“However, even more clear was that the “Fuels of the Future” hearing was more of a lobbying opportunity than anything. Biofuel, natural gas, electric cars and fuel cell representatives pitched the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee members on their respective alternative fuels, seeking a place at the table when it comes time to dole out more state subsidies and grants.
Despite the California petroleum industry providing 332,968 jobs and $17 billion in wages and salaries in California, most of the other participants in the hearing bashed the industry. But that is because clean energy and fuel has become less ideological and purely economic for so many.
In 2006, when the California Legislature passed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, alternative energy and fuels were given a mandate along with an open state checkbook.”
Not only did these special interests kill the economy, crate a $17.6 billion deficit in 90 days, now they want a blank check, killing off public safety, health care, roads and education in this Third World State.
I wonder if these sponges then went to protest Wall Street?
AB 32 Special Interests Lobby For Subsidies
By KATY GRIMES, Cal Watchdog, 10/26/11
While the entire rest of the world has been abandoning climate change, global warming programs and strict alternative energy mandates, California continues to embrace what many call anti-science and anti-economy policies.
An informational Senate committee hearing on Monday about alternate fuels brought out all of the climate-change special interests. By the end of the hearing, it was clear that the lone representative from the petroleum industry was not popular or even welcome in California.
However, even more clear was that the “Fuels of the Future” hearing was more of a lobbying opportunity than anything. Biofuel, natural gas, electric cars and fuel cell representatives pitched the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee members on their respective alternative fuels, seeking a place at the table when it comes time to dole out more state subsidies and grants.
Despite the California petroleum industry providing 332,968 jobs and $17 billion in wages and salaries in California, most of the other participants in the hearing bashed the industry. But that is because clean energy and fuel has become less ideological and purely economic for so many.
In 2006, when the California Legislature passed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, alternative energy and fuels were given a mandate along with an open state checkbook.
California Air Resources Board
With the passage of AB 32, the California Air Resources Board was given a mandate to implement by 2012 Cap and Trade, a program to control air pollution emissions by making industrial plants buy and sell emission permits. But CARB Director Mary Nichols announced in July that Cap and Trade would be delayed for one year — apparently the five years that CARB has had to prepare is not enough.
Many argue that California’s ”Global Warming Solutions Act” is really nothing more than state-sponsored taxing schemes to subsidize jobs and prop up favored clean tech industries, and is not addressing increased energy demands.
Catherine Reheis-Boyd, executive director for the Western States Petroleum Association, told the committee that even the federal Department of Energy expects that, even by 2035, 80 percent of the country’s energy still will come from fossil fuels.
California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard was adopted in April 2009. Regulated by the Air Resources Board, it was intended to drive the energy market toward low-carbon fuels, reduce California’s dependence on petroleum and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet the mandates of AB 32. But Reheis-Boyd said the reality is that we are not even close to fulfilling those mandates. She said that even though California is focused on ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen fuel blends and electricity, the state will not be able to reach the emission reduction mandates because of the overall increasing energy demand.
The Western States Petroleum Association predicts that, by 2035, oil still will be 36.6 percent of the fuel used, natural gas 23.8 percent, coal 21.3 percent, nuclear 8 percent, biomass and renewables only 4.7 percent and hydrogen 2.7 percent.
Petroleum is still an important part of the mix, according to Reheis-Boyd. That’s partly due to the escalating costs of low-carbon biofuels, which are expected to cost the consumer a premium.
California Goes It Alone
Studies by the Heartland Institute found that states that try to reduce emissions on their own are likely to incur costs 10 times greater than a national program because businesses and residents would find it easier to move to nearby states with lower energy costs or less-burdensome regulations and because states would have to rely on more costly command-and-control regulatory approaches.
The other panel participants were Denise Githam with Sapphire Energy, representing advanced biofuels, Eileen Tutt wth the California Electric Transportation Association, Catherine Dunwoody with the California Fuel Cell Partnership and Tim Carmichael with the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition.
Each of the representatives enumerated the advances being made in alternative fuels. While touting some of the very interesting experiments being done with algae, natural gas, hydrogen fuel cells and electricity, all of the representatives rallied around a common theme of ending petroleum dependence. Not one of them spoke of real energy demands, and how these cannot be met using alternative fuels.
The hearing ended with testimony from representatives from the Natural Resources Defensive Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the American Lung Association, the California Communities Against Toxics and Environmental Entrepreneurs — all pushing for ending petroleum dependence and moving to alternative, low-carbon fuels.
Yet not one alternative fuel representative admitted that the majority of the energy needed for electricity comes from coal.
Compelling Scientific Evidence
The Heartland Institute wrote:
“In light of the compelling scientific evidence that global warming is not a crisis, policymakers should consider reducing current spending on climate change and repealing regulations and mandates that were previously justified by fear of global warming. More specifically, they should consider the following policies:
* “Oppose higher energy taxes or carbon “”cap-and-trade”“ programs.
* “Repeal renewable energy mandates that require utilities and their customers to buy high-priced electricity from solar and wind companies.
* “Support research independent from government research programs that are biased toward alarmism.
* “Remove barriers to energy conservation embedded in state and local laws and regulations, such as restrictive building codes and zoning ordinances.
* “Support research and, if appropriate, capital investments in adapting to climate change rather than trying to prevent it.
* “Pursue win-win strategies that produce enough benefits to pay their way apart from their possible effect on climate;*
* “Oppose planned increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that would reduce car and truck emissions by small amounts while dramatically increasing prices and reducing consumer choices and safety.”
It is evident that low-carbon fuels cannot keep up with fuel and energy demands, but can be an important part of the total usage. But in the face of mounting evidence of the need for petroleum, the mandates keep coming from the Legislature, and the push to implement AB 32 only accelerates. And as the interested parties continue to lobby legislators, they have succeeded in pushing mandated programs on the private sector, while clean energy companies receive state-sponsored funding and subsidies.
Thanks to the Legislature, in California “man-made global warming” funded by the taxpayers has become a very profitable business.
