California’s Green Nightmare

[DominionSeraph]

These are expected to raise electric power costs on every Golden State business and homeowner by 2 percent, which is like a $250 tax on a typical family.

Wow, the typical family uses $12,500 in electricity?

 

[techs]

These are expected to raise electric power costs on every Golden State business and homeowner by 2 percent, which is like a $250 tax on a typical family.

Wow, the typical family uses $12,500 in electricity?

Apparently the entire OP's post is trash and nonsense.

 

[PJABBER]

Thank you for proving MY point.

Here let me google that for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Joseph+Vranich

First result for Joseph Vranich is HIS OWN RESUME POSTED ON SITE THAT LETS ANYONE POST THEIR RESUME.

Second result is a BLOG that quotes what what Neil Cavuto said about him when he was on his show. It was Cavuto's OPINION.

So far we have nothing about the guys qualifications or the supposed 'list' he made.

Third result and fourth result are HIS OWN FREAKING WEBSITE.

The rest of the first page are blogs, fox news, etc.

You really proved my point. Thanks

btw ANYONE can go and testify at many government hearings. That seems to be what he did. Along with lunatics who testified the Martians were controlling their brains.

The very fact you so completely believe your post is scary.

EDIT: Here you to can join the organization that "credentialed" him. Basically all you need to do is pay the fee and form a corporation,though they ask for no proof you actually have a corporation, or any training. Just fill in the online form and pay your money.
http://www.coachfederation.org/join-icf/

You do know that you sound like a complete idiot, don't you?

LOL!

 

[PJABBER]

Wow, the typical family uses $12,500 in electricity?

You must be related to techs?

 

[CallMeJoe]

You must be related to techs?

The data is from the quote in your OP. Is the rest of the cited article any better than the math?

 

[JSt0rm]

You must be related to techs?

Why dont you address the point that no family uses $12500 worth of electricity and that this article is false propaganda. At best you knew this and posted it anyhow. At worst you are stupid enough to believe this. So which is it?

 

[PJABBER]

Why dont you address the point that no family uses $12500 worth of electricity and that this article is false propaganda. At best you knew this and posted it anyhow. At worst you are stupid enough to believe this. So which is it?

Reading is FUNdamental! LOL!

The 2% increase is on all power users in the state, including commercial and residential.

The $250 per family is the annualized RPS residential use cost differential. I don't know the actual annual power cost for California residences offhand (you can look it up yourself, I am sure!) but $1,000 a month utility bill does seem high to me unless you live in a house. LOL! That is, until I take a look at the implementation analysis and forecasting (skip a few lines down for the link to the California Public Utilities Commission study.)

In all, I think the total projected increase for electrical power is running in the neighborhood of 60% and the cost of natural gas goes up 8%? And that does not include LCFS, increased product costs (prices) and whatever air conditioning rules are yet to go into play. Yikes!

And that is one of the rosiest of scenarios.

Does that mean that the total cost is borne by residential customers? Not at all.

Businesses are massive users of power and they also pass additional costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices.

What are those costs of infrastructure buildout? What are the opportunity costs?

I have a date to see a movie so I can't play "teach the kiddies" at the moment.

Perhaps you might be interested in checking out some of the source documents?

A fast search brings up -

33% RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD
Implementation Analysis
Preliminary Results
June 2009

Prepared by:
California Public Utilities Commission

PAUL DOUGLAS
Project Lead
RPS Program and Project Supervisor

ELIZABETH STOLTZFUS
Project Manager

ANNE GILLETTE
JACLYN MARKS
Lead Authors

Technical Analysis by:

Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc.
Aspen Environmental Group

Special Thanks to:
ARNE OLSON – Energy and Environmental Economics
SUSAN LEE – Aspen Environmental Group
SIMON EILIF BAKER – CPUC

You can skip to page 22 for the cost differential analysis but I suggest you read the whole thing (it is less than a hundred pages) so that you have some context. It'll take you less than hour. I'll check in later tonight to see how you are doing!

Techs and DominionSeraph can do a Wiki search to find out how qualified these folks are and to see if they have been on Cavuto's nightly business news show anytime recently! An automatic disqualifier for sure! LOL!

