Switchboard, from NRDC › Kristin Eberhard's Blog

California Cap and Trade Program Expected to Bring in Revenue

2012-01-20T22:14:29Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

Since the release of Governor Brown’s budget two weeks ago, there have been a lot of questions about how much revenue could be coming from auctioning emission allowances under California's cap and trade program. Although we won’t know the exact amount until the auctions actually take place (the first two are scheduled in August and November of 2012), I will attempt to shed some light on revenue projections based on what we currently know.

Allowance Buckets Under AB 32 Cap and Trade

The first important thing to know is that allowances from the cap and trade program fall into several different buckets. Although these buckets can be broken down into even greater granularity, allowances will be distributed under the program in four broad categories:

Some will be sold in what I call the "state auction." It is the revenues from this auction that are in the Governor's budget. The size of this auction will grow significantly in 2015 when emissions from the transportation sector become regulated under the cap.
Some allowances will be allocated to the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) who are required to then sell them into a "consignment auction" and use the proceeds for the exclusive benefit of their retail customers.
Some will be allocated to publicly owned utilities (POUs), who may either sell them into a consignment auction like the IOUs, or submit them directly for compliance to help them make the transition to clean energy.
Finally, some of the allowances from the cap and trade program will be allocated directly to refineries and other manufacturers to help them transition into the program.

The total value of each of the above buckets equals the number of available allowances under each category times the market clearing price. The numbers of allowances in each bucket is set by regulation. The price of an allowance will be determined at auction. The first auction will occur in August 2012, but for the moment we have a rough idea what the price might be because futures of California allowances are trading on the GreenX at $13 per ton (the minimum price in the program is set at $10 per ton).

Assuming a slightly higher market price of $15, we can project the following:

One other detail to note is that the fiscal year (FY) runs from July-June, whereas the years in the graph above are calendar years. This means that the Governor's budget for FY 2012-2013 counts all of the auctions occurring in 2012, and half in 2013, so the total is slightly higher than it will be for the following FY.

Bottom line: revenues from the state auction are projected to be over $500 million per year over the next three years. These must be used to implement AB 32.

LADWP Takes An Essential Step Forward By Setting Clean Energy Goals

2011-12-09T00:24:12Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

Unanimous Board Vote on Energy Efficiency

On Tuesday the LADWP Board voted unanimously to approve an energy efficiency goal of 8.5% savings by 2020. The leadership of Ron Nichols, the still relatively new GM, was evident in several things that he and his senior staff presented to the Board:

They strongly made the case that energy efficiency is the cheapest energy resource available to LADWP, it creates local jobs, protects public health, and the public is clamoring for it. They explained that, in order to build their programs and achieve savings for their customers, they need a sustained commitment to energy efficiency, not an on-again-off-again strategy.
They want consistency. In order to build their programs and achieve savings for their customers, LADWP needs a sustained financial investment in energy efficiency, not an on-again-off-again strategy.
They know DWP can do more. State law sets a goal of 10% energy efficiency savings by 2020 (or about 1%/year), and LADWP saved only 0.66% last year. The goal the Board adopted – 8.5% by 2020 – does not meet the goal set out by state law, or the goal of 1%/year that LADWP set for itself in 2006, nor does it measure up to investments in energy efficiency at other utilities. They said they hope to come back next year and ask for a goal exceeding the state requirement. The reason staff did not present such a goal to the Board this year is they don’t have the budget to make it happen, however, there are some assurances the budget for next year will be better. They would need about $100 million per year to meet the state goal (about $2/household/month. Compare to Southern California Edison, which spends about $3.30/household/month); this year LADWP has $50 million in the budget (about $1/household/month), and that is only due to Ron Nichols’ dedication to energy efficiency, as he raised the budget from its previous level of $33 million. (NOTE: in case you are tempted to think that it is prudent for LADWP to invest less because it will cost customers less, it is important to realize that every dollar spend on energy efficiency results in $3 of benefits to customers. So the longer LADWP has to wait to do the energy efficiency it wants to do, the greater the loss to customers)

What does this mean?

Energy efficiency is widely-recognized as a win-win-win solution. It saves money for the customers who participate in the program and pay lower bills as a result; it saves money for all customers (whether they participate or not) because LADWP doesn’t have to spend money on other resources that are more expensive like coal or natural gas; it creates local jobs implementing the programs; and it reduces pollution. LADWP recognizes these benefits and is trying to do more. However, they are stalled on this and many other issues due to their budget impasse.

What is needed?

In order to keep costs lower for customers, LADWP needs to make energy efficiency its number one energy resource (as required by state law). To accomplish this, LADWP needs a sustained budget (see below), but perhaps more importantly, they need the different departments within LADWP to come together in a truly integrated resource planning process that looks at and treats energy efficiency as the real resource that it is.

No one at LADWP would say “the budget is tight right now, so we just don’t have the money to keep our coal plant running. We’ll have to throttle back for a while until we can get a bigger coal budget.” State law, and prudent planning, says that LADWP shouldn’t do that with energy efficiency either. Efficiency is the cheapest and cleanest energy resource available to LADWP, so it does not make sense for them to throttle back on it. In fact, greater savings from energy efficiency will enable LADWP to throttle back on those coal plants – not because they don’t have the budget, but because they will need them less. This will save money and the environment.

The transition that LADWP is trying to make – from an old-school, coal-dependent utility to a cutting edge utility making use of energy efficiency, distributed renewables, and clean technologies – cannot be accomplished in silos. If LADWP tries to solve one challenge at a time with a separate budget for each (ramp up renewable energy: $X; shut down coal plants: $X; comply with Once-Through-Cooling requirements: $X) it will end up being a lot of $XX. But if they can think about each of those challenges at once, they will find solutions that kill many birds with one stone (energy efficiency is probably the best example), and end up being much less costly overall. The challenges of transforming to a smarter grid that integrates a greater variety of resources is big and complicated, but the payoff for doing it right is a utility that provides better service, is much more protected from risk than if they just stay addicted to fossil fuels, and helps the local community.

LADWP is trying to make this transition, but they need support from City Council and the public.

