George Rebane

My less than brilliant performance Wednesday night on KVMR should not be misconstrued as giving up on the attempt to delay if not defeat AB32, which I and many others believe to be the coup de grace to California’s economy.  The fight to promote passage of Prop23 will go on in these pages and elsewhere until November.  As I dust myself off, let me begin by saying that almost every statement that Steven Frisch made that night and in his 22aug10 KVMR commentary was in ‘error’.  I do recall that we agreed on the correct pronunciation of AB32 and Proposition 23.

In an email I was reminded that I went up against an “expert” which I readily admit.  Although the correspondent and I may disagree on the area of the implied expertise.  More importantly, when the ongoing AB32P23 debate is re/viewed, it is critical to understand who it is that is arguing for what.  Claiming to stand for justice, equality, and the people, the left has long gotten away with characterizing the right as having the only moneyed interests in any debate that involves public policy – legislation, taxes, fees, regulations, power, … .  This is an ingenuous position and simply not true.  There are moneyed interests on both sides.  Many voters often overlook the financial benefits and sinecures gained by government bureaucrats and bureaus, NGOs, public service employee unions, and the inevitable capitalists and corporations seeking a less risky government paved path to profits.  In our discussion I attempted to point this out from the gitgo.

In the remainder of this piece I will address three aspects of Prop23 to illustrate what the left is doing –

• The Prop23 Naming Bamboozle,
• The Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) summary of Prop23 impact,
• The Charles River Associates report on AB32 impact (solicited by CARB)

Propositions, for some reason, get to be named by the State Attorney General.  I suppose that is because the AG is the state’s top legal officer, and therefore best understands fairness, justice, and the American way.  Our AG, that famous jurist and Democratic candidate for governor, Jerry Moonbeam Brown, promptly did his duty by giving Proposition 23 its official label which the LAO was forced to use in its non-partisan voter information pamphlet.  Here it is (seat belts please) –

Proposition 23 Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year.  Initiative Statute.

Got that?  90% of voters won’t get past the first four words, and 99% of the remainder will roll their eyes before getting to the end of the title.  This dirtbag label was so egregious that it took a court order to have it changed.  Why do you think Moonbeam and the state’s progressives loved that label?  Why do you think they thought it to their benefit to have it placed on the 15jul10 LAO pamphlet which went out before the court order to rename the proposition was handed down?  The crap starts at the top and just flows down.

The LAO summary.  The California LAO is advertised as a non-partisan bunch of smart people with very sharp pencils.  They answer questions on the future impact (mostly having to do with money) of public policies (laws, regulations, taxes, …) that are being considered in Sacramento.  Since their answers are respected and in the public domain, the questions that they get asked are wordsmithed to a tee by the politicians and bureaucrats.  The bottom line item of interest here is the net impact of Propostion 23.

Our local leftwinger Steve Frisch stated the progressive party line that “Proposition 23 will kill jobs by eliminating the incentives and investments that can fuel our economic recovery.”

To this the LAO advises voters that “Considering both the potential positive and negative economic impacts of the proposition, we conclude that, on balance, economic activity in the state would likely be modestly higher if this proposition were enacted than otherwise.”  (emphasis mine)  Which totally negates the happy land propaganda that California’s leftwing government, CARB (Calif Air Resources Board), and their NGO acolytes have been putting out about how AB32 implementation is the lynchpin of California’s economic recovery.  Note how carefully this statement had to be worded by the LAO.  There’s more.

Salvation from Charles River Associates.  Well, CARB didn’t like the LAO’s conclusion and its supporting work-up.  The work-up apparently is not in the public domain, otherwise if we saw that, there might really be pitchforks and torches in the public squares across the state.  So CARB decided to get another opinion that it could possibly use to vindicate the audacious claims in its Scoping Plan about the great salvation called AB32.  To do that it went clear across the country to Boston and hired Charles River Associates, one of the most prestigious consulting firms in the country.  Coming from Massachusetts, that living memorial to Kennedy and Kerry, the vindication of CARB’s analysis would be a lock, and the results suitable for framing.  Oops!

Here are a few quotes from the 24mar10 CRA report ‘Analysis of CARB’s Scoping Plan and Related Policy Insights’ (emphasis in the original).

CRA and ARB differ in how command and control measures affect policy costs
- CRA finds that measures that reduce flexibility (i.e. “complimentary measures”), increase costs of complying with AB32: whereas ARB finds these measures reduce costs.
- CRA finds that including the Scoping Plan’s complementary measures could raise costs of achieving AB32 goals by 50% relative to a pure cap and trade program.
- Avoiding loss of flexibility from complementary measures is also impostant in case a national policy is enacted; CRA finds complementary measures undercut California’s ability to attain cost savings that could otherwise result under a national carbon cap.

Excluding complementary measures could lower cost of achieving AB32 goals by 40%
- The higher cost of meeting AB32 targets when complementary measures are also imposed is obscured because these policies lower allowance prices at the same time that they raise total social costs.  The renewable energy standard and low carbon fuel standards are the most costly measures.
- Maintaining complementary measures under a national program like Waxman-Markey (Senate’s Kerry-Lieberman) has a minimal effect on emissions but raises costs to California by more than 50%.

Accounting for likely higher costs of procuring and delivering advanced low carbon fuels to the California fleet results in a 40% increase in total program costs.

This is about as scathing of a putdown of CARB’s dufus brigade in Sacramento as a consultant can do, and still have their report read in polite company.  Definitely not suitable for framing.  I was going to highlight things like “complementary measures”, CARB’s Orwellian newspeak for its ‘command and control’ regulations and fees to make sure we serfs toe the new line.  But a careful reading of the above reveals the clear message that EVERYTHING about implementing AB32 would increase costs to California businesses and consumers.

In its report CRA is telling CARB in no uncertain terms that they are about to royally screw California.  There is no economic benefit in any of CARB’s intended Scoping Plan, much of which is already in effect through laws passed since 2006.  The only thing they are accomplishing is expanding the state’s command and control empire.  Guys like Steve Frisch, quoting propaganda from radical leftwing outfits like ‘Collaborative Economics and Next 10’, ‘stopdirtyenergyprop.com’, and ‘California Environmental Justice Alliance’ are (perhaps unwitting) socialist shills who do not think very highly of their voting constituents.

And there is much more to reveal about the fraud that CARB and their acolytes are promoting.   Please stay tuned.