SB1132 still short of passage
By Anna Daniels
California is indisputably faced with extreme drought conditions throughout the state. It is a manifestation of the effects of climate change. If there is a time when our elected representatives are needed to be thoughtful stewards of our water, land and air, it is now. That stewardship is reflected in policies and legislation which will have impacts far beyond the short shelf life of any given politician.
California Senator Ben Hueso, who represents San Diegans in the 40th District, has decided to abstain on voting for Senate Bill 1132 which would impose a moratorium on extreme oil extraction methods in California. This includes hydrofracturing, or fracking, and acid well stimulation. That abstention puts him at odds with a recent poll that reveals that a majority of California voters oppose fracking.
Voters have good reasons for their opposition. The Sierra Club fact sheet on fracking offers this description of the practice:
Oil companies have been using dangerous technologies to extract oil from California with virtually no oversight. These technologies include injecting toxic chemicals, acids, sand and water deep into the ground to dissolve and break up rock. Today, oil companies are positioning themselves to expand these practices across wide areas of California, putting public health, the environment, and our climate goals at risk.
Fracking, which is a continuation of fossil fuel production, is by definition a contributor to climate change. But permitting an industry that uses enormous quantities of water and then injecting the poisoned water back into the ground in a drought stricken state is beyond craven–it represents a clear danger to the health of Californians, threatens our dwindling water resources and the long term economic consequences will be enormous.
Hueso’s staff member told me that the Senator was abstaining, pending receipt of a report that will be promulgated in 2015. I asked if there would be a moratorium on the fracking industry in the meantime. The staff member did not know.
Your phone call can make a difference. Call Senator Hueso today in Sacramento 916-651-4040. Ask him to support SB1132.
Anna Daniels
Latest posts by Anna Daniels (see all)
- Bob Dorn: Rest in Power! - December 3, 2018
- The Urgency of Transgender Safety, Legal Protections - November 27, 2018
- Chaos and Cruelty at the Border - November 26, 2018
Just one more black mark on Hueso’s voting, or non-voting, record.
I called his office and the girl answering the phone didn’t ask my name. She asked me what district I live in at the end of my pleading the case. Had nothing to offer on why her boss is abstaining. Call the number Anna Daniels listed above 916 651 4040. Hueso falta un espina.
I was surprised that the staff member I spoke with didn’t seem interested in whether I was a district 40 resident or not. It was a “whatever” kind of interaction.
Sadly I think the likely answer is he bowed out to help his own political career. Just speculation but that’s a common thing in this line of work.
Globally we are emitting 35 Billion tons of Green House Gases annually, here in California we emit 446 million tons of Carbon Dioxide a year, 1,222,000 Toxic Tons a Day, The California Public Utility Commission is thinking of replacing San Onofre and Hydro losses to generating with Natural Gas Power Plants condemning our kids and our planet to Heating UP and Burning UP, unless We start Changing and Fighting for real Sustainable Energy Policies.
The state currently produces about 71% of the electricity it consumes, while it imports 8% from the Pacific Northwest and 21% from the Southwest.
This is how we generate our electricity in 2011, natural gas was burned to make 45.3% of electrical power generated in-state. Nuclear power from Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County accounted for 9.15%, large hydropower 18.3%, Renewable 16.6% and coal 1.6%.
There is 9% missing from San Onofre and with the current South Western drought, how long before the 18.3% hydro will be effected?
We have to change how we generate our electricity, with are current drought conditions and using our clean water for Fracking, there has to be a better way to generate electricity, and there is, a proven stimulating policy.
The Feed in Tariff is a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in Renewable Energy, the California FiT allows eligible customers generators to enter into 10- 15- 20- year contracts with their utility company to sell the electricity produced by renewable energy, and guarantees that anyone who generates electricity from R E source, whether Homeowner, small business, or large utility, is able to sell that electricity. It is mandated by the State to produce 33% R E by 2020.
FIT policies can be implemented to support all renewable technologies including:
Wind
Photovoltaics (PV)
Solar thermal
Geothermal
Biogas
Biomass
Fuel cells
Tidal and wave power.
There is currently 3 utilities using a Commercial Feed in Tariff in California Counties, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, and Sacramento, are paying their businesses 17 cents per kilowatt hour for the Renewable Energy they generate. We can get our Law makers and Regulators to implement a Residential Feed in Tariff, to help us weather Global Warming, insulate our communities from grid failures, generate a fair revenue stream for the Homeowners and protect our Water.
The 17 cents per kilowatt hour allows the Commercial Business owner and the Utility to make a profit.
Commercial Ca. rates are 17 – 24 cents per kilowatt hour.
Implementing a Residential Feed in Tariff at 13 cents per kilowatt hour for the first 2,300 MW, and then allow no more than 3-5 cents reduction in kilowatt per hour, for the first tier Residential rate in you area and for the remaining capacity of Residential Solar, there is a built in Fee for the Utility for using the Grid. A game changer for the Hard Working, Voting, Tax Paying, Home Owner and a Fair Profit for The Utility, a win for our Children, Utilities, and Our Planet.
We also need to change a current law, California law does not allow Homeowners to oversize their Renewable Energy systems.
