AB32 – Page 2

CARB Threatens Greenhouse Gas Law Extention

July 15, 2016 By Joel Fox 4 Comments

The California Air Resources Board set a match to controversy this week suggesting that the board could push the cap-and-trade deadline for funding greenhouse gas reduction programs past its 2020 end date by executive fiat.

That’s not the way the law works, many Republicans cried, and they are backed up by an opinion from the Legislative Counsel’s Office.

According to the opinion, “The act does not authorize the governor or the ARB to establish a greenhouse gas emissions that is below 1990 level and that would be applicable after 2020.”

Republican Senate Minority Leader Jean Fuller called the ARB proposal “illegal” and admonished the executive branch, “Californians deserve better than a government that acts as if they are above the law.”

Many in the business community feel fixes are needed to the current program before any extension is contemplated. Dorothy Rothrock, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association said in a release following the ARB announcement, “Manufacturing investments and jobs have lagged other states in the US over the past six years by a large margin. Future climate policies must recognize this reality and be designed to protect California’s manufacturing jobs and economy.”

The cap-and-trade policy ARB wants to extend is subject to court action already, as business interests, including the California Chamber of Commerce, brought suit claiming the cap-and-trade formula is actually a tax requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature. The law establishing cap-and-trade, AB 32 of 2006, was established by majority vote. While a lower court brushed aside the business complaint an appellate court is now considering the matter. Observers watching court action say there is a chance the lower court decision could be reversed.

There is another way for the legislature and the governor to extend the cap-and-trade end date and lower the greenhouse gases goal below 1990 levels. Pass legislation.

That is exactly what some in the legislature are trying to do with SB 32, that would extend the law lowering the acceptable greenhouse gas level 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

The court case, however, raises doubt about whether the SB 32 needs a simple majority vote or a two-thirds vote.

In a Flash Report column yesterday, state Senator Andy Vidak said attempts are being made by Democratic leaders in the legislature to secure enough Republican votes to allow SB 32 to pass by two-thirds. If true, that is a strong indication that the Democrats are concerned the court will side with the CalChamber over the tax issue and brand cap-and-trade an illegal tax.

Yet, the politics over changing the greenhouse gases law do not stop there. Another consideration is one posed by L.A. Times columnist George Skelton who suggested California voters in November, reacting negatively to a Trump candidacy, might defeat Republican officeholders thus securing a two-thirds vote in both houses of the legislature for the Democrats.

In that case, the strategy for the Democrats just might be to bide their time. Then again, you might conclude that the politics don’t stop at that point, even with a two-thirds Democratic majority, because the politics of energy and its cost have split the Democratic caucus in the past and could do so again.

Joel Fox is editor of Fox & Hounds and President of the Small Business Action Committee.

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: AB32, Cap and trade, environment, Greenhouse gas, Joel Fox, Tax

How Gov’t Unions and Crony Capitalists Exploit Global Warming Concerns

June 23, 2016 By Ed Ring 1 Comment

If anyone is looking for evidence that government unions use their immense influence to support the growth of an authoritarian state, look no further than their unequivocal support for global warming “mitigation,” and all attendant agencies and laws to support that goal.

In 2006 California’s union-controlled Legislature passed AB32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act,” a measure that was touted as a trailblazing breakthrough in the dire challenge to avoid catastrophic climate change. The premise behind AB32 is that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, and that eliminating CO2 emissions is necessary to prevent the planet’s climate from overheating, with all the apocalyptic consequences; rising oceans inundating coastal regions, epic droughts cascading through the world’s fragile forests and killing them, extreme storms, acidic oceans, collapsing agriculture – the end of life as we know it.

Maybe that’s true – and maybe not – but how it’s being managed is a corrupt, misanthropic, epic scam.

If anyone is looking for evidence that government unions and crony capitalists work together – contrary to the conventional wisdom that presents the appearance that they are in conflict – again look no further than their shared support for global warming mitigation, expressed in the legislative mandate to reduce CO2 emissions. AB32 implements this by forcing industrial entities to purchase permits to emit progressively smaller quantities of CO2, via an auction process that is expected to raise $20 billion per year to finance renewable energy investments.

