ca 2 bak

<div>
</div><div>
</div>see CAlif 3<div>717<div>this not complete cemented --> resist these plans</div><div>new page 8/13error main 1010all capt 616 =<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">api hit on ca gavin: </div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">energy citizen of oklapulled? no links several graphs 2020?https://energycitizens.org/driving-the-wrong-direction-in-california/waybackIssues & AdvocacyExplore EnergyYour LegislatorsJoin Us
Driving The Wrong Direction In CaliforniaFour observations about California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order requiring that by 2035 all new cars sold in the state must be zero-emission vehicles – as well as his push for halting fracking in the state:1. The governor’s executive order could seriously impact middle-class CaliforniansThe zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) parked behind the governor during his announcement (one’s an Audi) underscore the point that the new mandate figures to be tough on middle-class Californians. It’s difficult to see how the mandate won’t make life in California – already among the most expensive in the nation – more costly, hurting people least able to afford it. Middle-class Californians should be able to buy a car that fits their budgets – vs. a price range imposed on them.  The governor’s pledge above – “You can still keep your internal combustion engine car” – sounds like a line from another big public policy debate a few years ago.Western States Petroleum Association President Catherine Reheis-Boyd:“Big ideas are only better if they are affordable for us all and can be backed by science, data and needed infrastructure. There are many questions about all of those concerns in the Governor’s orders. Dismantling our oil and natural gas industry right now means betting everything on alternative energy resources that we don’t have in place and a supporting infrastructure that’s far from being at the scale we need.”AFPM President and CEO Chet Thompson:“[P]ursuing this goal would be among the most inefficient, unpopular, and regressive methods to reduce carbon emissions. Forced electrification would deprive consumers of choice for popular vehicles fueled by affordable, reliable, and readily available gasoline and diesel. It also ignores that today’s vehicles are 99 percent cleaner than they were just a few decades ago and continue to get cleaner every year.”2. Seriously, a zero-emissions mandate in a state that has struggled to keep the lights on?The state’s renewable energy mandate, requiring 60% of the state’s electricity must come from renewables by 2030, stepped on a rake last month when rolling blackouts were implanted because demand outpaced available electricity during a hot spell. It would seem to undermine confidence that California can pull off Newsom’s zero-emissions vehicle pledge in just 15 years.The fact is ZEVs make up a small part of the vehicle market currently, and significant recharging infrastructure will need to be built. California had more than 15 million registered vehicles in 2018. That’s a lot of plug-ins that will be needed. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation’s John Bozzella:“[N]either mandates nor bans build successful markets. What builds successful markets is widespread stakeholder engagement: a combination of efforts by federal, state, and local governments, as well as automakers, dealers, utilities, hydrogen providers, electric infrastructure providers, builders, and others. Currently, electrified vehicles account for less than 10 percent of new vehicle sales in California. While that is the best in the nation, much more needs to be done to increase consumer demand for Zero Emission Vehicles in order for California to reach its goals. It will require increased infrastructure, incentives, fleet requirements, building codes, and much more.”3. There’s rhetoric and there’s realityCalifornia has a history of being good on rhetoric – and not so good on following through, often at great cost and burden to everyday Californians.Regarding issues with the state’s electricity-from-renewables mandate mentioned above, even Gov. Newsom conceded impacts to state residents, telling reporters last month that millions of Californians had been left in the dark thanks to a significant gap in reliability created by the renewable mandate. Other relevant points:California has a history of aspirational targets and failed outcomes. Since its inception in 1990, California has been forced to walk back or significantly change parts of its zero emission vehicle mandate no less than seven times as high costs, limited consumer interest and a lack of breakthroughs in battery technology have routinely rendered extremely optimistic goals infeasible.Overly aspirational mandates have led California residents to pay some of the highest electricity rates in the country. The average price of electricity in the state is 16.6 cents per kWh, nearly 60% higher than the national average, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  As the charts below show, California electricity prices are high, even though the average California home uses about half as much energy as an average American household. In the first chart, state electricity prices (blue line) were about 40% higher than the national average in 2019. In the second, you can see the trajectory of the state’s baseline electricity rates – the minimum billing amount for customers.Add in past issues with taxes, infrastructure and regulation (see here, here and here) and it’s not surprising Gov. Newsom’s new order could generate some skepticism. While past history on goals, aspirations and rhetoric doesn’t mean California will come up short on this order, it certainly is a strong indicator.4. State natural gas and oil production is being targetedThe natural gas and oil industry is a key driver of California’s economy – second only to Texas in total industry employment – and its oil production ranked sixth in the nation as of June – 392,000 barrels per day. Newsom’s support for a fracking ban, which requires legislation, would impact both. California Independent Petroleum Association CEO Rock Zierman:“Today’s announcement to curb in-state production of energy will put thousands of workers in the Central Valley, Los Angeles basin, and Central Coast on the state’s overloaded unemployment program, drive up energy costs when consumers can least afford it, and hurt California’s fight to lower global greenhouse gas emissions. … Instead of creating our own local energy, each year California relies more and more upon foreign oil, which isn’t produced with our strong environmental protections nor does it generate desperately needed local and state tax revenue. … At a time when Californians pay more for energy while experiencing manmade ‘green outs’, it doesn’t make sense to hurt consumers, our economy, and our environment by banning California production.”The whole nation watches California because of its size and the sweep of its economy. Unfortunately, Americans living in other states are seeing one government mandate after another that leave too many Californians behind. It’s hardly a model for the rest of the nation.About The AuthorMark Green joined API after a career in newspaper journalism, including 16 years as national editorial writer for The Oklahoman in the paper’s Washington bureau. Previously, Mark was a reporter, copy editor and sports editor at an assortment of newspapers. He earned his journalism degree from the University of Oklahoma and master’s in journalism and public affairs from American University. He and his wife Pamela have two grown children and six grandchildren.=</div>=https://www.kqed.org/forum
Perkins case --> dred scot?! 14 and 15 not ratif in ca till 1950's CRM?!
Conversations about the history of slavery are often confined to the North and the South, with the West viewed as a free “promised land.” But California passed laws, like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1852, that reinforced the institution of slavery, and otherwise allowed coerced, unpaid labor in the state. And the laws impacted more than just Black people, too. Historian Stacey L. Smith writes in her book “Freedom’s Frontier” that “ diverse forms of American Indian servitude, sexual trafficking in bound women, and contract labor involving Latin Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders all kept the slavery question alive in California during the 1850s.” This history has been brought to the fore in recent weeks as the state’s Reparations Task Force continues to hear testimony about the impacts of slavery on African Americans. We take a closer look at this part of California’s past and why it matters.
Guests:
Stacey L. Smith, associate professor of history, Oregon State University; author, "Freedom's Frontier: California and the Struggle over Unfree Labor, Emancipation, and Reconstruction"
Taylor Bythewood-Porter, assistant curator of history, California African American Museum; co-curated the 2018 exhibition "California Bound: Slavery on the New Frontier, 1848-1865"RoN<h4 style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">United States[</h4>At the local level dozens of ordinances with rights of nature provisions have been passed as of 2019 throughout the United States, and in tribal lands located within the U.S. boundaries.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Kauffman&Sheehan_2019-100" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[99]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Brown_2019-136" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[135]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Pax_2019-137" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[136]</a> Most were passed in reaction to a specific threat to local well-being, such as threats posed by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofracking" class="mw-redirect" title="Hydrofracking" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">hydrofracking</a>, groundwater extraction, gravel mining, and fossil fuel extraction. For example, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh" title="Pittsburgh" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">Pittsburgh</a>, Pennsylvania passed an anti-fracking law that included the following provision to buttress protections: "Natural communities and ecosystems... possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist and flourish." The ordinance continues that "Residents... shall possess legal standing to enforce those rights."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Perkins_2017-138" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[137]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Tanasescu_2016-139" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[138]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Sheehan_2015-41" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[40]</a><div class="thumb tright" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; clear: right; float: right; margin: 0.5em 0px 1.3em 1.4em; width: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="thumbinner" style="min-width: 100px; border: 1px solid rgb(200, 204, 209); padding: 3px; background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); text-align: center; overflow: hidden; width: 222px;">
<div class="thumbcaption" style="border: 0px; line-height: 1.4em; padding: 3px; text-align: left;"><div class="magnify" style="float: right; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 0px;"></div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_State_Beach" title="Santa Monica State Beach" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">Santa Monica State Beach</a> - in 2013 the city adopted a "Sustainability Rights Ordinance",<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Santa_Monica_Ordinance_2013-140" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[139]</a> recognizing the "fundamental and inalienable rights"<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Santa_Monica_Ordinance_2013-140" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[139]</a> of "natural communities and ecosystems"<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Santa_Monica_Ordinance_2013-140" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[139]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Sheehan_Winter_2019-22" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[21]</a></div></div></div>Residents in Santa Monica, California proactively sought to recognize nature's rights in local law after the U.S. Supreme Court's expansion of corporate rights in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v.FEC" title="Citizens United v. FEC" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">Citizens United v. FEC</a>. In 2013 the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_City_Council" title="Santa Monica City Council" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">Santa Monica City Council</a> adopted a "Sustainability Rights Ordinance",<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Santa_Monica_Ordinance_2013-140" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[139]</a> recognizing the "fundamental and inalienable rights"<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Santa_Monica_Ordinance_2013-140" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[139]</a> of "natural communities and ecosystems"<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Santa_Monica_Ordinance_2013-140" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[139]</a> in the city to "exist and flourish".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Santa_Monica_Ordinance_2013-140" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[139]</a> The ordinance emphasized that "[c]orporate entities... do not enjoy special privileges or powers under the law that subordinate the community's rights to their private interests".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Santa_Monica_Ordinance_2013-140" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[139]</a> It specifically defined "natural communities and ecosystems" to include "groundwater aquifers, atmospheric systems, marine waters, and native species".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Santa_Monica_Ordinance_2013-140" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[139]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Sheehan_Winter_2019-22" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[21]</a> Santa Monica updated its Sustainable City Plan in 2014 to reinforce its codified commitment to nature's rights. In 2018, the city council adopted a Sustainable Groundwater Management Ordinance that specifically referenced the inherent rights of the local aquifer to flourish.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature#cite_note-Sheehan_Winter_2019-22" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background: none;">[21]</a><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;">=</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/bundy/">https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/bundy/</a> nor ca water</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;">
