The New York Times
A Law to Cut Emissions? Deal With It
October 21, 2006 Saturday
By JANE L. LEVERE
In August, Peter A. Darbee, chairman, chief executive and president of PG&E, owner of Pacific Gas and Electric, broke rank with his peers by supporting a measure in California that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are widely blamed for global warming. Mr. Darbee discussed his decision and other initiatives in an interview on a recent visit to New York. Following are excerpts:
Q. Why do you support California's Global Warming Solutions Act, which will require utilities and other companies to make their operations even more energy efficient?
A. I dove into the issue with our senior team more deeply than other executives. We engaged in a process of scientific inquiry. Out of that we developed a conviction that the earth is warming, that mankind's responsible and the need to take action is now. I've always been one who's been driven by my conscience as to what is the right thing to do. And we came to the conclusion that that was the right thing to do.
Secondly, the thought was, as a leader, what you want to do is anticipate trends in the business environment and then position a company optimally within that context.
Rather than sitting there and denying that global warming is a problem and climate change is a problem, my reaction was to accept it and to go with the flow to understand the trend, and then say, how can I position PG&E to deal with that challenge, and then how can I turn a challenge into an opportunity.
Q. What do you say to critics who contend that this bill will make California's economy less competitive?
A. In the past, California has stepped out and been a leader on environmental legislation, and its economy has continued to grow probably faster than the average state economy in the United States. California will find a way to continue to grow, notwithstanding this piece of legislation.
Q. How can California and companies based there achieve the goals mandated by the bill?
A. Take a look at Fetzer winery as an example. Ninety-five percent of their waste they can keep on-premise and reuse, 5 percent they ship off, and that is a dramatic reduction. When I went there, their whole building was constructed with energy-efficiency in mind. The walls are pretty thick, and if you look up at the skylights, they have windows that open up at night and let the cool air in, cool down the place. The cool air goes into the walls, and then they close those skylights in the morning, and then they put reflector material up to reflect the heat. They have essentially very little need for air-conditioning at all, because the energy that was lost from the walls is then reabsorbed during the course of the day.
Q. Your ''SmartMeter'' program will allow customers to take advantage of electricity prices that will vary by season and time of day. What percentage of your customers do you estimate will use it?
A. We anticipate 15 percent to 20 percent of our customers will sign up for the program voluntarily, but this could go as high as 30 percent to 40 percent, depending on the level of customer satisfaction and the impact of the marketing strategy that will highlight customer benefits.
Q. How prevalent are such programs in the United States?
A. There are some, but they're limited programs; this would be the first really large-scale deployment, ours will be 10 million meters. We've done a trial with about 5,000 meters, and then beginning in 2007, we'll deploy on a large-scale basis and it will take four years to get 10 million meters in. We've taken the leadership role in California; assuming that it is successful, I believe it will spread across the U.S.
Q. You have completed the nuclear reactor technology program at M.I.T. What is this program and what has it prepared you for?
A. It is a monthlong course, which is designed for utility executives that have involvement with nuclear reactors. The idea is not to teach you to run one; what it does is give you a pretty good understanding of how a nuclear reactor works, the extreme importance of safety to your employees and the public, it gives you an idea of the things that can go wrong in a nuclear reactor, and it gives you the capability that as you're interacting with the people that operate the nuclear reactor, that you can be more effective in managing them, understanding of the facility. We have two nuclear reactors in San Luis Obispo.
SOURCE
Showing posts with label California Global Warming Solutions Act 2006. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California Global Warming Solutions Act 2006. Show all posts
Monday, December 11, 2006
Hands down, you win.
This website has produced very useful and very biased articles pertaining to the Global Warming Solutions Act 2006. They are one of the many key players in this struggle/argument and their victory prize would be a big wag of the finger and a nice fat in-your-face, "I told you so." That's not all organizations like this have to gain from the perfect end-result of this legislation. They also get the publicity that comes with it in supporting and setting up a good image in caring about California. I'm not saying they don't truly care about the environment regardless of the money, but they stand to win a lot because really, Americans want to support organizations that they believe are right.
Click the link below to see the website:
California Environment [dot] org
Click the link below to see the website:
California Environment [dot] org
Let's think about this.
