NC Media Watch

Prop 23 Update: AB 32 Negotiations Stalled: Climate Regs in Limbo

Russ Steele

KQED Climate Watch has the story:

Litigants can't come to terms on letting part of the law proceed Environmental justice groups say California's carbon trading program would make pollution worse for communities near major polluters. (

Prospects for full implementation of California's 2006 climate change law turned a darker shade of gray this week.

Environmental justice groups walked away from negotiations with state officials. The talks were intended to allow certain portions of the plan to move forward even as the carbon trading program remained tied up in litigation. That means implementation of AB 32 is effectively at a standstill.

"At this point my clients consider negotiations over," said Brent Newell, a lead attorney in the case representing a dozen environmental justice groups and individuals. Newell declined to explain the points of contention with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) during negotiations, which ended on March 30, citing legal confidentiality.

Read the rest of the stroy here.  I cannot think of a more appropriate phrase that "What goes around, comes around," CARB tangled up in their own regulations.  They may have discovered that they really are not above the law.

Prop 23 Update: Monkey wrench in the gears halts AB32 implementation (Update)

Russ Steele

Update 03-21-11, 13:15) Here is an LA Times link to the ruling.

KQED Climate Watch has the story here.  A collection of environmental justice advocates have sued CARB because the AB32 Scoping Plan did not comply with California Environmental Quality Act. According to the complaint CARB did not considering all the alternative to a costly cap and trade scheme.  A ruling by the State Superior Court has put implementation of AB32 on hold.

Judge Ernest Goldsmith issued the ruling:
"…enjoining any further implementation of the measures contained in the scoping plan until after (the Air Board) has come into complete compliance with its obligations under its certified regulatory programs and CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act).

CARB naturally disagrees with the Courts ruling and will appeal the decision, insisting that if it does apply, it only applies to cap and trade. 

You can read the rest of the Climate Watch article here.  It appears to me that CARB did not think that they needed to comply with their own CEQA regulations. The Court found otherwise.  I love it when unelected bureaucrats fall into a slop pit of their own making.

Exit Question: Will CARB ignore the Court and continue to implment cap and trade, like Obama continuse to to implement ObamaCare?

Over e-mail transom: Gone for eternity, but still on the books no more

Russ Steele

Congressman Joe Baca (D-Rialto) has introduced bipartisan legislation in the House of Representatives to amend the Endangered Species Act (ESA) so that a species can no longer be permanently listed as endangered.

The Discredit Eternal Listing Inequality of Species Takings (DELIST) Act requires an administrative review of a species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) after it has been listed as endangered for 15 years. The review must show a substantial increase of the population of the species in order to warrant a continued listing as endangered.

The DELIST Act has garnered a strong level of bipartisan support, with Reps. Ken Calvert (R-CA), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), and Don Young (R-AL) all serving as original co-sponsors of the bill.

Rep. Baca introduced the legislation in response to problems local governments in the Inland Empire have experienced with the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly, which was first placed on the Endangered Species List in 1993.  Despite having not been seen in the past decade, the Fly is still listed as endangered.  The harmful regulations caused by this listing continue to limit economic development in many communities in the Inland area, which has proven to be especially detrimental given San Bernardino County’s high unemployment rate, increased homelessness and extreme home foreclosure numbers for the past several years.

“The Endangered Species Act has done much good, and continues to protect some of our nation’s most treasured living creatures,” said Rep. Baca. “But the continued listing of many species that, frankly, seem to no longer exist has had a detrimental impact on local communities and businesses throughout our nation. I believe this responsible legislation will uphold the important mission of the ESA, while also making sure economic development is not hamstrung by unnecessary regulatory burdens.”

The DELIST Act creates a simple fix to the ESA to give the USFWS more flexibility in determining whether or not a species should remain listed as endangered, while also ensuring that no currently listed species are arbitrarily delisted or placed in harm’s way.  The legislation changes the definition of extinction to give the USFWS the ability to consider a protected species to be extinct if the 15 year review shows no evidence of the continued existence of the species.