The Ratepayer Advocate and the Coming Rate Increase

The clear undercurrent throughout the Board meeting was that LADWP needs a rate increase in order to do the right thing (in this case: invest more in the cheapest cleanest resource available for customers.) LADWP has been waiting for a year for the Ratepayer Advocate to be appointed so that he or she can analyze LADWP’s rate proposal and report to City Council so that they can then vote. The Advocate position is still vacant nine months after the position was created, and LADWP is facing more and more difficult decisions about how to move forward in responsible ways without the money to back its decisions. The Ratepayer Advocate needs to be appointed soon so that LADWP can move forward. Once appointed, the Ratepayer Advocate is likely to find the following:

Energy prices are going up around the globe, and LA is no exception.
LA currently enjoys relatively low rates because it has put off necessary increases for too long, and a rate increase will bring it in-line with neighboring utilities. (see graph of rates below)
The best thing LA can do to minimize impacts to customers is invest in energy efficiency.

Rates and Energy Efficiency

Energy efficiency is a tiny part of the overall budget, but a huge contributor to benefits to customers and the local economy. LADWP has been going into debt because it has not been collecting enough from customers to pay for increasingly expensive fossil fuels, and it needs to collect more to get out of the red. Let me say that again: the first reason that LADWP needs a rate hike is to pay off the debt it has built up paying for fossil fuels. Then, it needs to pay for upgrades to their powerplants and their powerlines, and to diversify the portfolio to increase reliance on renewables (currently about 1/5 of our power) and decrease reliance on dirty coal (currently about ½ our power) in order to protect the environment but also to protect customers from the risk of being too heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Doing all this might require an increase of about $1.50/household/month, or about 5 cents per day. As the LA Times noted: see how far that will get you at Starbucks (or McDonald’s, or even at the dollar store).

Energy efficiency, on the other hand, actually lowers your bill. This makes it an essential part of the portfolio so that LADWP can balance the increasing costs of fossil fuels with the lower costs of energy efficiency. Fossil fuels are like a car that is accelerating towards ever higher prices, and energy efficiency is the brakes helping to slow the increase. Without efficiency, bills are just going up with no brakes.

The Take Away

The take away is that if LA wants to be one of the greenest cities in the country, meeting the requirements of our energy efficiency laws should be a bare minimum for success, and LA should really be aiming much higher. At the moment, LA is aiming low by failing to implement an energy efficiency standard required by law and desired by most LADWP customers. By being clear about where LADWP is now, Ron Nichols is laying the groundwork to make progress and bring LADWP’s actions in line with the city’s aspirations, but LADWP will need more support in order to invest in cleaner energy choices for the city. It’s clear LADWP wants to move in that direction, but the City Council and Angelinos need to back them.

10 Questions about California's Cap and Trade Program

2011-11-21T18:02:15Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

Last month, the California Air Resources Board unanimously approved California’s first-of-its-kind cap and trade program to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution across the economy. As the world’s eighth-largest emitter of GHGs, California’s leadership in taking action to curtail its carbon footprint promises to have impacts beyond our borders. The program is a critical component of the state’s larger plan to reduce GHG pollution and transition to a clean energy economy under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Here are some answers to some frequently asked questions about the nuts and bolts of California’s cap and trade regulation:

Q1: How does the program work?

A: California’s cap and trade regulation puts a cap (or a hard limit) on the aggregate GHG pollution emitted from large sources across the economy. Regulators create “allowances” equal to the total number of emissions under the cap, and require large sources of pollution to surrender one allowance for every unit of GHG pollution they emit (measured in metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent). All told, this ensures the total level of GHG pollution emitted by polluters cannot exceed the number of allowances available under the cap. The cap starts at expected business-as-usual emissions levels in 2012, and declines 2-3% per year through 2020. Fewer and fewer allowances are available each year, requiring polluters to reduce their emissions or pay increasingly high allowance prices. The cap level is set in 2020 to ensure California complies with AB 32’s emission reduction target of returning to 1990 GHG emission levels.

Q2: How does the cap and trade regulation fit in to California’s broader climate and clean energy strategy developed under the AB 32 Scoping Plan?

A: The cap and trade program caps emissions from the industrial, utility, and transportation fuels sectors – which account for roughly 85% of the state’s GHG pollution. However, since other regulations included under the AB 32 Scoping Plan (such as the clean cars standard and the renewable portfolio standard) will achieve reductions from the same sectors, the cap and trade regulation is projected to account for less than 20% of the total emissions reductions under the Scoping Plan. Should the other Scoping Plan measures that cover capped sectors underperform, however, the cap provides a backstop to ensure California will comply with AB 32.

Q3: What sources are included in California’s cap and trade regulation?

A: The program contains three compliance periods: (1)2013-2014; (2) 2015-2017; and (3) 2018-2020.

In the first compliance period (2013-2014), scope includes:

All electricity generated and imported into California. The first deliverer of electricity into the state is the capped entity (the one that will have to purchase and surrender allowances).
Large industrial facilities emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of GHG pollution/year. Examples include oil refineries and cement manufacturers.

In the second compliance period (2015-2017), scope expands to:

Distributors of transportation fuels (including gasoline and diesel), natural gas, and other fuels. The regulated entity will be the fuel provider that distributes the fuel upstream (not the gas station).

In total, the program is expected to include roughly 350 large businesses, representing about 600 facilities. Individuals and small businesses will not be regulated.

Q4: How does ARB know how much GHG pollution each source is emitting?

A: ARB adopted mandatory emission reporting rules and has been collecting verified emissions data since 2008. This data allows ARB to track annual emissions by source and trends over time. Unlike the EU’s early experience with their cap and trade program, verified data will also enable ARB to set an appropriate cap level. ARB will continue to collect this data every year to ensure entities meet their compliance obligations and maintain a steady downward trajectory of the cap.

Q5: How do regulated entities acquire emissions allowances?

A: There are two ways to get an allowance initially: buy it or get it for free. After that, entities can purchase and sell allowances amongst themselves.

Over the course of the program, ARB will sell most of the allowances in an auction.

About 10% of future permits will be available in an advance auction starting in 2012 (the lavender area in the chart below, labeled ‘Forward Auctioning”).
About 10% (the exact amount is not yet determined) of the industrial sector’s allowances will be auctioned (the gray, blue, peach and maroon areas at the bottom of the chart below, labeled “Leakage Prevention”).

ARB will also give out some allowances for free in order to mitigate price impacts, provide sufficient transition time, and maintain a level playing field for entities that compete with out of state emitters.

Allowances for each industrial sector covered under the cap are set at about 90% of average emissions, based on a benchmark that rewards efficient facilities.
Publicly-owned utilities (such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, and Burbank Water and Power) will receive allowances for free, with a mandate that they use the value of the allowances to help them transition to clean energy and mitigate risks for their customers.

