From this article in the Bay Area Insider
“The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday unanimously approved the $600 million California Institute for Climate Solutions, which will be paid for by money from ratepayers’ monthly electric bills, to the tune of $60 million a year.”
This promises to add yet another level of bureaucracy to an already bloated state government. This was a complete surprise to me, no notices of comments or public input ont his was circulated that I am aware of, and I get a number of those notices as well as getting info sent to me from a variety of sources.
As a Californian, I feel blindsided by this. Perhaps some civil disobedience in the form of sending in my power bill payment each month, minus that fee, with a note that says: “I disagree with and dispute this charge” is warranted.
h/t Russ Steele
Here is the official press release from the CPUC:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Terrie Prosper, 415.703.1366, news@cpuc.ca.gov Docket #: R.07-09-008
CPUC ESTABLISHES INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
TO BUILD ON STATE’S ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP
SAN FRANCISCO, April 10, 2008 – The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today created the California Institute for Climate Solutions (CICS), taking a bold and innovative approach to expanding California’s leadership on this most pressing of environmental issues.
The mission of the CICS is based on these essential pillars:
· To facilitate mission-oriented, applied and directed research that results in practical technological solutions and supports development of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the electric and natural gas sectors, or otherwise mitigates the impacts of climate change in California.
· To speed the transfer, deployment, and commercialization of technologies that have the highest potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the electric and natural gas sectors.
“California leads the nation in aggressively battling global warming with our policies to reduce greenhouse gases and our ambitious energy efficiency and renewable energy goals,” said Governor Schwarzenegger. “I applaud the CPUC for taking another important step by creating the California Institute for Climate Solutions, which will bring together the state’s preeminent colleges, universities, and laboratories to fight climate change.”
Commented CPUC President Michael R. Peevey, “Today we have embarked on another groundbreaking path to find solutions to the most pressing problem of our time. Innovation – technological and otherwise – is the key to alleviating the adverse consequences of climate change. The CICS will allow us to devise and deploy the most cost-effective solutions by mobilizing our financial and human capital.”
The work of the CICS will be directed by a Strategic Plan that will identify potential areas of research, maximize consumer benefit, and minimize unnecessary redundancy. The Strategic Plan will identify those areas of research and technological innovation that are most likely to achieve the greatest greenhouse gas reductions in the energy sector at the lowest cost.
The CICS will have a Governing Board that will be responsible for ensuring that it fulfills its mission. In order to retain CPUC oversight, the Governing Board will be co-chaired by the CPUC President and the University of California President, with seats reserved for the State Senate and Assembly, and the Director of the CPUC’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates. Other members will be drawn from other state agencies, universities, utilities, private firms, underserved communities, and consumer/environmental advocacy groups.
A Strategic Research Committee chosen by the Governing Board will be responsible for three main tasks: developing a Strategic Plan by March 13, 2009, and updating it on an annual basis; assisting the CICS officers in developing short-term and long-term strategic plans; and reviewing grant proposals recommended by a peer review committee.
The Governing Board will have the power to establish any subcommittees necessary to perform its duties and responsibilities. At a minimum the following subcommittees will be formed: a Technology Transfer Subcommittee to establish protocols for CICS IP rights and tech transfer policies; a Conflicts of Interest Subcommittee to develop and maintain conflict of interest protocols for CICS as a whole; and a Workforce Transition Subcommittee to study ways to support the energy sector’s transition to a carbon-constrained future through anticipating and preparing for changes in workforce needs. If the study supports having the CICS fund grants for workforce training, the CPUC may allocate appropriate funds.
The funding for the CICS, $60 million per year for 10 years, is an investment in California’s future and will directly benefit ratepayers, the CPUC determined. The CPUC has charged the CICS Executive Director with obtaining 100 percent matching funds over 10 years in order to maximize ratepayer benefits. The CPUC will maintain extensive continuing oversight over the CICS and will require two external audits – a biennial performance review and an annual financial audit.
The mission of the CICS is consistent with the purpose and findings of Assembly Bill 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and Senate Bill 1368, regulating emissions of greenhouse gas from electric utilities.
The proposal voted on by the CPUC is available at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/AGENDA_DECISION/81119.htm.
For more information on the CPUC, please visit www.cpuc.ca.gov.
