Californians Have Paid Dearly for the Micromanagement of Emissions and Renewable Energy

August 7, 2018 By Ronald Stein 15 Comments

Wind Turbines Power EnergyLooking back, California’s flagship climate change policy Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Initiative was signed into law in 2006 when California was a minuscule contributor to the world’s greenhouse gases. Statistically, the World is generating about 46,000 million metric tons of GHG’s, while California has been generating about 440 million metric tons, which is less than one percent of the world’s contributions.

Today, we’re constantly being bombarded with reminders and progress reports toward achieving California’s plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.

Now, more than a decade since the passage of AB32, California remains as the most environmentally regulated location in the world, yet California still contributes a miniscule one percent, and has had little to no impact on the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Very often, when our political leaders are confronted with the facts that California is one of the most business unfriendly states in the union, our politicians often reply, “yes, but we’ve got great weather”.  Well, they’re right, California has the best year round weather in the nation and that has lead us to become the 6th largest economy in the world.

With a robust economy, the good news is that we can “afford” to micromanage almost anything, but the bad news is that the costs associated with micromanagement are being born by the rich and poor and has contributed to California having the largest homeless and poverty population percentages in the nation to compliment the robust economy.

California is an “energy island” to its almost 40 million citizens, bordered between the Pacific Ocean and the Sierra Nevada Mountains whose 35 million registered vehicles of which 90 percent are NOT EV’s are consuming DAILY: 10 million gallons a day of diesel and 42 million gallons a day of gasoline.  In addition, the state’s daily need to support its 145 airports (inclusive of 33 military, 10 major, and more than 100 general aviation) is 10 million gallons a day of aviation fuels.

No other State or Country has the stringent environmental regulations as California to keep greenhouse gas emissions in the world to a minimum, thus it’s imperative that California continue to promote in-state manufacturing of the chemicals and by-products, and aviation, diesel and gasoline fuels manufactured from crude oil on the California energy island. All those products from crude oil supports the military and all the California infrastructures, which are the basis of the prosperity of our growing population.

The renewable sectors of wind and solar, like every other infrastructure, are dependent on the products manufactured out of crude oil for all their components so they can produce emission free intermittent electricity.

With all the world’s efforts to protect life, United States wind farms are “legally” killing hundreds of thousands of birds, eagles, hawks, and bats every year, and it’s appalling that society has given the wind industry a FREE get-out-of-jail card!

Bald and golden eagles are not endangered species anymore but are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The bald eagle population is growing, while the golden eagle populations is declining.

In 2017, the Obama administration finalized a rule that lets wind-energy companies operate high-speed turbines for up to 30 years — even if means killing or injuring thousands of federally protected bald and golden eagles. Under the new rule, wind farms may acquire an eagle “take” permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that allows the site to participate in nationwide killing of up to 4,200 bald eagles annually, under incidental “take” permits without compensatory mitigation. If they exceed their eagle “take”, there are adaptive management measures designed for each project, that often include reducing operational hours if deemed necessary to reduce risk.

It’s appalling that wind farms can legally obtain permits from the USFWS to kill those majestic bald eagles.

The public, especially the homeless and poverty populations that have paid dearly for the micromanagement of our emissions and renewables, deserves to know the costs being incurred to reduce our minuscule contributions to the world’s greenhouse gases, and as a courtesy to provide emission free intermittent electricity, share with the public the total estimated impacts of all birds taken that are reported to the USFWS.

 is founder of PTS Staffing Solutions, a technical staffing agency headquartered in Irvine.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily.
Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , ,

California Wants to Ban the Internal Combustion Engine

March 5, 2018 By Ronald Stein 14 Comments

Engine CarCalifornia’s relentless crusade against emissions effectively camouflages its voracious need for revenues.

AB32, the original landmark bill was signed into law in 2006 when California contributed one percent to the world’s greenhouse gases. While the cap and trade program has been a cost effective method of reducing CA’s greenhouse gas emissions, the program does next to nothing to reducing global emissions. A decade later, in 2016, the California Energy Commission said we still contributed a minuscule one percent to the world’s greenhouse gases, but it has successfully extracted more than $7 billion dollars of revenue from our citizens to fund a multitude of governmental pet projects.

California’s elected officials must be in La La Land when they state that California’s economy is thriving in large part because of its emphasis on enacting sweeping environmental legislation. California’s economy, like the rest of the nation, has been booming ever since the recession, but California is ranking up where the state is not proud of. The California go-it-alone crusade to reduce emissions regressively impacts consumers.  Today the California energy portfolio, the environment, and climate change are always discussed together. Here’s what’s really up – energy costs, poverty, homelessness, welfare and unfunded pension liabilities.