Hybrid (The fuchsia area in the graph below, labeled “Allocated to Electrical Utilities on Behalf of Customers”)

The investor-owned utilities (PG&E, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric) will receive allowances for free with the requirement that they sell those allowances in a “consignment auction” and use the revenue on behalf of their customers. Their use of revenue will be regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.

Source: California Environmental Protection Agency

Q6: What are offsets and what role do they play in the program?

A: Offsets are pollution reductions that occur outside of capped sectors, but that can be used to meet compliance obligations under the cap and trade program.

In order to ensure that offsets are “real, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and quantifiable” (ie: that they are actually reducing pollution), ARB has limited the quantity and adopted strict standards governing the quality of offsets that may be used for compliance with the cap and trade regulation.

An entity may meet no more than 8% of its compliance obligation with offsets. If, for example, a refinery emits 100 tonnes of pollution, it can surrender 92 allowances and 8 offsets to ARB.

To date, ARB has approved only four offsets project types. Each offset must comply with detailed accounting and reporting requirements (know as an “offset protocol”) and all offsets must be verified by a third party. Further, offset credits can only be generated by projects located in the US – no international offsets can be used in the California program at this time.

The four eligible protocols are:

Livestock (i.e. manure digesters)
Destruction of ozone depleting substances (i.e. refrigeratants).
U.S. forests (i.e. afforestation, forest conservation, and improved forest management)
Urban forests

Q7: How often do capped entities have to surrender allowances?

A: Starting in 2014, entities must annually surrender allowances equal to 30% of their verified emissions from the year before (they have to verify and report their emissions every year – see above). Every three years, each entity must surrender allowances or offsets equal to all of the pollution it has emitted in the past 3 years. For example, if the refinery above emitted 100 tonnes of pollution every year for three years, it would need to annually surrender at least 30 allowances to cover its emissions in years 1 and 2, and then 240 allowances in year 3 to make up the deficit.

Q8: How can we be sure market prices won’t get out of control?

A: The purpose of the cap and trade regulation is to cap overall emissions but allow flexibility for businesses to find the most cost-effective ways to reduce pollution, thus keeping costs down

In addition, ARB has designed the program to include many cost containment options for regulated entities:

They can bank allowances for use in future years.
They have three-year compliance periods that allow them a longer planning horizon to make investments.
They can use offsets (which may be cheaper than allowances) for 8% of their compliance obligations (see question about offsets above).

Finally, ARB has set aside 4% of the total allowances in a strategic reserve to be released in the event prices rise above predetermined triggers (starting at $40 per tonne in 2013). If this happens, ARB will release these allowances into the market to increase supply and drive prices down.

On the flip side, ARB has built in a price floor (starting at $10/ton in 2013) to ensure the cap provides a stable market signal to move towards lower carbon alternatives.

Q9: How can we be sure this market won’t turn into another Enron-type boondoggle?

A: ARB has taken several steps to guard against the risk of market manipulation, including requiring every market participant to register and submit to California’s jurisdiction (ARB retains broad authority to revoke registration status for any foul play), limiting how many allowances any entity can hold. ARB is also developing an Emissions Tracking System to keep track of every transaction and who is holding allowances, so they can detect and head off any attempts at market manipulation.

Q10: What if something else goes wrong that we haven’t thought of yet?

A: ARB is using 2012 as a ramp up year to stress test market monitoring operations, auction platforms, and other aspects of the program. After the program launches in 2013, ARB will continue to monitor and provide updates to the Board on how the program is performing, and is developing an Adaptive Management Plan to respond more quickly if problems arise. Should anything go awry, ARB retains broad authority to make any necessary changes.

Real Time Data available for LA Metro buses!

2011-11-14T21:12:50Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

Ok, I’m a little late on the newsflash, since this pilot started in March. But in case you didn’t get the memo either, here it is:

You can now find out when an LA Metro bus will actually arrive at your stop!

LA metro is using GPS on buses to track their actual location (this service is provided by a vendor called NextBus). You can get real time bus info on NextBus’s site. Several smart phone apps are using this information so that you can see where the bus is right now, and when it will actually get to you (as opposed to when it is scheduled to get to you). If you don’t have a smart phone, you can also access the information via calls and texts.

I’ve been trying out two of the apps: “Where’s my LA Metro Bus?” ($0.99) and “Smart Ride” (free – has ads). Both have an easy-to-read interfacing showing when the next bus arrives in red font, and both let you save favorite stops (screenshot below is from “Where’s My LA Metro Bus?”.

I like that “Where’s My LA Metro Bus?” gives you an option to look at a map where you can see your location, the stop location, and the bus’s location.

I like that “Smart Ride” automatically finds the stops closest to you when you open the app.

Now if only Big Blue Bus will get on the real time data band wagon, we’ll be golden!

Southern California voters to local lawmakers: "We want you to invest in public transportation!"

2011-11-08T01:18:27Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

A recent LA Times article about “Buy Here Pay Here” used car dealers highlighted a local single mother (Tiffany Lee) who works at UCLA Health Clinic. Riding the bus to work took her two hours, and she had to ask friends to drive her son to doctor appointments for his asthma. She was desperate for a car and had to accept a terrible, predatory deal ($3,000 down plus over a 20% interest rate on payments on a used car), to get one.

With stories like these, the results of a recent poll of Southern California voters should come as no surprise: Southern Californians want more mobility options! In particular, more than 80% of Southern California voters want their local governments to invest more money to expand and improve buses, trains, and light rail.

If they were in charge of the purse strings, voters would dedicate more money to expanding buses, trains, and light rail ($25), improving existing buses, trains and light rail ($17), and expanding bike lanes, and sidewalks ($14). Voters would spend a total of $58 out of a $100 budget on public transportation. Compare this to $20 they would spend to expand roads and highways and $24 to repair existing roads and highways.

(See more about these poll results here and here.)

Local lawmakers take heed: your voters want you to invest in public transportation to give them more mobility options.

Tiffany Lee was desperate to get a car to solve her mobility problems, and an immediate challenge is providing better options to people like her who have limited resources. Immediate solutions could include

Similar to utilities, create “lifeline” auto financing that can help the poor acquire autos, and more fuel-efficient autos at that;
Encourage flexible auto options like carsharing and peer-to-peer carshare; and
Promote pay as you drive insurance, to ensure that the poor, who drive less, can pay less for auto insurance.