</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;">far-right anti-government activist Ammon Bundy has made national news on multiple occasions, from leading an <a href="https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2017/02/oregon_standoff_timeline_41_da.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" opacity="opacity" transition="transition" color="color" s="s" ease="ease" background="background">armed occupation</a> of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon to anti-mask standoffs in Idaho that resulted in extremists <a href="https://www.rawstory.com/ammon-bundy-idaho/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" opacity="opacity" transition="transition" color="color" s="s" ease="ease" background="background">converging on a state judge's home</a>.</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Now, <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/article251710398.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">according</a> to The Sacramento Bee, Bundy and his followers could be about to get involved in another confrontation with the government — this time over water shutoffs in Northern California."In the summer of 2001, local farmers and other activists armed with saws and blowtorches breached a chain-link fence and opened the headgates of a federal canal that supplies farmland in Oregon and far Northern California," reported Ryan Sabalow. "Local farmer Grant Knoll was among the activists there that year. The protesters forced the gates open three times but were eventually blocked by U.S. marshals. Now, with a drought just as severe as two decades ago — and with farmers' water again cut off — he's prepared to fight again.""This spring, he and another farmer, Dan Nielsen, bought the property next to the headgates in Klamath Falls, Ore.," said the report. "They erected a red and white tent surrounded by American flags and protest signs, and they're holding regular gatherings. And they're working with a group with close ties to anti-government activist Ammon Bundy."According to the report, "Federal water managers have for years struggled to strike a balance between supplying water for farmers while still leaving enough water in Oregon's Upper Klamath Lake to keep two species of endangered suckers from going extinct." However, the government also is obligated to send spurts of water down the canals known as "flushing flows" to maintain the health of local salmon populations local tribes depend on, and amid a drought, they lack the water for even that, let alone to supply farmers with everything they are asking for.Farmers, however, don't buy the government's explanation, claiming water levels are higher than would exist in a drought."Knoll said the Bundy family's fight with the federal government has proven that if activists push back forcefully, the feds will back down," said the report. "Members of the Bundy family and their supporters have been acquitted or mistrials were declared after armed standoffs with federal authorities in Oregon and in Nevada."You can read more <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/article251710398.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">here</a>.</div>Right now, millions of Californians live within one mile of an active oil or gas well — and Governor Gavin Newsom just took a meaningful step forward to fight the climate crisis and protect these communities from dangerous oil production in California. The Governor ordered state regulators to put out a rule banning fracking starting in 2024 and called on them to evaluate phasing out all oil production in the state by 2045. Newsom is rightly acknowledging that California needs to phase out its dinosaur, climate-busting oil extraction industry and transition to a clean energy future while protecting the health and safety of communities. But our work is far from done. We must compel California state leaders to take urgent action to protect vulnerable communities by immediately establishing a 2,500-foot buffer zone between oil drilling operations and our homes, schools, and hospitals, and other sensitive sites. <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="blank" href="https://act.nrdc.org/letter/5805-ca-neighborhood-drilling-210420?source=EMOCADPET&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=text1&utm_campaign=email&t=2&akid=14225%2E1776095%2E7tlDnE" style="color: rgb(36, 61, 143); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: 900;">Tell CA state leaders to protect communities from dangerous neighborhood drilling!</a> The Governor has committed to enacting policies to protect the health and safety of communities from the dangers of oil drilling. But his administration has already delayed this critical rulemaking for months … and we can’t wait any longer<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;">=</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/fossil-fuel-new-evidence-sb-1161">https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/fossil-fuel-new-evidence-sb-1161</a></div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;">
</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><div id="block-ucstheme-page-title" class="block block-core block-page-title-block hero-default" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: var(--border-color); border-image: initial; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px auto; padding: 3rem 1rem 0px; box-sizing: inherit; position: relative; width: 640px; max-width: 32rem; text-align: center; z-index: 1;"><h1 class="page-title" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.16667; margin: 0px 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.002em;"><span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;">New Evidence of Fossil Fuel Industry Climate Science Deception Underscores Need for SB 1161 (Allen), “California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act”</h1><p class="page-subtitle" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: -1rem 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;">Statement by Adrienne Alvord, California and Western States Director, Union of Concerned Scientists<p class="dates" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;"><span class="date-published" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;">Published Apr 13, 2016</div><article role="article" class="node node--type-press-release node--view-mode-full" style="border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="nodecontent" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="column-general" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="main-region" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; position: relative; width: 640px; max-width: 32rem;"><div class="block block-layout-builder block-field-blocknodepress-releasebody" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: var(--border-color); border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden fielditem" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; clear: both;">OAKLAND, Calif. (April 13, 2016)— A <a href="https://www.smokeandfumes.org/#/" style="font-weight: inherit; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 174, 235); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">trove of documents</a> released today by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) reveals that the oil industry was well aware of the potential climate risks of fossil fuels decades earlier than was widely believed. The uncovered industry communications, scientific papers and oral histories demonstrate that the petroleum industry was conducting climate research as early as 1957 and knew about the potential for catastrophic climate risks by 1968 at the latest.<p style="font-weight: inherit; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;">The documents include a 1957 study, “Radiocarbon Evidence on the Dilution of Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon by Carbon from Fossil Fuels,” published by scientists working for Humble Oil, a precursor of ExxonMobil. The study looked at how carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion accumulates in the atmosphere and oceans and indicates that scientists affiliated with the fossil fuel industry were not just aware of what happens to the climate when we burn fossil fuels, but were at the leading edge of our understanding of it.<p style="font-weight: inherit; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;"> Below is a statement by Adrienne Alvord, California and Western States Director, Union of Concerned Scientists:<p style="font-weight: inherit; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;">“It is shocking and disheartening to see that the fossil fuel industry apparently had knowledge of climate risks from the burning of fossil fuels even earlier than previously believed. Their subsequent public deception campaign in the interest of profit has led to confusion and uncertainty about the consequences of burning oil, gas and coal. <p style="font-weight: inherit; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;">Meanwhile, concentrations of greenhouse gases have doubled over the past three decades, exacerbating the costly, damaging effects of climate change that California already is experiencing. The California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act would help ensure that California can hold fossil fuel companies fully accountable for their decades of deception and the damages they have caused to public health, property and the environment in California. We need to ensure that fossil fuel companies won’t be let off the hook for their decades-long campaign of intentional deception about the harmful effects of their products.”</div></div></div></div></div></article></div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;"></div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">icn 421</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><h2 class="entry-title" style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; margin: 0px 0px 4px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.33;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;" /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042021/inside-clean-energy-the-coast-to-coast-battle-over-rooftop-solar/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s;">inside Clean Energy: The Coast-to-Coast Battle Over Rooftop Solar</a></h2><h3 class="subtitle" style="font-weight: 400; font-size: medium; box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; margin: 0px 0px 16px; line-height: 1.5;">As California works on a new net metering policy, other states are grappling with similar issues.</h3><h3 class="post-author" style="box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; margin: 0px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.33; padding: 0px;">By Dan Gearino</h3></div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;"></div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2021/01/qanon-and-evangelicals-republicans-baptized-in-crazy/">https://www.alternet.org/2021/01/qanon-and-evangelicals-republicans-baptized-in-crazy/</a></div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;">
</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><div>no twt lnx</div><div>
</div><div>QAnon and evangelicals: Republicans baptized in crazy</div><div>QAnon Shaman is admitting he was 'duped' by Trump — and blaming him for inflaming the Capitol attack</div><div>Meaghan Ellis</div><div>David Cay Johnston January 29, 2021</div><div>   </div><div>Donald Trump is out, but parts of the Republican Party warmly embrace his dark legacy of white supremacy, the crazy QAnon conspiracy and civil war wrapped in faux Christianity.</div><div>
</div><div>Like Trump, these fake Christians reject turning the other cheek in favor of threatening or promoting violence.</div><div>
</div><div>The problem here isn't partisan politics, but public mental health. DCReport has covered extensively the mental-health debacle thanks to Dr. Bandy X. Lee, Harper West and other experts on how delusions spread like viruses, with Trump being a carrier.</div><div>
</div><div>The evidence of craziness seems to be found entirely in the Republican Party. We looked for, but have yet to discover any Democratic Party leaders pushing baseless conspiracy theories or urging civil war.</div><div>
</div><div>Readers who have found such material, please send links via our DCReport Tipline.</div><div>
</div><div>Here are some of the ways that Republican leaders reveal their affinity for the anti-democratic nature of Trumpism and QAnon, its attendant conspiracy theory:</div><div>
</div><div>In California, the Sacramento County Republican Party elected to its Central Committee a Proud Boys member who has advocated violence.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>"Illegal immigrants should have their heads smashed into the concrete," a 2018 post by an antifascist group quotes Perrine as saying.</div><div>
</div><div>Perrine didn't deny this call to violence, he only insisted that he's not a racist.</div><div>
</div><div>He told the newspaper, "They can call me a Nazi all they want, and I know I have plenty of friends of all races that don't always agree with me, but they still love me.</div><div>
</div><div>"The Proud Boys that I affiliate with are all working men, all married men, they all have good jobs, they all believe in God."</div><div>
</div><div>Only after The Bee reported this did some Republicans in the California capital come to their senses and demand Perrine's ouster.</div><div>
</div><div>Oregon's Republican Party this month aligned itself with conspiracy theories as well as denouncing all 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for inciting the murderous attack on our Capitol.</div><div>
</div><div>Texas' GOP uses a QAnon conspiracy phrase—We Are The Storm—in its new logo.</div><div>
</div><div>The slogan comes from a poem, not crazies, according to the Texas party chairman, Alan West. He is the former congressman from Florida and retired military officer known for making bizarre statements. In 2011, he wrote, "When I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool."</div><div>
</div><div>Arizona GOP for Trump, Still</div><div>
</div><div>Texas GOP Twitter Page</div><div>
</div><div>Arizona's GOP retweeted messages in December asking if people were ready to die for Trump and his baseless claim that he really won in 2020. The original Stop The Steal tweet was deleted, but the party's official Twitter account still refers to a person who says he's ready to die for Trump. It states: "He is. Are you?"</div><div>You might think that the party leadership in the Grand Canyon state, long a bright red jurisdiction, would examine its position after Democrats won both U.S. Senate seats and Joe Biden beat Trump in Arizona.</div><div>
</div><div>While the GOP added registered voters in 2020, it lost in ballots cast. Instead of reassessing, however, Arizona's Republican leaders decided to enforce Trumpian purity. On Jan. 23 the Arizona GOP censured three leading Republicans for not embracing Trumpian madness: Gov. Doug Ducey, former U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake and Cindy McCain. The widow of Sen. John McCain said she considers the censure a badge of honor.</div><div>