  • California taxes and cost of living are higher than most other states.
  • California’s energy costs are as much as 50 percent higher than the national average.
  • Nearly 20 percent of California’s 38 million residents live below the poverty line.
  • California has more than 33 percent of the nation’s welfare recipients.
  • California is home to 12 percent of the nation’s population, but startlingly 22 percent of the nation’s homeless population.
  • Roughly 1.5 million households pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
  • Unfunded pension liabilities.

Now compounding these problems is a bill currently under consideration in the Legislature, Assembly Bill 1745, that would outlaw the sale and registration of new light-duty vehicles powered by internal combustion engines beginning in 2040. The unintended consequence for those existing internal combustion engines after 2040 would be that people would drive their internal combustion engines for 50 years, like they did in Cuba, and adversely affect air pollution, and not take advantage of technology improvements. The sheer scope of the proposed mandate is staggering. According to the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles, of the 35 million registered vehicles in CA there are over 26 million passenger vehicles registered in California. Of these, only about three percent are personal electric vehicles.  Limiting the types of new cars Californians could buy would disproportionately punish working families already struggling to make ends meet.

It appears that governments, worldwide, in pursuit of the current EV crusade, may be overlooking the fact that an essential ingredient that lithium-ion batteries are dependent on is cobalt which is already in limited supply worldwide to manufacture IPhones, IPads, and car batteries. Without the element’s energy density, batteries without cobalt tend to perform worse.  Currently about a quarter of global production of cobalt winds up in smartphones. In the expected event that cobalt supply does not meet the EV needs in the decades ahead, the impact on the local and international economies could be devastating. Environmentally, it’s also harder to recycle lithium-ion batteries with cobalt than lead-acid batteries used in gasoline powered vehicles.

Finally, AB1745 fails the cost-benefit test. California accounts for less than one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, so even if every gasoline-powered car in our state were taken off the road tomorrow there would be zero impact on climate change.

Our elected leaders need to address the very real challenges facing California, rather than touting misguided new policies like AB 1745 that will only make our problems worse.

 is the founder of PTS Staffing Solutions, a technical staffing agency headquartered in Irvine

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , ,

Legislators continue to drive up the cost of fuels

July 20, 2017 By Ronald Stein 10 Comments

gas prices 2The concept of reducing our emissions is correct, but show me some progress!

Cap and trade has been a revenue generator for the state since 2006. It has raised over $7 billion for the state, but after 10 years since AB32 was signed into law in 2006, according to the California Energy Commission, has yet to lower our 1 percent contribution to the world’s greenhouse gases. It has however been very effective in hitting citizens’ pocketbooks to fund a multitude of governmental pet projects.

We could shut down the entire state that represents only 0.5 percent of the world’s population, close all the airports, get rid of the 35 million vehicles, turn off all the generators, and shoot all the cows, and it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the global climate.

Fuel costs for the entire world, EXCEPT California, are primarily driven by the cost of crude oil to manufacture the fuels and by-products from crude oil that drives every industry sector and supports our current quality of life. With crude oil hovering around the $45 range vs. the $100 range a few years ago, we’re enjoying more affordable fuels than in previous years.

However, in California, it’s our legislators and their appointees that are directly responsible for California having higher costs for our fuels and energy than the other 49 states.

California already has five reasons for their cost of fuels being higher the rest of the country:

  1. California fuel taxes are among the highest in the country.
  2. To date, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, cap and trade has already added eleven cents to the price of gasoline.
  3. California has boutique fuel brands that no one else in the country currently makes. If other states chose to manufacture the California boutique fuels, the only way to get it to the California energy island is to ship it thru the Panama Canal to California ports.
  4. California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard increases the cost of the gasoline and diesel fuels produced from crude oil.
  5. To meet current demand, 10 million gallons of aviation fuels, and 40 million gallons of transportation fuels for our 35 million vehicles are manufactured DAILY in California which is the most environmentally regulated location on earth.

Our Legislators crusade to maintain the cap and trade “revenue generator” through 2030 provides the public with a dim forecast in the coming years as the burden of additional fuel costs will be falling completely on motorists and businesses. More cost increases that are coming are:

  • Starting in November 2017, SB1 will add significant tax increases to gasoline and diesel fuels, as well as higher registration fees to finance transportation infrastructure,
  • 4 years from now, according to estimates from the LAO, cap and trade could raise gas prices by another 63 cents per gallon in 2021, increasing to 73 cents per gallon in 2031.
  • California’s LCFS is expected to grow and overtake the cap and trade costs.