But the longer term challenge for all Southern Californians will be to invest in public transportation that will not leave people in the situation of desperately needing a car because there is no other way to get where you need to go. I don’t own a car, and although I am grateful that my commute is not two hours like Ms. Lee’s, there is still much room for improvement in my bus-riding experience. Here are some of the solutions we need to invest in, followed by a few of my personal anecdotes. To give Southern Californians mobility options, we must:

Design communities to be less dependent on cars so that people have real options about mobility.
Increase frequency of service on existing bus and rail lines. If there is a bus that could get you where you need to go, but it only runs once an hour, it is hard to consider that a viable option for getting places on-time, because if you miss it once you are out of luck.
Improve the on-time performance of bus and rail. Again, if you are dependent on the bus to get to your job on-time and it is 10 or 15 minutes late, you might not have a job much longer. We need to be able to rely on transit to get us there on time.
Run rail lines at later times to encourage transit users to take public transportation at night and make lines safer so users feel protected when riding at night.
Create a more efficient, streamlined system to reduce transfer times thereby reducing transit times.
Improve and expand the use of real-time data to give riders better information about when their bus is actually going to come.
Build out new bus and rail lines and stop transit line cuts.
Create regional solutions that integrate fare options for a seamless rider experience. Right now you can use your TAP card on LA Metro and Culver City buses, but you have to have a separate pass for Big Blue Bus. I don’t have a car, so when I am trying to get around not just to work, but to meetings, to visit friends, etc, sometimes I need to utilize more than one bus system and it is a pain to have to figure out multiple fare systems. Expanding TAP to be a universal regional solution would make full-time bus-riding easier.

Air Board Should Move Ahead with AB 32 Scoping Plan: California's Blueprint for Transitioning to a Clean Energy Economy

2011-08-24T21:49:05Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

Moments ago the Air Resources Board voted 9-0 to re-adopt and move ahead with the AB32 Scoping Plan -- California’s blueprint for transitioning to a clean energy economy. The new analysis will supersede the original study that the San Francisco County Superior Court found lacking earlier this year.

In today’s monthly Board meeting, the ARB considered the findings of its evaluation of alternatives to the Scoping Plan for achieving the goals of AB32. The Revised Alternatives Analysis evaluated possible options for reaching the clean energy goals established under AB 32. The plan that ARB staff put forward reflects years of work with input from business, labor, and environmental groups to design a program that meets environmental concerns while it provides business the confidence that they can invest in the clean energy future of California.

What the expanded alternatives analysis confirms is that the Scoping Plan – the blueprint ARB put forward in 2008 – provides California’s best way to ensure pollution reductions at least cost and spur economic growth. In a nutshell, the Scoping Plan recognizes that there is no single “silver bullet” to solve the climate crisis – it requires an interlocking set of policies. Despite this comprehensive approach that includes over 70 different policies, much has been made of the inclusion of one particular policy in the Scoping Plan, ARB’s proposed cap and trade regulation. From all the press coverage one would think, incorrectly, that the cap and trade regulation is the only (or at least predominant) policy ARB is pursuing under the Scoping Plan.

Cap and trade is just one part of the AB 32 program

The cap-and-trade program is projected to account for less than one fifth of the emission reductions required to meet the AB 32 target. The vast majority of emission reductions will come from a suite of direct regulations, which are targeted at California’s largest sources of emissions:

Sector	Percent of Emissions (2008)	Selected AB 32 Scoping Plan Solutions
Transportation	37%	Cleaner vehicles (Clean Cars Standards), cleaner fuels (LCFS), reduce the need to drive through smart growth development (SB 375)
Utilities (Electricity and Natural Gas)	34%	Improve energy efficiency through minimum standards and utility programs, increase renewable energy (33% RPS), incentivize low carbon generation, avoid further investments in high carbon generation (SB 1368)
Industrial Operations	20%	Improve industrial energy efficiency (Industrial Audit Measure), incentivize low carbon industrial processes and products
High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases	3%	Phase out high GWP gases across multiple sectors, including consumer products and refrigerants

Source: CARB, Emissions Reductions from Scoping Plan Measures; 2020 GHG Emissions Forecast

Source: CARB, California GHG Inventory for 2000-2008

A well-designed cap and trade program is critical to ensuring pollution reductions and spurring innovation

As part of the larger AB 32 package of policies, however, the cap and trade program is critical for a number of reasons:

It provides absolute emission limits on polluters,
It is enforceable against individual emitters,
It sends a stable market signal to drive innovation and investment in low carbon solutions (secured by ARB’s firm commitment to establish an escalating auction reserve price that begins at $10/tonne), and
It provides a backstop for all the other intensity-based regulations under the Scoping Plan (i.e., in case the reductions from other direct measures do not fully materialize as ARB expects, the cap and trade program will pick up the slack).

Without this hard limit on pollution as a backstop, the state will be less likely to achieve all the required reductions by 2020, and less likely to stimulate the innovation and investment needed to achieve even greater reductions by 2050.

The cap is necessary, but not sufficient

What the cap and trade program will not do is dictate where emission reductions occur within capped sectors (roughly 85% of the economy). By design, cap and trade will look to achieve emission reductions at least-cost, wherever they are available, but will not guarantee that emissions reductions occur in certain sectors or regions. For this reason, NRDC has never supported relying exclusively on a cap and trade program to comply with AB 32. Indeed, we argued against the alternative in ARB’s revised alternative analysis that relies exclusively on cap and trade. Instead we continue to advocate and support the Scoping Plan because it encompasses a comprehensive package of targeted direct measures backed up with a hard cap.

For instance, NRDC’s top priority for building on the success of AB 32 has been to secure additional direct reduction measures from the industrial sector, which accounts for roughly one fifth of California’s total GHG emissions but is not currently subject to any mandatory reduction requirements. In June, ARB announced that it would close this gap by building on an existing regulation (the Industrial Audit Measure) to require California’s 60 largest industrial polluters to implement all cost-effective and feasible reduction measures identified through an energy efficiency audit. ARB’s commitment to revamp the rule will simultaneously reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality in local communities already adversely impacted by air pollution, furthering a key objective of AB 32.

ARB should move forward with an AB 32 program that includes direct regulations and a hard cap on pollution

In short, if the question is how can California best achieve the goals set out in AB 32, the choice is not between direct regulations and a market-based solution – the answer is that we need both. As designed, the Scoping Plan strikes this balance appropriately, and the Board must keep California on track to achieve full and timely implementation of all of the policies outlined in the Scoping Plan.

