Stronger Renewable Energy Goals For California

Yesterday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order calling on the state to streamline its renewable energy process, ideally making it easier to produce and sell renewable power. He also is expected to sign a memorandum of understanding among resources-protection agencies, prompting more sustainable siting of clean-energy plants.

The governor’s action comes at a critical time for the state of California. Most experts agree that clean energy will provide new “green jobs” to lift the Golden State’s economy, while reducing the pollution that causes global warming. Still, groups and individuals who want to protect our state’s wilderness resources worry that these same facilities could hurt animals, plants and wilderness areas in their path.

“Everyone agrees that generating more renewable power will energize our economy and reduce pollution, but we can’t ignore the impacts to wilderness in our quest to generate more clean energy in California,” said Jim Metropulos, Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California. “Sierra Club California hopes that involving agencies like the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that protect these resources will lead to a better understanding of how we can build a clean-energy future that doesn’t hurt our precious ecosystem in the process.”

Sierra Club California has long called on lawmakers and the Schwarzenegger Administration to increase the standard to at least 33 percent by 2020. This summer, the California Air Resources Board joined that call, asserting that raising the standard would reduce the pollution that causes global warming.

Simply raising the required amount of renewable power generated by utilities won’t accomplish everything, Metropulos said. Sierra Club California urges additional reforms to ensure the continued success of a renewable energy program.

First, our state currently ties the price of clean energy to its future projected price of natural gas, known as the market price referent, which the state consistently underestimates. This forces would-be clean energy projects to compete against an artificially low fossil-fuel-based standard – an archaic, unsustainable practice that California must reverse.

In designing a new approach to renewable energy, the Schwarzenegger Administration and the California Legislature would do well to look to programs that already work. In Germany, a program known as “feed-in tariffs” sets up fixed prices for renewable energy, rewarding investors leery of our “boom or bust” system. Meanwhile, throughout California, communities are scrambling to get into “community choice aggregation,” pooling their buying power to get more bang for the buck.

As they move to expand renewable power generation in the state, state lawmakers and regulators always must keep in mind whether renewable sources of energy are equally sustainable in terms of environmental impacts or energy supply. For example, outdated methods of drawing on geothermal energy involve essentially poking holes in the ground and allowing the underground steam to escape into the atmosphere. This process releases both greenhouses gases as well as toxic materials.

“California has the power to retake the lead in developing new sources of clean, renewable power, as long as Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Legislature fix flaws in current renewable power standard law,” said Metropulos. “Adopting a truly sustainable standard that protects wild places while fully empowering clean-energy projects represents the best pathway to a clean-energy future.”

The Cost Of Bad Air

Two California State University professors, Jane V. Hall and Victor Brajer, just released a study that proves what we have all known for a long time: Dirty air has a high cost.

Nearly every resident of the Central Valley and South Coast region suffers from exposure to dirty air, and too many pay a tragic price: as many as 3,860 adults die prematurely each year due to air pollution in those two areas of the state, according to the study. (The South Coast region includes Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties; the Central Valley region stretches across Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties).

Because the pollution concentrations are highest in African American and Latino neighborhoods, those families suffer the most exposure to harmful air pollution particles, the findings show.

Meeting federal air quality standards would prevent those deaths, the study finds, and would result in:

• 1,950 fewer new cases of adult onset chronic bronchitis
• 3,517,720 fewer days of reduced activity in adults
• 2,760 fewer hospital admissions
• 141,370 fewer asthma attacks
• 1,259,840 fewer days of school absence
• 16,110 fewer cases of acute bronchitis in children
• 466,880 fewer lost days of work
• 2,078,300 fewer days of respiratory symptoms in children
• 2,800 fewer emergency room visits


Between the cost of medical care and the dollars spent on lost productivity, California spends nearly $28 billion in those two regions, the CSU Fullerton professors reported.

The study was released just as California air regulators begin discussing key air quality rules, including rules that would help clean up diesel exhaust from trucks and a plan to deal with climate change.

Recent Coverage:

Study: Calif. Dirty Air Kills More Than Car Crashes (AP)

Human cost of valley's dirty air: $6.3 billion (The Sacramento Bee)

Bad air costing state's economy billions (SF Chronicle)

More than 400 related stories (Google News)

Remember to VOTE!

Are you as excited about the November 4 election as I am? For the first time, we have a chance to reject the destructive Bush Administration policies that have poisoned our air and delayed action on climate change.

Right here in California, we also have a chance to turn back poorly designed propositions that would stand in the way of clean energy and cleaner vehicles. We also can promote real progress in transit policy, reduce factory farm pollution and protect positive family planning services.

If you haven’t voted yet, please consider Sierra Club’s recommendations this November:

For President and Vice President:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden

For Congress: Please view Sierra Club's list of Clean Energy Candidates at http://www.sierraclub.org/politics

PROPOSITION 1A YES

• Would fund an 800-mile high-speed rail system that will transport Californians quickly and safely while reducing pollution and protecting wild places.

PROPOSITION 2 YES
• Would reduce the density of farm animals, and therefore the intensity of the air and water pollution.

PROPOSITION 4 NO
• Would create a major obstacle to family planning services, likely resulting in dangerous amateur abortions.

PROPOSITION 7 NO
• Contains serious, inherent flaws that could get in the way of achieving its goal of 50% renewable fuels by 2025.
• Actually works against Sierra Club-backed energy policies that would allow communities to choose the source of their energy.
• Decreases environmental review of proposed power plants.