So now that everything is passed and done, there are still people who are unhappy about this. Hurt California economically? Too insignificant to make change? You don't say? That's not the main purpose why this bill was drafted, we as Californians would like to set the perfect example as the public policy is now in the reviewing stages. Since this is a collective good, immediate results will not be seen. As your sitting by the pool, you won't suddenly realize, "Hrm, the trend in the past five years has been cooler and the skies have gotten bluer! Global Warming must be going away! :D" This guy seems to have a different idea about how we'll be sitting by our pools 50 years from now.
Scroll down to read this article that has obviously done his research.
Kyoto Treaty Means a Loss of Liberty
Saturday, November 11, 2006
By Al Kelsch
So now California has its very own greenhouse gas emissions reduction bill. The ultimate objective of AB 32, signed by Governor Schwarzenneger, is to put California approximately in compliance with the 1992 Kyoto International Treaty. That would make California the third entity in the world in compliance, since 13 of the 15 signatories are not in compliance. The U.S. Senate voted 99-0 in 1999 not to be bound by the Kyoto Treaty and President Bush affirmed the intention of the United States not to sign the treaty.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 prescribes a sequence of events designed to record, regulate, and reduce so-called greenhouse gas emissions under the executive power of the State Air Resources Board. First step is to adopt a plan by Jan. 1, 2008, requiring sources of greenhouse gas to monitor and report their emissions to the ARB. From this information, the ARB is to declare an emissions level for 1990, which is to be used as a baseline in setting and monitoring the reduction that is mandated by AB 32. "By January 1, 2008, the state board (ARB) shall ... determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level was in 1990," is the language of the bill. AB 32 then prescribes that by 2020, the level of greenhouse emissions for California must be 20 percent below the emissions level in 1990. Here is the actual sequence. Adopt some early action measures starting July 2007; issue reporting rules and who must report by Jan. 2008, layout the overall plan by Jan. 2009, adopt the overall plan by Jan. 2011. That ARB will have total control over emissions in California including any and all emitters. Soviet Central Planning never had such a mandate.
What does this mean for the citizen? Since overall emissions as mandated by AB 32 must be reduced, and since one-third of all emissions come from motor vehicles, it follows that emission rules and their enforcement will involve every household. The plan is destined to affect individual households through the control of auto and other emissions such as those from barbecues and fireplaces. There already exists a law to reduce vehicle emissions in California (AB 1493, adopted in 2002), which will now fall under the overall coordinating enforcement power of the ARB. Actually, at least four bureaucracies in California will come under the umbrella authority of the ARB in the area of emissions.
Every voter's question should be, is this good public policy and will it work?
First of all, AB 32 is largely symbolic. This is as much as admitted in the language of the law. "National and international actions are necessary to fully address the issue of global warming," is the exact language found in the introduction to the bill. However, action taken by California to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will have far-reaching effects by encouraging other states, the federal government, and other countries to act.
Secondly, Kyoto itself, if fully implemented, will have only a miniscule effect on global temperatures; California's version even less so. Since the atmosphere is obviously a shared resource, an action by a single entity cannot definitively affect the overall atmosphere of the earth. The overall effect on temperature of the Kyoto treaty, assuming all of the industrialized and nearly-industrialized nations adhere to the treaty, would be to lower the earth's temperature in 2100 by just 0.11 to 0.21 degrees C. This is reported by Thomas Wigley in Geophysical Research Letters.
Now extrapolate that to the effect produced by California under the AB 32 scenario. The U.S. economy as estimated by the World Bank represents 28 percent of the total economic activity of the world. Since by population, California is 10 percent of the U.S. total, California would represent 2.8 percent of the world's economic activity. By extrapolation, based on economic activity, California's AB 32 would effect the rise in overall earth temperature by just .0031 to .006 degrees C by the year 2100! These are levels that can only be detected by state-of-the-art measuring equipment. So lets see, California residents get a new nanny-state bureaucracy with near-dictatorial powers to control our autos and our fireplaces, a permanent drain on the fiscally-challenged California state budget, a probable new tax on miles driven, and in return we get a decrease in the rise in the overall temperature of the earth by 0.0031 degrees in 2100! A steep price indeed for the obvious loss of liberty.
Al Kelsch is a Hollister resident who writes a weekly column for the Free Lance that appears on Saturdays. He can be reached at oibl@yahoo.com
SOURCE
Scroll down to read this article that has obviously done his research.