</div><div>Party leaders also re-elected the erratic and autocratic Kelli Ward as the Arizona GOP leader. She said her party suffers from "people who have been namby-pamby, lie down and allow the Democrats to walk all over them."</div><div>
</div><div>The party retweeted a menacing message. It is one of many from a Republican who holds himself out as a Christian despite tweets that are aggressively contrary to New Testament teachings about love, doing good to others and turning the other cheek:</div><div>
</div><div>"The Arizona Republican Party is still Trump country in all districts. Weak self-righteous sanctimonious Rs are on notice."</div><div>
</div><div>"Satan-Worshipping Pedophiles"</div><div>
</div><div>Arizona state Sen. David Farnsworth acknowledged last fall to the Arizona Mirror, a news website, that he believes the QAnon conspiracy theory but with a twist.</div><div>
</div><div>He said some Republicans have joined the top Democrats who, he imagines, run a global Satan worshipping cabal of pedophiles Trump is singlehandedly trying to bring down. Farnsworth told audiences that Arizona's Department of Child Safety is covering up, or complicit, in child sex trafficking.</div><div>
</div><div>Meanwhile, the FBI says QAnon is a domestic terror threat.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Other delusional beliefs so deeply and broadly infect the Arizona GOP that its leaders blame antifascists for joining in when our national Capitol was violently invaded by a murderous mob of Trumpers on Jan. 6.</div><div>
</div><div>Mentioned earlier, the Oregon Republican Party went further. It adopted a resolution asserting, "The violence at the Capitol was a 'false flag' operation designed to discredit President Trump, his supporters, and all conservative Republicans; this provided the sham motivation to impeach President Trump in order to advance the Democratic goal of seizing total power."</div><div>
</div><div>That's as crazy as QAnon.</div><div>
</div><div>Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama, who riled up the Capitol mob, and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida also falsely blame the Capitol attack on antifascists.</div><div>
</div><div>Antifascist Nonsense</div><div>
</div><div>The FBI calls that nonsense, but you don't need law enforcement to know that the idea is ridiculous.</div><div>
</div><div>Saying Trumpers and Antifa jointly attacked our Capitol is like saying Trump is in league with Bernie Sanders. Believing, as the Oregon GOP leadership does, that the insurgents were lefties posing as Trumpers moves the party well into the realm of delusion.</div><div>
</div><div>In Hawaii, the official Republican Twitter account claims war is being waged against its members' values. And its relentless attacks on news organizations that check facts and correct mistakes include many fabrications.</div><div>
</div><div>Witness this Inauguration Day tweet: "Will you be joining PBS in calling for internment and re-education camps also?"</div><div>
</div><div>Nothing in the news clips it tweeted came close to substantiating the tweet, nor did the full PBS report.</div><div>
</div><div>There is a glimmer of hope that reality plays a role in the Hawaii GOP. On Sunday, Jan. 24, the state party's communications vice-chair, Edwin Boyette, resigned after sane Republicans complained about his tweets supporting QAnon.</div><div>
</div><div>Building a Theocracy</div><div>
</div><div>It's not just Trump purity that many GOP influencers are pushing. There is also their brand of Christianity, which promotes racial animosity, hatred of Democrats, intolerance and would subvert our Constitution to create a theocracy.</div><div>
</div><div>Consider Jenna Ellis, one of Trump's television lawyers who was paid at least $173,900 by his campaign. Ellis has met with GOP leaders in several states making fact-free claims that Trump won in November.</div><div>
</div><div>Ellis has a long and well-documented history of just making self-aggrandizing claims. She has a checkered career and her accomplishments are negligible, but Trump got one look at her on television and was enchanted.</div><div>
</div><div>Some principled Republicans see no future in a party swaddled in craziness. On Monday Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, a conservative with a level head, announced that he won't seek a third term in 2022 because of what he called partisan gridlock.</div><div>
</div><div>While it's true that compromise is rare on Capitol Hill, intransigence traces back to anti-taxer Grover Norquist declaring, "Bipartisanship is just another name for date rape" and Trump repeatedly retweeting QAnon-supporting craziness.</div><div>
</div><div>Like Flake, a Libertarian whose family founded Arizona, Portman would face a primary challenge from the crazy wing of the GOP if he seeks third term.</div><div>
</div><div>FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES</div><div>How we know the GOP really is the party of QAnon now - Alternet.org ›</div></div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;">
</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium;">=</div>=https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06122020/california-staten-island-sandhill-cranes-water-birds-agriculture/<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2020/12/8/prop_22_uber_lyft_gig_workers" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.democracynow.org/2020/12/8/prop_22_uber_lyft_gig_workers</a></div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">transcript coming, she says PR firm foia'd her?!</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft scored a major victory with the passage of Proposition 22 in California, and worker rights advocates fear they will push similar measures in other states. Prop 22 will exempt companies in the so-called gig economy from having to classify their workers in the state as employees rather than as independent contractors. Uber, Lyft and other companies that rely on gig workers spent more than $200 million to promote Prop 22, and a survey of California voters who voted “yes” on the measure showed 40% thought they were supporting gig workers’ ability to earn a living wage, even though critics say the measure will do the opposite. “The law will now exempt drivers like me from basic wage and labor protections afforded to most workers in the state in the middle of a pandemic and recession,” says Cherri Murphy, a Lyft driver and organizer with Gig Workers Rising. We also speak with Veena Dubal, professor of law at the University of California, Hastings, who says measures like Prop 22 pose “extreme danger” to American workers. “If this spreads past California, we are headed for an even worse situation of inequality than we are already experiencing,” Dubal says.</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">guk ref</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">https://yyy.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/12/uber-prop-22-law-drivers-ab5-gig-workers</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div>uber bought itself a law. Here's why that's dangerous for struggling drivers like me</div><div>
</div><div>Cherri Murphy</div><div>The company, along with Lyft and DoorDash, spent more than $200m to deny drivers the wages and benefits we’re entitled to</div></div>=an imi 1120h<a class="widget__headline-text custom-post-headline" href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/11/california-wildfires/" aria-label="How Californians came together to deal with wildfires during the pandemic" data-type="text" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s; word-break: break-word; outline: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 20px;">ow Californians came together to deal with wildfires during the pandemic</a>=<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/california-gop-accused-of-operating-fake-official-ballot-drop-boxes-appalling-criminal-conduct/">https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/california-gop-accused-of-operating-fake-official-ballot-drop-boxes-appalling-criminal-conduct/</a>california's top election official is <a href="https://www.ocregister.com/2020/10/11/unofficial-ballot-drop-boxes-popping-up-throughout-the-state-worry-elections-officials/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">investigating</a> reports that the state's Republican Party has set up unauthorized ballot drop boxes posing as "official" in several major counties, an illegal practice that could deceive voters into depositing their ballots at unsecure locations."Operating unofficial ballot drop boxes—especially those misrepresented as official drop boxes—is not just misleading to voters, it's a violation of state law," California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement responding to reports of unauthorized ballot drop boxes in Fresno, Los Angeles, and Orange counties."California Republicans are allegedly creating fake drop boxes and tricking voters into depositing their ballots in them. Apparently they're trying to prove voter fraud is real by committing actual election fraud."
—Mark Joseph Stern, SlateAs the local Orange County Register <a href="https://www.ocregister.com/2020/10/11/unofficial-ballot-drop-boxes-popping-up-throughout-the-state-worry-elections-officials/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">reported</a> late Sunday, "In a photo posted to social media last week, a young man wearing a mask with Orange County congressional candidate Michelle Steel's name on it is holding a mail ballot and giving a thumbs up next to a box about the size of a file cabinet labeled 'Official ballot drop off box.'""The post, from Jordan Tygh, a regional field director for the California Republican Party, encouraged people to message him for 'convenient locations' to drop their own ballots," the Register reported.That was just one of several instances of potentially illegal election activity by Republican officials that has been reported in recent days. On Saturday night, the Register noted, reports emerged of "a metal box in front of Freedom's Way Baptist Church in Castaic that had a sign matching the one on the Orange County box.""The church posted on social media that the box was 'approved and brought by the GOP,'" the Register reported. "The post said church officials don't have a key to the box and that GOP officials pick up the ballots... On its website, the Fresno County Republican Party also shared a list of 'secure' ballot collection locations. None are <a href="https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=41147" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">official county drop box sites</a>, with the local GOP instead listing its own headquarters, multiple gun shops, and other local businesses."Under California state law, only county election officials are authorized to set up ballot drop boxes to ensure adequate security.Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley told the Register that hundreds of people called his attention to the potentially unlawful ballot drop box promoted by Tygh of the California Republican Party."What we did was started to look into it, notified the state, and the secretary of state issued guidance this afternoon that it is illegal and you can't do that," said Kelley said. "It would be like me installing a mailbox out on the corner—the Post Office is the one that installs mailboxes."<div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6282b528bc05182c7d705d4f98532fbb" id="0e07f" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" style="display: flex; max-width: 550px; width: 550px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-partner="rebelmouse" data-twitter-tweet-id="1315486036336705536" data-twitter-extracted-i1602530083339155506="true" style="margin: 1em 40px 1em -5px; border-left: 4px solid rgb(11, 13, 101); line-height: 32px; padding: 10px 20px 10px 24px; width: 602.543px; background: rgb(245, 245, 245);"><div style="margin: 1em 0px;">BE ON ALERT: Republicans in California have set up fake ballot drop boxes that they’re promoting on social media. W… https://t.co/2KDEXMkiSy</div>— David Nir (@David Nir)<a href="https://twitter.com/DavidNir/statuses/1315486036336705536" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">1602471286.0</a></blockquote></div>Slate staff writer Mark Joseph Stern <a href="https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1315492577601298434" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">called</a> the Register's reporting "incredibly alarming" and said it suggests "appalling criminal conduct by California Republican operatives.""California Republicans are allegedly creating fake drop boxes and tricking voters into depositing their ballots in them," wrote Stern. "Apparently they're trying to prove voter fraud is real by committing actual election fraud."=120no lnx
Census: After 2020, California’s Congressional delegation could shrink for the first time in 160 years

Written by Stephen Wolf / DailyKos January 2, 2020
On Dec. 30, the Census Bureau released its newest population estimates for every state, detailing how many residents each state has gained or lost since the last census, in 2010. We’ve used these figures, along with estimates from previous years, to project how many seats in Congress each state is likely to gain or lose after next year’s census, when the Constitution mandates that all 435 House seats be reallocated according to each state’s share of the total U.S. population.
As shown in the map above (see here for a larger version), 17 states could see their number of districts change after the 2020 census, based on both the long-term 2010-2019 trend and the short-term 2018-2019 trend.
These projections also represent a shift, in some cases, from those that the firm Election Data Services issued a year ago, when the Census Bureau last updated its population estimates. These three changes are summarized below:
If California does indeed lose a seat, it would be the first time in 160 years that the Golden State’s representation in the House shrank.
The 2020 census and subsequent reapportionment will thus set the stage for congressional redistricting. However, it’s difficult to predict with much accuracy what the partisan impact of these changes will be because we don’t yet know which party (if any) will control the redistricting process in many states. If redistricting had taken place after the 2019 elections, Republicans would have been able draw two to three times more congressional districts than Democrats. However, elections next year for governors, state legislatures, and redistricting reform measures will be crucial for setting the partisan landscape.
One thing we do know, however, is that much of the population growth in Sun Belt states such as Texas comes from black, Latino, and Asian-American residents, which could benefit Democrats in those states. However, many GOP-controlled states such as Texas have refused to allocate any supplemental funding to prevent undercounts of these populations.