###
Statement from CPUC President Michael R. Peevey,
presented at the April 10, 2008, CPUC Meeting
-
- o To devise and deploy the most effective and lowest cost solutions we must fully mobilize our financial and human capital. o Our state’s great public and private universities and the California based national labs hold vast stores of intellectual wealth.
o We must focus this resource on developing solutions to the climate crisis.
o And we must do it in a way that yields solutions that are truly used and useful.
- o The original proposal was circulated with the order that opened this proceeding.o The concept and plan for the Institute have been greatly refined in response to the questions and comments of stakeholders, PUC staff, other agencies and my fellow commissioners.
-
- _ Administer grants for applied research to develop new technologies and other practical solutions to reduce GHG emissions from the electricity and natural gas sectors or help with their adaptation to inevitable climate change. _ Promote technology transfer and speed the commercialization of these technologies.
_ Explore the need to couple a workforce development function with the Institute’s core mission of applied research and development.
o It establishes the California Institute for Climate Solutions and directs it to do the following:
o The decision dedicates to this mission $60 million in ratepayer funding each year for ten years, a total of $600 million. There is also a requirement that the Institute secure an equal amount in matching funds over this period.
o The decision establishes the composition of the Governing Board, rules for governance of the Institute and procedures for ongoing oversight by this Commission.
o And it requires that the host institution for the hub be selected by the Governing Board via a competitive, peer-reviewed process.
- o The short answer is that they shouldn’t- ratepayer financing should serve as seed money to leverage other public and private sources of funding. o Broad-based taxpayer financing would certainly be preferable.
o But we cannot wait for the Legislature to allocate funds any more than the US should defer decisive action on climate change until China and India take action.
- o The fact is that the climate challenge breaks down the conventional inter-sector boundaries.o We have scoped the Institute’s mission narrowly in this decision, focusing it on the electricity and natural gas industries.
o We also require the development of a Ratepayer Benefit Index and its use in evaluating grant applications.
o I would prefer to see the mission scoped more broadly as it is clear that the lowest cost GHG reduction opportunities are not all within the electric and gas sectors. Electric and gas customers can benefit from identifying and exploiting opportunities in other sectors of the economy and in locales beyond California.
o There is no bright line to be drawn here.
o I hope that we will be able to broaden the Institute’s mission as we attract funding from other sources beyond utility ratepayers.
-
· As many of you have heard me say, the global climate crisis is the defining environmental challenge of our time. In the words of Dr. Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, “We have a very short window for turning around the trend we have in rising greenhouse gas emissions. We don’t have the luxury of time.” I believe that history will judge us on how we face up to this test. This state, historically, has been an environmental leader.
· With this item, it is our turn, again, to take bold and immediate action.
· Innovation-technological and otherwise-is the key to alleviating the adverse consequences of climate change.
· With this in mind, I asked UC last year to prepare a proposal for a California Institute for Climate Solutions.
· The decision before us today is the culmination of that process.
· Some have asked: Why should utility rate-payers alone pay for the institute?
· Some have said the scope of the Institute’s mission should be limited to topics that will directly benefit electric and gas ratepayers. Others have said that the scope should be broad, encompassing all aspects of the climate challenge facing our state.
· Some of you have asked, why the hurry? Former Vice President Al Gore, in his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech last year, underscored the need for bold and timely action:
“These are the last few years of decision, but they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful future if we do what we must.
`The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do.
“That is just another way of saying that we have to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, “Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the path as you walk.”
· Today we have an opportunity to blaze one of many new paths to solve the climate challenge. I hope we can all join in this endeavor.
· Before I move the item I would like to offer my thanks to the people who have worked to develop the concept for the Institute and to craft today’s decision.
- o ALJ Carol Browno Sach Constantine and Scott Murtishaw of Energy Division
o My Chief of Staff, Nancy Ryan
o And My Legal Advisor, Jack Stoddard.
o I would also like to offer special thanks to Commissioner Chong for her yeoman service in shepherding this decision through the final stages of edits.
o And, I particularly want to thank our Governor, who has been supportive from the start.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps some civil disobedience in the form of sending in my power bill each month, minus that fee, with a note that says: “I disagree with and dispute this charge” is warranted.
Anthony, I believe that’s what the whole debate is eventually going to come to: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE — massive and loud with our hands firmly clasped around our wallets. Back in the 90’s our local talk radio station carried the G. Gordon Liddy Show. Gordon frequently used a word that describes the type of effort you note: “NITWITTERY!”
Don’t rate changes require public hearings in California? This is the mechanism that stops the weasels from taking every last cent in other states.
REPLY: Yes they do, but I and many others that watch these things never saw a peep about it.