Another commentary can be found here -

CSSR - AB32

Along with a simplified calculator to help you out -

CSSR - AB32 - Calculator

I'm off to the movies, children!

 

[PJABBER]

What, no comments?

It's late and I haven't much interest tonight in delving into the detail of the fine mess California is getting into.

However, in another quick review of the literature I did run across a fun read when you get the chance -

Peer Review of the Economic Supplement to the AB 32 Draft Scoping Plan
Major Peer Review Comments and Air Resources Board Staff Responses
November 2008

My, my, my, I really don't know what got into the California government with AB 32. From an economics perspective this really is one fine mess the state is getting into. And from a quick read of the peer review I am not the only one thinking like this.

The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) identified a number of shortcomings in the economic analysis of the scoping plan. Other independent peer reviewers did not consider it a serious analysis including Harvard University's Robert Stavins who wrote, "I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the economic analysis is terribly deficient in critical ways and should not be used by the State government or the public for the purpose of assessing the likely costs of CARB's plan." Under pressure from the Legislature, the ARB agreed to redo their economic analysis by the end of 2009. To date, the analysis has yet to be completed.

Let's see, all early action measures were supposed to take effect by January 1, 2010. In 2009, the ARB created the Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee (EAAC) to advise on a cap-and-trade program, the most significant piece of the total emissions reduction strategy. The final draft regulation is scheduled to be heard by the Board in this month with the totality of all GHG rules scheduled to take effect by January 1, 2012.

I am sure all Californians can hardly wait. Here's why, from a briefing report to the California State Senate, 2/10/2010 -

Combining the direct budgetary expenditures, the indirect economic impacts and the regulatory burden upon businesses, the costs of implementing AB 32 will be enormous.

Through regulation, the ARB is authorized to adopt a schedule of fees to be paid by large GHG emitters (i.e., power plants, manufacturing facilities, and other businesses) beginning in September 2010. These fees are intended to support the administration costs of implementing AB 32. This fee will also pay back over $82 million loaned from special funds used to set up the program over the last few years.

In July 2009, Sanjay Varshney's and Dennis H. Tootelian presented the results of a study commissioned by the Governor's Office of Small Business which analyzed the potential economic impacts of AB 32 on the state of California, its consumers and its small businesses. From the study, when the plan is implemented, they wrote:

• "mall businesses in California will pay an additional $49,691 as a result of the California Air Resources Board's implementation of AB 32."
  [*] "California families will be facing increased annual costs of $3,857 and that in order to cope with the increased costs generated by the Greenhouse Program, consumers will be forced to cut their discretionary spending by 26.2 percent."
  [*] "[T]he average annual loss in gross state output from small businesses alone would be $182.6 billion, approximately a 10 percent loss in total gross state output. This will translate into nearly 1.1 million lost jobs in California. Lost labor income is estimated to be $76.8 billion, with nearly $5.8 billion lost in indirect taxes. This decline in revenues will have a severe impact on future state budgets."
  

Proponents of the CO2 regulations were quick to assail the study. Had they waited a few months to read the ARB's own EAAC recommendation on implementing a cap-and-trade plan, they would have seen that auctioning allowances alone could cost consumers and ratepayers a total of $143 billion from 2012 to 2020.

Speaking on all costs, the EAAC report states, "AB 32 is likely to raise fuel and energy prices, and these price increases will be reflected in higher prices of consumer goods." The ARB cannot have it both ways, saying that AB 32 is spurring job growth in the green economy and at the same time deny that it is having an economic impact in other sectors of the economy because it has not yet been fully implemented. This sits in the face of the plain reading of AB 32 where nearly two dozen times it calls for regulations and other measures to be "feasible" and "cost-effective." Clearly, this plan is neither.

Like I said, the OP author is erring on the conservative side in projecting costs and impacts.

But you might want to check this out for yourselves, being as you have "alternative" sources for your information.

LOL!

 

[IGBT]

alarmist eco-KOOK warming lies are loosing traction. It's the worst case of alarmist hysteria the world has ever known.

 

[quikah]

AB32 is stupid to implement in this economic environment, but Prop 23 is not a solution, it would completely kill AB32, which is not neccessarily a bad idea in better times.

Techs makes a good point which is being drowned out in the partisan attacks: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16339039