Rebane's Ruminations
October 2010
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Evidence is mounting daily that the California Air Resources Board is grossly incompetent – this in addition to having all the other diseases and ailments that normally infect big powerful government bureaucracies.  The SF Chronicle reported (here) over two weeks ago that –

California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state's clean-air standards, and scientists have spent the past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found.

All this continues to give a bigger lie to the “benefits” of implementing AB32 that our politicians (including our RINO governator) have been ramming down our throats for the last three years.  But did this latest revelation cause even a ripple in the propaganda about this landmark command and control legislation?

Today AB32’s backers fear most of all that passage of Prop23 will halt their plans for growing government, increasing taxes, adding to the regulatory burdens for business, and in general taking California into federal receivership as a failed state.

For the few who do pay attention, toting up CARB’s crap on this legislation paints an unbelievable picture of hubris and incompetence.  Consider just some of the visible aspects of how this agency has misadministered AB32.

• Lied about then rejected the Legislative Analyst’s Office report on the negative economic impact of AB32;
• Employed a self-proclaimed ‘scientist’ Hien T. Tran who lied about his missing doctorate to develop CARB’s draconian diesel diktats based on faulty data and analytics.
• CARB’s chairwoman Mary Nichols covered up Tran’s lack of qualifications and erroneous results, apparently because she liked the power it gave her agency to increase its regulatory scope.
• Hired Charles River Associates to redo LAO’s work and produce a better result.  Then covered up CRA’s report when it reported that AB32 implementation would have a negative impact on California’s economy.
• Continued to publish and promote AB32 benefits (especially about “cleantech” jobs and economic impact) that it knew to be either totally false or at best unsubstantiated.
• And now it turns out that its internal analytics arm has blown (by hundreds of percent) every important prediction it has made (and the state’s leftwingers have and continue to tout) about the ‘impact’ on California if AB32 is not fully implemented.

One wonders what it will take to do a complete top-to-bottom house cleaning at CARB.  Apparently its administrative and technical incompetence is not a factor here as long as the agency keeps pumping out politically consumable garbage that can be sold to its gullible constituencies.

In the meantime, all California voters have to slow down this rogue bureaucracy is Proposition 23.  Please inform yourself and vote YES on Prop23, it is the biggest decision since Prop13 that California voters will be asked to make.

(Both RR and NC Media Watch have provided extensive coverage on the shenanigans related to AB32 and Prop23.  In addition, Russ Steele’s NCMW is the best local source on all things related to climate change.  Search on ‘AB32’, ‘Prop23’, and ‘Proposition 23’.)  H/T to RR reader for pointing to the SF Chronicle piece.

Posted in , ,

23 responses to “Is CARB Simply Incompetent?”

  1. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    It baffles me as well, hard to figure what is going on in the minds like Enos and Peeline. Like I siad the other day, you would think its some contest where there is some nifty prize at the end. Frisch at least does have a prize at the end so I can see that one

    Like

  2. Barry Pruett Avatar

    An SFO article that will not make it to the Pelline page. Thanks George.

    Like

  3. Steve Enos Avatar
    Steve Enos

    Once again George… Dixon doesn’t post about the issue of your story, he posts more Enos this and Peline that and offers up another personal insult with the spelling of Jeff P.s name.
    George… what is clear is you fail to hold posters accountable for your use rules.

    Like

  4. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    I think Dixon is commenting on the strong, almost fervent stands that both you and JeffP have and continue to take in supporting AB32 and celebrating opposition to Prop23. ‘Peeline’ was probably a typo.

    Like

  5. Steve Enos Avatar
    Steve Enos

    Please George… Barry and Dixon use PEEline most of the time, no typo.
    Dixon posts endlessly about what he thinks Jeff P. or I think or what we “are”.
    That’s fine. If you want to allow these folks to post personal jabs that have nothing to do with the topic of a story… that’s your call.

    Like

  6. Russ Steele Avatar

    Steve,
    In your whining have you noticed that you have not contributed to the topic of the story either, the very thing that your are charging Dixon with. If George were to apply YOUR rules, you posts would be burn toast. An we all know were burnt toast goes.

    Like

  7. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    I was just posting a fact about your feverent stance on an issue in spite of all indications its a scam and still trying figure out how you think you win something? Only thing I can think of, which you have often posted recently is that Russ and many other people may leave a state they grew up in and enjoy living in – is that the prize?
    Certainly solves any growth issues, traffic or land planning squabbles

    Like

  8. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    “Dixon posts endlessly about what he thinks Jeff P. or I think or what we “are”.”
    Honest, knowing what you two think is posted everywhere – on the other hand not posting what I think you “are” has been a struggle of biblical proportions

    Like

  9. Steve Enos Avatar
    Steve Enos

    Deal with the facts. Dixon started off by posting about me and Jeff P., not me.
    George posts “Today AB32’s backers fear most of all that passage of Prop23 will halt their plans for growing government, increasing taxes, adding to the regulatory burdens for business, and in general taking California into federal receivership as a failed state.”
    Sorry, wrong, that’s not my fear regarding Prop 23.
    Prop 23 will lose. This will move foward the direct for Californias futre. Quick… post… that meas over the cliff.
    So the real question is… why then heck continue to live in Cali since you folks have every ability to move out of the state?