The notification was on a small slip of paper, stuffed into everyone’s PG&E / SCE bill, some time back.
Climate dictatorship
They’re overplaying their hand. It’s just a matter of time before all this comes home to roost.
…some lawmakers and consumer groups had lined up against it, calling it an unfair tax.
The plan does not require approval of the governor or Legislature.
Board member John Bohn was among those wary of the plan, saying it pushes the boundaries of the board’s legal jurisdiction ‘”almost to the breaking point. ” — AP
This is becoming more & more commonplace across the country: using utility companies to implement a tax increase instead of going through the usual channels. Once it started where I live, the floodgates opened: county fire protection, mosquito/rodent control fees, storm water fees….maybe a climate commission is next for us as well.
No one here has stopped these fees from being added to my utility bill every month. I’m not surprised to hear about this at all.
The first course of action should be to challenge the board’s legal jurisdiction. One of their own even publicly admitted it was pushing the limits of their authority.
Hi,
Can you believe this. Wasting more money on pet projects. Here in Orange County they cut over 1000 teachers because of budget cuts. Put more kids on the street and then when they turn to crime spend $50000.00 to keep them in jail. We need change the government here. I don’t care if they are left or right just vote some else into their spot. Teach them a lesson. Thats just my opinion.
Sad to see socialist insanity isn’t restricted to north of the US border. Canuckistan really isn’t that far off the mark. Californistan?!?!
Lately I’ve pondered whether we should unexpectedly, but about every 15 years, put all politicians in office in prison for 10 years and hold new elections.
This reminds me of a PG&E advertisement I heard this morning stating they plan to move to 60% non-green-house-gas-emitting-power-generation by-2010.
Traslation: we Californians can look forward to higher ernergy bills. Their slogan is particularly appropriate, “We can do this.”, as in we can charge you more money and make higher profits by claiming we’re compating global warming. No wonder big bussiness is getting behind the global warming political movement. It’s the profits stupid.
http://www.wecandothis.com/
Disturbing, Anthony. Doesn’t look like there’s any way of stopping them. A done deal. Everything in place, they hit the ground running and acting like they’ve already been doing the State’s business.
It would be interesting to know how much private sector business California will chase out of the state with prohibitive regulations. Loss of tax revenues in excess of the annual $60 million budgeted for the CICS ?
There’s a word for a “fee” that goes to government programs; that word is “tax.” They’d have a hard time justifying even a simple majority vote passage for this one.
Another legislator wants a 1400% increase on beer taxes. Still another is demanding a 25¢ per bag charge for plastic bags at the grocery store. The Queen goddess Califa is demanding more sacrifice from her loyal captives.
And don’t even get me started on our water czars. A normal year and still cries of impending disaster.
The $18.8b shortfall is finally starting to be grasped.
Write to Arnie and your state congress critters and tell them to repeal the legislation that created the CICS. Tell them you will vote them out of office if they don’t. Then make good on that promise.
Well that’s the way it’s supposed to work but it won’t work because Californians like other American have become brain dead sheep who will do whatever Al Gore tells them to do.
Global warming has become a religion and Al Gore is the prophet. People accept whatever he says on blind faith. Anyone who doesn’t believe is labeled a heretic. In that religion count me as a heretic.
Note that it is not about climate “science”. That has already been decided. It is about climate “solutions”.
David S said:
“Write to Arnie and your state congress critters and tell them to repeal the legislation that created the CICS. Tell them you will vote them out of office if they don’t. Then make good on that promise. ”
Quite often this is easier done than anticipated. In my neck of the woods in Northern Illinois, we took the bull by the horns and tossed out a very entrenched mayor in spite of his support by all the media, special interest groups, and other politicians. We then tossed out an entrenched state senator, the entire Township board, a sheriff, and several dog catcher types.
How did we do this? We made an end run around the media and published our own monthly bulletin called “Grassroots America” which educated all on the eligible voters list on the machinations going on behind their backs. In the process, we gained over 13,000 email addies which let us do a more effective, inexpensive, and timely job.
It CAN be done! That’s why blogs like this are so damn important. By the way, it doesn’t take many. All the above was done by a core group of five (5)! That’s right, five!
My sister-in-law and her husband live just outside of San Fran and don’t have a clue what’s going on around them. They’re simply too busy with all the constraints placed on their lives: PTA meeting, working, housekeeping, homework, schedules, shopping, etc., etc.
