the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, AB 32 will do NOTHING to
stop global warming, even if it is caused by human activity.
The loss of tax revenue that will result from AB 32 will devastate
the budgets of California agencies including those responsible for
providing health care to those in need and protecting the
environment.
AB 32 will put government in control of what have traditionally
been individual choices. We don’t want the government telling us
what we drive or where we live.
*Assemblyman Dan Logue has introduced AB 118 to REPEAL AB32
**Tell your state lawmakers to support AB 118
VISIT www.SuspendAB32.org for updates and petition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board delays diesel rules
ShareThis
Buzz up!By Jim Downing
jdowning@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Dec. 10, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Thursday, Dec. 10, 2009 - 8:02 am
The California Air Resources Board gave truckers a break Wednesday on the state's tough diesel emissions rules, acknowledging that the bad economy has both improved the state's air quality and made anti-pollution upgrades unaffordable
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2384344.html
11.25.2009
Air board previews emission strategy
Business association pans ‘cap and trade’
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/25/air-board-previews-emission-strategy/
Milken report praises Texas and pans California for Business
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/027048.html
Water Bill May Never Deliver Water
Written by CA Political News on November 06, 2009, 10:47 AM
Water overhaul looks like win for Valley farmers
By E.J. Schultz, Fresno Bee, 11/04/09
SACRAMENTO Valley farmers scored big wins in the package of water bills state lawmakers passed Wednesday, but most of the benefits are years away if they come at all.
Voters still must approve a key provision an $11 billion bond for water projects, potentially including money for a dam east of Fresno. And a planned canal to move water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the Valleys west-side farms faces regulatory and legal hurdles.
But on Wednesday, farm leaders were all smiles as they celebrated passage of proposals they had pushed for years without success.
This legislative package establishes a clear path for the construction of water-supply infrastructure that is necessary to sustain the economy of this state, said Tom Birmingham, general manager of Westlands Water District, whose 600 farms in western Fresno and Kings counties have struggled in the midst of the drought and pumping cutbacks at the delta.
Westlands was a key player in weeks of closed-door talks that led to Wednesdays approval by the Legislature of the five-bill package. The measures include the bond, new mandates for conservation and groundwater monitoring, and creation of an agency to oversee the environmentally troubled delta, the states water hub.
The bills squeaked through the Assembly and Senate shortly before 6 a.m., after marathon sessions Monday and Tuesday that included arm-twisting and last-minute amendments to satisfy various interest groups.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders touted the deal as a historic compromise that ends decades of gridlock on state water policy that the governor called a holy war.
This is a very bold vision that we have put forward here, said the governor, who is expected to sign the bills next week.
But the deal likely will do little to solve the states immediate water challenges, and some of the long-term solutions in the bills bring as many questions as answers.
The biggest uncertainty is the fate of the bond that voters will take up in November 2010. More than double the size of the largest water bond in state history, the measure includes money for new storage, underground water banking, water recycling, regional projects and environmental upgrades in the delta.
Opposition is likely to come from some fiscal conservatives who say the proposal is laden with nonessential spending and unions, who fear the borrowing will rob money from other programs. Some environmental groups also are expected to fight it, including the Sierra Club, which opposes dams.
At its peak, the bond would cost the state up to $809.3 million in annual debt service, assuming a 30-year payment schedule, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office.
Supporters likely will look to the Valley for votes because the bond potentially includes money for a new dam at Temperance Flat near Millerton Lake, a long-sought goal of east Valley farmers.
The project would compete for a chunk of $3 billion along with other storage projects, including other dams and possibly even ground-water banks. The bond would pay only for the public benefit portion of dams such as the recreation provided by a reservoir with users picking up the rest. If the bond passes, key decisions on the dam funding would be made by the governor-appointed California Water Commission.
Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, who wrote the bond bill, said he was confident the money would go to the dams, including Temperance Flat, which would take years to build and has an estimated price tag of $3 billion to $4 billion.
I think its closer to a reality today than it has ever been, assuming this bond passes, he said.
Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater, a lieutenant governor candidate, was the only Valley lawmaker voting no on the bond. He said he wanted dam earmarks in the legislation, a concept long opposed by Democrats who control the Legislature.
Theres no dam guarantee, he said.
The policy changes in the bills do not require voter approval, but will likely take years to implement.
A new conservation mandate a top goal for environmentalists calls for a statewide per-capita urban water use reduction of 20% by 2020. Individual agencies have until July 2011 to set their targets. New requirements to monitor groundwater levels wont kick in until 2012.
One bill establishes a seven-member council appointed by the governor and lawmakers to oversee the delta. The proposal was pushed by Democrats. Republicans and farm groups initially fought it, fearing the new agency would add roadblocks to planning for a canal to move water around the delta southward to Valley farms and Southern California cities.
Farm deliveries have been curtailed because the water is now pumped through the delta and courts have found that the system hurts fish.
In a compromise, lawmakers required the council to incorporate the canal into its long-range plans only if it meets environmental standards and is approved by an ongoing effort called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
But the proposal was written vaguely enough that competing interests view it differently, each to their benefit.
Birmingham, of Westlands, said the canal was more of a reality today than yesterday, although he added that lawsuits over the project are inevitable.