Think about how government unions will benefit from all this money:

Transit workers will claim a share because they will be getting cars off the road.
Firefighters will claim more fires are because of global warming and demand more funds – when in reality most severe wildfires are the result of decades of forest mismanagement and unwarranted wildfire suppression.
Cities will qualify for proceeds when they zone extremely high density housing.
Code enforcement officers will declare that the percentage of their jobs oriented towards conservation and energy/water efficiency qualifies them for a share of the proceeds.
Teachers will declare that the percentage of their curricula oriented towards climate education qualifies them for a share of the proceeds.
More generally, municipalities will collect more property tax as restrictive zoning elevates the cost of housing.

Think about how crony corporations and corrupt financial special interests benefit from this money:

Wall Street traders will set up new subsidiaries to traffic in carbon emission auctions and take a cut.
“Green” entrepreneurs will manufacture devices calculated to save energy and water – despite the fact that the shortages are contrived.
Producers of energy and water will sell at higher prices since competitive development of these resources is restricted.
Utilities whose profits are “decoupled” from the quantity of energy and water they deliver will increase revenue and hence their profit margins which are pegged to revenue, without having to increase services.
Manufacturers of noncompetitive products with no natural demand – high speed rail is a perfect example – are enriched via hundreds of billions of investment for their supposedly greener and cleaner solutions.
More generally, artificial scarcity causes asset bubbles which benefits wealthy investors and pension funds, but impoverishes ordinary workers.

Even if CO2 is a threat to life on earth, there is an alternative that merits discussion:

Instead of investing in “green” energy infrastructure and embedded surveillance systems to micro-manage energy consumption, California should be investing in natural gas and 5th generation nuclear power stations, desalination plants along the coast, liquid natural gas terminals, efficiency upgrades to existing high-voltage transmission lines, run-off harvesting and aquifer storage systems, upgraded aqueducts, comprehensive waste-water treatment and aquifer recharge, offshore drilling for oil and gas, widened roads and freeways, more airport runways, and buses for mass transit. These steps will result in energy, water and transportation costing everyone in California less. This will benefit businesses and consumers, and make California a magnet for investors and entrepreneurs all over the world.

And even if CO2 is a threat to life on earth, vigorous debate on that topic should be encouraged, not outlawed.

If you are an informed skeptic – something the axis of government unions and powerful financial special interests are trying to outlaw – it becomes tiresome to recite the litany of legitimate reasons that debate regarding the actual impact of anthropogenic CO2 is of critical importance. The primacy of solar cycles, the multi-decadal oscillations of ocean currents, the dubious role of water vapor as a positive feedback mechanism, the improbability of positive climate feedback in general, the uncertain role (and diversity) of aerosols, the poorly understood impact of land use changes, the failure of the ice caps to melt on schedule, the failure of climate models to account for an actual cooling of the troposphere, the fact that just the annual fluctuations in natural sources of CO2 emissions eclipse estimated human CO2 emissions by an order of magnitude. And let’s not forget – California only is responsible for 1.7 percent of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Does any of this matter to the California Air Resources Board?

Apparently not. Nor does it matter to California’s Legislature, which recently stopped just short of passing Senate Bill 1161, the Orwellian California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016. SB1161 would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

What California’s legislature ran up against, of course, was the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps they believe time is on their side. After all, even the Scalia court ruled in 2007 that CO2 is pollution, in one of the most frightening inversions of reality in U.S. history. Imagine what a court packed with Clinton appointees will come up with.

The failure to deploy clean fossil fuel solutions in the developing world, much less here in California, condemns billions of humans to further decades of poverty, misery, and unchecked population growth. Cheap energy equals prosperity equals population stabilization. Until a few years ago that hopeful process was inexorable. But in recent years, somewhere on the shores of Africa, cost-effective industrial development ran into global warming’s global mafia and was stopped in its tracks.

The consolidation of power inherent in government suppression of energy development and micromanagement of energy consumption is not only a recipe for a corporate union police state in America. It is a recipe for systemic oppression of emerging societies across the world. At the very least, the debate must continue.