    Like

  10. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    SE does the whine on every blog. He attacks everyone and then tries to tell each blogmaster what to do on their own blogs. He even does it on Pelline’s blog, that is he complains about the two conservatives over there. It is so boring.

    Like

  11. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    Steve your plan for people leaving the state in reaction to AB32 doesn’t really seem like a recipe for success and properity – just say’in

    Like

  12. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    Question – the mandate for rnewable energy of 30% or whatever by 2020 – what happens if its not met? as of right now you get less than 1% so somebody better get their ass moving its almost 2011 already – what happens in say 2015 and your getting 4%
    anybody have a clue ??

    Like

  13. Steve Enos Avatar
    Steve Enos

    Question… doesn’t Dixon live in Florida?

    Like

  14. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    California gets 14% of its electrical energy (which is what the RPS applies too) from renewable sources already, and that is with hydro @10% not counting as renewable. We are adding 2% per year for the next 5 years just with already approved projects.
    In the PGE service area we get 18.5% of our energy from renewable sources.
    These are the facts.

    Like

  15. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    SteveF – is this one of the sources you are getting your numbers from?
    http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009_energypolicy/index.html

    Like

  16. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    Some from there, some from the California Energy Almanac, some form the Renewable Energy Portfolio page at the energy.ca.gov web site (future contracts). The PG&E number comes from their filing with the PUC, but right now the PUC is only crediting PG&E with about 14.5%. It all depends upon how one counts projects coming on line.
    The main point remains—we are not starting at 1%–we are already one of the highest levels of renewable energy generation in the country.
    Another big issue will be what counts toward the RPS. The federal Renewable Energy Standard that is proposed for the lame duck session, which would set an 15% standard, would count large hydro.

    Like

  17. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    Since energy along with its sourcing and cost are so important to California, and is the subject of so much controversy in shaping public policy, I always wonder who it behooves not to have a central authoritative source that would tell us how much we get from where at what cost. SteveF, are there any initiatives to give us such a source?
    Also, dimensions such as renewability, source, cost, environmental impact, and availability are all independent attributes, it would be good in these discussions to keep the total picture in mind as we discuss California’s energy future. As we know, all those attributes somehow fit into someone’s utility function that supports making the (often difficult) tradeoffs. This, of course, is a political problem.

    Like

  18. Steve Enos Avatar
    Steve Enos

    Dixon are you for real? You posted from Florida that ” as of right now you get less than 1%” from renewable energy?
    Way are WAY WRONG dude!
    PS: George why didn’t you correct Dixon’s clearly factless post?

    Like

  19. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    SteveE, you also seem to have definite standards as to how a blog should administered. I recall that we invited your predecessor, who has long been the county’s moral, ethical, and procedural compass, to start his own more perfect blog. This, to everyone’s delight, he did. May we also extend the same invitation to you?

    Like

  20. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    George said: “Since energy along with its sourcing and cost are so important to California, and is the subject of so much controversy in shaping public policy, I always wonder who it behooves not to have a central authoritative source that would tell us how much we get from where at what cost. SteveF, are there any initiatives to give us such a source?”
    I would say there is such a single authoritative source–it is the California Energy Commission. Their role is to act as the primary policy and planning entity for everything related to future energy needs, historical use and data. They tell us how much we get and at what cost. That equation is actually pretty simple. The ‘where are we going to get it next year, in a decade and in 50 years’ is the hard part. But someone has to do it because its complicated and if we don’t, in 50 years we may have no power.
    The California Public Utilities Commission plays a subsidiary role by regulating privately owned utilities, of which energy sources are one, but their regulatory mandate also includes telecommunications, rail, transit, etc.
    They are essentially the “consumer advocate”.
    Any initiative to create a new source would likely end up creating the CEC all over again.
    The systems we have in place now may need some reforms (I would be the first to admit that) but they are our systems because they have evolved that way from the churn, needs, processes, successes and failures we have suffered in the past.
    “Also, dimensions such as renewability, source, cost, environmental impact, and availability are all independent attributes, it would be good in these discussions to keep the total picture in mind as we discuss California’s energy future. As we know, all those attributes somehow fit into someone’s utility function that supports making the (often difficult) tradeoffs. This, of course, is a political problem.”
    Precisely–all of the dimensions must be planned simultaneously because cost is not the only consideration.

    Like

  21. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    SteveF, I agree that the Calif Energy Commission should be the central repository for energy information. But visiting it over time always has always left some pretty simple questions unanswered. And I noticed that you also had to go to several sites for your comment. I hope that this situation improves because there is a lot to talk about in issue, and starting with a commonly accepted basis of energy facts would be good for light instead of heat (pun intended).

    Like

  22. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    I can’t think of a big public policy issue like energy where we truly have a single central authoritative source that is equally credible to all. I think that is the nature of a society with a free press. With that said, most people would be shocked at the depth of info at the CEC site. I can go from top policy all the way down to individual contracts in one place.

    Like

  23. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    OK SteveF, we’ll go with CEC as far as we can. Thanks.

    Like

Leave a comment