In the last 40 years, the California population has almost doubled to 38 million, but our air is cleaner today than it was in the 1970s. In the decade from 2006, California’s population has grown 1.077 percent to 38.8 million and we have less manufacturing jobs today than we had in 2006.

The inconvenient truth about AB32, as well as cap and trade, is that we now have higher gasoline prices and higher electricity costs. The coastal elites who support “going green” at all costs just don’t care that the working poor and struggling middle class living away from California’s coast are bearing the brunt of higher energy costs. Tellingly, our state has the worst poverty rate in the nation where 1 out of 5 California families are barely hanging on. Thus, it’s hard to understand the time and effort being extended on the subject of the emissions crusade that is obviously negatively impacting our poverty and homeless populations.

It’s our legislators that are causing the price of California fuels to increase, not the oil companies. With the approval to extend the cap and trade system to 2030, California’s top politicians will have immense effects on what consumers spend for gasoline and a myriad of other products and services.

Ronald Stein is founder of PTS Staffing Solutions, a technical staffing agency headquartered in Irvine.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

 

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

Renewables Have Glaring Obstacles to Overcome for California

February 1, 2017 By Todd Royal 1 Comment

Solar panelsBloomberg is now reporting that solar energy is cheaper than coal, and could become the lowest form of energy within a decade. Economies of scale are causing solar to drop from an average of $1.14 a watt all the way to .73 cents per watt by 2025. This should be great news for California’s overwhelming embrace of renewable energy.

Agencies such as the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Lab to the International Energy Agency all confirm this decline in costs. Capacity for solar is doubling causing lower costs for bank loan premiums and manufacturing capacity in the solar energy space; and now with Tesla’s gigafactory opening, the cost of batteries is also expected to drop for electric vehicles and home battery systems.

China also plans to invest over $360 billion on renewable energy and fuels to help decrease their serious smog issues. Unsafe, coal-fired power plants are currently suffocating that country’s air supply. And California can feel the affects of China’s crippling smog depending on seasonal wind patterns.

California could be entering a new era in energy, and an era renewable investors and environmental advocates have been touting this century. Unfortunately they are overlooking glaring weaknesses, and for renewables to truly breakthrough into a low-cost, scalable energy along the lines of coal, oil and natural gas numerous obstacles such as costs, back-up generation power, storage and grid modernization will need to be solved.

Gov. Brown, the California Legislature and the California Air Resources Board need to understand the true costs and limitations at this time when using renewable energy.

Yes, costs are possibly going down for solar and wind, but is that truly the case? And while costs for manufacturing and kilowatts per hour are dropping that isn’t the final costs when it comes to renewables. The BP Statistical Review of Global Energy in 2015 showed renewables provided only 2.4 percent of total worldwide energy needs, hydroelectric power generated 6.8 percent and nuclear came in at 4.4 percent. California citizens and businesses need clean fuel, and at this time renewables can’t provide that for them.

Moreover, no matter how much renewables are touted as a replacement for fossil fuels, and even with positive economies of scale, they still will not overtake coal, oil and natural gas in the near future even with AB32 and SB32 in effect.

Weather is the biggest hindrance for both solar and wind, but not as much for biomass or hydroelectric – though hydroelectric, or the process of damning water for electric use, can run into serious environmental issues. But if the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing then solar and wind become difficult to use without fossil fuels – particularly natural gas and coal-fired power plants – backing them up. Additionally, batteries have not caught up to enhanced storage for renewables, and they aren’t productive enough for entire California cities, counties and the state at-large.

When looking at the total cost of renewables versus fossil fuels there really isn’t a comparison in the near-term future because wind and solar can only generate intermittent electricity. Fossil fuels can run without backup supplies, and then factoring in levelized costs for renewables makes them under-productive and more expensive as a wide-scale energy source for California.

As much as California continues using renewables it still hasn’t been achieved without fossil fuels backing them up. The Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2017 to 2050 (page 13) only has renewables at 18-26 percent penetration by 2050 in the United States. The equivalent of not understanding the facts about renewables are how electric vehicles currently only have 1 percent of the market and are projected to only have 6 percent by 2040, but are highly touted as being able to replace the combustible engine vehicle.

