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