Reapportionment will also determine how many Electoral College votes each state receives, since each state gets electoral votes equivalent to its number of House seats plus two for its Senate delegation. Adjusting the 2016 Electoral College outcome based on the above projections, Donald Trump would have gained three electoral votes, while Hillary Clinton would have lost three—not nearly enough to alter Trump’s 304-227 win.
Interestingly, the largely Midwestern and Northeastern states that are projected to lose seats almost all trended Republican in 2016, while the states forecast to gain seats—largely in the Sun Belt— almost all trended Democratic. These trends could benefit Democrats in the long term if they can start winning regularly in places such as Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas, even if Republicans shift toward a greater reliance on carrying the Rust Belt.new 1119<a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04112019/trump-war-california-auto-standards-environment-violations-justice-department-wildfires">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04112019/trump-war-california-auto-standards-environment-violations-justice-department-wildfires</a>As fierce Santa Ana winds whipped the wildfires outside of Los Angeles, stirring exactly the kind of infernos that scientists expect in a hotter, drier California, President Donald Trump was gloating over the new allies he has won in his epic battle to block that state's efforts to fight climate change.California has been a world innovator in crafting environmental policy, and its pioneering approach to the difficult issue of carbon emissions from cars helped put the United States on course to cleaner, more efficient vehicles. But a multi-pronged assault by the Trump administration now seeks both to hobble California's climate efforts and to shred the state's reputation as an environmental leader.In its latest move, the Trump administration doubled down on <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092019/trump-auto-standards-rollback-california-waiver-electric-vehicles-climate-change" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">its fight to eliminate the state's carbon emissions rules</a> for vehicles. It had already revoked California's authority to set higher standards. Now it was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/climate/general-motors-toyota-emissions-white-house.html" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">pressuring carmakers</a> to take its side in California's lawsuit over the move. When GM, Fiat Chrysler and Toyota made the surprise decision to comply last week, Trump <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1189592785311223815?s=20" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">tweeted</a>: "California has treated the Auto Industry very poorly for many years, harming Workers and Consumers. We are fixing this problem!"The attack isn't just on auto standards. On Sunday, Trump <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1190995034163892226?s=20" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">tweeted </a>a threat to cut U.S. aid for fighting California wildfires, reiterating his previous <a href="https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/nov/12/donald-trump/trumps-overly-simplistic-and-false-claim-californi/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">false </a>claim that they are due to the state (which owns of just 2 percent of the forest land within its borders) failing to "clean" its forest floor. Trump's Justice Department sued the state a week earlier, arguing that California exceeded its authority when it launched a cap-and-trade agreement with Quebec to lower fossil fuel emissions.At the same time, Trump's Environmental Protection Agency has threatened to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to withdraw federal highway funds from the state over air pollution, and to initiate enforcement action for water pollution violations. In a flourish, the EPA blamed the latter on human waste and needles from homeless people in San Francisco.Those warnings, issued directly from the desk of EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, were at odds with the agency's hands-off approach under Trump. At a time when EPA is weakening environmental standards on both air and water pollution and enforcement activity is at its <a href="https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcement-annual-results-fiscal-year-2018" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">lowest level in a decade</a>, the agency was invoking one of the most severe penalties available, for a state that has <a href="http://www.capradio.org/articles/2015/08/05/san-joaquin-valley-hits-air-quality-milestone/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">invested billions</a> in improved air quality and has among the best compliance records in the nation on water pollution.California's governor has called the moves "<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california/trump-epa-blasts-california-air-quality-threatens-to-withdraw-highway-funds-idUSKBN1W91ZO" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">pure retaliation</a>," while former federal officials say that the unusual nature of the enforcement actions, and the management of the cases by top Trump appointees in Washington, reeks of political score-settling.Together, the Trump administration's actions try to deliver the message that California is a laggard in addressing visible air pollution and sewage, and that the state's aggressive focus on global warming is a misguided distraction at best.But the Trump administration's California narrative falls apart with a cursory review of the science and the state's record as a national leader in environmental protection. And it remains to be seen whether it has the legal arguments to persuade the courts, which will have the final say.<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">How Did We Get Here?</h3>This is not the first time that politicians have sought to caricature California as a victim of its own progressive policies.Former Vice President Dick Cheney <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/01/us/cheney-promotes-increasing-supply-as-energy-policy.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">famously used </a>California's electricity crisis of 2001 as a pretext for expanded U.S. oil and natural gas production. Only later did it become clear that California's power shortages were created, not by conservation-oriented policies, but by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/us/tapes-show-enron-arranged-plant-shutdown.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">profit-hungry energy traders like Enron</a> who took advantage of the state's experiment with deregulation.The same administration also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/20epa-web.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">sought to block</a> California's effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles, but the auto industry's collapse in 2008 forced it into the arms of the federal government for help. President Barack Obama's administration brokered an historic $80.7 billion bailout of the carmakers, which included an agreement to put California's standards into effect nationwide. It forced a gradual fleet-wide improvement in fuel economy that by 2025 would have cut 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the biggest step any nation has taken to reduce greenhouse gases.Soon after Trump was elected, the carmakers <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4954121-Auto-Alliance-Letter-to-Trump-Transition.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">sought to partially undo that deal</a>—they still wanted a nationwide standard, but more flexibility. The Trump administration, however, sought a head-on battle with California that the automakers had long said they hoped to avoid.Launching such a war runs counter to the Trump administration's stated goal of giving more environmental authority to the states. Just last month, for example, the Trump EPA <a href="https://www.kxnet.com/news/state-news/north-dakota-epa-agree-to-let-nd-companies-self-report-minor-violations/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">delegated increased authority</a> to North Dakota for oversight of oil and gas sites, and waste facilities, and power plants. But EPA Administrator Wheeler has portrayed California as a different case—a rogue state that needed to be reined in."We embrace federalism and the role of the states, but federalism does not mean that one state can dictate standards for the nation," Wheeler said in a<a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-wheeler-addresses-national-automobile-dealers-association" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;"> speech </a>to the National Automobile Dealers Association just before announcing that California would be stripped of its greenhouse gas emissions authority on vehicles.The following week, Wheeler took two surprising steps. He threatened to withhold California's federal highway funds for "failing to carry out its most basic tasks" under the Clean Air Act to control air pollution in its cities. Wheeler then fired off a letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, threatening enforcement action over what he said was his state's "failure to protect Californians from degraded water" due to human waste from homeless people in its cities. The EPA followed up with a notice of violation to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">California's Environmental Record</h3>Although the allegations by the Trump administration each contain a grain of truth, they paint a misleading picture of California's record on clean air and water.California does indeed have the largest backlog of Clean Air Act implementation plans, but that is in part because the state has 35 regional authorities responsible for pollution regulation. In many of the backlogged cases, California is <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6535947-Carb-Response-Letter-to-Epa.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">awaiting EPA action </a>on proposed implementation plans, state authorities pointed out in a letter to Wheeler.As the nation's most populous state and the largest by far in the size of its economy (by GDP it is larger than <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-economy-gdp-20180504-story.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">all but four nations</a>), California indeed has more metropolitan areas than any other state that <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/jncty.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">fail to meet</a> the national air quality standard for smog. But California, so prone to poor air quality in the valleys between its coastlines and mountain ranges, has been ahead of the nation in setting standards to control air pollution, greatly reducing it over the past 50 years."California historically has had the worst air quality in the nation," said Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy for the American Lung Association. "Also, since the late 1950s, no state has done more to reduce air pollution than the state of California. And they have done it as their population and economy have grown."Ironically, the greenhouse gas standards that Trump is seeking to overturn would have the benefit of further improving urban air quality. The rules are designed to drive greater adoption of electric cars, which would further reduce the fossil fuel pollutants that are precursors to smog.The Trump administration's attacks belie its stated concern on clean air, argues Billings. "It seems to be politically motivated and about scoring points in some game and not about trying to improve the air quality in California," he said.The threat to withhold federal highway funds from California was a shock for those familiar with EPA history, since that is a <a href="https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/97-959ENR.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">rarely imposed</a> nuclear option in Clean Air Act enforcement."Sanctions are appropriate when a state is basically refusing to do what the law requires," said Janet McCabe, who served as acting assistant administrator in charge of the air pollution program at EPA during the Obama administration. "Almost all the time, states are working very hard to implement their responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. It's hard, and it takes a long time. As long as a state is working in good faith, I would say that is not a sanction situation."Similarly, the EPA's allegations and threatened action against California on water pollution run counter to the administration's hands-off approach. EPA enforcement actions, inspections and penalties all are at their <a href="https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcement-annual-results-fiscal-year-2018" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">lowest levels in a decade</a> under the Trump administration. Moreover, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6535940-Giles-Letter-to-Administrator-Wheeler-9-30-19.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">45 states</a> have a higher percentage of water systems or dischargers in significant violation of federal water standards than California, according to an analysis of EPA's own data by Cynthia Giles, a guest fellow at Harvard Law School who headed the EPA enforcement office during the Obama administration."You target California despite the fact that California has one of the best compliance records in the country," Giles said in a letter to Wheeler.<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Political Appointees Spearheading Attacks</h3>The EPA notice of violation to San Francisco came only days after the city's water board adopted a more stringent water treatment permit, aimed at eliminating discharges of partially treated wastewater to the ocean. The EPA and California authorities had been working together on an enforcement action on San Francisco's sewage system, but the EPA dropped the joint effort. "This development is confounding, and contrary to [a] long history of productive state-federal cooperative enforcement," California Environmental Protection Secretary Jared Blumenfeld wrote in <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6535943-Letter-to-US-EPA-Administrator-Wheeler-10-25-19.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">an Oct. 25 letter</a> to Wheeler. Wheeler had <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/climate/epa-trump-california.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">reportedly bypassed</a> the EPA's West Coast team to handle the actions against California from headquarters in Washington, D.C.Likewise, the Justice Department action seeking to dismantle California's cap-and-trade agreement with Quebec is being advanced by an <a href="https://legal-planet.org/2019/10/29/looking-into-usdojs-lawsuit-to-dismantle-the-california-quebec-greenhouse-gas-cap-and-trade-linkage-program/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">unusually limited team of lawyers</a>, pointed out Sean Hecht, a former deputy attorney general for California who is co-executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the University of California, Los Angeles, Law School.That case is being led by Trump's appointee to Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062017/trump-names-bp-oil-spill-lawyer-climate-policy-foe-top-doj-environment-attorney" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">a former lawyer for oil giant BP</a> who has characterized Obama-era greenhouse gas regulation as "reminiscent of kind of a Leninistic program." Only members of Clark's own team are listed on the case. It doesn't list members of the civil division of the Justice Department, who would ordinarily handle foreign treaty or compact cases, nor personnel from the local U.S. Attorney's office."The idea the case 'isn't political' seems fanciful," <a href="https://legal-planet.org/2019/10/29/looking-into-usdojs-lawsuit-to-dismantle-the-california-quebec-greenhouse-gas-cap-and-trade-linkage-program/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Hecht wrote</a> on UCLA and Berkeley's<a href="https://legal-planet.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;"> Legal Planet blog</a>.Newsom, a Democrat, has described the Trump administration's moves as "<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california/trump-epa-blasts-california-air-quality-threatens-to-withdraw-highway-funds-idUSKBN1W91ZO" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">pure retaliation</a>" against a state that has sued the Trump administration <a href="https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2019/sep/25/xavier-becerra/california-really-winning-court-against-trump-admi/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">60 times</a>. Nearly <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-10/former-epa-officials-trump-versus-california-pollution" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">600 former EPA officials</a> also signed a letter to the House Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and Energy and Commerce calling for a probe into whether the agency's recent actions were improper uses of its authority to punish a state for opposing Trump's political agenda.California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris have asked the <a href="https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=64182EE9-0148-419A-BE58-5D41BF5D9581" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">EPA inspector general for an investigation</a> into "whether the White House pressured the agency to abuse its law enforcement authority to single out California and the city of San Francisco." San Francisco is home to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat who is now presiding over Trump's impeachment inquiry.