People in Los Angeles say air pollution is still a problem. Alternative forms of transportation are a part of the solution.

2011-08-01T17:30:36Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

The most recent PPIC Survey on Californians and the Environment shows that Californians overwhelmingly feel that air pollution is the biggest environmental problem facing California today.

Although all Californians are concerned about air pollution, those living in the Los Angeles region feel it particularly keenly.

Forty two percent of Californians, and 47% of those living in the Los Angeles region, correctly believe air pollution is due largely to personal or commercial vehicles. Due to increases in gas prices, most Californians (59%) report cutting back significantly on driving. Nonetheless, a solid majority of Californians (70%) who work part- or full-time say they commute by driving alone. That is largely the same across all regions. Of the remaining 30% or so who do not drive alone, there is a slight difference (within the sampling error of the survey, but still potentially interesting) between Los Angeles and San Francisco or the rest of California: people in Los Angeles are slightly more likely to take public transit than to carpool.

This might come as a surprise to those who complain about the LA transit system and look to the Bay Area as the public transit mecca of California. The Los Angeles metropolitan area has a much more daunting task than San Francisco in mobilizing its population outside of individual cars because in Los Angeles, it is 16 miles from downtown to the beach, whereas in San Francisco, it is only six miles from the Financial District to the ocean.

I can say from personal experience commuting to work without a car in both San Francisco and Los Angeles that Los Angeles has tackled this challenge admirably and I can reliably commute from West LA to downtown on the bus more easily than I could from the Sunset district of San Francisco to downtown.

Still, even though so many are concerned about air pollution for health and environmental reasons, and want to cut back on driving for economic reasons, only 12% of LA residents take public transit to work. A tiny minority walk (4%) or bike (2%) to work and only 3% avoid the commute altogether and work from home. In the graph below I took out the huge columns for driving alone to get a better look at the other categories (with the “driving alone” in, the others are just tiny blips along the bottom of the graph).

If we are going to solve the air pollution problems that plague many in this region and also increase the mobility that is necessary for a thriving economy, we have to find a way to reduce that huge “drive alone” column and focus on the alternatives. Making public transit, walking, and biking realistic options for more people will require an investment in planning and infrastructure.

The survey shows that Californians trust their local government (35%) more than state (24%) or federal (20%) to deal with environmental problems.

These results indicate that local and regional government entities should pursue policies that increase options for getting around in ways other than by driving alone. This will help people living in LA to save money and reduce air pollution.

Mayor Villairagosa’s 30/10 program (to accomplish 30 years of transit projects in 10 years) is a great example of such a strategy that enjoys broad support because it will reduce air pollution, spur job growth, and increase mobility for people living in LA.

The recently released Vision LA sets out recommendations for improving transit. Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) have also set out a vision in Powering the Future. On another front, the SCAQMD did not include sufficient plans for transportation strategies such as public transit, carpooling, bicycling infrastructure to help it reduce air pollution and meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, and the Ninth Circuit ordered it to do more to solve its transportation problems and reduce pollution.

If we can continue to develop and execute plans that will give more options to those living and working in Los Angeles, we can take a step towards a cleaner, brighter future.

New Poll: Californians think global warming is already happening and we need to act now

2011-07-28T21:14:46Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

The Public Policy Institute of California released its annual statewide survey on Californians and the Environment this week that shows 67% endorsed government action to regulate climate change, and overwhelmingly support (79%) government action on climate change, including strong support for the specific policies that California is pursuing to reduce greenhouse gas pollution: increasing renewable energy (82%), reducing industrial pollution (82%), advancing cleaner cars (81%), developing sustainable communities (79%), and unlocking energy efficiency (74%).

Of those Californians polled, 61% of Californians believe global warming is already happening and 75% believe we need to take action right away.

Below are Californians responses to questions about global warming and California policies:

The findings of the PPIC poll confirm that California is moving in the right direction to implement policies that reduce pollution with broad support by Californians.

How to get from Santa Monica to Downtown LA on the Bus

2011-01-11T22:50:18Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

Downtown LA and the Westside are two big job centers, so being able to travel between them (and avoid traffic) is critical.

Personally, my office is in Santa Monica, but I go to meetings in downtown Los Angeles often. I take the bus. This is generally shocking news to people in LA, but I find it to be a great option, since it takes about the same amount of time door-to-door as I would allow for driving and parking (less than an hour total) and I can get a bit of work done on the bus instead of practicing colorful descriptions of other people’s driving (a creative and mind-expanding exercise, to be sure, but one I would really rather avoid).

If you also need to travel between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica and have thought about taking the bus but then discarded the idea because it seems too hard, I hope this simple how-to will encourage you to give the bus a try:

Here’s some general information about Big Blue Bus, and below are the specific instructions on getting downtown:

You can find out where all you can go on Big Blue Bus by looking at the system map.
If you prefer google maps interface, someone has created a mashup here (see screenshot below).
You can get more info about each Big Blue Bus line, including schedules and stop locations, here.
Fare and pass info is here. You can get a pass on-line, or at one of the locations listed here.

How to get from Santa Monica to Downtown on the Big Blue Bus:

Let’s say you pick up the bus close to the Big Blue Bus Store and the Third Street Promenade, at Santa Monica Blvd. @ 3rd. There is a covered bench there, and a scrolling red LED display that tells you when the next buses are coming. (Big Blue Bus is going to roll this cool type of busstop out at over 70 stops around Santa Monica in the next year!)
Look for Bus 10. It will say “10 Freeway Express” on the front of the bus.
During rush hour, the 10 comes every 15 minutes. During mid-day and after 6pm, it runs every 30 minutes.
Get on and pay $2. (I find having a pass to be more convenient than carrying exact change, since there is no guarantee I will have exactly $2 in my wallet at any given time. Since I don't commute on the bus every day, the 13 ride pass is a good option for me. It costs $12 and is good for 13 regular ($1) rides with it. Unfortunately, the 10 Express to downtown costs $2 and Big Blue Bus won’t let you just insert your pass twice – you have to insert the pass, and also insert $1 cash. I, for one, find this to be seriously annoying as it defeats the purpose of carrying a pass instead of having to carry exact change. Now I have to have the pass and a single dollar bill in my wallet! Big Blue Bus says they are thinking of coming out with a 13 ride Express pass that you can use on the 10 Express without having to also carry exact change.)
If you get on the 10 in Santa Monica, you are sure to get a seat – lucky you! (There are usually seats available at all the stops along Santa Monica Blvd, but then the bus turns on Bundy and stops a few more times before getting on the freeway. Seats are often filled up by those last few stops on Bundy)
Ride for approximately 45 minutes. (I ride from Santa Monica @ Lincoln to City Hall (Temple @ Spring) and it usually takes 40 minutes without traffic and 55 with traffic.)
The stops will pop up on a red LED display at the front of the bus. Sometimes a voice will also announce them. Pull the yellow cord when you see your stop pop up, get off when it stops next.