PROPOSITION 10 NO
• Would put California on the wrong road to cleaner vehicles by setting up faulty programs that don’t reward low-emissions cars and trucks.

Learn more at www.sierraclubcalifornia.org.

- Colleen Flannery

Outreach Coordinator

Sierra Club California

CARB Chair Mary Nichols Urges “No” Vote On Prop. 10

Joining Sierra Club California in opposing Prop. 10, California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols wrote a letter opposing the misguided initiative.

Her letter agrees with our assertion that subsidies for natural gas vehicles won’t do enough to reduce global warming pollution:

“While Proposition 10 appears to be a measure to improve our air and protect the global environment, its public subsidies are heavily skewed toward building
markets for an energy source that could increase global warming emissions.

“Under Proposition 10, natural gas cars and trucks would be exempt from air pollution and greenhouse gas reduction requirements, placing them first in line for billions of dollars in taxpayer-financed rebates. ecause U.S. natural gas reserves are declining and natural gas will soon be imported from Asia in liquid form, Proposition 10 is likely to result in higher carbon and smog-forming emissions than other domestic fuel trategies now being developed by researchers and industry engineers, such as cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells and renewable electricity.

“It gets worse. Proposition 10 provides no assurance that taxpayer-subsidized vehicles will remain in California. The measure requires us to finance rebates of up to $50,000 per vehicle with no safeguard that any vehicle or accrued benefit will remain in California. The proposition requires the rebates to be processed in a few days with minimal government oversight. That is no deal for California taxpayers who will be paying off this measure’s $10 billion dollars in added debt over the next 30 years.

“Unlike many other vehicle incentive programs already in effect throughout the State, Proposition 10 does not require that older, higher polluting vehicles be retired or replaced in exchange for rebates. That is an obvious and serious flaw, further indicating to me that Proposition 10’s real motive is not reducing air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions, but building markets for natural gas vehicles.”

Read Sierra Club California’s article opposing Prop. 10.

Visit the No on Proposition 10 website.

No On Proposition 7

Sierra Club and its environmental allies have joined together to oppose Proposition 7, a costly renewable energy scheme that actually will make it harder to build clean power in our state.

Proposition 7:

1. Contains serious, inherent flaws that could get in the way of achieving its goal of 50% renewable fuels by 2025.
2. Actually works against Sierra Club-backed energy policies that would allow communities to choose the source of their energy.
3. Decreases environmental review of proposed power plants.

Watch the ad above to learn more, or click here to read our position on Proposition 7.

Sierra Club California Hails New Mercury-Prevention Tool

Today, I joined Assemblymember Ira Ruskin in celebrating passage of The Mercury Thermostat Collection Act.

This new law creates a powerful tool to help consumers, governments and our environment. Since mercury is a potent neurotoxin, and many old thermostats contain three grams of mercury, we need to keep the waste thermostats out of our landfills. Most California consumers want to do the right thing, but until now they have not had the information or opportunity to recycle mercury thermostats.

Furthermore, this mercury thermostat recycling program, passed with the support of the major manufacturers, can provide a new model for dealing with household hazardous wastes in California. Instead of asking our cash-strapped local governments to shoulder the burden, we should require the companies that made and profited from products to take the responsibility for safely collecting and recycling them. The Legislature and Governor should use this thermostat law as a beginning, and move on to extending producer responsibility to paint, light bulbs and other household hazardous wastes.

Many individuals and organizations contributed to the enactment of this law. Sierra Club California thanks Assemblymember Ruskin for persistently pushing the bill over two years. Our co-sponsor, the local government organization California Product Stewardship Council, was an invaluable partner, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control gave crucial technical assistance throughout the process. The Honeywell Corporation showed a commitment to reaching agreement on difficult issues, and the Retailers Association actively supported the bill. We benefited from the input of experts and advocates throughout the country convened by the State Environmental Leadership Program.

Achieving Open Government in China’s Hunan Province

Sierra Club California got a rare opportunity to take part in a landmark international effort today.
Representatives of China’s Hunan Province came to Sacramento with The Asia Foundation to learn about how California makes information available to the public. They wanted to know how California public interest groups – including Sierra Club California and the Public Policy Institute of California – interact with the government to obtain information, particularly environmental information.

Through a translator, Deputy Director Paul Mason talked about a case in the North Coast, where environmentalists had to sue the Bush Administration for access to data used in developing a logging plan. He also explained discrepancies within the various agencies, noting that the Resources Agency, for example, still does not webcast its meetings even though most other key state agencies do.

Outreach Coordinator Colleen Flannery talked about how groups like Sierra Club use a variety of existing government databases. The representatives appeared impressed by the variety of information made available by the state – ranging from the state water boards’ environmental enforcement reports to political contributions made by companies and individuals to webcasts of government meetings.

The Hunan Province is struggling to address a number of environmental threats, among them environmental health impacts from illegal smelters in nearby Hubei Province, intense air pollution resulting in acid rain, and water contamination in the Xiangjiang River Basin. Getting out environmental information represents one of the province’s – and China’s – best potential weapons against pollution, Paul Mason said.

“Public access to information is one of the best ways to work toward a clean environment,” he told the representatives.

Image Courtesy Wikipedia Commons