A little "sunshine" on California global warming effortsPosted by Gino DiCaro, Vice President, Communications on Aug. 21, 2008
In a strongly worded letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger, the petroleum industry yesterday warned that failure to properly implement a Low Carbon Fuel Standard could result in a fuel supply crisis similar to the electricity crisis of 2001.
Sunshine # 2 -- Poll: Consumers support greenhouse gas laws if it costs nothing
Today the AB 32 Implementation Group released a survey that polled consumers' attitudes toward the implementation of the California-only greenhouse gas law. The poll found that while voters initially support its goals, that support dips sharply when they consider the measure’s price tag of billions of dollars in extra costs for electricity, gasoline, and food, as well as higher taxes and fees.
View Release and Poll
Sunshine # 3 -- Fuzzy goals on 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard
Recently, the California Public Utilities Commission released a report highlighting the difficulties of reaching a proposed 33% RPS and the conflicting impacts from the competing goals of the standard.
This from the report:
California must be clear about the goal of a 33% RPS – whether it is to promote broad environmental and economic development benefits of renewables, to "move the renewables market", to reduce greenhouse gases, or some combination thereof. If the main driver of a 33% RPS is reduction of greenhouse gases, the state must consider the GHG impact of the transmission development and the possible fossil resources needed to integrate such a large build-out of renewable generation. California would then want to choose the most cost effective resources for meeting its GHG reduction measures, whether in-state or out-of state renewables, demand response, energy efficiency, fossil repowers, or other options. An integrated approach to procurement and transmission planning can best consider the costs and benefits of these options.View Report
One sidenote: This week, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies released a study on the effects of reaching a California 33% renewable portfolio standard. The report said it would result in 200,000 new manufacturing jobs and as much as $60 billion to the State's economy. We appreciate their concern for the economy but I'm not sure passing one of the costliest and most unrealistic mandates in California's history and then calling it economic activity will help competitiveness here in the Goldish-Green State.
And because this blog always needs to underscore the impacts on, the benefits from and the importance of manufacturing, you can read the following past blogs on global warming policies and their affect on California manufacturing:
A Gold Medal for Sen. Christine Kehoe -- August 15
Why not California #4 (&AB 32) -- August 6
Infrastructure and energy costs permeate energy conference -- August 4
California global warming solution: Additional item for a $1 or $100? -- August 1
Green building: A step toward more energy supply -- July 18
$20 billion budget abyss should trigger pause in bold, California-only policy -- April 29
Low Carbon Gas: Break new ground, not our wallets -- April 16
Greenhouse gas credits & reductions: On Sale! -- March 25
Climate change causes some to rethink nuclear power -- Dec. 10, 2007
California's competitiveness improves....a little -- Sept. 5, 2007
Report says carbon reductions will cost $100 to $500 billion -- July 17, 2007
California Steel announces major expansion -- June 6, 2007
Tags: AB 32 CEERT global warming greenhouse gas LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard Public Utilities Commission Renewable Portfolio Standard RPS WSPA
0 comments | Post your comment