<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Turning to the Courts</h3>It will likely be the courts that decide the outcome of the Trump administration's battles with California. And on the state's greenhouse gas emissions standards for autos, the legal hurdle that the Trump administration faces is high.When Congress originally passed the Clean Air Act in the 1970s, lawmakers gave California authority to set its own standards, seeking not to disrupt the steps the state already had taken to address pollution <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/history" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">under then-Gov. Ronald Reagan.</a> All the state needs to do to obtain its "waiver" to act is show a compelling need, and that its action is not arbitrary or capricious and is at least as protective as the federal standard. <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092019/trump-auto-standards-rollback-california-waiver-electric-vehicles-climate-change" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Until Trump</a>, no administration had ever revoked a California waiver that already has been granted."To revoke a waiver that is already issued is a huge leap legally, and is sort of ironic in the light of other instances where the administration is taking the position of deferring to the states, and giving them more responsibility and autonomy," said McCabe.The Trump administration plans to make the legal argument that the greenhouse gas emissions standards are, in effect, fuel economy standards—and that Congress prohibited states from setting their own fuel economy standards when it established a national auto efficiency program in 1975.Two federal courts—in Vermont and in California—rejected that legal reasoning during the George W. Bush administration.Trump's rollback of greenhouse gas standards could work to the automakers' short-term benefit, since their less <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15102018/automakers-gm-ford-pickup-suv-electric-vehicle-emissions-standards-climate-change-industry-bailout" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">fuel-efficient SUVs and pickup trucks</a> are their most profitable vehicles.In the long-run, though, automakers risk getting left behind in the competition to meet growing global demand for electric vehicles, which explains why Ford, Honda, BMW and Volkswagen struck a deal with California in July to voluntarily implement annual fuel economy improvements across their fleets even if the Trump administration weakened standards. The deal <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/climate/trump-auto-emissions-rollback-disarray.html?smid=tw-nytclimate&smtyp=cur" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">reportedly enraged</a> Trump, and his administration has threatened them with antitrust action over the agreement.When asked how it answers the charges that it is engaging in a political vendetta against California, the Trump EPA returned to its message on the environmental shortcomings of the state that is fighting the administration to keep environmental protections in place."Highlighting that California has very serious environmental failures both with air and water quality is not a political issue, and unlike previous Administrations, under this Administration the EPA is acting to protect public health and the environment for all Americans," said Corry Schiermeyer, EPA's associate administrator for public affairs in an email.From a purely political standpoint, Trump has little to lose in warring with California. It resonates with the president's base, if the response from his Twitter followers is any indication. "California is such a mess @potus!," tweeted @carrieksada. "Fires everywhere. And they're worried about exhaust fumes."         Trump lost the state in 2016 by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/california" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">30 percentage points</a>, but he won the election without the nation's largest pot of electoral votes.Of course, the state was not always so politically lopsided. California was the home of two Republican presidents elected in the past 50 years. But as Reagan's daughter<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/30/my-fathers-library-will-likely-survive-fires-california-my-youth-is-gone/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;"> Patti Davis wrote of her state</a> last week: with wildfires advancing on her father's presidential library in Simi Valley, that California is gone.<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/california-water-politics-takes-a-weird-turn-fbi-raids-los-angeles-department-of-water-and-power-and-la-city-attorneys-office/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/california-water-politics-takes-a-weird-turn-fbi-raids-los-angeles-department-of-water-and-power-and-la-city-attorneys-office/</a><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/santa-barbara-offshore-drilling-2465777011.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/santa-barbara-offshore-drilling-2465777011.html</a><div class="headline-container" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="headline h1" style="margin: 10px; padding: 0px; position: relative; line-height: 31px;">Santa Barbara Becomes First California City to Pass Resolution Against Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling</h1></div><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="article-body body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url selectionShareable" data-url="https://www.ecowatch.com/santa-barbara-offshore-drilling-2465777011.html" data-headline="Santa Barbara Becomes First California City to Pass Resolution Against Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling" data-elid="2465777011" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="article-description body-description" style="margin-bottom: 10px;">The Santa Barbara City Council approved a resolution Tuesday opposing new <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/offshore-oil-drilling" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">drilling</a> off the California coast and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/fracking/" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">fracking</a> in existing offshore oil and gas wells. The resolution is the first in a new <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/stopping_trumps_assault_on_ca_coast/index.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">statewide campaign to rally local governments</a> against proposals to expand offshore fossil fuel extraction in federal waters.The vote—which makes Santa Barbara the first California city to oppose both fracking and new offshore drilling—follows <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">President Trump's</a> April 28 executive order urging federal agencies to expand oil and gas leasing in federal waters. The order could expose the Pacific Ocean to new oil leasing for the first time in more than 30 years."I'm thrilled to be part of this community effort to protect natural resources, the water supply and community health," said Santa Barbara City Council member Jason Dominguez, who sponsored the resolution. "At the same time, we can improve our economy, develop green markets, and bring quality jobs and living wages to the area."....</div></div><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/california-sue-big-oil-2461364159.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/california-sue-big-oil-2461364159.html</a>=<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/jerry-brown-climate-bill-2461399772.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.ecowatch.com/jerry-brown-climate-bill-2461399772.html</a>_EJ ab 398 cap & trade 10 yr extension<div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-farming-2457937143.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-farming-2457937143.html</a></div><div>
</div><div>A handful of states around the country have begun to recognize the importance of carbon farming as an expedient tool to fight <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">climate change</a>. What's carbon farming? Eric Toensmeier, author of <a href="http://www.chelseagreen.com/the-carbon-farming-solution" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">The Carbon Farming Solution</a>, describes it as "a suite of crops and agricultural practices that sequester carbon in the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/soil" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">soil</a> and in perennial vegetation like trees." If carbon farming were widely implemented, it could return billions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere—where there's currently too much, to the soil where there's too little. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxqBzrx9yIE" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Carbon in the soil</a>, i.e. soil carbon, becomes a resource that increases food, water and climate security. 
<div id="AdThrive_Content_1_desktop" class="adthrive-ad adthrive-dynamic adthrive-content" data-google-query-id="CJPx-KrUidUCFRQyaQodF80MnA" style="margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); overflow-x: visible !important;">
</div>Last month, Hawaii <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4974/hawaii-becomes-first-state-to-adopt-paris-climate-pledge" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">became the first state in the nation</a> to pass legislation officially supporting the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Paris climate agreement</a>, just days after <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">President Trump</a> announced he was <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4973/trumps-decision-to-pull-the-us-out-of-paris-climate-agreement-threatens-global-food-security" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">pulling the U.S. out of the global agreement</a>. One of the two landmark laws signed in Hawai'i was <a href="http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2017/bills/HB1578_CD1.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">an act</a> creating the Carbon Farming Task Force. Written and championed by <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/hawaii" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Hawai'i Center for Food Safety</a>, along with the <a href="https://sierraclubhawaii.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi</a> and <a href="https://oahu.surfrider.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Surfrider Foundation O'ahu Chapter</a>, the task force went into effect July 1 and will develop incentives for Hawai'i's farmers and ranchers to improve the resilience of their lands by increasing the soil's carbon content.University of Hawai'i assistant professor of agricultural ecosystem ecology, Rebecca Ryals, believes "Hawai'i's Carbon Farming Task Force is a critically important first step toward finding local solutions to global climate change, and soil carbon farming strategies should be emphasized in its incentive programs."Hawai'i is just one of a growing number of states preparing to protect rural livelihoods from the threats posed by climate change by tapping into the multiple benefits of carbon farming. Here are five others:1. In May, Maryland established the <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/hb/hb1063T.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Maryland Healthy Soils Program</a> introduced by Delegate Dana Stein. Stein's legislation (HB 1063) passed unanimously in the Senate and had the support of both the Maryland Farm Bureau and the soil and climate communities (including thousands of Center for Food Safety members who responded to our action alert in support of the bill). The act, as approved by Gov. Larry Hogan, requires the Maryland Department of Agriculture to provide incentives including research, education and technical assistance contributing to healthy soils.2. Massachusetts is right behind Maryland. "<a href="https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/H3713.Html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">An Act to Promote Healthy Soils</a>" (No.3713) presented by Paul A. Schmid III, would establish a fund for education and training for those engaged in agriculture that regenerates soil health. Indicators of healthy soil include levels of carbon, rates of water infiltration and biological activity.3. Meanwhile, in New York, Assemblywoman Didi Barrett introduced <a href="http://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/A3281" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">A3281</a>, a first-of-its-kind bill to use a tax credit model for farmers who maximize carbon sequestration potential on their land. Although the bill did not pass this past year, Barrett was able to incorporate the Carbon Farming Act into the state budget which is providing $50,000 to study incentives for carbon farming tax credits, grants and other programs.4. In California the Department of Food and Agriculture has appropriated $7.5 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to develop and administer incentive and demonstration programs as part of the state's <a href="https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/healthysoils/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Healthy Soils Program</a>, actively supported by the <a href="http://calclimateag.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">California Climate and Agriculture Network</a>, a coalition that includes <a href="https://soilsolution.org/u-s-state-policy/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Center for Food Safety</a>. The objective of the demonstration projects is to monitor and demonstrate to California farmers and ranchers that "specific management practices sequester carbon, improve soil health and reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases." The program includes a variety of practices such as mulching, cover crops, compost application, hedgerow planting and buffer strips.<div id="AdThrive_Content_2_desktop" class="adthrive-ad adthrive-dynamic adthrive-content" data-google-query-id="CM2v-arUidUCFUqQaQodTEcCgg" style="margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); overflow-x: visible !important;">
</div>5. Finally, in Vermont, after making a successful transition from conventional to regenerative agriculture on <a href="http://studiohill.farm/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">their farm</a>, Jesse and Cally McDougall initiated legislation in 2016 to help other farmers transition. Reintroduced in 2017 as <a href="http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2018/Docs/BILLS/S-0043/S-0043%2520As%2520Introduced.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">S.43</a> by Vermont State Sen. Brian Campion, the bill:Proposes to require the Secretary of Natural Resources to establish a regenerative soils program whose purposes include increasing the carbon sequestration capability of Vermont soils, reducing the amount of sediment and waste entering the waters of the state, and promoting cost-effective and healthy soil management practices.While the Vermont bill did not pass this year, Jesse McDougall reports that "it wasn't killed either" and will be taken up again next session. According to this self-described carbon farmer, "There is much interest and energy for it here in Vermont. I think this bill (or a new regenerative bill) has a strong chance next year."We expect that McDougall is right. While each state will incentivize soil health differently depending on geography, needs and capacity, there's a strong chance that many more states will get proactive about regenerating the health of their soil and harnessing the potential of carbon farming. With this kind of interest, and momentum generated by public gatherings like the upcoming <a href="http://soilnotoilcoalition.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Soil not Oil conference</a> in September, it won't be long before policies to incentivize carbon farming spread across the nation.</div><div></div><h1 class="headline h1" style="margin: 10px; padding: 0px; position: relative; line-height: 31px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It's Official: California Lists Key Ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup as Cancer-Causing</h1><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-cancer-2454487516.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-cancer-2454487516.html</a>https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/21/stories/1060056345GOP threatens to sue Calif. over climate rule for insurersBenjamin Hulac, E&E News reporterPublished: Wednesday, June 21, 2017Twelve Republican attorneys general and Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) demanded Monday that the California insurance commissioner halt a program requiring companies to disclose their investments in fossil fuels.
They called the program misguided and inflammatory, and they threatened to file a lawsuit if it continues to be used. The Republican officials made their demands related to the Climate Risk Carbon Initiative in a letter yesterday to California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones.
Jones announced the climate disclosure effort in January 2016. He said falling coal prices present financial hazards, and he asked insurance companies to "voluntarily" sell their stakes in thermal coal. He also required insurers to turn over data about their fossil fuel investments.
That has chafed Republicans, who claim that California's requirements are heavy-handed and ideological. They say the program is not about the financial stability of insurers — the traditional jurisdiction of insurance regulators.
"Rather, your call for divestment and attempt to publicly shame those who invest in American energy appears to be driven by politics unrelated to insurance regulation, animus towards the fossil fuel industry and those who depend on it, and a desire to discriminate against those who transact in commerce that mostly takes place outside your state (e.g. coal mining and coal power generation)," the letter reads.
If Jones does not end the program, Bevin and the attorneys general said, "we will be forced to consider the legal avenues of relief available to protect our insurance carriers, energy producers, and consumers."
Jones said threats of lawsuits would not get him to shut down the program.
"For those climate-denying politicians of red states who threaten to sue me, I will happily defend my obligation as California's insurance commissioner to make sure insurers are addressing climate change related risks and to protect California consumers," he said in a statement.
The interstate spat highlights the massive financial clout California wields in American insurance markets. To do business nationwide, insurers often need to comply with regulations set down by the California Department of Insurance.
The attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wyoming signed the letter.
Representatives for Bevin and Jones did not respond to requests for comment.
About 650 insurance firms have responded to the disclosure program. More than 300 said they have analyzed their "carbon risk," while 272 declined to do so, according to figures from the California insurance commission.
The data show that insurers surveyed have invested about $240 billion in the oil and gas industry and roughly $10.5 billion in thermal coal.
"This misguided policy is negligent, politically driven, unrelated to insurance regulation and is risking a certain lawsuit," Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter (R), the letter's author, said in a statement.
Alex Gerszewski, a spokesman for Hunter, said the attorney general has not spoken to Jones about the issue but was motivated by his experience in the energy industry and by his conversations with the Oklahoma insurance commissioner.
Hunter succeeded Scott Pruitt, who now serves as U.S. EPA administrator, as Oklahoma's attorney general earlier this year.=<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/california-salmon-extinct-2412724180.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.ecowatch.com/california-salmon-extinct-2412724180.html</a><blockquote type="cite" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;">On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Judy Pope <<a href="mailto:jpope4@gmail.com" target="blank">jpope4@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;">Hi folks - it has been a busy week for the climate in Sacramento, with the introduction of two major bills. <div>
</div><div>SB 100 is state Senate leader Kevin de Leon’s bill to require 100% clean green electric energy by 2045. This advances the targets previously set. <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article147971884.html" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article147971884.html&source=gmail&ust=1494050403647000&usg=AFQjCNFUk_5uFV-TIXInfSgHBf117V2ufA">http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article147971884.html</a></div><div>
</div><div>SB 775 by de Leon and Fremont state Senator Bob Wieckowski is a big deal - an overhaul of the state’s controversial and troubled Cap and Trade program. The bill turns the program into a much bigger deal, both for advancing California’s climate goals and as a model not just nationally but globally.</div><div>
</div><div>I’ll let my favorite writer on climate, Dave Roberts, tell the story. I highly recommend reading this article. <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/3/15512258/california-revolutionize-cap-and-trade" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/3/15512258/california-revolutionize-cap-and-trade&source=gmail&ust=1494050403648000&usg=AFQjCNGQyubO63xBq2FoCvz9t9-8qxW6yg">https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/3/15512258/california-revolutionize-cap-and-trade</a></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div>may 1<a href="http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/05/01/californias-clean-energy-leadership-continues/">http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/05/01/californias-clean-energy-leadership-continues/</a>

California is a leader, and has earned that title – it is the <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/economic-output-if-states-were-countries-california-would-be-france-467614">largest state economy</a> in the U.S. and the sixth-largest economy in the world.  Forward-thinking clean energy policies are the backbone of California’s prosperity, creating jobs and businesses for the state while cutting emissions. While the presidential administration assaults critical environmental protections nationwide, clean energy momentum is unstoppable. California’s leadership is committed and poised to move forward.Energy policy drives economic growthMost energy policy is done at the state level, reflecting that energy management is a fundamental concern for local residents and their livelihoods. How we make, move, and use power can create jobs and protect citizens’ rights to clean air and energy choice. The following bills currently in front of the California State Legislature illuminate the state’s path forward:<ul><li>SB 584 (De Leon) – This bill proposes increasing our current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) – a requirement that utilities meet half of sales with clean, renewable energy sources – to <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/04/22/this-earth-day-100-percent-clean-energy-is-100-percent-possible/">100 percent</a>. While the means are still being determined, the ambitious spirit of 100 percent is clear. As California’s leaders consider how best to reach a 100 percent renewable energy goal, they should consider investing in and developing a variety of clean energy options that can ensure the grid stays clean, balanced, and reliable.</li></ul>
<ul><li>SB 356 (Skinner) – This bill increase access to data about the whole energy system. Information makes it easier for businesses to develop and deploy new clean energy technologies and help bring clean-tech jobs to the forefront of our economy. It also ensures the state will have important information about the energy use of its buildings and properties.</li></ul>
<ul><li>AB 726 (Holden) – This bill takes advantage of smart meter technologies by requiring utilities to notify customers before their bills get too high, thereby avoiding “unpleasant surprises.” Through this increase in information, customers can become more active participants in their energy usage and reduce their costs.</li></ul>
<ul><li>SB 366 (Leyva) – SB 366 helps ensure all our communities are able to take part in the clean energy revolution and reap the benefits of lower electricity costs and cleaner air. Specifically, it clears the way for <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2016/08/02/10-reasons-why-we-love-community-solar/">community solar</a> projects in disadvantaged communities and supports well-paying green-collar jobs through local training programs. Unlocking community solar is a key to helping <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2016/11/14/reaching-californias-clean-energy-goals-requires-inclusive-solutions/">communities</a> overcome physical and economic barriers (like not owning your home or not being able to afford the upfront costs of solar) to accessing clean energy.</li></ul>
<ul><li>AB 1431 (Arambula) – AB 1431 will increase access and participation in energy efficiency, weatherization, and renewable energy programs for low-income, disadvantaged communities. It creates a comprehensive database to track program participation and a working group in which state agencies and stakeholders can exchange views on how to make these programs better and increase participation. This combination of data and dialogue will allow for a comprehensive analysis of all related state clean energy efforts.</li></ul><div class="simplePullQuote right">In some ways, how we bring these resources onto the grid is as important as the resources themselves.</div>Big, bold benefits of renewable integrationNot only do renewables create clean-economy benefits, so does renewable integration. In some ways, how we bring these resources onto the grid is as important as the resources themselves. A thoughtful approach to incorporating increasing levels of renewables includes establishing a strong, diverse portfolio of clean energy resources.<div>
ref


More than <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/ready-for-100/cities-ready-for-100">25 U.S. cities</a>, <a href="http://www.go100percent.org/cms/">12 countries</a>, and at least <a href="http://there100.org/companies">89 companies</a> have all committed to transition to 100 percent renewable energy. That’s because they all recognize the unstoppable potential clean energy has to create jobs, strengthen and protect the economy, and fight climate change.Now, U.S. states are throwing their hats into the 100-percent renewable ring. <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB584">California</a> and Massachusetts have proposed plans to get there, while Hawaii has made the pledge. This 100-percent dream does not come from fantasy, but is actually the result of a number of coalescing factors.Earth Day is our time to recognize what’s more: With the right mix of clean energy technologies and solutions, 100 percent renewable is 100 percent possible.100 percent is possibleCost competitive and scalable renewable energy has taken off over the past 10 to 20 years. The hungry solar market in California for example, has resulted in exponential growth of utility-scale and rooftop solar over the last decade, creating <a href="https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20Report%20State%20Charts%202_0.pdf">over 150,000 jobs</a> throughout the Golden State.<a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30692">Recently</a>, California powered 40 percent of its midday energy demand with solar power. A steady stream of policy actions at the state and local level – timed with the dramatic drop in costs of renewables – have helped make this possible. Across the U.S., current RPS policies alone could result in these benefits:<ul><li>Renewables contributing <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65005.pdf">40 percent</a> of total electricity generation in the U.S. by 2050;</li><li>Reducing climate change-causing greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants like SOx and NOx (which together form ozone) by 6 percent; and</li><li>An almost 20 percent increase in jobs.</li></ul>The bold inspiration, urgency, and benefit of 100 percent renewables is without question, but the pathway for getting there is less clear and will vary by state and region.Making 100 percent workLet’s take California as an example, especially since it is currently considering a 100 percent renewable portfolio standard. California’s electricity <a href="https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf">sector</a> currently accounts for a fifth of the greenhouse gas emissions produced in the state. Thanks to <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32">legislation</a> passed last year, the sector must reduce those emissions by 40 percent. The state’s current 50 percent RPS is a hugely important piece to achieving those reductions.Yet, as California’s leaders consider higher RPS targets, they must simultaneously invest in and develop a variety of resource, policy, and market solutions to ensure the grid stays clean, balanced, and reliable....
</div><div>http://www.sierraclub.org/san-francisco-bay/blog/2017/03/will-bay-area-air-regulators-keep-promises-stop-rise-refinery</div><div>Putting in place local regulation of refinery emissions has been an uphill battle, even here in the Bay Area. For this reason we are counting on the support of Governor Brown and other state-level climate regulators. We have heard Governor Brown’s promises to defend California’s climate policies and programs against the encroachments of Trump’s administration. What will be his stand on rulemaking at our local Air District?In December, at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, Brown declared, “We’ve got the scientists, we’ve got the lawyers, and we’re ready to fight.” Also in December, the Governor’s office and the state Air Resources Board (CARB) committed to producing a public letter affirming the authority of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to adopt Rule 12-16, and stating that there are absolutely no conflicts between Rule 12-16 and California cap-and-trade and other climate programs (an argument put forward by the oil industry). But this letter is now long delayed. It is urgently needed prior to the community workshops on refinery rules at the end of March. Will CARB and the Governor’s office come through?</div><div></div>http://www.ecowatch.com/shell-dow-chemical-drinking-water-2355598384.html
<div class="headline-container" style="margin: 0px; padding: 10px 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="headline" style="position: relative; line-height: 22px;">Shell, Dow Hid Cancer-Causing Chemical in Pesticides, Contaminating Drinking Water for Millions</div></div><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-bottom: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="article-body js-expandable sm-mb-2 md-mb-4 js-update-url selectionShareable" data-url="http://www.ecowatch.com/shell-dow-chemical-drinking-water-2355598384.html" data-headline="Shell, Dow Hid Cancer-Causing Chemical in Pesticides, Contaminating Drinking Water for Millions" data-elid="2355598384" style="margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px 12px;"><div class="article-description" style="margin-bottom: 20px;">For decades, Shell and Dow hid a highly potent cancer-causing chemical in two widely used <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">pesticides</a>, contaminating <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">drinking water</a> for millions of people in California and beyond, according to lawsuits detailed in <a href="http://www.ewg.org/research/cancer-causing-pesticide-garbage-taints-tap-water-millions-california" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">a new report</a> from the <a href="http://www.ewg.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Environmental Working Group</a> (EWG).The chemical 1,2,3-trichloropropane or TCP, was formerly an unwanted and ineffective byproduct in Dow's Telone and Shell's D-D pesticides. Internal documents uncovered in lawsuits filed by communities in California's San Joaquin Valley show that the companies saved <a href="https://cdn.ewg.org/sites/default/files/u352/Shell%20Memo%20%28w.%20highlight%29.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">millions of dollars a year</a> by not properly disposing of TCP, a chemical a Dow scientist once called "<a href="https://static.ewg.org/reports/2017/tcp/Dow_Letter.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">garbage</a>," as hazardous waste.</div></div>=<a href="http://www.alternet.org/education/california-taxpayers-spent-100s-millions-charter-schools-communities-didnt-need-and-then">http://www.alternet.org/education/california-taxpayers-spent-100s-millions-charter-schools-communities-didnt-need-and-then</a>A  blockbuster report detailing how California’s charter school industry has wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars by opening and building schools in communities that don't need them and often end up doing worse than nearby public schools, is a nationwide warning about how education privateers hijack public funds and harm K-12 public schools.
“This report finds that this funding [building, buying, leasing] is almost completely disconnected from educational policy objectives, and the results are, in turn, scattershot and haphazard,” the report's executive summary <a href="https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL_ITPI_SpendingBlind_April2017.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">begins</a>. “Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent each year without any meaningful strategy. Far too much of this public funding is spent on schools built in neighborhoods that have no need for additional classroom space, and which offer no improvement over the quality of education already available in nearby public schools. In the worst cases, public facilities funding has gone to schools that were found to have discriminatory enrollment policies and others that have engaged in unethical or corrupt practices.”

The <a href="https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL_ITPI_SpendingBlind_April2017.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">report</a>, "Spending Blind: The Failure of Policy Planning in California Charter School Funding," was written by the University of Oregon’s Gordon Lafer for In The Public Interest, a research and policy center based in Oakland, California.

Its findings are significant on national and statewide levels, especially since California has more charter schools than any other state and the Trump administration has proposed spending $20 billion for a range of “school choice” initiatives, from charter public schools to tuition vouchers for religious schools or to subsidize home schooling. Charter schools are privately run K-12 schools and have become an industry dominated by corporate franchises seeking rapid growth.

The school reform template embraced by the Trump administration’s K-12 privatization agenda would use <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-schools-tax-credit-public-private-235228" style="text-decoration-line: none;">many of the same</a> fiscal devices and tax-based incentives the new report has documented as wasting California taxpayer funds and harming nearby traditional schools.
<a href="http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/frogs-mark-twain-california" class="external text" title="http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/frogs-mark-twain-california" rel="nofollow" external.png="external.png" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" font-family="font-family" georgia="Georgia" lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" style="margin: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background: url(">Frogs Made Famous by Mark Twain Are Finally Laying Eggs Again </a>also <a href="https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/news/rare-species-discovered-breeding-in-santa-monica-mountains.htm" class="external text" title="https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/news/rare-species-discovered-breeding-in-santa-monica-mountains.htm" rel="nofollow" lock_icon.gif="lock_icon.gif" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" font-family="font-family" georgia="Georgia" lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" style="margin: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background: url(">Rare Species Discovered Breeding in Santa Monica Mountains</a>, also <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-frog-turtle-yosemite-20160525-snap-story.html" class="external text" title="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-frog-turtle-yosemite-20160525-snap-story.html" rel="nofollow" external.png="external.png" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" font-family="font-family" georgia="Georgia" lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" style="margin: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background: url(">Yosemite</a> see [<a href="https://ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wi" class="external free" title="https://ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wi" rel="nofollow" lock_icon.gif="lock_icon.gif" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" font-family="font-family" georgia="Georgia" lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" style="margin: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background: url(">https://ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wi</a><h1 class="article-title" open="Open" sans="Sans" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" roboto="Roboto" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" line-height="line-height" text-rendering="text-rendering" optimizelegibility="optimizeLegibility" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://grist.org/article/want-to-toss-out-pollution-fighting-rules-youll-have-to-face-california-first/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; outline-width: 0px; cursor: pointer; border-bottom: none !important;">Want to toss out pollution-fighting rules? You’ll have to face California first.</a></h1><p class="article-excerpt" open="Open" sans="Sans" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" roboto="Roboto" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" rem="rem" line-height="line-height" text-rendering="text-rendering" optimizelegibility="optimizeLegibility" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;">The sunshine state is ready to fight for its auto emissions standards.<a href="http://grist.org/article/want-to-toss-out-pollution-fighting-rules-youll-have-to-face-california-first/">http://grist.org/article/want-to-toss-out-pollution-fighting-rules-youll-have-to-face-california-first/</a>... quick history lesson: When legislators wrote the 1963 Clean Air Act, they acknowledged that California already had pollution-fighting rules, and that its environmental situation was especially dire. So they gave the state the right to write its own, stricter standards.“It’s hard to overstate how important the ability for California to set its standards has been to public health and clean air over the past 40 years,” says Don Anair, deputy director for the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Time and again, California’s been willing and able to move forward.”From unleaded gasoline to catalytic converters to counting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in vehicle standards, the Golden State has played a key role. That’s because, as Therese Langer, transportation program director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, puts it, “California doesn’t just mean California.” Even though California is the only state that can write its own rules, under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, any state looking for more than the federal package of regulations can opt to follow California’s auto standards.Today, 13 (mostly northeastern) states and Washington, D.C., have adopted California’s extra-stringent emissions standards. Nine states also follow Cali’s mandate that automakers sell <a href="https://www.wired.com/tag/electric-vehicles" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(148, 168, 183); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out; text-decoration-line: none !important;">zero-emission vehicles</a>. Together, they account for nearly 30 percent of new car sales in the country — and no carmaker wants to build “California cars” and “rest of the world cars.” Result: “All cars meet the California standard,” says Rebecca Lindland, an analyst at Kelley Blue Book.But if American carmakers are good at anything, it’s complaining about regulations that demand it produce cleaner, more efficient cars. The anti-regulation, climate change–doubting Trump administration seems to sympathize. But California’s waiver makes it hard for the feds to weaken anything. Trump’s team could have the EPA review the standards that govern cars through 2025, standards the <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/01/epa-locks-fuel-economy-rules-trump-cant-rip/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(148, 168, 183); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out; text-decoration-line: none !important;">agency finalized just a week before Obama left office</a>. It would take years, likely face a legal challenge, and would require the EPA prove all the scientific data supporting its original decision is no longer valid.And even if the EPA won, the California exemption would still hold, and carmakers would still have to make cars that met it. So you can see why the Golden State is a key target. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/business/detroit-automakers-emissions-standards.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(148, 168, 183); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out; text-decoration-line: none !important;">The New York Times reports</a>: “Automakers are also hopeful that the new EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, will begin legal action to revoke California’s ability to enforce its tailpipe standards.” Asked in his Senate confirmation hearing if he would leave the waiver process alone, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-epa-confirmation-20170118-story.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(148, 168, 183); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out; text-decoration-line: none !important;">Pruitt said</a>, “I don’t know without going through the process to determine that. One would not want to presume the outcome.”Good news for environmental cheerleaders: Stripping California of its special status would require a change to the Clean Air Act — the kind of legislating a Democratic filibuster could derail.But, you say, the EPA doesn’t have to kill the waiver process if it just refuses to issue any new ones. It might even have the legal right to rescind already granted waivers. But California can fight back — and it’s got a stocked arsenal.“The statute is very clear. It says EPA shall grant the waiver,” says Cara Horowitz, co-executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law. The EPA can only hit the reject button if it can prove a requested rule is weaker than the federal standards, isn’t consistent with the Clean Air Act, or “does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” Through the 1990s, Los Angeles smog conditions were severe enough to cancel after-school sports and flood emergency rooms — compelling and extraordinary. Today, the motivating threat is climate change.All that matters, because if Scott Pruitt’s EPA starts rejecting new waivers or revoking old ones, California can mount a legal challenge. “I have no doubt that California would litigate, would sue EPA,” says Horowitz. Indeed, Gov. Jerry Brown pledged his state would defend its environmental and social programs. “California is not turning back,” he <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-jerry-brown-defiantly-tells-1485282907-htmlstory.