* * *

Ed Ring is the president of the California Policy Center.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: AB32, CO2, Global Warming, Global Warming Solutions Act

Cap-and-Trade Revenue Drastically Lower Than Expected

May 28, 2016 By James Poulos 2 Comments

In yet another blow to California’s besieged bullet train, revenues from this year’s cap-and-trade carbon credit auction fell drastically below the state’s goals, triggering a selloff that left analysts unsure of the system’s long-term viability.

“The results of last week’s quarterly auction were posted and revealed that instead of the $500-plus million expected from the sale of state-owned allowances, the state will get only about $10 million, less than 2 percent,” the Sacramento Bee reported.

“The poor results confirmed reports circulating in financial circles that the cap-and-trade program has begun to stumble. February’s auction resulted in some allowances being left unsold — the first time that had happened. Afterward, there was a brisk trade in the secondary market as speculators began dumping their holdings due to uncertainty about the future of the program, which may expire in 2020.”

Officials and activists swiftly sought to downplay the damage. “Over the long-term allowances will be needed, and so the allowances that will be offered through the auction will need to be purchased,” said Ross Brown of the Legislative Analyst’s Office. “But in the short-term it’s hard to know and it depends on the underlying supply and demand.” From an environmentalist standpoint, meanwhile, “it’s important to remember that […] it’s the declining cap — not the price or number of allowances sold at auction — that drives emissions reductions,” wrote Alex Jackson at the National Resources Defense Council. “That is the purpose of the program, not raising revenue.” But with 2020 looming, Jackson allowed, the one-two punch against high-speed rail and cap-and-trade have cast doubt on California’s strategy of fusing infrastructure and environmentalism into a single economic policy.

Case and controversy

Adding to the upheaval, the carbon credit regime itself has wound up in court, as the state Chamber of Commerce pushes to prove that the legislation authorizing its creation — AB32 — has run afoul of the state constitution. “Propositions 13 and 26 require a two-thirds majority for the Legislature to approve new or higher taxes and fees,” as Hoover Institution fellow Carson Bruno wrote at the Bee. “Whether or not AB32, which barely passed in 2006, is unconstitutional depends on whether the cap-and-trade revenues constitute either a tax or a fee. These auction revenues fit the definition of both a tax and fee. They are imposed by a government entity, spent on government activities and are collected in exchange for a transaction — in this case a permit to emit greenhouse gases.”

Officials have countered that argument in court. “The state contends the fees are not taxes, but a consequence of regulations,” as the Times noted. But a judge hearing arguments “recently asked a series of questions that perhaps fueled speculation that he might rule in favor of the suit,” according to the paper.

The governor’s gambit

Flexing his considerable political skill and discipline to balance competing interests to his ideological left, Gov. Jerry Brown had labored to ensure that cap-and-trade funds could be leveraged to make the train a viable public and private sector investment. That presumed a degree of stability in revenues that now can’t be relied on. “The rail authority had been expecting about $150 million,” the Los Angeles Times observed; now, it will receive just $2.5 million. “Whatever prompted the lack of buyers, the auction is a stark example of the uncertainty and risk of relying on actively-traded carbon credits to build the bullet train, a problem highlighted in recent legislative testimony by the Legislative Analyst’s Office and a peer-review panel for the $64-billion high-speed rail.”

Brown had hedged against just such an eventuality, however. State finance spokesman H.D. Palmer “noted that there is a $500-million reserve set up in anticipation of volatility that could help close the gap,” the Times added. But Brown will have to clear the emergency expenditure in Sacramento, where some liberal lawmakers, hoping to channel more money to environmental policy, could try to nix the scheme by aligning with Republicans long bent on scrapping the train.

This piece was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: AB32, bullet train, Cap and trade, Carbon, H.D. Palmer, high speed rail, Jerry Brown, LAO, Legislative Analyst's Office

Transparency Ballot Measure Crosses Vital Threshold

May 7, 2016 By Matt Fleming 3 Comments

A ballot measure aimed at increasing legislative transparency crossed a vital threshold on Thursday and appears poised to be on November’s ballot.

The initiative is a constitutional amendment requiring the Legislature to make available online the final version of a bill at least 72 hours prior to a vote on either the Assembly or Senate floor.

The measure would also require all open legislative meetings to be recorded, with the videos posted online with 24 hours. It also allows individuals to record and share their own videos of open meetings.