Energy storage and grid modernization are separate issues for California policymakers to understand, yet the two issues are linked together in many ways. How energy is stored from fluctuating renewable sources (wind and solar) are needed to accommodate, “multiple grid services, including spinning reserve and renewables integration.” To improve the problem of intermittent generation for resources such as wind and solar the EIA recommends:

“Examine the potential for transmission (grid) enhancements to mitigate regional effects of high levels of wind and solar generation while developing higher resolution time-of-day and seasonal value and operational impact of wind.”

Further, the EIA also perceives utility rate structure for different levels of photovoltaic solar generation being needed to control costs for consumers and industry when using renewable energy. What the EIA is saying is that renewables fluctuate in power generation based upon different weather patterns, which causes the grid to fluctuate. These upward grid spikes are then passed on in higher electricity costs to utility’s customers. It is one of the reasons California has some of the highest energy costs in the United States due to its heavy reliance on renewable energy.

The most important component in the entire process of renewables overtaking fossil fuels for a cleaner future is grid modernization. According to T. Boone Pickens, “The electrical grid of the future will have to be built,” for renewable energy to overcome the above-mentioned hurdles. With California’s exploding pension costs it is difficult to envision a brand new, multi-trillion dollar grid being built in the near future.

Renewable energy has incredible potential for California, but until power grids are modernized renewables will lag behind fossil fuels through rising costs and unstable energy delivery. California’s electric grids can’t handle millions of electric vehicles, varying, spiked energy from wind and solar and the ability to be flexible the way a natural gas power plant is at this time. The best power plants for energy efficiency and lowering carbon emissions while keeping costs reasonable are natural gas. A natural gas-fired power plant is the biggest reason coal is losing market share in the United States.

Majorities of Californians want renewables to be the number one source of energy in our state’s portfolio for cleaner air, water and a healthier environment. But instead, renewables like electric vehicles have taken on a fad-like quality without the technology having caught up to the hype. CARB needs to look at the facts, and not the emotions that currently lead the renewable energy debate. Let’s not pit renewables against fossil fuels, but look to incorporate the different energy sources into what’s best for California and the United States.

Todd Royal is a geopolitical risk and energy consultant based in Los Angeles.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Hold Climate Change Policy-Makers Accountable for Economic Consequences

January 6, 2017 By Jack Bean 8 Comments

Global WarmingIn reaction to the election of Donald Trump, California’s governor, state Legislature and Air Resources Board have made clear their intention to double down on our state’s already strictest-in-the-nation climate change policies.

Making such claims is easy when ignoring the current cost burden of the state’s climate policies on consumers and businesses, and how much more the costs will skyrocket under increasingly high greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Unelected bureaucrats at the California Air Resources Board have resisted any legitimate attempt at conducting a comprehensive economic analysis of AB 32, the state’s landmark 1996 global warming law– either during the rulemaking process or once the regulations took effect. CARB is attempting more of the same with the newly established 2030 40 percent emissions reduction target.

The significant consequences of this one-sided approach are being ignored as part of the policy and regulation development process. These rules will have real-life cost impacts on every major industry in California and every resident, who will see higher prices for food, electricity, gasoline, housing and just about all the necessities of life.

Higher costs, in addition to increasing consumer prices across the board, make California businesses less competitive with out-of-state companies. These have already resulted in a sharp decline in jobs, notably well-paying blue-collar jobs in the manufacturing, oil and gas and construction sectors, and a concurrent loss of tax revenues that support education, public safety, and social service programs.

It doesn’t have to be this way.  Sacramento lawmakers should demand that state agencies like CARB conduct objective economic analyses in order to craft balanced climate change regulations that will not exponentially increase costs on California’s businesses and families — especially those in lower income communities, which pay a larger share of their income in energy and transportation costs. Any increases created by new regulations will disproportionately impact those families who can least afford it.

Independent studies and subject matter experts have waved a warning flag about the economic impact and its burden on families and businesses. A recent study has shown that our climate change agenda will increase costs by $3,000 per year for every family in California. The Director of Stanford University’s Precourt Energy Efficiency Center has cautioned that achieving the new 2030 goal would likely entail “large economic costs,” and lead to a “less diversified and more fragile state economy.”

CARB has initially estimated that its new regulations could cost 100,000 jobs and result in the loss of up to $14 billion in gross economic output, which the agency brushes off as relatively immaterial in the context of the state’s overall economy.

