You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2010.
On Wednesday, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released an updated economic analysis that forecasts robust economic growth as the state continues implementing AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
“This analysis confirms what economists have been saying all along: that full implementation of the (AB 32) Scoping Plan is the right choice for California to make an affordable transition to a clean energy economy,” said CARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols. “It supports continued economic growth and sets us on a course for greater energy security and less dependence on petroleum.”
Jasmin Ansar, a climate economist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, described CARB’s analysis as “the most thorough examination of AB 32 to date,” which builds upon a growing body of research showing that clean energy and climate policies will protect the environment and the economy.
While the new analysis identifies important economic gains – including cost savings of $3.8 billion in reduced consumption of gasoline and diesel from increased investment in energy efficiency and cleaner fuels – it didn’t explore the full array of benefits, including reduced health care costs from cleaner air, greater protection from volatile fossil fuel prices, and avoided impacts of climate change.
The results are further proof of the danger California faces from Texas oil companies’ efforts to suspend AB 32. The analysis shows that limiting requirements for oil companies or utilities would increase costs and shift economic burdens to small businesses.
Last week, the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) released A Scientific Assessment of Alternatives for Reducing Water Management Effects on Threatened and Endangered Fishes in California’s Bay Delta. The report confirms that limits on pumping water from the South Delta make sense to protect the beleaguered ecosystem. Here’s how the scientists put it: “the concept of reducing … negative flows to reduce mortality of smelt at the (pumping) facilities is scientifically justified.” The report was prepared at the behest of Senator Dianne Feinstein.
A second report from the NRC, scheduled to be released in 2011, will evaluate broader concerns beyond the scope of their initial report – including an ordinal ranking of the factors that are killing fish in the Delta and the long-term environmental goals that might realistically be achieved.
In the interim, the NRC report underscores the need to reduce the state’s reliance on water exports from the Delta. If California wants salmon, smelt, and the jobs that come with healthy fisheries, we’ll need to adopt policies and projects like those recommended in PCL’s “8 Affordable Water Solutions for California”, increasing local water supplies and decreasing our dependence on unsustainable water extraction from fragile ecosystems.
On Thursday, March 26th, the Planning and Conservation League released its new report, “8 Affordable Water Solutions for California,” at the Water Education Foundation’s Executive Briefing.
The report outlines eight practical proposals that can move California’s residents, businesses, and environment toward a secure and affordable water future.
The proposals include creating a sustainable source of funding for headwaters restoration, maintaining enforceable up-to-date flow standards for the Delta and its tributaries, analyzing a smaller Delta tunnel, and using the more than $3 billion in already-approved water bond funds to provide clean water to disadvantaged communities.
A PDF copy of “8 Affordable Water Solutions for California” is available here. To schedule a briefing on these solutions, contact David Maurier, PCL’s Staff Economist.
On Tuesday, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed budget legislation that would have effectively secured $350 million for annual transit operations as part of a “gas tax swap.” The measure would have swapped an increase in the sales tax on diesel with the elimination of the sales tax on gasoline, while dedicating funding for transit. This veto leaves transit operations and State Transit Assistance fund (STA) vulnerable to continued poaching by state legislators during the next budget crisis.
For years, the Governor and Legislature have raided the STA, which is supplied in part by the sales tax on gasoline and diesel, whenever they found themselves in a budget crisis. The gas tax swap legislation proposed by the Legislature would have firmly established a baseline of $350 million to be allocated annually to the STA, and made an immediate one-time allocation of $400 million to transit operators. Under the legislation, allocations to the STA were projected to reach $400 million in 2016-17 and $500 million in 2020-21, as compared with the annual allocation of approximately $258 million over the past five years and $190 million over the past ten years. In short, the Governor has cost transit operators and projects more than $1.7 billion over the next six years.
The Governor’s veto strikes an obvious blow to the budget of transit operators, struggling to provide an essential service in a down economy. More importantly, it perpetuates the larger, long-term problem of the state dipping into the STA, notwithstanding a California Supreme Court ruling that prohibits the practice. The Legislature clearly meant to right past wrongs and protect against poaching the STA with this legislation. While the one-time allocation of $400 million certainly would have benefited transit operators, it was the assurance that the STA would be securely funded in the future that will most be missed.
