Prop 23 Update: I told you this would happen

Russ Steele

Joel Anderson, California State Senator, has the details in a Fox and Hounds article:

As Californians have come to learn, promises and assurances don’t seem to matter much under the Capitol Dome.

There was some loose talk a few months ago from Governor Jerry Brown that he’d like to see the anticipated AB 32 fees get diverted to pay for his beloved High Speed Rail system.

But why stop there?

Ignoring the assurances of then-Speaker Fabian Núñez, current Assembly Speaker John Perez has taken Brown’s lead and introduced AB 32 amendments (AB 1532) for the purpose of removing language restricting how AB 32 proceeds are spent.

If the governor signs it into law, the AB 32 monies would simply be dumped into the state treasury and could be used for anything from paying old debts to buying more unused trucks to sit in some CalTrans service yard.

Gone are the promises of using AB 32 fees to fund reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Gone are the hopes of funding new investments in new carbon-reduced energy technologies.

In fact, with fees taken by Perez and AB 1532, all that’s left of AB 32 is the hope that somehow, mandating a massive cut in greenhouse gasses will magically inspire new technologies and innovation, even though no government mandate or regulation, ever, at any time, has led to an economic boon.

AB 32 was delivered with certain set of promises. But in the six years since it passed, efforts to reduce its potential to something that amounts to nothing more than a massive new limitless tax on nearly every aspect of our lives are everywhere.

Plans to use the funds for everything from transportation, housing, and food to job creating industries circle the capitol like vultures.  Proceeds from the tax, instead of going to alternative energy research and development, will now be tossed into the bottomless pit of state government spending.

Remember how our local left assured us this would not happen during the Prop 23 debates.  Now all we hear is the crickets.

Advertisements

About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

20 Responses to Prop 23 Update: I told you this would happen

  1. stevefrisch says:

    So first, let the readers look at the bill analysis:

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1501-1550/ab_1532_cfa_20120831_211638_sen_floor.html

    And second, a few truther comments: the bill does exactly what the legislature said it would do when they passed AB 32, dedicate funds raised to reducing greenhouse gas emissions; requires an open public process to develop the plan to do so; requires that investments made from the fund created be cost effective.

    Under the legislation, should the Governor sign it, funds could only be used for the following:

    A. Funding to reduce GHG emissions through energy
    efficiency, clean and renewable energy generation,
    distributed renewable energy generation, transmission
    and storage, and other related actions, including,
    but not limited to, at public universities, state and
    local public buildings, and industrial and
    manufacturing facilities.

    B. Funding to reduce GHG emissions through the
    development of state-of-the-art systems to move goods
    and freight, advanced technology vehicles and vehicle
    infrastructure, advanced biofuels, and low-carbon and
    efficient public transportation.

    C. Funding to reduce GHG emissions associated with
    water use and supply, land and natural resource
    conservation and management, forestry, and
    sustainable agriculture.

    D. Funding to reduce GHG emissions through strategic
    planning and development of sustainable
    infrastructure projects, including, but not limited
    to, transportation and housing.

    E. Funding to reduce GHG emissions through increased
    in-state diversion of municipal solid waste from
    disposal through waste reduction, diversion, and
    reuse.

    Finally, the distribution of funds is governed by California State law which under a separate court decision, the Sinclair Paint decision, REQUIRES that there be a direct nexus between the source of the funding and the uses of the fund. Which means it cannot be used for anything that does not meet the direct nexus test….so it cannot just go into the general fund and be distributed for bon bons.

    So in short, Senator Anderson is full of horsesh*#.

  2. stevefrisch says:

    Here is one of several analysis of the Sinclair Paint decision that are available out there. CARB has already announced that it will design its mitigation program based on the most conservative assumption, the assumption that the decision applies to Cap and Trade auction revenues.

    http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Auction_Proceeds_Analysis_May_15.pdf

  3. stevefrisch says:

    Oops…should read “analyses”.