Kyoto Treaty Means a Loss of Liberty
Saturday, November 11, 2006
By Al Kelsch
So now California has its very own greenhouse gas emissions reduction bill. The ultimate objective of AB 32, signed by Governor Schwarzenneger, is to put California approximately in compliance with the 1992 Kyoto International Treaty. That would make California the third entity in the world in compliance, since 13 of the 15 signatories are not in compliance. The U.S. Senate voted 99-0 in 1999 not to be bound by the Kyoto Treaty and President Bush affirmed the intention of the United States not to sign the treaty.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 prescribes a sequence of events designed to record, regulate, and reduce so-called greenhouse gas emissions under the executive power of the State Air Resources Board. First step is to adopt a plan by Jan. 1, 2008, requiring sources of greenhouse gas to monitor and report their emissions to the ARB. From this information, the ARB is to declare an emissions level for 1990, which is to be used as a baseline in setting and monitoring the reduction that is mandated by AB 32. "By January 1, 2008, the state board (ARB) shall ... determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level was in 1990," is the language of the bill. AB 32 then prescribes that by 2020, the level of greenhouse emissions for California must be 20 percent below the emissions level in 1990. Here is the actual sequence. Adopt some early action measures starting July 2007; issue reporting rules and who must report by Jan. 2008, layout the overall plan by Jan. 2009, adopt the overall plan by Jan. 2011. That ARB will have total control over emissions in California including any and all emitters. Soviet Central Planning never had such a mandate.
What does this mean for the citizen? Since overall emissions as mandated by AB 32 must be reduced, and since one-third of all emissions come from motor vehicles, it follows that emission rules and their enforcement will involve every household. The plan is destined to affect individual households through the control of auto and other emissions such as those from barbecues and fireplaces. There already exists a law to reduce vehicle emissions in California (AB 1493, adopted in 2002), which will now fall under the overall coordinating enforcement power of the ARB. Actually, at least four bureaucracies in California will come under the umbrella authority of the ARB in the area of emissions.
Every voter's question should be, is this good public policy and will it work?
First of all, AB 32 is largely symbolic. This is as much as admitted in the language of the law. "National and international actions are necessary to fully address the issue of global warming," is the exact language found in the introduction to the bill. However, action taken by California to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will have far-reaching effects by encouraging other states, the federal government, and other countries to act.
Secondly, Kyoto itself, if fully implemented, will have only a miniscule effect on global temperatures; California's version even less so. Since the atmosphere is obviously a shared resource, an action by a single entity cannot definitively affect the overall atmosphere of the earth. The overall effect on temperature of the Kyoto treaty, assuming all of the industrialized and nearly-industrialized nations adhere to the treaty, would be to lower the earth's temperature in 2100 by just 0.11 to 0.21 degrees C. This is reported by Thomas Wigley in Geophysical Research Letters.
Now extrapolate that to the effect produced by California under the AB 32 scenario. The U.S. economy as estimated by the World Bank represents 28 percent of the total economic activity of the world. Since by population, California is 10 percent of the U.S. total, California would represent 2.8 percent of the world's economic activity. By extrapolation, based on economic activity, California's AB 32 would effect the rise in overall earth temperature by just .0031 to .006 degrees C by the year 2100! These are levels that can only be detected by state-of-the-art measuring equipment. So lets see, California residents get a new nanny-state bureaucracy with near-dictatorial powers to control our autos and our fireplaces, a permanent drain on the fiscally-challenged California state budget, a probable new tax on miles driven, and in return we get a decrease in the rise in the overall temperature of the earth by 0.0031 degrees in 2100! A steep price indeed for the obvious loss of liberty.
Al Kelsch is a Hollister resident who writes a weekly column for the Free Lance that appears on Saturdays. He can be reached at oibl@yahoo.com
SOURCE
The Sun will Come Out, Tomorrow!
Now that the bill has been passed and just has to be assessed as to how to start making legislation to perform everything that is required in this bill, it's good to look at the current status to see how far along it is among the long term goals at hand.
Scroll down to see what's going on right now.
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 32
AUTHOR(S) : Nunez and Pavley (Principal coauthor: Nation)
(Coauthors: Arambula, Baca, Bass, Berg, Bermudez,
Calderon, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Coto, De La Torre,
Dymally, Evans, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Jerome
Horton, Jones, Karnette, Klehs, Koretz, Laird, Leno,
Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Montanez, Mullin, Nava, Oropeza,
Ridley-Thomas, Ruskin, Saldana, Salinas, Torrico,
Vargas, Wolk, and Yee) (Coauthors: Senators Alarcon,
Bowen, Chesbro, Escutia, Figueroa, Kehoe, Kuehl,
Lowenthal, Migden,
TOPIC : Air pollution: greenhouse gases: California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 08/30/2006
TYPE OF BILL :
Inactive
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 09/27/2006
LAST HIST. ACTION : Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 488,
Statutes of 2006.