“Since the USFWS first placed the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly on the Endangered Species list in 1993, thousands of jobs have been lost, development has been stalled, and millions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted due to ESA compliance requirements,” said Rep. Baca. “Now, with substantial evidence that the Fly is indeed extinct, it is an inefficient use of government resources and a harmful impediment to local economic development to needlessly keep the status quo.  I am hopeful that this legislation will help assist our local communities in their efforts to move forward with critical development projects, and jump start new job creation in these difficult times.”

San Bernardino County Unemployment Rate is currently 14.10%  The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors supported the passage of Prop 23 and are proactive in trying to create jobs. This is just one step in a long process to reign in the damage done to California's economy by excessive environmentalism.

Prop 23 Update: Small Businesses are leaving the State

Russ Steele

What would be the impact on our local economy if one in five of the Nevada County's small business just picked up and moved to Texas, Nevada, Arizona, the Midwest or Oregon, a few of the destination mention in a recent survey by Small Business California.

“More than one in five (21%) of California small-business owners do not expect to be in business in California in three years, according to a recent survey by Small Business California, an advocacy group in San Francisco.

Twenty four of Nevada County Business particiapted in this survey. The Orange County Register has more details here:

Many of the responders seem to be on their way out the door, one way or another.  Fifty-three — 15.5% of those who gave fuller explanations of their response — specifically mentioned moving out of state.
Here are samples:
    •    “We will go where we can operate profitably.”
    •    “The way things are going we’ll have to move out of state just to survive.”
    •    “Nevada and other states offer a much more friendly climate.”
    •    “Ease of communication, travel and shipping make relocating less onerous.”
    •    “If I am (still in business in 2014), it will be in another state. The business and regulatory climate in CA is too oppressive.”
    •    “I already moved as much as possible out of CA, but I will not abandon my clients here and will keep a satellite office.”

During the Prop 23 debates, Sierra Business Council President Steven Frisch said that business would not leave the state if Prop 23 was defeated, and in fact buiness were coming to the California. This surevy seem to indicate this is not the case.

Cost of CARB: Is $5.00 a gallon in our future?

Russ Steele

The news is all atwitter about the price of gas.  In Orlando, Fla., two gas stations that are the closest to the airport, and across the street from each other, are selling regular at $5.29 and $5.19 a gallon.

We have not reached the $4.00 mark for gas yet, but I paid $4.05 for some diesel last week.  Here are the latest local fuel prices.

Prop 23 Update: Is AB-32 really on the table or just some Democrat fish bait?

Russ Steele

You just never know what is going to come in over the e-mail transom. The latest was an article by Katy Grimes writing at the CalWatchdog here.

According to Katy's article.

 “. . . there are some quiet discussions taking place about exactly what it will take for Brown to get the four Republican votes he needs to get his tax extension measure on the June special election ballot – and it is green.

No, it’s not money — the “green” is greenhouse gas.  Apparently, if Gov. Brown and Democrats promise to back off the push to implement AB 32 until the economy in the state improves, it is said that he could receive Republican votes.

That sounds suspiciously like Proposition 23 – Republican Assemblyman Dan Logue’s ballot initiative from November to halt implementation of AB 32 (California’s global warming law) until the unemployment rate dropped to 5.5 percent.

But I haven’t heard the words “halt” or “stop AB 32″ actually used. And, there are no details yet about what constitutes an “improved economy” for California.

ooo

If Republicans want to stay on message, Logue says it’s easy: “Pension reform, a spending cap and small business regulatory relief – it’s all about jobs.”

Will the Republicans never learn? Get those promises in writing! I have agree with Katy

. . . let’s hope that if AB 32 is on the table, that someone thinks to get legal assurances that not only will the global warming law get halted until California unemployment drops . . .

I think the Republican are about to be scammed into signing us up for more taxes! Please let your Representatives know the answer is HELL NO! No more taxes!  More taxes will not produce one more private sector job! In fact if the tax extension bill passed it kill jobs! 

Prop 23 Update: Green sector killing more jobs that it creates

Russ Steele

Last year a study in Spain indicting that every green job created by government subsidies killed 2.5 in the regular job sector. Now we have a study from Scotland: Green Sector Cost More Jobs Than it Creates.