Campaign to allow Californian residents to sell electricity obtained by renewable energy for a fair pro-business market price. Will you read, sign, and share this petition?
http://signon.org/sign/let-california-home-owners
Roof top Solar is the new mantra for Solar Leasing Companies with Net-Metering which allows them to replace One Utility with Another, we need to change this policy with a Residential Feed in Tariff that will level the playing field and allow all of us to participate in the State mandated 33% Renewable Energy by 2020.
This petition will ask the California Regulators and Law makers to allocate Renewable Portfolio Standards to Ca. Home Owners for a Residential Feed in Tariff, the RPS is the allocation method that is used to set aside a certain percentage of electrical generation for Renewable Energy in the the State.
Do not exchange One Utility for Another (Solar Leasing Companies) “Solar is absolutely great as long as you stay away from leases and PPAs. Prices for solar have dropped so dramatically in the past year, that leasing a solar system makes absolutely no sense in today’s market.
The typical household system is rated at about 4.75 kW. After subtracting the 30% federal tax credit, the cost would be $9,642 to own this system. The typical cost to lease that same 4.75 kW system would be $35,205 once you totaled up the 20 years worth of lease payments and the 30% federal tax credit that you’ll have to forfeit when you lease a system. $9,642 to own or $35,205 to lease. Which would you rather choose?
If you need $0 down financing then there are much better options than a lease or PPA. FHA is offering through participating lenders, a $0 down solar loan with tax deductible interest and only a 650 credit score to qualify. Property Assessed Clean Energy loans are available throughout the state that require no FICO score checks, with tax deductible interest that allow you to make your payments through your property tax bill with no payment due until November 2014. Both of these programs allow you to keep the 30% federal tax credit as well as any applicable cash rebate. With a lease or PPA you’ll have to forfeit the 30% tax credit and any cash rebate, and lease or PPA payments are not tax deductible.
Solar leases and PPA served their purpose two years ago when no other viable form of financing was available, but today solar leases and PPAs are two of the most expensive ways to keep a solar system on your roof.” Ray Boggs.
I have a little bit of bad news for you. You can’t do geothermal energy if you ban fracking. It is an essential part of the process. Once again, environmentalists are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and frankly, natural gas coming from states where fracking is considered acceptable and normal is the only reason you can read this on your computer, keep your lights on, and have water to drink (which is pumped by electric, diesel, and natural gas fueled pumps).
Thank you very much for writing this, Anna. Craven really is the only word to describe a process like fracking.
Here’s what happens at the end of session when you call a legislators office or send an email, fax or letter on a particular bill: your comments are added to a file with other related comments on the same issue. Staff compiles the information for the legislator to review. Sometimes they will put it in a notebook along with the text of the related legislation.
Sometimes these messages get read, sometimes they don’t.
Meanwhile the lobbyists are calling, asking for meetings, visiting offices to talk to staff, and reminding elected officials where the next campaign contribution is coming from… Or not.
Many will ask the Sgt. at Arms Who control access to the chamber to deliver their business cards directly to the legislators desks in the chamber, asking for a chance to discuss the bill before it comes up for a vote. Some members refuse to accept these cards, others choose on a case-by-case basis.
There is tremendous pressure on the legislators at this point, coming from all sides right up to the time the vote is called. There are many more paid lobbyists walking the halls of the Capitol building then there are legislators in the two houses.
As a final note to your comment Lori, the citizens who left messages, or at least those of the same party, will receive an avalanche of glossy mailers, exhorting them to vote at election time.
Some of those citizens will pause– balancing the importance of voting against their only option— a vote for the lesser of two weasels.
True. Voters are bombarded with information in these final days of election season, just as legislators are bombarded inside the Capitol building.
I’d like to see a proposal to allow people the Choice of opting out of getting all this election mail. I voted several days ago and I’m still getting tons of junk mail. It goes directly into the recycle bin.
Here’s my suggestion for a bill I wish I had thought of while still in office: Why not give voters a chance to opt out of receiving campaign mailers, by simply checking a “do not send mail” box when they fill out their voter registration? It’s a waste of resources and most of them don’t get read anyway.
Unfortunately it’s also the way most money is spent (and profits are made) in the. campaign industry, so such a proposal would meet heavy headwinds inside the legislature by consultants, printing houses, and the mail carriers union.
But I’d still like to see this proposal made to the registrar of voters: just add a checkbox: no mail. Let voters choose whether or not they want to contribute to all this wasted paper.
Nice. Commonsensical, a way to quickly undo the waste of resources at election time. Of course, there’d be a lot of lobbying against it, I’d guess.
I VOTED against the candidate who filled my mailbox with redundant, meaningless boilerplate in the recent mayoral race. It just told me he thought he could buy the race. He didn’t make it to the general. I’m to a point of such disgust that I will not vote for anyone with apron strings to corporations, which means although I’m registered Democrat currently, I won’t be voting for a lot of them, including Scott Peters who wrote a letter to the FCC essentially opposing utility-regulated Net Neutrality.
A Hispanic activist group noticed that five of the eight opponents were Hispanic…and is following up.
I haven’t tracked down the GMO labeling failure, but I would imagine there are a fair number of turncoats…or are they the sacrificial lambs, either freshmen or secure enough in their districts to do the corporate bidding.
For a more detailed discussion of why legislators often withhold votes see this story