Among regulatory initiatives being considered in CARB’s recently updated AB 32 Scoping Plan are: forcing higher density of commercial and residential developments; developing “pricing mechanisms” such as road user/vehicle miles traveled-based pricing, congestion prices and parking pricing strategies; creating expensive multiple “incentives” to make electric vehicles artificially more affordable than conventional vehicles and imposing arbitrary and unrealistic quotas for market penetration; and forcing decreases in the use of affordable, widely available fossil natural gas. These and other proposed mandates will significantly increase the cost and availability of housing, electricity, gasoline and diesel fuel and the cost of manufacturing and transporting goods produced in California with a chilling effect on jobs and revenues.

California can do better. Sacramento legislators have an opportunity to provide essential oversight over a regulatory body to ensure their constituents and the businesses they represent are not unduly burdened. It’s important to note that because California generates less than one percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, which know no boundaries, the hardships our state’s climate policies impose on its people and economy have little more than symbolic value.  This is why CARB must conduct a comprehensive economic analysis now, to weigh how aggressively we should get ahead of other states or nations with regard to climate policies.

 is Executive Director of the Industrial Association of Contra Costa County

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , ,

California Fights Greenhouse Gas – Farting Cows – by Driving Dairies Out

December 2, 2016 By Chriss W. Street 12 Comments

cowsThirty percent of California dairies have closed and hundreds of thousands of milk cows have been slaughtered over the last decade. Meanwhile, California liberals are crediting themselves for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from farting cows.

When California’s Democrat-controlled legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, known as AB 32, few understood that the action was a financial attack on Republican rural agricultural communities that over the next decade would see 600 dairies forced to shut down.

Despite the higher energy costs for farming, processing, and transportation to comply with AB 32, California’s remaining 1,400 dairy families and their 1.74 million milk cows are still ranked first in the U.S. for milk, butter, ice cream, nonfat dry milk, and whey protein concentrate production, plus second in cheese production. With $9.3 billion of sales, about 20 percent of America’s total, the California dairy industry is the state’s largest agricultural activity, accounting for 2 percent of the state’s economy.

But in the “Fake News” parroted by the media in the run-up to the elections, Sacramento Democrats claimed they needed to pass radical legislation in September to combat the “14.5 percent human-induced greenhouse gas emissions” that a United Nations 2013 report claims is produced by livestock, “with modern beef and dairy production accounting for the bulk of it.”

The “Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Livestock Production” report produced by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. in November 2013 states that enteric (intestines) produced methane (CH4) emissions from livestock may contribute 7 percent of worldwide greenhouse gasses. The report also praised the modern dairy activities seen in California as environmentally friendly, since “grain-fed beef has a lower environmental footprint than grass-fed beef systems,” and the “largest GHG emissions in a beef production system (about 80 percent of the total) occur in the cow-calf phase, when cows and their calves are consuming predominantly forage-based diets.”

In spite of the fact that in California dairy farmers exclusively feed their dairy cattle grain and only utilize mature females, Democrats and one Republican voted to pass SB 1383, which requires a 40 percent in livestock greenhouse gases below their 2013 levels by 2030. It also allows the Air Resources Board to regulate cow flatulence, if a practical technology exists to reduce it.

Although Gov. Brown said, “This bill curbs these dangerous pollutants and thereby protects public health and slows climate change,” two complex crony amendments were taken in the final hours that effectively barred the National Federation of Independent Business and  small farmers from understanding the impacts of the changes to the bill and having a chance to voice their strong opposition.

The real goal of the legislation was to fund another wildly subsidized sustainable energy boondoggle, with $90 million in grants from the state’s cap-and-trade revenues that will likely fund investments by large corporate farmers in dairy digesters and waste disposal corporations for composters. Both will use methane from manure to generate energy sold to electrical utilities at super-premium prices.

Dairy farmers say the new regulations will drive up costs when they are already struggling with five years of drought, low milk prices, and rising labor costs. They are also concerned about a newly-signed law that will boost overtime pay for farmworkers.

Director of environmental services for Western United Dairymen Paul Sousa was quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle: “It just makes it more challenging. We’re continuing to lose dairies. Dairies are moving out of state to places where these costs don’t exist.” He said he expects more “complete dispersal” auctions to close dairies and slaughter their mature herds.

This piece was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Let’s Pump the Brakes on Cap-and-Trade

August 19, 2016 By George Runner 4 Comments

cap-and-trade-mindscanner-sstockIn 2006, elected officials gave the California Air Resources Board virtually unchecked authority to implement AB32, which aims to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The legislation, including the controversial cap-and-trade program, expires in four years.

Some lawmakers have already introduced legislation, such as SB32, to extend CARB’s authority. However, instead of rushing to renew this controversial and expensive program, we should slow down and come up with a more affordable solution that benefits all of California.