Government support for the renewable sector in Scotland is costing more jobs than it creates, a report has claimed. A study by consultants Verso Economics found there was a negative impact from the policy to promote the industry. It said 3.7 jobs were lost for every one created in the UK as a whole and that political leaders needed to engage in...

Now there is job growth for you, from 2.5 jobs lost to 3.7 jobs lost.  That is not a trend we would like to sustain in California, however our political leaders are unwilling to learn the lessons of Europe.

Exit Question: When California's renewable energy sector is studied, how may real jobs will it have killed?

Prop 23 Update: Doom and Gloom in Silicon Valley

Russ Steele

During the Prop 23 debates in Nevada County our local lefties assured us the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and big money investor in green tech were going to be the savors of California’s economy. Apparently that was just a progressive pipe dream, one that comes from what ever it is they smoke. Reality is not negotiable. 

The 2011 Index of Silicon Valley is the result of an annual conference of business leaders, with over a thousand attending this year. The report was first published in 1995 by the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network and distributed for free over the Internet, but the server was down this morning. I could not down load the latest Index. However, the newgeography web site has a report by Tamara Carleton, a grad Student at Stanford. She found the Index had bleak indicators and a gloomy outlook for the Silicon Valley.

The event provided Valley insiders a moment to reflect on the economic storm, and the mood was darkly optimistic. A persistent phrase tossed out was the “new normal,” old Wall Street jargon describing a repressed economic environment. Growth is too slow to bring down the unemployment rate, and government intervenes to save a struggling private sector.

You can read the rest of the article here and hopefully the server will be back on line.  A server link is in the article. Here are two excerpts that caught my eye, relative to the Prop 23 debate.

It’s a dismal state of affairs if you ask the local old guard. Judy Estrin, former chief technology officer of Cisco Systems, grumbled that one problem was outsourcing. Too many startups were adopting the practice in her view, and she told the audience, “Don’t automatically go to China.”

Others were concerned that jobs were being shipped simply to towns east across the bay. Much ballyhooed and well-subsidized sectors, such as cleantech, would not produce enough jobs to be economically meaningful in the recovery. Attendees were fearful that the Valley has lost its edge.

My emphasis added.  The big money in Silicon Valley spent over $30 million dollars to defeat Prop 23, and we were assured that green jobs were  the wave of the future. What happened?  Where all those green jobs? China?  What about any jobs?  One more insightful paragraph from Tamara’s article.

For all the money being generated, Silicon Valley is not producing more jobs in the local economy. Many startups look to Facebook as a leader in the social media space. Its user base of 600 million has generated a massive population that dwarfs that of the U.S. Yet the company has only about 2000 employees. Facebook presents a conundrum. Is it an innovative global leader that has mastered the art of efficient scaling that is the beginning of a new era in Silicon Valley, or has Facebook become the antithesis of economic growth for the U.S. administration?

Exit Question: Is this the new normal, California companies creating wealth without creating more jobs in the state?

Prop 23 Update: Green energy does not create green jobs

Russ Steele

During the Prop 23 debates the proponents of AB 32 the Global Warming Solution Act of 2006, claimed that California must continue down the road to renewable energy, as defined in the AB32 Scoping Plan, to a green utopia that will create millions of green jobs.  The Proponents of Prop 23 kept pointing to  the failed economics in the Scoping Plan and Spain's experience with alternative energy, which destroyed 2.5 regular jobs for every expensive green job created. Prop 23 lost, but it is impossible to wish reality away.

Senior Energy Economist Gurcan Gulen, the Center for Energy Economics, University of Texas has a reality check for those who opposed Prop 23. He concludes "that adding 'net jobs' cannot be defended as a benefit of investing in green energy" and that aggressive promotion of these technologies will negatively impact purchasing power, employment and GDP. 

A copy of the study, Defining, Measuring and Predicting Green Jobs is here.

The study finds that the "realities of the global energy scene are:

 • Most green technologies are far away from the scale that is needed to replace conventional fuels in a significant way. Although it is reasonable to expect improvements in technology and cost structure in the future, it is difficult to predict the development path that can be included in modeling exercises.