To get back, just reverse the process. On the reverse trip (from downtown LA to Santa Monica) during business hours you have the benefit of being able to use Los Angeles MTA’s hotline to find out when the next bus is scheduled to arrive: (213) 626-4455. Again, this is scheduled data rather than real-time data, so it is really only helpful if the bus is running close to on-time.

How to get from Santa Monica to Century City on the Bus

2011-01-11T22:30:46Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

Last week I had an appointment in Century City, near Santa Monica Blvd and Beverly Glen. I got there on an LA Metro bus. Last year, Los Angeles Metro took an important step in making LA’s public transit system more accessible by releasing its route and schedule data publicly, so I was able to route this trip using Google maps. Here’s how:

Go to maps.google.com and enter start and end addresses

Click on the bus icon to get public transit directions, rather than driving directions
Find that the “704” will pick me up a half a block away and take me to within a block of my destination in 27 minutes.
I don't want to leave immediately, so I change the “depart at” time to 3pm, and find that the next bus comes at 3:01pm.

Fare is $1.50. (you can pay cash, or, if you ride a lot, you can get a TAP card with a daily, weekly, or monthly pass on it)
I avoided the hassle of traffic and parking, and was able to get a little work reading done during during the bus ride.
One annoying thing to note is that the departure information is scheduled data, rather than real-time data, meaning that if the bus is not running on schedule it will not depart or arrive at the times indicated. In other words, you could wait at the bus stop unnecessarily long and be late to your meeting. Luckily, the 704 usually seems to run within a few minutes of its scehduled time.

Correcting 10 Common Misconceptions about California's Cap-and-Trade Program

2011-01-10T17:51:05Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

In the aftermath of the California Air Resources Board’s historic vote to adopt the nation’s first-of-its kind program to cap global warming pollution across California’s economy, understandably there are questions about what the program will accomplish and how it will get us there. Below, I will attempt to clear up 10 common misconceptions about the program:

Q1: Isn’t cap-and-trade dead?

A: For the moment, the federal government has stalled in its attempts to create a market to reduce global warming pollution. However, California and other states are moving forward with a plethora of clean energy policies. In California, one of these policies, accounting for about 20% of our global warming pollution reductions under AB 32, is cap-and-trade. This policy works in concert with other policies such as a Renewable Portfolio Standard and Clean Cars and Clean Fuels standards to ensure we reduce our pollution in the most cost-effective way possible.

Q2: Why is California going it alone?

A: California is leading the nation to join the global clean energy economy, but we are certainly not going it alone. Twenty-two other states are also on the road of creating a clean energy economy through policies similar to California’s. California’s program is also carefully designed to ensure it does not put businesses that are working to reduce their emissions at a competitive disadvantage relative to other jurisdictions.

Q3: How can California do anything to address a global problem?

A: By showing that smart clean energy policies work for both our environmental and economic health. Certainly, California’s pioneering efforts alone are not enough to turn the tide on global climate change. But California has shown time and again that the economy and the environment go hand in hand – examples of successful policies include reducing air pollution, dramatically improving the energy efficiency of buildings and appliances, and demanding cleaner cars and trucks. Many of these policies, once shown effective in California, were then adopted in some form at a federal level. California can again show that protecting our health and environment and growing the economy are complimentary goals, thus igniting action on a larger scale.

Q4: But in the meantime isn’t this going to kill jobs and hurt California’s already struggling economy?

A: Quite the opposite. Clean energy is the fastest growing sector of California’s economy, growing 10% since 2005. Clean energy policies like cap-and-trade send a steady signal to the market that California is the place to invest in innovative new businesses that bring jobs to the state. So far, that signal has been working: California annually attracts more clean-tech investment capital than the rest of North America combined and has brought in $11 billion since AB 32 passed in 2006, creating thousands of businesses and jobs in its wake. By placing a price on carbon, this newly adopted market will maintain California’s competitive advantage in the global push for clean energy.

Q5: Isn’t cap-and-trade a big boondoggle for Chevron? Why don’t we just regulate them instead?

A: Cap-and-trade is regulation. It is a market-based regulation, but it nonetheless requires reductions in pollution that we would not get otherwise. In fact, cap-and-trade ensures a hard cap or limit on pollution where other policies (such as intensity standards or a carbon tax) do not guarantee that hard limit. California’s cap-and-trade program allows for flexibility in determining how to reduce pollution in the most cost-effective manner; it does not allow for flexibility in whether to reduce pollution at all.

Q6: Isn’t cap-and-trade a big boondoggle for Goldman Sachs? How can we protect carbon markets from manipulation and fraud?

A. Done right, market-based pollution trading schemes have been remarkably successful in lowering aggregate pollution levels at least cost (such as the 20 year old trading program to combat acid rain under the federal Clean Air Act). California’s regulators have incorporated lessons learned from other programs and have taken careful precaution to guard against the risk of market manipulation and fraud in the secondary market for carbon allowances. Every entity that wishes to participate in allowance trading must first register with CARB, who will track every transaction (each compliance instrument will have a unique serial number). The rules expressly prohibit manipulative behavior and afford regulators wide latitude to revoke the registration status of any market participant who is in violation.

Q7: Why not give regulated entities more time to prepare?

A: AB 32 passed in 2006, six years before the cap is set to take effect in 2012. Regulated entities have had years to assess their pollution reduction options and prepare themselves. Even in 2012, the cap does not actually require any reductions that first year, offering facilities even more time to transition. The cap then declines at a modest 2-3% per year, providing emitters a slow but steady incentive to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. The sooner regulated entities start to invest in clean energy solutions the better.

Q8: Is California giving away all the carbon allowances for free?