Cap-and-trade limits carbon emissions by energy producers and raises money through the sale of carbon credits. It’s supposed to fight global warming by making it more expensive to use carbon-based fuels. But that’s not the only thing it does.

It turns out the program has made life more expensive for Californians as well.

Since being given the authority, CARB has implemented a steady stream of costly regulations, such as the “hidden gas tax.” Experts agree that this hidden tax costs California drivers at least 10 cents more in added cost per gallon of gasoline. They also acknowledge CARB’s “low-carbon fuel standard” could add another 13 cents per gallon by 2020.

Motorists might be open to paying these costs if the money actually went towards repairing our crumbling roads. Instead it seems the cap-and-trade program has become a multi-billion dollar slush fund for politicians’ pet projects.

Perhaps intentionally, CARB still hasn’t come up with a systematic way to determine if cap-and-trade dollars are really doing anything to help lower emissions levels.

There is little consensus on what constitutes a “green project.” When pushed for answers, CARB officials deflect. This obscurity allows the governor to direct cap-and-trade funds towards his $71 billion high-speed rail project, which is actually increasing the state’s carbon emissions.

Some cap-and-trade funds were supposed to go towards programs for low-income communities that want to invest in renewable energy. Because CARB is largely free to do as it wishes, there’s no real way of knowing if these grants are reaching their intended targets. That’s a kick in a gut to the less fortunate who supported AB32.

Like you, I want breathable air and clean parks for our children and grandchildren. But do CARB’s unelected bureaucrats really need this much power? Government mandates can be very expensive and inevitably the costs are passed down to consumers. Not everyone can afford a Tesla.

Why can’t we use cap-and-trade funds to solve real problems like emission-causing traffic congestion? Think about it: What pollutes more, a car that reaches its destination quickly or one that’s stuck idling on a freeway for an extra 20 minutes?

A state appeals court has already put the future of cap-and-trade in doubt. And many questions remain, such as how to spend the billions collected and whether or not the program is really an illegal tax. Some doubt CARB has the right to collect the money at all.

There’s also a fierce debate over whether or not regulators can extend the program without the Legislature’s permission. The Legislature’s chief counsel doesn’t think so.

California is already a leader on climate change, and our current law doesn’t expire until 2020. Perhaps we should leave lawmaking to our elected officials, not abdicate power to unelected regulators. Rather than rush an extension, let’s invite the public to join the discussion. Californians deserve clean air, but they also deserve affordable energy—and to know how their dollars are being spent.

George Runner is an elected member of the California State Board of Equalization.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Controversial Carbon Tax Faces Strong Opposition

August 14, 2016 By James Poulos 7 Comments

carbon-tax-1Despite years of success in doing what it was supposed to do — cut emission levels — California’s controversial cap-and-trade system has run up against opposition that could be strong enough to sink it. But with nothing to lose and everything to gain, Gov. Jerry Brown has shifted into political overdrive to save it instead.

Big plans

Through the California Air Resources Board, Brown’s administration has tried to restore confidence among big California businesses that the state’s carbon-trading regime is here to stay. Amendments to the cap-and-trade rules proposed by CARB “envision a carbon market through 2050 with increasing allowance prices,” according to Scientific American. But legal uncertainty has clouded CARB’s ability to promulgate such regulations beyond the year 2020, “thanks to a combination of potentially limiting language in the original climate law, AB32, and a lawsuit challenging the legality of cap-and-trade auctions under a law requiring a two-thirds legislative majority to approve taxes,” the magazine added.

“The amendments released [last month] would establish decreasing emissions caps for covered entities through 2031, to reach 40 percent below 1990 levels, and would include preliminary caps through 2050 ‘to signal the long-term trajectory of the program to inform investment decisions.’ Other proposed amendments would provide for compliance with U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan for existing power plants, allocate allowances to businesses in order to prevent emissions from escaping state borders, and streamline how emitters register and participate in auctions.”

Backrooms to ballots

Despite broad support for an extended cap-and-trade system among influential Democrats, whose grip on Sacramento is virtually unchallenged, California’s legislative counsel has sided against CARB on the extension plan. “Meanwhile, a lawsuit from the California Chamber of Commerce charges that the permit fees are a tax and should have required a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to take effect,” as the San Francisco Chronicle reported. “Although the suit has dragged on for nearly four years, questions raised by an appeals court judge in April suggested that he might side with the chamber.”