  4. gjrebane says:

    StevenF 519pm – The sad fact for California and all of us still living here is that every benefit promised by AB32, and doubled down on by you personally over two years ago, will not come to pass. AB32 is the most damaging and ineffective legislation that Sacramento has passed in more than a generation. The obfuscating talk, as you have again illustrated here, will continue to attempt a smoke screen, but the aggregate statistics about California’s businesses and economy tell the real story of central planning gone amuck (again).

  5. stevefrisch says:

    Well, I think everyone here knows I believe that AB 32 is good for the people of California in the long run, that it will ultimately lead to innovation, job creation, reduced costs due to improvements in public health, and reduced risk of natural disaster, and that you disagree. But the point of my post was that Senator Anderson’s post reprinted by Russ was FACTUALLY incorrect. Care to comment on that?

    • Todd Juvinall says:

      Ant the Captain of the Titanix thought he had enough life boats. AB32 is wrecking the state and all the nuts who like it are clueless.

      • stevefrisch says:

        It would be nice if just once people would address the actual point of the original post (as I did). My contention; that Senator Anderson is actually not telling the truth about the content of the bill he is blogging about.

  6. Arthur M. Day. says:

    Mr. Frisch, you are the last person I would pick as a judge of truth.
    Sir, you have a large investment in this swindle and you have made it abundantly clear that you could care less about it’s effects on the people of the state as long as you get your cut. Kindly spare us further bafflegab.

  7. stevefrisch says:

    So lets see, “doubled down on by you personally”, “obfuscating”, “smoke screen”, “nuts”, “swindle”. So a string of personal attacks, questioning motives, and unsupported statements by the mooing herd; but funny, no actual FACTS.

  8. Arthur M. Day. says:

    The bafflegab rolls on.

  9. Steven,

    No sure what was inaccurate, can you point to specifics?

    Did you read SB 535? Here is some of SB 535

    It is the intent of the Legislature that this act continue
    California’s implementation of Assembly Bill 32 by directing
    resources to the state’s most impacted and disadvantaged
    communities to ensure activities taken pursuant to that authority
    will provide economic and health benefits to these communities
    as originally intended.

    (h) It is the intent of the Legislature that funds deposited
    pursuant to this act continue California’s implementation of
    Assembly Bill 32 by achieving additional emission reductions and
    mitigating direct health impacts on California’s most impacted
    and disadvantaged communities.

    SEC. 2. Section 39711 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
    to read:
    39711. The California Environmental Protection Agency shall
    identify disadvantaged communities for investment opportunities
    related to this chapter. These communities shall be identified based
    on geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental
    hazard criteria, and may include, but are not limited to, either of
    the following:
    (a) Areas disproportionately affected by environmental pollution
    and other hazards that can lead to negative public health effects,
    exposure, or environmental degradation.
    (b) Areas with concentrations of people that are of low income,
    high unemployment, low levels of homeownership, high rent
    burden, sensitive populations, or low levels of educational
    attainment.
    SEC. 3. Section 39713 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
    to read:
    39713. (a) The investment plan developed and submitted to
    the Legislature, pursuant to Section 39716, shall allocate a
    minimum of 25 percent of the available moneys in the fund to
    projects that provide benefits to communities described in Section
    39711.
    (b) The investment plan shall allocate a minimum of 10 percent
    of the available moneys in the fund to projects located within
    communities described in Section 39711.
    (c) The allocation pursuant to subdivision (b) may be, but need
    not be, for projects included, in whole or in part, in the set of
    projects supported by the allocation described in subdivision (a).
    SEC. 4. Section 39715 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
    to read:
    39715. Any funding guidelines developed for administering
    agencies, pursuant to Section 39714, shall include guidelines for
    how administering agencies should maximize benefits for
    disadvantaged communities, as described in Section 39711.
    SEC. 5. Section 39721 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
    to read:
    39721. For the report prepared pursuant to Section 39720,
    administering agencies shall report to the Department of Finance,
    and the Department of Finance shall include in the report, a
    description of how the administering agencies have fulfilled the
    requirements of Section 39713.
    SEC. 6. Section 39723 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
    to read:
    39723. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as resulting
    in any taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section
    3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution.
    SEC. 7. This act shall not become operative unless Assembly
    Bill 1532 of the 2011–12 Regular Session is enacted.
    91