“Voters are making it clear that they are fed up with special interest legislation being passed in the middle of the night, without time for input or careful consideration of how new laws impact them,” Sam Blakeslee, a former state senator and one of the measure’s proponents, said in a statement on Thursday. “We look forward to seeing these common sense reforms become a reality when all Californians have the opportunity to vote for this measure at the polls this November.”

The measure is backed by Republican donor Charles T. Munger Jr. and is supported by right-leaning groups like the California Chamber of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the National Federation of Independent Business and the left-leaning California Common Cause.

The most outspoken and public opponent of the measure is Democratic political strategist Steven Maviglio, who argues it’s just another “tool” for special interests to unravel legislative deals at the last second.

Maviglio points to the 2008 budget agreement, the 1959 Fair Housing Act, the 2006 climate change bill (AB32) and the 2014 water bond were all tough votes taken without 72 hours notice. This measure, he argues, would subject iffy legislators to attacks from special interest groups.

“Let’s not give special interests any more tools to prevent lawmakers from doing the right thing, whether it be unnecessary delays in enacting legislation or ways to demonize the Legislature,” wrote in The Sacramento Bee.

Originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: AB32, Sam Blakeslee, transparency

Cap and Trade Costing CA Drivers $2 Billion Per Year

April 9, 2016 By Matt Fleming 5 Comments

As fast as California drivers will spend an extra $2 billion at the pump this year to fund the controversial cap-and-trade program, state lawmakers are finding ways to use it, according to two reports released Thursday.

Cap and trade was implemented by a state regulatory board to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as required by law.

One of several additional costs tacked on an estimated 11 cents to each gallon of gas and 13 cents per gallon of diesel, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, driving average prices to some of the highest in the nation.

“Most drivers have no idea that this is costing them $2 billion per year because it has been largely hidden from them,” said Asm. Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale. “It’s clear that we need to improve transparency for consumers about cap and trade’s costs.”

Where does the money go?

Cap-and-trade money is currently appropriated as follows: 40 percent is unallocated, 25 percent is for high-speed rail, 20 percent is for affordable housing and sustainable communities grants, 10 percent is for intercity rail capital projects and 5 percent is for low-carbon transit projects.

Waiting to spend the money are 36 pending proposals in the Legislature totaling $7.5 billion, which is more than double what was proposed in Gov. Jerry Brown’s draft budget, according to a study by the California Tax Foundation.

The most expensive proposal is SBX1 2, sponsored by Sen. Bob Huff, R-San Dimas. This bill would divert $1.9 billion annually to street and highway construction projects and block further cap-and-trade funds from going to high-speed rail.

In addition to barring further funds from going to high-speed rail (a recurring theme for Huff), the Huff bill is too vague to show whether it will reduce GHGs or not and may “leave itself open to litigation,” according to the legislative analysis.

Another bill, sponsored by Asm. Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles, would fund nearly $1 billion worth of projects, including up to $100 million on new toilets. According to the report, many of the initiatives would likely reduce GHG emissions, while other parts of the bill might not.

Other bills include synchronizing traffic lights, implementing a car buyback program, promoting recycled glass and preventing forest fires. And while its unclear what effect most of the proposals would have on GHG emissions, the report was issued to help voters and legislators make that determination.

“This report identifies the auction revenue spending proposals that are active in the Legislature, so they can be given proper scrutiny,” California Tax Foundation Director Robert Gutierrez said in a statement.

Legality

Opponents of the program argue that by collecting revenue from drivers and businesses (those with large GHG emissions) it amounts to an illegal tax, which would have needed to be approved by a two-thirds legislative majority to be legal. A previous court ruling — which is now being challenged — found that the revenue is OK as a regulatory fee and thereby not subject to a two-third’s vote.

In 2006, the Legislature passed AB32, which tasked the state ARB to implement the GHG reduction. Proponents say this mandate gave the ARB the legal authority to auction off emission allowances (there’s a “cap” on emissions and business can “trade” them at auction).

In January, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended lawmakers either narrowly tailor their proposals to unquestionably reduce GHGs or approve the program with a two-thirds majority to avoid legal complications.

Originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: AB32, Bob Huff, Cap and trade, Carbon Tax, environment, Jerry Brown, Jimmy Gomez, Tom Lackey

Check Under the Hood Before Letting California Pass New Fuel Rules

September 2, 2015 By Susan Shelley 5 Comments

During World War II, Americans endured rationing of food and gasoline. The federal government issued ration books and enforced tight limits on purchases.

When the war ended, nothing better symbolized the triumph of freedom than the return of gleaming new cars to the showrooms. “Just step on the gas and go,” enthused the announcer in an ad for the “futuramic” 1948 Oldsmobile.

Today, some California lawmakers want to hit the brakes. Senate Bill 350 — no relation to the 350 engine — would force a 50 percent reduction in the use of petroleum for California vehicles by 2030.

You’d think elected officials proposing such a drastic measure would have a clear idea of how they plan to achieve it and a very good reason why it’s necessary.

You’d be wrong.

Their plan is to turn the whole project over to the California Air Resources Board, an unaccountable panel of appointees that write and enforce the state’s regulations on climate change and air pollution. Would CARB impose gas rationing to meet the 50 percent reduction target?

An aide to Gov. Jerry Brown recently laughed that off as “ridiculous,” but SB350’s author, Sen. Kevin de León, said Tuesday he’s working on amendments, which could include a ban on gas rationing. He also said he plans to increase oversight of CARB, though he didn’t say how.

CARB chair Mary Nichols may have the clout to resist any changes. Over the years she has personally donated more than $75,000 to state legislative campaigns and to the governor.

CARB enforces the 2006 law known as AB32, which forced utilities to buy a greater percentage of expensive renewable energy and imposed a cap-and-trade system to penalize greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, California now has some of the highest electricity rates and fuel prices in the nation. SB350 and its companion, SB32, would mandate even higher, costlier targets for greenhouse gas reduction, renewable fuel use and energy efficiency in addition to the 50 percent petroleum cutback.

To enforce the limits, CARB could use data from your car’s onboard computer, downloaded at smog checks, to collect a road-usage tax or a fine for excessive “vehicle miles traveled.” Maybe new regulations will simply make gasoline more expensive until people stop driving, or stop eating.

It remains a stubborn fact that limiting greenhouse gas emissions in California will have absolutely no effect on the climate, now or in the future.

SB350’s proponents say California must lead the world, at your expense. But no other state has followed our lead to establish the type of cap-and-trade system that has left Californians paying higher prices for everything that’s produced or transported in the state. Nobody wants our higher cost of living, or our poverty rate of nearly 25 percent.

Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Torrance, said he doesn’t discount concerns about climate change but worries that the carbon reduction mandates in SB350 will be met “by impoverishing entire regions of California and bankrupting entire industries.” Since California accounts for only about 1 percent of the carbon emissions of the planet, Hadley said, “We could return our standard of living to the Stone Age and we would not move the needle on carbon emissions.”

Those Flintstone cars are going to look pretty silly in the showrooms, and they’re really going to slow down the carpool lane.

There’s no rational reason for Californians to pay ever higher prices for energy in order to achieve absolutely nothing. We should not tie a tourniquet around our own necks. SB350 and SB32 should be killed before they kill us.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: AB32, CARB, David Hadley, Jerry Brown, Kevin de Leon, Mary Nichols, SB350, Susan Shelley

Climate Change Regulation: Taking It Out on the Little Guy

April 1, 2015 By Jon Coupal 3 Comments

Gov. Jerry Brown has declared that opposition to efforts to reduce carbon emissions “borders on the immoral.” Hesitate though we might to debate Brown, a former Jesuit seminarian, on the nature of divine law, we have to question the “morality” of forcing working California motorists to bear the brunt of the cost of regulations required by Brown’s convictions.

In light of both economic concerns and a more rational understanding of climate change science, other nations and states are rethinking their aggressive policies. But here in California, the reigning political leadership is forcing the middle class and working poor to shoulder almost the entire burden of mankind’s response to climate change.

When it comes to the topic of climate change, there is really only one thing we know for certain. Climate change is a global concern that needs a global response. There are nearly 200 nations on earth. To ask the working families and small businesses of one state in one nation to suffer almost the entirety of economic harm is both unfair and foolish.

How did we get to this point? In 2006, California lawmakers enacted the Global Warming Solutions Act, telling the public that its cap-and-trade program – forcing emitters to buy credits – would radically reduce carbon emissions. The unelected California Air Resources Board has proceeded to place transportation fuels under the program. Because the agency has no power to levy taxes, CARB Chair Mary Nichols said they would use the power of cap-and-trade as the way to price carbon. Already, this program has added about 13 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas and this could be increasing to as much as 75 cents.

Last year, anticipating the problems this would create for working California families, Democratic Assemblyman Henry Perea introduced AB 69 to spread the implementation of the new fees over a three-year period to allow those who must buy gasoline more time to adjust to the higher costs. The measure was supported by other moderate Democrats and Republicans but was killed by Senate leader Darrell Steinberg.

Now that the new CARB regulations are taking hold and producing upward pressure on gasoline prices, Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson has introduced AB 23, the Affordable Gas for California Families Act. This legislation would remove transportation fuels and natural gas from the clutches of the California Air Resource Board’s cap-and-trade program.

The idea behind AB 23 is simple. Relieve the burden on modest and low income folks already struggling under difficult economic circumstances and who have little ability to make quick changes to their lifestyles. However, when heard last week in the Assembly Resources Committee, the bill was rejected 6 to 3, on a party line vote, with Democrats, who like to portray themselves as the champions of the little guy, providing the no votes.

Unfortunately, this vote is what we’ve come to expect. Just last year the Democrats rejected a bill which would have phased the cap-and-trade “tax” in gradually. As I wrote last year, “the response of Democrats reminds one of Marie Antoinette’s who, when told that the people were starving because they had no bread, infamously said, ‘Let them eat cake.’ In the case of those fervently devoted to the rigid implementation of California’s cap and trade program it is as if when told that a low income citizen can no longer afford gasoline for their 1991 Toyota Corolla they respond with, ‘Let them drive Teslas.’ The Tesla, of course, is a taxpayer-subsidized electric car that will set the buyer back north of $100,000, which is well beyond the means of those who will be most hurt by this new gas tax.”

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

Originally published on HJTA.org

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: AB32, CARB, Climate change, Henry Perea, Jerry Brown

Understanding the Meaning about Green Jobs

February 15, 2015 By Rob Lapsley 2 Comments

Given the upcoming proposals on the next generation climate policies, it is critically important to start understanding exactly what the green economy means to California’s long term jobs future. According to a recent review from the Center for Jobs and the Economy, multiple studies indicate that 2% of all California jobs are classified as green jobs. There is evidence that California has gained temporary jobs around construction and installation of solar facilities and consulting work for government and private employers, but it appears that the green sector has not yet developed substantial permanent, middle income jobs for a long term employment base.

We need to put the numbers into perspective and understand the unique role they will play and how we can develop state policies that recognize their importance while growing the other 98% of our current jobs in other sectors.

For example, the only hard green jobs data from the state was a California Employment Development Department (EDD) survey from May 2009 to January 2010 which found that “the results also showed no discernable difference in the likelihood that a green or non-green firm would experience a net job gain.” The state should have the latest and most transparent green jobs data to help the Governor and policymakers in their decision-making.

While some green industry sectors are growing, many studies rely on reclassification of traditional jobs such as those in garbage, public transit, utilities, and government regulatory positions as “green” in order to arrive at their numbers. This issue is critically important because major environmental and energy policy decisions will be based on these classifications and incomplete numbers. The Center noted that some reports on green jobs build their numbers by including indirect jobs, including supporting services such as “consulting, finance, tax, and legal services.”

The analysis also found that nuclear, hydro, and natural gas power jobs are treated as green jobs, including in the most recent higher estimates, although those facilities are not designated as such under the AB 32 program. If we expect to have an accurate accounting that will guide policy-making, then we need to start with a reasoned and practical definition of a green job to be used by government and private entities.

You can find the study here.

Rob Lapsley is President, California Business Roundtable

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: AB32, Climate change, Global Warming, Green energy, jobs

High-Speed Rail Takes Two More Swipes at CEQA

November 18, 2014 By Kathy Hamilton 4 Comments

In his 2013 State of the State address, Gov. Jerry Brown quoted “The Little Engine That Could”: “I think I can. I think I can.”

