But it illustrates a dirty little secret of the wide array of tax credits, rebates and other “incentives” that federal and state governments have offered in the name of reducing emissions of carbon and other pollutants: They mostly go to the affluent.
But a centerpiece of California’s long-term campaign against emissions — legislation requiring a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use by Jan. 1, 2030 — has set off a fierce battle here, pitting not only a well-financed oil industry against environmentalists, but Democrat against Democrat. The bill easily passed the Senate, but it is faltering in the Assembly because of opposition by moderate Democrats, many representing economically suffering districts in central California. A vote is expected early this coming week.
“Motivated by this thinking, Washington Carbon, an advocacy group in the state, is now trying to put a carbon tax on the 2016 ballot. Initiative Measure 732 would institute a tax on fossil fuels of $25 a metric ton of carbon dioxide (which translates to about 25 cents a gallon of gasoline). Most of the revenue from the measure would be used to reduce the state sales tax by one percentage point. A smaller amount would be used to reduce taxes on manufacturing companies and to fund a tax rebate of up to $1,500 for low-income working families. The overall plan is progressive and revenue-neutral. If passed, the initiative would yield a tax shift, not a tax increase. That is why some environmentalists are opposed. Rather than rebating the money the carbon tax would raise, they want to spend it on environmental and other government programs.”
Next 10’s new report analyzes electricity productivity – how much GDP manufacturers produce for every dollar spent on electricity – and finds that California generates $59 in GDP for every dollar spent on electricity, compared to $38 for the rest of the nation, leading every other state except Connecticut.
The legislation does not spell out how the state will achieve that level of petroleum reduction. Instead, it maintains the California Air Resources Board’s existing, broad authority over vehicle emissions and fuel standards. And it does not call for an “up or down” vote on ARB regulations.
“We are focusing on investing in smart grid technology that will help our grid integrate with renewables and deal with electric vehicles and batteries,” Stephens said. “We are trying to harden our infrastructure for emergency preparedness; we hope to prevent wildfires with new technology.”
The incredible innovation we are seeing in Silicon Valley and other parts of the state is due in large part to smart policy that supports a healthy environment and the economy. SB 32 will provide the long-term policy certainty to help spur even more innovation, investment and job creation. Companies will have the confidence to continue developing new technologies and business models.
If you drive a car, gas prices will be higher. If you want to buy a house, you very likely could be priced out of the market. Small business owners will have to raise prices in order to cover the increases in gas and delivery charges. In some cases, small businesses may have to close up shop all together, which would be the worst consequence – intended or not.
Some of those same stakeholders are involved in SB 350, and we’re once again getting their bland assurances that it will be a win-win, without adverse effects. But as with that 1996 electric power bill, the devil is in the details, and those details are once again being written behind closed doors without a full explanation of their real-world impacts
Gov. Jerry Brown is working on an ambitious plan for transmitting electricity across state lines and bolstering California’s role in the region, according to energy officials.
Here’s how this dubious business works. Solar-leasing companies install rooftop systems (which often cost tens of thousands of dollars) at no upfront consumer cost. Homeowners rent the panels for 20 years at rates that typically escalate over time but are initially cheaper than power from the grid. Investors get to pocket the myriad state and federal subsidies while homeowners are promised hundreds of dollars annually in savings on their electric bills.
“It does not look at the rest of the economy — how much this will cost, what other jobs will be lost as energy costs increase, and what jobs will be lost as consumers pay more for energy and housing and less for other purchases,” said Rob Lapsley, the organization’s president.
James Court of the Renewable Energy Association, a body representing green energy manufacturers, said the cut was “beyond their worst fears” and that “it is hard to see how homeowners could see solar as a viable option for the foreseeable future following these disproportionate cuts.”
But unfortunately in California’s embrace of the green revolution, San Joaquin Valley residents – especially those in poor rural economies – have been made to bear a disproportionate share of the costs, while reaping less than their share of the benefits.
Hundreds of Californians with household incomes of $500,000 or more have collected state subsidies for buying electric and hybrid cars under a program that is criticized as a taxpayer handout to the wealthy.