• These technologies are more expensive than conventional technologies and hence need subsidies, tax incentives and mandates to gain market share (some more than others). A carbon tax could level the playing field for wind at about $20-$30 per ton but needs to be much higher for solar and other technologies.

• They face integration problems due to their intermittency, immaturity of technology, scalability limits, inability to communicate with existing infrastructure, and other technical or power market economics constraints.

• Consumers, especially at the residential level, are often reluctant to adopt new technologies if they are not certain they will get the same benefits as those from current technologies and even more reluctant when it comes to changing their energy consumption behavior, which is often based on habit rather than conscious decision making.

• Pushing aggressively to increase the share of these technologies, though clearly possible, will cost large sums of money and will increase cost of energy to society, negatively impacting purchasing power, employment and GDP.

From Page 21 of the Report we find this analysis of circumstances in California:

Given the California’s large budget deficit, its unemployment rate that is higher than national average, and net migration out of state (of people and businesses), it is difficult to see how California would be more attractive to a business than a competing location. The state may have certain advantages in terms of information technology industry and some intangibles, these are not always sufficient to overcome some of the economic handicaps. These challenges are valid for any jurisdiction not just California. Economic history is full of examples of states competing with each other by adjusting the key economic levers of taxation, red tape and infrastructure. In the 1990s, California was the leader in wind installations but by the mid-2000s, Texas surpassed California and leads the U.S. with almost 10,000 MWs of installed capacity versus California’s 2,700 MWs. Perhaps more importantly from the perspective of jobs, Texas has also been attracting manufacturing investment, training facilities and other businesses along the wind supply chain.

One has to ask, how did California lose it's leadership position? According the proponents of AB32 in opposition to Prop 23, California was the leader, setting an example for the rest of the nation. It appears under our current leadership California is falling farther and farther behind in creating jobs, any jobs green of any other color.  It is impossible to wish reality away!

H/T to The Hockey Schtick

Prop 23 Update -- California: North America’s Venezuela (Edited)

Russ Steele

Editors note: During the Prop 23 Campaign, I posted on the flow of business in and out of California here.  That post featured Joe Vranich, a Relocation Coach. Below is a link to an article by Katy Grimes published in the Cal Watchdog, which examines who Joe Vranich has been coaching in 2011.  Due to the importance of this issue to the CA economy, I highly recommend that you read the full text of Katy Grimes' article here. I have removed the full text below to reduce Jeff Pelline anxiety that I may have violated her copyright. 

Katy Grimes

The economic news for California is still looking bad, and businesses are still leaving the state in record numbers, according to one relocation specialist who has been keeping track of business migration for several years. Joe Vranich, a California Relocation Coach says that while no one is calling him for help with relocation into California, his business is booming for those planning moves out of state.

At a meeting this week hosted by Marysville Republican Assemblyman Dan Logue, business representatives, legislators and lobbyists, as well as some capitol staff members attended to receive the annual update from Vranich who has been keeping track of the business flight out of California.

Vranich shared stories of business clients who left California for greener pastures… to Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina and Texas. “I’ve never once persuaded anyone to leave California,” Vranich said. Clients call Vranich when they’ve already decided to leave California and need assistance making connections in other states.

This is the money quote in the article, my emphasis added.

In just the first five weeks of 2011, Vranich said that 30 California businesses have already moved out of the state – that’s six per week. And according to Vranich, that is the highest departure rate he has seen since he has been keeping score on his website.

You can read the rest  of Katy Grimes insightful article here. As I have written before it is clear that businesses are leaving California for more business friendly states. To put the headline in context I have included one more insighful quote:

Vranich said that Democratic legislators are in denial about how many businesses are leaving the state. The Public Policy Institute of California, a more liberal think-tank, did its own study of migration out of California. The PPIC study found “interstate business relocation is rare, confirming that jobs leaving a state are not a bellwether of poor state economic performance.”

“That’s just not true,” said Vranich. “Even Chief Executive magazine calls California ‘the Venezuela of North America.’”

It is important to Note that the PPIC data used in the study was from 1992 t0 2004, years before AB32 was passed in 2006.  When the data from 2005 through 2010 was examined a much different picture emerges.

H/T to Assemblyman Dan Logue who provided the origianl text of Katy's article for this post.