Global Warming: Ballot initiative would curb California efforts

 
So what happens if California delays the implementation of its landmark global warming law, AB 32? The state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office has done the math on Measure 94, a proposed ballot measure, and assessed the fallout. Its verdict?  The measure would cripple but not completely dismantle the state's efforts to slash its greenhouse gas emissions; it could lead to bigger short-term profits for some businesses, but dampen investments in clean technology and green jobs.

The legislative analyst report, the first step in qualifying an initiative for the ballot, was sent to the California attorney general Tuesday. He has 15 days to give the initiative a title and a summary. Once that happens, proponents can begin gathering the 433,971 valid signatures required to place Measure 94 on the November ballot. An attorney general's spokeswoman said that is likely to happen on Feb 5.  Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, an advocate for climate curbs, is unlikely to retain proponents' current title: "California Jobs Initiative."

Assembly Bill 32, adopted in 2006, would require the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions -- which mostly come from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars -- to 1990 levels by 2020. That would be an effective cut of about 15% below today's levels. The California Air Resources Board is expected to adopt a cap-and-trade program by the end of the year, which would limit the amount each industry can emit, but allow companies to buy and sell emissions credits to lower their costs.

Measure 94 would delay implementing the law until California's unemployment drops to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters (two other versions in the pipeline would delay the law until joblessness sinks even lower). The state's current unemployment rate is 12.4%. The measure is proposed by Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Marysville), Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Granite Bay) and Ted Costa, of the People's Advocate Initiative Committee (the anti-tax, Prop. 13 folks), and California tea-party activists.

The measure would suspend not only the proposed cap-and-trade program, but also rules that have already been adopted by the California Air Resources board, including a measure to slash the amount of carbon in gasoline and other fuels. That first-in-the-nation low-carbon fuel standard was adopted in April.

It would also invalidate Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's executive order requiring that 33% of all retail electricity sellers get their electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal by 2020. (The current standard of 20% by investor-owned utilities by 2010 would still apply.) That order would curb greenhouse gas emissions of the state's power plants, its biggest polluters.

Nonetheless, one key measure, the limit on greenhouse gas emissions from cars, would "probably" be unaffected by the proposed ballot measure, legislative analyst Mac Taylor concluded. That's because vehicles fall under a 2002 statute, AB 1493, known as the Pavely law after its author, state Sen. Fran Pavely (D-Agoura Hills). The analyst's report estimates that half of the emissions reductions contemplated under the state's climate plan would still be required because they are authorized by other statutes.

Suspending AB 32 could lead to short-term cuts in consumer energy prices, the analyst found. But he added that it could "delay investments in energy technologies reaping longer-run savings, or dampen additional investments in clean energy technologies or in so-called 'green jobs' by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity than would otherwise be the case."

As for saving the cash-poor state money, the analyst's report notes that auctions of permits to emit greenhouse gases under a cap-and-trade program could result in "billions of dollars annually" in state revenue. Under Measure 94, that revenue would not fill state coffers (albeit much of it would be kicked back to consumers to compensate for higher energy costs, under the most likely proposed cap-and-trade design).

-- Margot Roosevelt

Photo: A solar facility under construction in Rancho Cordova, Calif. by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. If the ballot initiative to suspend AB 32 passes, utilities would be required to build fewer renewable electricity plants. Credit: Rich Pedroncelli/AP

Comments

[Jimmy Stewart]

Instead of a temporary bill this should be permanent and let the market dictate where things should go and not government dictating what we should do. Global warming is a lie but if alternative energies become more cost effective and efficient then the market will go that way. There is a reason that hybrid cars are not the biggest sellers and the old fashioned gasoline engines still dominate. It's because the gasoline engines are more affordable and effective. The same is true with energy in general....coal powered, nuclear all work more effectively than wind, sun etc...that's just the facts.

[Noel]

Signatories of the Initiative may refer to the LAO’s implementation cost estimate, while greens may cite the ARB’s job creation forecast. Since we’re predisposed to conclusions that fit our ideologies, it’s more constructive to track current investments.

A record-breaking number of deals during 1Q-2010 funneled $1.9 billion to clean technology, up 83% from last year. California companies received $870 million (46%) of the global total, with the largest investments in electric vehicle technology and infrastructure. Combined with $226 million the CEC received from the Recovery Act, California is poised to secure employment in green and complementary services sectors.

The top global economies are jockeying to win the sustainable energy race. California is a frontrunner because of its innovative research and regulations. University R&D and AB32 are our starting blocks-- removing them would delay our finish.

Don’t compromise our environment and competitiveness for short-term gains. Don’t sign the California Jobs Initiative.

http://cleantech.com/about/pressreleases/Q1-2010-release.cfm
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/can-tax-incentives-bring-back-manufacturing-to-california/

[Matt Petersen]

Tom McClintock has been singing the same song for decades now and despite having failed at state wide office multiple times, he seems to continue to want to be known as the "green-job, clean-air, clean-tech-investment-killing-zombie". I guess he'd rather be known as the "green job killer" then evolve and adapt to help California revive its economy and lead the way in protecting our coasts from sea level rise due to global warming.

[RS]

The largest round of clean tech venture capitol ($350m) raised by any US or European company was recently awarded to Palo Alto’s Better Place, a company that supplies services for electric cars. If CA dismantles AB32, we'll be saying "no thanks" to hundreds of millions in investment like this.

[David Pettit]

Measure 94 would not just stall AB32, but would also push California backwards in its attempt to move energy production away from imported fossil fuels with volatile and unpredictable prices. Sunshine and wind are free; natural gas is not.

[Erin Rogers]

Overall our economy is in trouble, and the transition to a clean energy economy based on innovation is part of the solution. A recent study by the non-partisan analysts at Next 10 found that between 1995-2008, “green” businesses increased 45 percent, green jobs grew 36 percent, while total jobs in the state grew only 13 percent. Much of this growth can be traced back to good policies that spur energy efficiency and create markets for advanced new technology.

Multiple independent academic studies show that California’s plan to cut global warming pollution will result in economic benefits for our state. It is estimated that boosting our energy efficiency and adding renewable energy sources will increase gross state product by $20 billion and generate 112,000 jobs.

Shutting off California’s global warming plans would hurt the part of the economy that is working.

Erin Rogers
Manager, Western Region Climate & Energy Program
Union of Concerned Scientists

[Beth]

We really need to change the constitution to eliminate these kinds of fraudulent efforts to change California's laws. I am so tired of partisan politicians pretending to represent the "people" when all they are really about is angry that their minority point of view doesn't stand up to the points of view from the people the majority have elected.

[Rich]

Because a reduction in "greenhouse gas emissions" would have no impact whatsoever upon global climate change, a delay in the implementation of AB 32 would have a net positive effect upon Californians' quality of life, both short- and long-term.

Information coming more acutely into public consciousness in the wake of the Climategate leaks and subsequent investigation into other anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmists' datasets and correspondences have demonstrated that the AGW hypothesis is really nothing more than an elaborate and rather pitiful fraud.

All legislation and regulation predicated upon the AGW fraud is therefore worthless, damaging, and possibly criminal (malfeasant). Were the state of California to implement the provisions of AB 32, the officers of the state government would be arguably culpable of criminal malfeasance in public office, and liable to arrest, indictment, prosecution, and both criminal penalties and civil damages.

It is therefore best for both the people of California and the agents of California's state government if AB 32 were not implemented.

Ever.

Delaying that implementation is nothing more than a sensible first step.

[Jenesse Miller]

California's landmark Global Warming Solutions Act has already boosted our state's economy in the form of investments in clean and renewable energy technologies and hundreds of thousands of jobs. The evidence shows that green jobs are growing 2.5 times as fast as traditional jobs. California's clean energy economy has brought in more than $6.5 billion in venture capital in the past three years. If implemented without delay, AB 32 will dramatically expand those figures.

AB 32's energy efficiency policies are also expected to save Californians $20 billion annually by the year 2020, generating millions of jobs and billions in payroll. Finally, in addition to creating jobs and strengthening our economy, AB 32 will provide enormous public health benefits. Reducing air pollution will decrease asthma and lung cancer, among other health problems, preventing costly hospitalizations and premature deaths.

Powerful, polluting interest groups and their allies who are trying to "suspend" (actually they want to kill it) AB 32 make the ludicrous demand that Californians should ignore the evidence and abandon our role as the country's leader in the clean and renewable energy sector. Leaders in business, public health and the environment, and the vast majority of Californians reject these demands and instead support the transition to a sustainable, clean energy economy.

[save the deserts!]

Not to state the obvious, but both the tea partiers and the tree huggers would get behind CLEAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE if democracy were still allowed in this state/country.

By simply funding AB 811 loans (risk free, free to taxpayers, low interest to ratepayers), we could create hundreds of thousands of jobs retrofitting homes for efficiency and rooftop solar. FREE to everyone, plus it would eliminate at least 20% of GHGs in the state immediately, and more as we do the second step:

By simply expanding net metering (no caps) and implementing a generous feed in tariff for power that individuals and businesses produce but do not consume (say, 50 cents/kWh), the state could easily cover 100% of peaker power used, which is well over 50% of total power used, which means a 50% slash in GHGs again, almost for FREE. Since coal would have to be replaced by gas (and since gas usage would be greatly reduced by efficiency, solar hot water and the other AB 811 upgrades), we would then slash the remaining 50% of GHGs by an additional 50%, and it would cost ratepayers and taxpayers almost nothing.

Ratepayer generators would break even through the combination of amortizing their loans across 20 years, savings in gas and electricty bills and payments for excess power (we have to give it for free to utilities, now). Non-generating ratepayers would see MUCH LESS increase in their bill than they would see from paying the HUGE infrastructure costs that Big Solar, Big Wind and Big Transmission would cost us, not to mention, the GHGs caused by these industrial wilderness-killers would melt the entire planet before we saw any reductions.

No need for cap and trade. No need for Big Energy giveaways. No need for increased bills or taxes. No need for eminent domain. No need for massive wilderness death and groundwater depletion. No need for new industrial power plants and powerlines of any type. Just improved property values, hundreds of thousands of jobs, lower GHGs, increased energy independence, decreased energy usage and grid congestion, and a reward system that rewards people for doing the RIGHT thing.

Can you imagine if DEMOCRATIC POINT OF USE SOLUTIONS were implemented instead of masking corrupt giveaways? We would ALL WIN ON EVERY LEVEL. Instead, the bloated government tries to sneak more giveaways to Big Energy and Big Developers and Big Polluters, and the Tea Baggers try to keep the current giveaways for Big Energy, Big Polluters and Big Developers. And either way, WE all get screwed.

[Steven Maviglio]

AB32 is the driving force behind the fastest growing sector of California's economy, as the LAO points out. Billions of investment is pouring into our state because we, once again, are the first to act. That's why five of the top 10 cities in the U.S. in clean investments in California. Recent studies have also shown that jobs in the AB32-powered green economy are growing at a much faster clip than any other segment of employment in the state. That's one of the reasons that AB32 received bipartisan support in the legislature and why the U.S. Secretary of Labor is a major backer of it.

[Paul Taylor Examiner]

Before the economic downturn, Californians naively approved the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) that mandates 2012 reductions of greenhouse gases through carbon taxes, alternative fuels and renewable replacements. All new climate laws increase the unit production costs and corresponding consumer prices of goods and services. A study by the Governor's Small Business Advocate reports that small businesses pay more than $134,000 each in annual California regulatory costs. Estimates are that the total cost of California regulations is about $493 billion annually – the equivalent of 3.8 million jobs. Environmental regulatory costs are a significant embedded cost in all of California’s products, services and enterprise.

California voters can stop climate laws like the California Global Warming Solutions Act (A.B. 32), if State Assemblyman Dan Logue succeeds in collecting signatures for a November 2010 ballot initiative. Simply put, Logue’s initiative would block implementation of A.B. 32 until the state’s unemployment rate is reduced to below 5.5%. As a Central Valley Republican, Logue estimates that A.B. 32 could cost the state an additional 1million in job losses with its cap-and –trade system to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels.

What is clear in California, and globally, given recent climate frauds, is that partisan ideologies and cultish environmentalism have replaced prudent science and economic realities in climate policy. What is also clear is that environmentalism no longer offers any product or service in support of our future security and prosperity. Militant environmentalism and green-obsessed bureaucrats have become an “axis of antagonism” that we can no longer afford.