TITLE : An act to add Division 25.5 (commencing with Section
38500) to the Health and Safety Code, relating to air
pollution.
Scroll down to see what's going on right now.
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 32
AUTHOR(S) : Nunez and Pavley (Principal coauthor: Nation)
(Coauthors: Arambula, Baca, Bass, Berg, Bermudez,
Calderon, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Coto, De La Torre,
Dymally, Evans, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Jerome
Horton, Jones, Karnette, Klehs, Koretz, Laird, Leno,
Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Montanez, Mullin, Nava, Oropeza,
Ridley-Thomas, Ruskin, Saldana, Salinas, Torrico,
Vargas, Wolk, and Yee) (Coauthors: Senators Alarcon,
Bowen, Chesbro, Escutia, Figueroa, Kehoe, Kuehl,
Lowenthal, Migden,
TOPIC : Air pollution: greenhouse gases: California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 08/30/2006
TYPE OF BILL :
Inactive
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 09/27/2006
LAST HIST. ACTION : Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 488,
Statutes of 2006.
TITLE : An act to add Division 25.5 (commencing with Section
38500) to the Health and Safety Code, relating to air
pollution.
We Have History
Talk about complicated, this bill made more loopholes than a dog at a circus. It's surprising to see how many times a bill is revised and then has to come back to get a completely new hearing with the revisions that were made. It's also interesting to see under "Type of Bill" that it is labled as "Non-Urgency". Another minor factor that has a big influence on how long it takes to get passed. Of course, a strategic mode on someone's part to keep the bill alive. It took about two years. That's inactivity at its best.
Scroll down to see History unfold before your eyes!
Scroll down to see History unfold before your eyes!
COMPLETE BILL HISTORY
BILL NUMBER : A.B. No. 32
AUTHOR : Nunez
TOPIC : Air pollution: greenhouse gases: California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006.
TYPE OF BILL :
Inactive
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
BILL HISTORY
2006
Sept. 27 Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006.
Sept. 27 Approved by the Governor.
Sept. 5 Enrolled and to the Governor at 12:15 p.m.
Aug. 31 In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. Re-referred
to Com. on NAT. RES. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2. From
committee: With recommendation: That Senate amendments be
concurred in. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (August 31). Senate amendments
concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 47. Noes 32. Page 7497.)
Aug. 30 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com.
on RLS. Withdrawn from committee. Read third time, passed, and to
Assembly. (Ayes 23. Noes 14. Page 5467.)
Aug. 23 Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
Aug. 22 From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on
RLS. (Ayes 8. Noes 4.).
Aug. 9 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com.
on APPR.
Aug. 7 From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on
RLS. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.). Read second time, amended, and
re-referred to Com. on RLS. Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred
to Com. on APPR. From committee chair, with author's amendments:
Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and
re-referred to Com. on APPR.
June 22 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com.
on E.Q.
Apr. 18 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com.
on E.Q.
2005
Aug. 15 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com.
on E.Q. (Corrected August 5. ) (Corrected August 8. )
June 1 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request
of author.
May 5 Referred to Com. on E.Q.
Apr. 11 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
Apr. 11 Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 50. Noes 27. Page
839.)
Apr. 7 Read second time. To third reading.
Apr. 6 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 13. Noes 5.) (April 6).
Apr. 4 Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Mar. 31 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to Com. on APPR. Read second time and amended.
Mar. 1 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR.
Re-referred. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (February 28).
Jan. 27 Referred to Com. on NAT. RES.
2004
Dec. 7 From printer. May be heard in committee January 6.
Dec. 6 Read first time. To print.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Straight to the Facts
This hot little tip sheet provides lots of facts regarding the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 legislation. This was written June 29, 2006 in the lobbying process to get it signed. It has the key players for this legislation, Fabian Nuñez and Fran Pavley, both assembly members. These facts are used to hopefully have the bill pass into law.
Click the link below to see the fact sheet:
AB 32 Fact Sheet
Click the link below to see the fact sheet:
AB 32 Fact Sheet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)