  10. stevefrisch says:

    Seriously? Can I be more specific? I was specific. AB 1532 REQUIRES that the funding be used for GHGE reduction. The rules regarding the use of the fund are further governed by court precedent established in the Sinclair Paint test. Thus the following direct statements are false:

    “If the governor signs it into law, the AB 32 monies would simply be dumped into the state treasury and could be used for anything from paying old debts to buying more unused trucks to sit in some CalTrans service yard.”

    “Gone are the promises of using AB 32 fees to fund reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

    “Gone are the hopes of funding new investments in new carbon-reduced energy technologies.”

    “In fact, with fees taken by Perez and AB 1532, all that’s left of AB 32 is the hope that somehow, mandating a massive cut in greenhouse gasses will magically inspire new technologies and innovation, even though no government mandate or regulation, ever, at any time, has led to an economic boon.”

    Pants on fire FALSE.

    And of course I read SB 535. I follow this stuff for a living. It merely ensures that a portion of the funds be directed to disadvantaged communities. It does not change the process defined in AB 1532. These two pieces of legislation are entirely consistent. Assuming the Governor signs them!

  11. MikeL says:

    It merely mandates 25% of the funds confiscated by force to be redistributed to the so called “disadvantaged” in order to be able to buy more votes to ensure the continued election of democrat Marxists.

  12. stevefrisch says:

    So we can add “confiscated by force” (well I guess laws passed by a legislature are force) “redistributed” (I love the use of code words as an attack technique), and “buy more votes” (I guess Mike supports campaign finance reform?), and “Marxists” to the litany of bombastic rhetoric here: but surprisingly still no facts. The point remains the same, the original post is inaccurate. I am waiting for someone to show precisely how the enabling legislation is inconsistent with AB 32, or how AB 1532 and SB 535 are internally inconstant.

    • Todd Juvinall says:

      Yes laws passed with the threat of the police power to collect and/or arrest are “force”. Are you thick?

      • stevefrisch says:

        Every law in California is passed with the some enforcement ability…..would you oppose use of force to halt kiddie porn? I don’t think so. The issue is not whether or not the government has the power to enforce laws….if it is join posse comitatus….the issue is that you do like the law government is enforcing…but you already picked and chose your laws through the elective and legislative process…..you just don;t like the law and are resisting its implementation……

  13. Arthur M. Day. says:

    Mr. Frisch, some days ago Mr. Steele displayed a graph which showed that rising CO2 levels were not being matched by rising temperatures. You were asked for your opinion on the graph, you asked some “casting aspersions on the honesty of the graph” questions and never gave an answer. That graph demonstrates that the whole CO2 global warming scare story has no basis in observed facts. Therefore, the whole AGW industry has no honest foundation.
    The people on the lower end of the income scale, for whom energy costs are a major portion of their cost of living, will have no interest in whether AB 32 and/or AB 1532 are or are not internally consistent when their energy bills start to ride B. O.’s skyrocket. Those of us who can view Mr. Steele’s graph without feeling threatened also have no interest in your verbal gymnastics. We do not like these laws because they cripple California for no benefit to it’s citizens. Only rent seekers like yourself and the power seeking politicians and the Groonies like them.
    Will the last person to leave California please blow out the candles.

  14. stevefrisch says:

    I am sorry that you considered me asking questions about the sources of the data in the graph as “casting aspersions on the honesty of the graph”. I wonder in what dark anti-intellectual world wanting to know the source of data is bad.

    • Todd Juvinall says:

      Like the SBC data I listened to at the BOS meeting on Agena21? Yep, just like that.

  15. Arthur M. Day. says:

    Nifty sleight of mouth there Mr. Frisch. You still have not addressed the question of Mr. Steele’s graph. Or acknowledged the damage skyrocketing energy prices would do the the poor. Please sir, the crickets are getting tired.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: