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!”

The notification was on a small slip of paper, stuffed into everyone’s PG&E / SCE bill, some time back.

They’re overplaying their hand. It’s just a matter of time before all this comes home to roost.

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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.

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!

“· 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.

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.

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.

To: Mike From Canmore,
Technically it is National Socialism not Socialism. I can hardly wait to see the televised nighttime torchlight formation marches from the Rose Bowl overseen by the Führerator. It will have to be by torchlight because Californians’ will not have any electricity.
Mike

Joe S,
It’s true that area of Florida has lots of springs however most of the populated areas take water from the aquifers. A large portion of that water usage is for irrigation. After several years of less than normal rainfall our water levels are low. This is the down side to no hurricanes or tropical storms in the last two years, not enough rainfall to fully replenish what we take out. I’m hoping for three <60 MPH tropical storms this year, one in July, one in August and one in September each delivering about 10-12 inches of rain over a large portion of the state. Come to think of it, this is a good example of how we sometimes damn nature for being destructive to our infrastructure and forget about the other beneficial effects of a natural processes.

California is going to “energy independence” itself out of existence. Instead of making plans for a growing demand for energy, they are relying on “nega”-watts, renewable energy, and aging plants for their future energy needs.

I read and enjoy Anthony Watts’ blog every day – more often than I read climateaudit or Pielke’s blog. He’s a great guy with a great project, and I will continue to see where it takes him.
I contrast the comments I see here with the “planetgore” blog who generally seem elitist and disparaging of any concept except “oil” and the pure market. As someone who has worked with both the oil companies and with market systems (and regulations) I realize that sometimes you have to give a little. Oil ain’t bad – its given our population freedoms and comforts that the kings of old could only dream about – but there’s more out there than oil.
An example: there is a push to make all new cars flexfueled, which would allow much greater flexiblility in sources of fuel. The concept is pushed by Anthony Zubrin, a PhD in nuclear engineering, as well as others. His concept is that a flex fuel vehicle could make use of methanol (or ethanol), of which methanol is easy to make fromabundant coal. The cost is ~$100/vehicle. In contrast, the new CAFE standards will cost thousands – and really only have support because of increasingly expensive oil supplies. So – which is the better course – make a small regulatory requirement or a large one? Unfortunately, much as we would love to have all out concepts accepted without opposition, politics is a long game of chess that never ends, and sometimes small allowances lead to great results. The clean air act which required a change in how manufacturers made automobile fuel injection systems has drastically cleaned up the air. Was that a bad regulation? I don’t think so… (Although MTBE was)
planetgore however has focused like a dog with its bone on the ethanol issue – and then mocked Zubrin and others when Obama came out for flex fueled vehicles.
My question is why does the acceptance of a good idea by your political opponents make it wrong? The cost benefit of a flex fuel mandate is obvious – we spend $400 billion a year on oil imports. Even if we could produce half our fuel from coal – or my preference, nuclear, we would be giving our economy a huge boost – much better than the ill advised tax “credits” coming our way – and produce multitudes of good paying moderate to high tech jobs.
We need to look at smarter alternatives. That’s why I love Anthony’s blog. He and his readers are open to smart alternatives, and want to have a discussion about it. I’ll be there as it continues…

See? What is exactly is a “wealth destroying gov’t program”? Is $100/car wealth destroying if the side benefit is that a whole new industry can rise? Perhaps you perfer the alternative – CAFE standards, mandated fuel economy, at several thousand dollars per vehicle, and a restriction of choices. This is what I meant by chess – you give up a pawn, and get their queen. In this instance, creating a method to develop an alternative fuel is a small issue. Not even Reagan was unwilling to make a small compromise to ensure that he had a eventual victory. Do you think that the clean air act was useless? SOx trading? Both those programs had to give a small gov’t push to get a desired end result. (I’m not by the way suggesting CO2 trading would work – the SOx program had trading occuring among groups of essentially equal partners – no such equality would exist in a CO2 trading world).
FYI, there are already some flex fuel vehicles out there – but no fuel to use with them. And so without the fuel, they end up being unused. Building an entire new fuel production sector requires a market. So – what’s your solution? Are you unwilling to make a compromise? The unobstructed free market works pretty well, with minor adjustments. Its the burdensome adjustments that cause issues. $100/vehicle is not a big deal – several K is. Yet auto manufacturers often won’t do anything absent a push because it would put them at an economic disadvantage against their competitors. Even the prius is considered to be more a public relations vehicle than anything else (auto manufacturers, by the way, usually introduce new technologies on their top of the line vehicles – because of the cost, the hybrid is among the first where it was introduced in a bottom of the line vehicle.)