The ordeal has presented Gov. Jerry Brown with a potentially devastating threat to one of his keystone policies. Although the governor “has been trying to muster support from at least two-thirds of the Legislature, in case the Chamber of Commerce wins its suit, […] convincing Republicans and business-friendly Democrats hasn’t been easy,” the paper added. “And the current legislative session ends Aug. 31.” Beyond the obvious challenge of securing Republican support, Brown must contend with members of his own party, who have split awkwardly on cap-and-trade since before its inception.

“When the law enabling cap and trade was being argued over, the whole progressive left-of-the-left were pretty suspicious of carbon trading,” as Stanford Law energy expert Michael Wara told Wired. “So the law’s authors offered a compromise: the state Legislature would re-evaluate cap and trade in 2020,” the magazine noted. “It didn’t seem like a big gamble at the time.” But Brown’s determination to use revenues from the program to fund his cherished high-speed rail project — according to environmentalists, not the greenest expenditure to choose from — added another political wrinkle.

Now, the prospect of a drawn-out loss in the Legislature has raised speculation that Brown will respond, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, by taking his plans directly to the voters. Preparing for a showdown, Brown has launched — perhaps for the last time as governor — back into campaign mode. “Mr. Brown last week created a PAC, Californians for a Clean Environment, signaling he may turn to voters for support to extend cap and trade and the state’s emissions-reduction goals through a ballot initiative,” the Wall Street Journal recalled. “The program is particularly important to Mr. Brown, as profits help fund the state’s planned bullet train, among other goals by the state’s Democrats.”

Within the Brown camp, however, the official line has remained more optimistic than the ballot preparations might suggest. “There is no state or nation in the Western Hemisphere doing more to curb carbon pollution and our dangerous addiction to oil than California,” said Brown’s executive secretary, Nancy McFadden, in a statement noted by the Journal. “The governor will continue working with the legislature to get this done this year, next year or on the ballot in 2018.”

This piece was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , ,

Conventional Fuels Still of Vital Importance to California

August 13, 2016 By Ronald Stein 2 Comments

Gas-Pump-blue-generic+flippedThe American Society of Civil Engineers recognized oil as an element of “infrastructure” in California in its 2016 Infrastructure Report Card. That report card clearly documents the fact that there are no easy answers to our complex energy and transportation challenges for the future.

Fossil fuel permeates every aspect of our daily lives. It has driven an exponential increase in human numbers and civilizations from the horse-and-buggy days. It enables us to easily get to work, school and medical facilities as well as the freedom to travel for family and recreational purposes. It supports the quality of life Californians take for granted. We need more – not less – fossil fuels to develop economies and basic infrastructures for the people of developing and third world countries.

This has been lost on the part of many lawmakers and regulators who have come under intense pressure from the powerful anti-oil lobby to eliminate fossil fuel production and use at the local and state level in California, primarily to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change. Wind and solar are only able to provide intermittent electricity to the grid, but cannot provide the oil or the oil by-products that are the basis of every component of modern civilizations’ industries and infrastructures. This is an overly simplistic approach to addressing the complex international challenge of forestalling global warming.

The fact is, oil is the only energy source that is technically able to power about 95 percent of our state’s 32 million vehicles with transportation fuel demands of 40 million gallons per day. It’s just common sense to produce as much of that crude oil and manufacture the transportation fuels as much as possible in California for its 38 million citizens who live on an “energy island” for several reasons: First, our state has the nation’s strictest environmental laws, generating far lower greenhouse gas emissions than those associated with producing and transporting oil from countries with weaker rules. Second, it would provide California consumers with the energy security necessary to protect us from disruptive and costly supply interruptions. Third, it would be good for our economy, providing jobs and revenues right here in California instead of in other states and countries.

Despite this reality, regulators continue to recklessly forge ahead with schemes to force an immediate move away from reliable fossil fuels in favor of alternatives and renewables. With both in-state crude oil production and shipments from Alaska on the decline, shipments from foreign countries, already at 52 percent of California’s needs, will be increasing. An alternative to reduce dependency on foreign crude is approval of crude transport by rail from the Midwest or Canada to meet the demands on the California energy island.

One scenario under consideration by the Air Resources Board would mandate that the number of electric, plug-in hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles increase from the current 300,000 to 5 million and 40 percent of new car sales by 2030, regardless of cost or feasibility.

There are local efforts underway as well. For example, here in the Valley area, two of three planned phases to expand access to the San Fernando Road bike path have been completed, and the third is underway. But is it intellectually honest to think that Valley commuters will be able to use a roughly three-mile bike path to get to jobs throughout the more than 4,000 square miles of Los Angeles County alone?