A: No. California is giving away significant allowances to start with in the industrial sector, but is auctioning allowances in the electricity and transportation sectors, which together make up the bulk of the program (see the “allowance distribution breakdown” graph from my December 16th post). More importantly, regardless of the allowance distribution scheme, a cap-and-trade program creates incentives to reduce emissions below allowable levels by turning pollution reductions into a marketable asset. This will help drive technological innovation and energy efficiency to speed our transition to a clean energy economy.

Q9: Can utilities use auction revenue to subsidize electricity rates and mute the carbon price signal?

A: No. Electricity utilities are specifically prohibited from using allowances to simply reduce rates for their customers (contrary to some assertions). They are allowed to offer rebates on the fixed portion of customers’ bills, which will ensure low income utility customers do not experience any disproportionate impacts. Utilities are also required to use the money to invest in programs that will further the purposes of AB 32, such as energy efficiency programs that both reduce pollution and help families and business save money on their energy bills.

Q10: Why don’t we “cap and dividend” and use auction revenue to give everyone in California a check?

A: While everyone likes getting a check in the mail, what we really need to do is build our clean energy economy through smart investments that can overcome market barriers to energy efficiency and low carbon alternatives. Using auction revenue to make these smart investments will be reap greater, long-term rewards for all Californians. A booming clean energy economy will result in jobs and growth that will yield dividends far greater than a single check.

California is leading the nation to join the emerging global clean energy economy

2010-12-17T01:53:02Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

The California Air Resources Board today approved, by a vote of 9-1, the first economy-wide carbon market to reduce pollution in the nation. This comes just over a month after California voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 23, signaling strong support for clean energy and policies that will help the state reduce global warming pollution. The ARB action also comes just a week after nations around the world agreed on the urgent need to tackle the challenge of climate change (see my colleague Jake Schmidt’s blog on Cancun here).

This newly adopted carbon market is one small but key part of California’s comprehensive clean energy law, AB 32. It accounts for roughly one quarter of the overall emissions reduction programs that will be accomplished by the package of policies developed under the landmark legislation to put California on a clear path to reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The program sets a cap on global warming pollution for facilities in the industrial, electricity, transportation, and natural gas sectors and saves the overall economy money by letting facilities (such as power plants, refineries and industrial plants), use a market to find the cheapest ways to reduce pollution.

Let me illustrate with an example: if facility A and B need to reduce their emissions by a combined total of 20 tonnes, and facility A has a cheap way to reduce emissions (let’s say by $10/tonne reduced), but it will cost facility B twice as much ($20/tonne), facility A can reduce its emissions by 20 tonnes for a total cost of $200 (20 tonnes x $10/tonne) and then sell its extra allowances to facility B who will not need to reduce at all. If A sells its 10 extra allowances to B at a price slightly higher than what A paid to reduce emissions, but lower than the price B itself could have achieved (say $15/tonne), A will have spent $50 and B will have spent $150 to reduce global warming pollution overall by 20 tonnes. In other words, the program will have reduced emissions at the lowest price in this market ($10/tonne), to the financial benefit of the cleanest emitter – A.

By contrast, as the chart below diagrams, if the government simply required facilities A and B to each reduce emissions by 10 tonnes, the overall cost of the program would rise. Under this scenario, facility A would pay a total of $100 (10 tonnes x $10/tonne) and facility B would pay a total of $200 (10 tonnes x $20/tonne) for a total cost of $300 – or $100 more than the cost of getting the same pollution reductions under a cap and trade program.

How Cap-and-Trade Works in California:

The program sets a limit on pollution, and requires facilities to submit to the Air Board one pollution allowance for every tonne of pollution they emit. There are a limited number of allowances available (similar to taxi medallions). Facilities are free to find the cheapest ways of reducing emissions and the Air Board only monitors whether facilities have enough allowances to match the pollution they emit, not how they reduced their emissions.

Every facility has three options for meeting pollution limits:

1) Reduce pollution by making facilities more efficient or finding alternative fuel sources

2) Get a pollution allowance either by getting it for free, buying it in an auction, or buying it from another facility that has an extra allowances

3) Buy an offset. An offset represents a pollution reduction from outside the program. A facility inside the program can invest in reductions elsewhere to offset their emissions.

There are many design elements of this program that we consider to be strong, and some that we believe should be improved over time.

DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT ARE STRONG:

A hard limit on pollution

This program sets a limit on how much pollution facilities in California can emit. The limit starts at projected 2012 emission levels, and reduces pollution 15% from 2012 through 2020.

Tough Penalty Provisions

If a facility emits more than allowed, the Air Board will require it to submit four “compliance instruments” for every one missed, and could also impose monetary fines that accumulate up to $25,000/day. This gives a strong incentive for facilities to stay within their limit.

A steady price signal to encourage clean energy

The program contains a floor price of $10 per tonne, escalating at 5% per year to reach $15 per tonne by 2020, below which ARB will not auction allowances. This is considerably higher than RGGI’s floor price of less than $2 per tonne, and it sends a clear market signal for facilities to continue finding innovative ways of decreasing emissions and developing clean energy technologies.

Auctioning in the Electricity and Transportation Sectors

The Air Board will auction 100% of pollution allowances in the transportation sector, almost all in the electricity sector, and some in the industrial sector. This means over half of all allowances issued in the program will be auctioned from the start and will increase to roughly three-quarters of all allowances by 2020. Economists and environmentalists agree that auctioning is the most efficient and fairest way of distributing allowances because it maintains the “polluter pays” principle by requiring facilities to buy the right to pollute (see the Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee report from 16 noted economists).

Auction money will be used to help Californians and keep costs down

Money from auctioning in the electricity sector will be used to help customers keep their electricity bills low through programs such as rebates and other energy efficiency incentives, and achieve low cost pollution reductions.

Continual Improvement is Built in to the Program

The Air Borad is establishing an annual review of the program to allow it to reassess and continually improve. California is embarking on a first of its kind program; building in the flexibility to review its performance and make improvements in a timely fashion is an excellent design element that will help California succeed.

AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT:

Set the industrial benchmark at industry best practices, not industry average

One of the factors for determining how many allowances an industrial facility will receive for free is its emissions per unit of output. This factor is currently tied to average industrial performance. This means that an industrial facility that puts out the average amount of pollution per widget produced could receive nearly all its pollution allowances for free. This factor should instead be tied to industry best practices, so that only those facilities using the cleanest technology available will be able to cover all of their pollution for free. This will encourage all facilities to adopt the best practices available in the industry.