It can be done, don’t ever think otherwise! Need I say Gray Davis?
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Californicated again!
It is about climate “solutions”.
I know you’re saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, Evan, but truth be known, if it really were about solutions, most everyone would be on board. If credible scientists were to present credible evidence (not even irrefutable, just credible) that certain actions by humans would result in some measurable benefit to civilization — heck, who wouldn’t support that?
Now someone correct me if I’ve missed something over the last 10 or 15 years, but the only thing I’ve ever read about solutions was an admission by the the very ones who are sounding the alarm that, were it to be signed and adhered to by every nation on the planet, the Kyoto Accords would have an almost unmeasurable effect on global temperature, in spit of costing the world economy hundreds of billions of dollars.
I just saw that the new the Lieberman-Warner CO2 bill is expected to increase federal revenues by $1.2 trillion over ten years starting in 2009. That is approximately half of what would be required to go to a nuclear/methanol economy – the difference being that if we went to that economy, we could pay back that $1.2 trillion in about the same length of time. There was a recent discussion here on nuclear – it seemed mixed. Here’s a few facts (from someone who started his PhD program in nuclear engineering, before the program was canned because there was no future in it…)
The upper bound cost of nuclear is about $2500/KW – that was Diablo Canyon where the initial design was from PG&E employees, used to designing oil based power plants. Current cost estimates for a gas cooled Gen IV reactor are about $1500/KW.
It would take 1000 1GW plants to produce the oil equivalent of methanol for the US (plants could be built as 10 GW installations)
It would take 15 years to put this into place.
In the end, we would be completely energy self sufficient, we would reduce our CO2 output by 1/3, and we could even be heading in the direction of being net energy producers.
The equivalent wind cost is ~$7500/KW (equivalent – assumes wind is 1/3 up time)
For solar, ~$20000/KW (equivalent – assumes sun is 1/4 up time).
I mentioned these as talking points to a colleague, who responded that there is no silver bullet – my response was, no silver bullet you like. But there is one, nonetheless.
I’m agnostic on AGW. I think the evidence is contradictory, the models stink (most are run at 300 km grid sizes – a size where they haven’t reached their numerical asymptote, i.e., the point at which the models output do not change – that grid size is in the 50 to 75 km range…) the historical record is poor, and as Anthony has pointed out, the “experimental” data has huge uncertainties and biases rendering it mostly useless. But I think we’re better off making our energy from a source that is immune from speculator’s price fixing. Wouldn’t it be better if we made energy like it was a car? Completely engineered?
McGrats, you said;
“… In my neck of the woods in Northern Illinois, we took the bull by the horns and tossed out a very entrenched mayor in spite of his support by all the media, special interest groups, and other politicians. We then tossed out an entrenched state senator, the entire Township board, a sheriff, and several dog catcher types.”
You’re my hero!
If it’s about ‘solutions’ then make them set targets. When they fail to meet the targets, THEY and not the taxpayers, suffer the consequences – dissolution of CICS. You have to do this by legislation and you have to watchdog it. The public will act if there’s a failure that’s costing them, but only when they know about it. A nebulous bureaucracy will never be defeated.
“· To facilitate mission-oriented, applied and directed research that results in practical technological solutions and supports development of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the electric and natural gas sectors, or otherwise mitigates the impacts of climate change in California.”
This is absolutely asinine. There is absolutely nothing this group is going to do that will reduce the production of CO2 in China which will have the greatest impact on CO2 change in California. There is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions even have an impact on climate change and are not, in fact. a PRODUCT OF climate change rather than a cause of it.
Absolute idiotic. I, too, am a Californian. This absolutely MUST STOP. It is a foolish waste of taxpayer’s money.
Looks like real estate values will start to go up here in Florida as Californians begin to understand that we have no state income tax and they can buy 5 times the home with the same money. Now if we could only get the bozos in charge to start to desalinate we might even have enough water for everyone.
California is headed to becoming Detroit West.
Tom in Florida, I live on the Mississippi Coast. I’ve always been under the impression that Florida was aflot on spring water. I’ve seen Wakulla Springs where it empties into Apalachicola Bay. Seems like a waste for all that pure clean water to free flow like that. I’m sure the oysters and scallops love it, tho.
Nevada is closer than Florida.
on this most pressing of environmental issues.
What’s creepy is the NewSpeak. A problem 50 to 200 years in the future (maybe?) becomes the ‘most pressing’ issue.
Post-modern science, where words mean whatever I say they mean.