A recent traffic study concluded that six of the most congested stretches of highway in the United States are in the Los Angeles area. The101 Freeway in the Valley earned the dubious distinction as the worst highway in the country, where during rush hour it can take 91 minutes to travel 26 miles at an average speed of 17 miles an hour.

So how do we reconcile the desire to fight global warming with the real-life transportation needs of Valley motorists and our counterparts throughout the state? First, some perspective may be helpful: according to the California Energy Commission, our state contributes a miniscule 1 percent of total worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. It’s been a decade since the passage of the flagship climate change policy AB 32, yet, the state has not been transparent with the results of its emission crusade, and remains on a go-it-alone path to micromanage the California emissions that generates billions of dollars for the government at the expense of businesses and the financially challenged. So no matter how much inconvenience and cost we impose on drivers, we are likely to see a return that is purely symbolic, not substantive.

And no matter how many electric cars we put on the road, they will still be stuck in the same maddening traffic jams that increasingly enrage users of more conventional vehicles.

Let’s hope that future generations will be up to the challenge facing humanity to mitigate climate change responsibly and cost-effectively. Meanwhile, as the society of civil engineers report card suggests, California might do well to focus more attention and resources on improving transportation infrastructure to make commuting easier and cleaner for the folks in the Valley and elsewhere.

 is founder of PTS Staffing Solutions, a technical staffing agency headquartered in Irvine

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

Legislature Returns to Action in August: What to Watch For

July 31, 2016 By Matt Fleming 4 Comments

CA-legislatureAugust is sure to be a busy month in Sacramento, as legislators fight to get their priorities passed before the legislative session ends on August 31.

While a large number of bills will be debated, there are four things to watch for:

Environment

With the political backing of new polling, Senate Bill 32 — which would extend and increase the state’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals — is sure to reappear.

Not only is it a legacy project for the termed-out Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills — who authored the 2006 measure that this bill would extend — but it is backed by both Democratic leaders, Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon.

“A clear majority of Californians strongly support our state’s climate policies and expect their elected leaders to build on our progress battling climate change and air pollution while making investments in clean energy across our state,” de Leon said in a statement on Wednesday. “This is why the Legislature should extend our climate targets in statute by passing Senate Bill 32.”

Republicans are opposed to the measure, which leaves the power to a handful of moderate, pro-business Democrats. The bill passed the Senate in 2015, but was defeated on the Assembly floor and then granted reconsideration.

An interesting data point: 15 Assembly members didn’t vote — which is a way of voting “no” without any accountability.

Transportation

The Legislature has been in a special session on transportation since last summer to come up with a funding plan to fix the state’s crumbling roads — but with little headway. Gov. Jerry Brown estimates there are almost $6 billion worth of unfunded repairs throughout the state each year.

The dispute is largely between Democrats who have proposed additional revenues (taxes) and Republicans who believe new taxes aren’t necessary as the money already exists but has been redirected to stop budget shortfalls in other areas.

Rumor has it that Democrats will propose what could be a massive package including new revenue, like a gas tax hike, sometime next month — although, since there’s a special session, it could be introduced after the regular session ends.

Republicans are unlikely to budge, but it may not matter what they want. Republicans are in danger of ceding a supermajority to the Democrats in November. If that happens, Democrats would be able to approve new revenues without Republican support.

Of course, the required two-thirds majority wouldn’t leave much room for defections from moderate Democrats.

Overtime for farmworkers

While farmworkers do get overtime, it has a much higher threshold than other professions. A revived bill would, over time, bring the threshold in line with other professions. You may remember that this bill was defeated in June, but it has been repackaged into another bill.

Proponents argue that farmworkers shouldn’t be exempt from the same overtime and break rules as everyone else. Opponents say farmers can’t afford it, and that an industry dependent on weather and external price setting can’t be regulated the same as other professions.

It’s unclear what would be different when the next vote comes that would make business-friendly Democrats, who sided with Republicans to defeat the measure, change their votes. Election year pressure may sway some vulnerable incumbents.

Of course, the measure was only three votes shy of passage, so proponents may target the seven Assembly members who simply didn’t vote, six of whom are Democrats.

Housing

It’s widely reported that the state faces an affordable housing crisis, particularly in urban centers.

Gov. Jerry Brown has been trying to increase affordable housing supply with a plan to reduce regulatory barriers for developers trying to build low-income housing. His ideas have not been embraced by the Legislature and he faces opposition largely fromunions and environmentalists.

Meanwhile, Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, still has hopes of putting a $3 billion, low-income housing bond on the November ballot.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,