One thing the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which runs the project, thinks it can do is get around the California Environmental Quality Act. As noted in the first article in this series, it started with two attempts:

Attempt 1: During the California Legislature’s closing days in August 2012, the CHSRA tried to pass more lenient measures to comply with CEQA. The Legislature didn’t cooperate.
Attempt 2: In June 2013, the CHSRA filed a request with the 3rd District Court of Appeal in the city of Atherton’s suit against the project. The CHSRA wanted the court to recognize the federal pre-emption of jurisdiction, getting around state laws, such as CEQA. The court refused.

Attempt 3

Attempt 3: De-publication. Now, in its third attempt to get around CEQA, on Sept. 22 California Attorney General Kamala Harris asked the California Supreme Court for the de-publication of the 3rd District’s decision in the Atherton case. If granted, it would have meant future cases would have been restricted in using this case for precedent. Harris is representing the CHSRA.

Basically, what Harris and the CHSRA said was that, regardless of the language in Proposition 1A in 2008, they instead wanted to put the project into federal jurisdiction. And that, any interpretation to the contrary, such as that by the 3rd District Court of Appeal, had “misinterpreted” those facts, and ought to be de-published.

De-publication would have offered a quick way to minimize the damage of the 3rd District Court of Appeal’s decision. If the Supreme Court had agreed to de-publish the decision, it would have blocked that decision from being used as a precedent for other cases.

Stuart Flashman, an attorney for Kings County and two residents who have brought suit to stop the project, filed a brief against the de-publication, arguing:

“If the Attorney General wished to press these points, her proper recourse was to petition for review, and the other agencies could have supported review….

“If the parties seeking de-publication feel that major state transportation projects should not be subject to CEQA review, that argument should be addressed to the Legislature, which clearly knows how to exempt classes of projects from CEQA review when it feels such exemption is warranted.”

On Oct. 29, the Supreme Court denied the de-publication request. Therefore, the 3rd District Court of Appeal’s decision is now final and conclusive.

Attempt 4

Attempt 4: the Surface Transportation Board. Private attorneys Nossaman LLP have a $17 million contract to represent the CHSRA. An Oct. 9 petition by Nossaman asked for declaratory relief, that is, an official declaration of the status of a matter in controversy to expedite a court case.

In this case, the CHSRA is specifically asking the STB to take off the table any request for a injunction against construction for any party suing under CEQA. The CHSRA want federal laws to preempt state laws.

(The STB is a federal agency under the Department of Transportation. A year ago, on Dec. 3, 2013, the STB declared it held federal jurisdiction because California’s tracks would also be used by Amtrak; and the tracks cross state lines.)

The CHSRA wants to prevent the chance of a construction injunction being granted for a Central Valley case represented by Attorney Doug Carstens from Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP. He represents Kings County, Citizens for High Speed Rail Accountability and the Kings County Farm Bureau.

The reason his clients are suing is because of alleged CEQA improprieties in the Fresno-to-Bakersfield segment. The CHSRA said that, if the injunction was granted, it could endanger the start of building the high-speed rail system; and the CHSRA has a tight time frame on the use of $3.5 billion in federal funds.

But there is no emergency. The actual case is not expected to be heard until mid-summer 2015. Moreover, there are six other CEQA cases filed against the project and not one of them is ready to go to court this month.

A decision from the STB is expected soon. If the STB grants declaratory relief, basically preempting CEQA with a federal supremacy claim, the next step will be the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This piece was originally published at CalWatchdog.com

Kathy Hamilton is the Ralph Nader of high-speed rail, continually uncovering hidden aspects of the project and revealing them to the public. She started writing in order to tell local communities how the project affects them and her reach grew statewide. She has written more than 225 articles on high-speed rail and attended hundreds of state and local meetings. She is a board member of the Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail; has testified at government hearings; has provided public testimony and court declarations on public records act requests; has given public testimony; and has provided transcripts for the validation of court cases.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: AB32, bullet train, CEQA, CHSRA, high speed rail, Jerry Brown