Water users say they will foot the bill for the canal, which will cost in the $10 billion range, according to the state Department of Water Resources. Birmingham estimated that in the best case, the canal would be built by 2018. He said it would bring more water to farmers.
But Cynthia Koehler, an attorney with the environmental group Environmental Defense Fund, which supported the deal, said: I dont think this bill makes a canal any more or less likely to occur, adding theres not one thing in this bill that provides any additional water to exporters.
Bribes Help Pass $22 Billion Water Bond
Written by CA Political News on November 06, 2009, 10:44 AM
Billions in earmarks helps ease passage of water deal
By Anthony York, John Howard, 11/05/09
As the sun rose over Sacramento Wednesday morning, Democrats and Republicans came together to reach a major deal on water, including sweeping changes in water policy and an $11 billion bond that must be approved by voters.
The package includes new rules for water conservation -- with most localities being asked to reduce water use by 20 percent over the next 10 years -- and a new system of governance for the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta.
Passage of the package was eased by the $11 billion bond, which will be on the November 2010 ballot. The bond contains billions in earmarks for projects up and down the state, including the state conservancies which are dependent on voter-approved funding.
The bond contains more than $1.7 billion in water quality and watershed protection funding all of which is earmarked for specific agencies and groups. The bond includes $100 million for the Lake Tahoe Conservancy, $100 million for Salton Sea preservation and $250 million for a dam removal project near Lake Shasta.
The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is in line to receive $75 million to protect the Los Angeles River watershed, and another $25 million for Santa Monica Bay watershed projects. In Speaker Karen Basss backyard, the Baldwin Hills Conservancy is set to receive $20 million if the bond is approved.
Theres also $125 million earmarked for the California Department of Forestry for forest restoration and to provide for climate change adaptation.
In short, the bonds got a little something for everyone.
Thats sure to be highlighted by the bonds opponents in next years ballot fight. This is definitely a Christmas Tree bond, said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director for Restore the Delta, one of the groups opposed to the water plan.
The deal was approved after an all-night session, an increasingly familar scene in the world of the California Legislature. The major breakthrough came Tuesday night after leaders agreed to add $1 billion into the bond package at the request of the Los Angeles delegation. In return, Republicans won a major concession as Democrats agreed to sever an enforcement bill from the water package that cracked down on illegal diversions of water, boosted fines and increased the power of the state water boards -- provisions long demanded by environmentalists.
The water-rights enforcement bill had been linked to the reform package of several other bills dealing with conservation, groundwater monitoring and governance of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta.
Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, agreed to the change amid fears that opposition to the measure could sink the entire water package.
The change led to concern that environmentalist lawmakers might abandon their support for other pieces of the water deal. Ensuring the bills passage had been a tool to ensure some more liberal Democrats supported other parts of the water policy and bond package. But in the end, the bill was radically altered, changing the water rights language and scaling back the fee structure for illegal diversions of water. The changes were enough to get the bill approved along with the rest of the water package.
Over the protests of environmentalists, connections between the policy proposals were severed from the omnibus proposal following a closed-door meeting of legislative leaders and an array of water interests. The move marked a political victory for farm-belt lawmakers and Bay Area water districts that fought the tougher provisions.
The action, called de-linking in the Capitol, means the water-rights bill can be rejected on the floors of both houses without disturbing the other pieces of the larger, still-developing water plan. Identical versions of the bill await action in the 7th Special Session - AB 11 7x by Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, in the Assembly and Steimbergs SB 5, 7x in the Senate.
Assembly Republican Leader Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo opposed the water-rights bill, in part because of the tough enforcement provisions that sharply increased the authority of state water boards, according to Capitol sources in both parties familiar with the negotiations. Blakeslee was not immediately available to comment.
The bill also included fines of $5,000 or more per day for illegal diversions and allowed the water boards to initiate their own investigations rather than act on complaints. One provision allowed fines pegged to the market value of water, which environmentalists said could result in daily penalties far exceeding $5,000.
Part of the water-reform package is a multibillion-dollar bond that is aimed at the statewide ballot next year. The Senate on Monday approved a $9.9 billion plan, but on Wednesday, that price tag grew to $11 billion because of the addition of $1 billion sought by Los Angeles for conservation and monitoring.
The additional money for Los Angeles was only part of the scramble throughout the day Tuesday, as a variety of water interests sought funding for pet projects. But leaders in both houses feared that adding to the water bonds size could jeopardize its passage in the Legislature or its ability to win voter approval.
The water policy proposals are not linked to the bond and do not authorize the construction of a delta canal that would move more water south to the Central Valley and Southern California. But supporters of the package, including the influential Westlands Water District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, say the package paves the way for the canal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join So Cal Tax Revolt Coalition to receive important updates related to the San Diego Tea Party, action alerts, and events throughout the region...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help the SOCALTRC team continue to bring these "awareness" events to you!
SOCALTRC is not backed by any BIG money funding, only by the kindness and generosity of you, our FELLOW PATRIOTS! We are a California 501(c) 4 , however, donations are not tax deductible.
Proceeds of any merchandise sales go to help So Cal Tax Revolt Coalition, LLC cover event and on-line operating costs. SoCalTRC earns 20% of net sales from Cafe Press items. Thank you for your support...we could not operate without your generous donations!