Give the benefit of the doubt to the consumer, not to industry profits

The program errs on the side of caution for industrial sources by giving free allowances to any industry that might face competition from out-of-state sources that do not have to meet the same pollution limits that California emitters face. However, in some cases the program may go too far in protecting these emitters at the expense of public health and welfare. We will be working with businesses and the ARB to ensure that California competitiveness is protected, but not at the expense of California consumers.

Today’s vote was a significant milestone for California in the State’s efforts to move forward towards a clean energy economy, cleaner air for Californians, and to recharge the economy while creating jobs in the fast-growing clean-tech sector.

There will be ongoing work on fleshing out the details of this program so we have the right solutions in place– see my colleague Alex Jackson’s blog to find out more about next steps for California.

Proposition 26 will not stop AB 32

2010-11-06T00:40:57Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

California voters gave AB 32 and clean energy a strong vote of confidence last Tuesday by resoundingly rejecting Proposition 23. Close to 4.5 million people voted against Proposition 23 – more than voted for or against any other item on the ballot. No on 23 got more votes than the winning candidates for governor or US Senate or Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court (who was unopposed). Even counties that voted for Republican candidates voted against Proposition 23, including Butte County, home to the initiative’s author, Assemblyman Dan Logue from Chico. Proposition 23’s defeat was an undeniable victory for environmental and public health advocates and clean energy proponents.

However, the lesser-known and poorly understood Proposition 26 squeaked by under the radar. The measure’s vague language and broad sweep have led many to ask: how will it impact AB 32?

The answer: not at all.

Mary Nichols, Chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB – the agency responsible for implementing AB 32) said this week that “Prop 26 does not impair the scoping plan adopted in 2008 or any regulations developed under that plan. AB 32 is on track...”

Here’s why:

Proposition 26 redraws the line between taxes and fees under California law. It states that it applies to “any change in state statute” that occurs after January 1, 2010. The Legislature passed AB 32 and the Governor signed it into law in 2006, well before Proposition 26 comes into effect. Although AB 32 implementation is ongoing, CARB’s authority to impose fees on polluters under AB 32 will not require “any change in state statute” post January 1, 2010. Accordingly, Proposition 26 does not change CARB’s authority to move forward with implementing AB 32.

Propositions 23’s overwhelming defeat constitutes a clear mandate from California voters that they want the state to continue to take action on climate change and move towards a clean energy future. The unfortunate result on Proposition 26 does not change that.

That doesn’t mean that Proposition 26, a measure funded by oil, alcohol and tobacco interests, won’t threaten environmental, public health, and public safety programs across the state and make the budget even harder to balance. It will blow a $1 billion hole in the state budget immediately, and will cost the state General Fund $1 billion annually, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Public transit agencies will likewise lose millions of dollars in expected funding.

Proposition 26 limits the funding and tools that will be available to hundreds of state programs including environmental, public, health, and public safety ones. Some examples of the types of programs and fees that will likely be impacted are:

Tobacco mitigation and deterrence fees
A fee imposed to mitigate the significant environmental impacts of a project
Road damage fees to mitigate damage to streets caused by heavy truck traffic and spills
Fees used to cover immunizations for children
Hazardous waste fees to support hazardous waste disposal
Fees that help reduce the burden on the 911 emergency system

These and other programs are critical for safeguarding our environment, and our health and safety. They may now be subject to the same paralysis we have seen in the state budget process for the past several years.

Programs that are already underway, like AB 32, will continue apace.

Proposition 26: $1 billion Bad for our Air, Water and Health

2010-10-27T00:25:30Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

Backers of Proposition 26 are trying to trick California voters into believing that Proposition 26 would not threaten the principle that polluters should pay for the harms they cause. They tout a “legal analysis” that conflicts itself by simultaneously claiming Prop 26 does nothing to impact environmental regulation while also saying it will eliminate fees. The language of Prop 26 re-defines a tax broadly to include “any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind” which sweeps many environmental and public health fees and programs within its gambit. UCLA Law professors have analyzed the initiative, and concluded that Prop 26 would “undercut the principle that polluters should pay for harms they cause.” How can Prop 26 backers say with a straight face that undercutting the “polluter pays” principle will not impact California’s ability to protect the health and environment of its citizens?

The exact extent of Prop 26’s reach may still be murky, but one thing is undisputed: it will have an immediate cost of $1 billion / year to the state, for a total of $11 billion in the next ten years.

The backers admit that the proposition is designed to limit government’s ability to enact such things as fees on tobacco to fund mitigating the adverse health effects of tobacco products, and fees on carbon pollution to fund mitigation of injuries related to the pollution. It would make it virtually impossible to hold oil, alcohol and tobacco companies accountable, through new fees, for any damage they do to our air, water and health. Prop 26 would affect state government as well as our own communities – a broad coalition of environmental, health, civic, labor, public safety, and government organizations (including the California League of Cities) opposes Prop 26.

The fact that different analyses can’t agree on what Prop 26 would do indicates that it is so poorly drafted that, if it were to pass, it would take years of litigation to sort out what is a fee and what is a tax. In these court battles, the burden of proof will be on the government; or in other words, fees on polluters will be presumed guilty until the government can prove its innocence. The delay and confusion of litigation will further cripple state and government programs at a time when they are already cash-strapped. The initiative could only be changed by passing another initiative.

Californians should not risk our health, our clean air and water, or put our state and local budgets under additional strain, by listening to the messages of the Prop 26 campaign. Oil, gas, tobacco, and alcohol have poured nearly $15 million into the Yes on 26 campaign. Don’t protect polluters. Vote NO on 26.

Big Blue Bus on Google Transit!

2010-10-14T21:46:05Z

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica

Although there has been no official announcement, Big Blue Bus is showing up on Google Transit.

This is truly exciting news for anyone trying to get around Santa Monica by bus! It means, for example, that I was thinking of taking the 3 to get to Sweet Rose Creamery, but google maps tells me it could be faster to take the 4. Cool.

Want to partake in the magic? Here's how:

Go to Google Maps (maps. google.com) in your browser, or open the Google Maps app on your smart phone.
Enter your start and end address.
Click on the Bus icon to get public transit directions, rather than driving directions (see screen shot below with red circle around the bus icon)
If you want to go later, you can change your depart or arrive time
It will give you your top three route options in that timeframe, with travel times and detailed instructions for each.