Evan, I think you need to check your numbers. I think you’re referring to “total reserves”, not “recoverable reserves”. Or maybe you’re going with the most wildly optimistic assessments. Anyway, according to a just-released analysis by the USGS, recoverable reserves in the Bakken field are estimated at 3.65 billion barrels of oil, 1.85 trillion cubic feet of associated/dissolved natural gas, and 148 million barrels of natural gas liquids.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3021/pdf/FS08-3021_508.pdf
3.65 bbls is a lot, but not a game-changer. To put it in perspective, the US uses about 20.73 million bbl/day (CIA 2004 est.). Assuming the entire recoverable reserve became immediately available, that represents 176 days of supply. And of course it will be expensive to get to.

“Whereas European and Japanese corporate cultures emphasize energy-saving as a strategy that enhances their competitiveness, U.S. companies generally do not.” One of the reasons they don’t is because they don’t have the necessary governmental guidance.
Yeah, that’s what business needs, government guidance on how to enhance their competitiveness.
Now get off my lawn you little whippersnapper!

At the risk of stepping on jeez’s lawn (have you considered changing your nickname to “geez”? lol!), you might want to check out this series of lectures. Session One is the one that most directly discusses how good governmental policy can actually save a pile of money — at least where energy efficiency is concerned. Check out the Concluding Remarks if you want to listen to the old man himself, Art Rosenfeld. He puts the efforts directed at energy efficiency in historical perspective.
Granted, the seminar is not about the CSIS, but neither should the CSIS be considered in isolation. And granted, the various speakers spend a lot of time talking about “global warming”. But again, that motivation should not be considered in isolation either — all of the arguments hold up equally well without reference to global warming. The only thing the issue about global warming adds is a certain level of urgency. It should also be kept in mind that California has been at this stuff for years, well before global warming became popular. And despite the occasional bonehead decision (deregulation without decoupling in a predatory trading environment rates right up there in that regard), CA has an exceptional track record. They policies they have enacted over the years have saved piles of money — for everyone concerned. You just have to have a little ability to look forward to see it really is much more of an investment than a sacrifice.
25-30 years or so ago I lived in Austin, Texas. I suppose that fact alone calls my whipppersnapper credentials into question (although I suppose the characterization itself is relative, lol!). Be that as it may, the fact remains that even without adjusting for inflation my utility bills back then cost me more than they do now, in spite of the fact that none of the places I lived while there had air conditioning. And let me tell ya, as a displaced Connecticut Yankee, that took some serious getting used to. The first couple of months I was pretty sure I was gonna die.
Anyway, while I can’t speak for Massachusettes (I’ve never been particulary fond of that state), I think Gary Gulrud’s analogy of CA as a “canary in a coal mine” is very apt. And I think even he would agree that when you’re deep in a “coal mine”, canaries are worth their weight in California gold. We could quibble about how to weight the significance of the various motivations, but whatever it is the evidence has gotten rather overwhelming that CA is going to save much of the rest of the country from themselves, perhaps even much of the rest of the world, from mining too deep into a dangerous vein.

Evan, what else have you read? I mean seriously. I’m not talking about news reports — or worse, pundits and op-ed authors telling you how they interpret what you’re supposed to believe. What studies have you read? I’m guessing that if you went into it a little more deeply you might realize how truly flimsy your statement, to wit:“I’ll add that if USGS were right about fuel, we’d have been out of it by 1950”, really is. As far as I can tell (and please correct me if you think you can DOCUMENT that I’m wrong) , directly or indirectly, you are basing your entire argument on a poorly vetted source, WHICH ALSO HAPPENS TO BE USGS IN ORIGIN. So it seems to me you have a double dilemma: you eiher have to demonstrate (a) why your opinion is NOT based on ANY USGS study. Failing that, you have to demonstrate on some objective level (b) why you think the one you rely on is in fact more reliable.
Just so you know, I’m virtually certain you can’t do (b). And even if you could, how would it help your argument? You’ve already said USGS is BS. As for (a), I’m almost equally sure you can’t find ANYTHING of any import (which is to say, some source other than editorialists, or pundits — including bloggers who just parrot what they’ve heard, especially if they don’t specify sources — or spokesmen for the companies involved) within the last five years or so to back up your argument.
To tell you the truth though, I’m inclined to give company spokesmen the benefit of the doubt, assuming they are speaking for a publicly traded company. If they’re speaking for a private company, then all bets are off. If that’s the case, then they’re no better than editorialists, pundits, and bloggers. But if you can quote a spokesman for a publicallly traded company, you’re coming to a gun fight with at least a knife. If you can’t, well… be careful you don’t end up shooting yourself in the foot. And please pardon the mixed metaphore. But perhaps that concern explains why you have yet to take a shot at me, which is to say that never, not once have you ever documented ANYTHING you’ve said to me. I like you Evan, but I have to admit to a certain level of disappointment. You’re very good at spinning phrases, quoting verses, and offering metaphores. But to me, those things are tools, not product. Pardon me for dancing on the proverbial lawn again (and fracturing even more metaphores), but the way I see it, “you” might very well have the best tools in the shed, but it’s the quality of the product that comes out of the shed that matters.