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(148, 168, 183); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out; text-decoration-line: none !important;">said in a January speech</a>. “Not now, not ever.”What if Trump does start rolling back standards? “We’ll see them in court,” says Roland Hwang, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s energy and transportation program.California has on its side decades of legal precedent built from technical analysis. The EPA has outright rejected just one waiver out of nearly 100. That was in 2007, when the state wanted to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles. The EPA said nope, the auto industry celebrated, and California prepared a lawsuit, but the Obama Administration swept in before the case played out. In May 2009, President Obama announced a settlement of sorts: the EPA — not just California — would include GHGs in new standards, and the (recently bailed out) auto industry would deliver cleaner cars.With a new face in the White House, the auto industry seems willing to renege on that peace treaty. And California seems ready to go to war.http://www.globalpossibilities.org/california-wants-to-hire-epa-staffers-who-are-sick-of-trump/California is the first U.S. state to require <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Monsanto</a> to label its blockbuster weed killer, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Roundup</a>, as a <a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/who-glyphosate-cancer-study/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">possible carcinogen</a>, according to a ruling issued Friday by a California judge.Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan previously issued a <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/california-glyphosate-kennedy-2225578913.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">tentative ruling</a> on Jan. 27 in Monsanto Company v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, et al.Judge Kapetan formalized her ruling Friday against Monsanto, which will allow California to proceed with the process of listing <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">glyphosate</a>, the active ingredient in Roundup, as a chemical "known to the state to cause cancer" in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65.In January of 2016, Monsanto <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-cancer-kennedy-2199066232.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">filed a lawsuit</a> against the State of California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) over the agency's notice of intent to list glyphosate as a Prop 65 chemical.OEHHA issued the notice after the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a <a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/who-glyphosate-cancer-study/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">report on glyphosate</a>, which classified the chemical as a "probable human carcinogen." The IARC report compelled OEHHA to list glyphosate as a Prop 65 chemical and warn consumers about the possible danger associated with glyphosate exposure.<h4>Why Did Monsanto Sue the State of California?</h4>In 1986, California voters approved <a href="http://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition-65-plain-language" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Proposition 65</a> to address concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals. Prop 65 requires California to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.OEHHA is the administrator for the Proposition 65 program and determines in many cases whether chemicals or other substances meet the scientific and legal requirements to be placed on the Proposition 65 list. The agency uses a "Labor Code" listing mechanism, which directs the OEHHA to add chemicals or substances to the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer if they meet certain classifications by the IARC.Monsanto's lawsuit against OEHHA argued that the statutory basis underlying the agency's action to list glyphosate as a Prop 65 chemical violates both the California and U.S. Constitutions. According to the complaint, listing glyphosate as chemical known to the state to cause cancer cedes regulatory authority to an "unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, and foreign body" that isn't subject to oversight by California or the United States.Though, according Judge Kapetan <a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-ruling.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">ruling</a>:"… the Labor Code listing mechanism does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority to an outside agency, since the voters and the legislature have established the basic legislative scheme and made the fundamental policy decision with regard to listing possible carcinogens under Proposition 65, and then allowed the IARC to make the highly technical fact-finding decisions with regard to which specific chemicals would be added to the list."As Monsanto admits, the IARC's list is not created in response to the Labor Code listing mechanism or Proposition 65, and in fact IARC has stated that it disavows any policy or rulemaking role, and that it does not intend its determinations to carry the force of law."In the months that followed, a number of interested nonparties joined the lawsuit as "intervenors," either on behalf of Monsanto or on behalf of the State of California. When a case has the potential to affect the rights of interested nonparties (individuals or organizations not named in the lawsuit), they can become intervenors, effectively joining the litigation either as a matter of right or at the court's discretion without the permission of the original litigants. Intervention simply gives nonparties that could be affected by a case's outcome a chance to be heard.Below are the intervenors in Monsanto Company v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, et al.Monsanto Intervenors:<ul style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 40px;"><li>California Citrus Mutual</li><li>Western Agricultural Processors Association (WAPA)</li><li>California Cotton Ginners and Growers Associations</li><li>California Grain & Feed Association</li><li>Almond Alliance of California</li><li>Western Plant Health Association</li></ul>OEHHA Intervenors:<ul style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 40px;"><li>Center for Food Safety</li><li>Sierra Club</li><li>United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (AFL-CIO, CLC)</li><li>Natural Resources Defense Council</li><li>Environmental Law Foundation</li><li>Canadian Labor Congress</li></ul><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/california-widow-sues-monsanto-alleging-roundup-caused-her-husbands-ca-1882188205.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Teri McCall</a> is one of many California residents to cheer the ruling against Monsanto. Her husband, Jack, sprayed Roundup on the family's Cambia, California farm for nearly 30 years. In September 2015, Jack went to see a doctor to treat swollen lymph nodes in his neck. That day in the hospital, he learned that the swelling was caused by anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), a rare and aggressive version of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.<div></div><div><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21022017/california-clean-energy-electric-grid-solar-wind-climate-change" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21022017/california-clean-energy-electric-grid-solar-wind-climate-change</a></div><div>
</div><div>California's Senate leader has introduced legislation that would require the state to draw all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2045. If passed, the bill would make the nation's largest state the second to commit to a carbon-free grid.State Sen. Kevin de Leon, a Democrat,<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB584" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;"> introduced the bill</a> last week as a placeholder ahead of a filing deadline, with more detailed language to come, spokesman Anthony Reyes said in an email.<a href="http://www.desertsun.com/story/tech/science/energy/2017/02/20/california-senate-leaders-new-bill-100-clean-energy/98157028/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">The legislation</a> makes California the latest in a small number of states this year to propose dramatically ramping up renewable energy, even as President Donald Trump<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;"> stresses primarily fossil fuels</a> in his energy plan.In January, lawmakers in Massachusetts<a href="http://www.environmentmassachusetts.org/news/mae/mass-lawmakers-and-advocates-set-their-sights-100-percent-renewable-energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;"> filed legislation</a> that would go even further, requiring fossil fuel-free electricity by 2035, and asking the same from other sectors, including transportation and heating, by 2050.Last week, a Nevada lawmaker introduced<a href="https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/02/15/nevada-bill-would-raise-rps-to-80-by-2040/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;"> a bill that would update</a> that state's portfolio standard to require 80 percent renewables by 2040. The current standard calls for 25 percent by 2025.Of the <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">29 states</a> with renewable portfolio standards, only Hawaii has set a target for reaching 100 percent, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Hawaii's deadline is 2045.De Leon's bill would also advance by five years, to 2025, California's existing target to hit 50 percent of electricity from renewable energy.The state is already well on its way. The<a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/tracking_progress/documents/renewable.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;"> California Energy Commission says</a> the state got about 27 percent of its electricity from renewables last year, slightly better than the 25 percent required by law. Capacity has more than doubled over the past decade. California's largest utilities<a href="https://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20160225_pge_achieves_major_renewable_energy_milestone_and_remains_a_national_leader_in_greenhouse_gas_reduction" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;"> have also said</a> they are ahead of schedule for meeting their 2020 goal.With Republicans now in control of Congress and the White House, California's Democratic political leaders appear to be readying themselves for a fight. The day after Trump's victory in November, de Leon<a href="http://sd24.senate.ca.gov/news/2016-11-09-joint-statement-california-legislative-leaders-result-presidential-election" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;"> issued a joint statement</a> with Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, also a Democrat, promising to defend the state's progressive policies from any changes at the federal level.</div>DN tag<a href="https://www.democracynow.org/topics/california">https://www.democracynow.org/topics/california</a><div>=</div><div>1/17</div><div>
</div><div>The head of the city department that drafts many of San Francisco’s greenest rules and regulations uses one word to explain her greatest fear for the environment during Donald Trump’s presidency: “preemption.”</div><div>
</div>If some of the deepest concerns of climate-focused bureaucrats from San Francisco to Massachusetts and New York come true, the Trump administration will preemptively prevent them from acting to slow global warming.With Trump and Republicans in Congress widely expected to unite to undermine federal environmental protections, progressive states and cities are making plans to fight global warming within their borders without being helped or required to do so by the U.S. government.“Preemption is probably the progressive cities’ worst nightmare,” said <a href="http://sfmayor.org/article/mayor-lee-appoints-deborah-raphael-sf-environment-director" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Deborah Raphael</a>, director of San Francisco’s environment department, which has helped city lawmakers craft rules mandating everything from greener buildings to composting and recycling by residents. “It’s also the state of California’s worst nightmare.”The term “preemption” doesn’t describe a single legislative or regulatory tool. The word describes a concept, in which the federal government or a state imposes restrictions on the rules and programs that governments operating beneath it are allowed to implement.Conservative lawmakers in North Carolina used a preemption law last year to <a href="http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article68401147.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">outlaw transgender protections</a> in Charlotte. In <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/30/yes-this-is-real-michigan-just-banned-banning-plastic-bags/?utm_term=.e33f91ad9733" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Michigan, cities and counties</a> were barred from banning plastic bags. Colorado <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/02/colorado-supreme-court-rules-state-law-trumps-local-bans-on-fracking/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">prevents local governments</a> from banning fracking.With Republicans about to control both houses of Congress and the White House, environmental experts are warning of battles ahead over potential federal preemptions.“There really is virtually no aspect of federal regulation of the natural environment or health that’s not at risk of preemption now,” said <a href="http://grassrootschange.net/mark-pertschuk/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Mark Pertschuk</a>, a lawyer and activist with the nonprofit Grassroots Change, which <a href="http://grassrootschange.net/preemption-map/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">tracks state preemptions</a> of local rules affecting gun safety, paid sick days, factory farming and other issues. “Federal laws almost always trump state and local laws.”It’s difficult to predict when, how or whether the federal government will wield any tools of preemption to bar cities and states from enforcing their own environmental rules. Nonetheless, governments across the country are bracing for new restrictions. California’s decision to hire Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder Jr., showed <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/us/california-eric-holder-donald-trump.html?r=0" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">it’s preparing to fight</a> for state rights in court.“Everything is speculative right now,” said <a href="http://www.nlc.org/find-city-solutions/city-solutions-and-applied-research/staff-specialties" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Cooper Martin</a>, a sustainability official at the National League of Cities, which represents cities in state capitols and on Capitol Hill. Based on Trump’s <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/trump-cabinet-climate-change-20920" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">anti-environmental cabinet nominees</a> and his rhetoric on climate change, which he has falsely called a hoax, Martin said fears of federal preemption are “certainly well founded.”“It’s just the nature of the political landscape that this hasn’t been an issue on climate, at least in the last eight years,” Martin said, referring to the length of Obama’s presidency. “It was certainly an issue prior to that.”Clean car rules in California, which are unpopular with oil companies and auto manufacturers, offer what may be the clearest opportunity for federal preemption. Other rules that could be blocked relate to appliance efficiency standards, power plant pollution, fossil fuel exports and safe disposal of pharmaceuticals. Local governments that have spent federal transportation funds on cycling and transit initiatives could be prevented from doing so in the future.“Programs that allow cities to invest in bike and pedestrian infrastructure, or that allow cities to invest in transit, have all become more popular, particularly in the larger cities,” Martin said. “We want to make sure that there’s flexibility for the cities that do choose to go down this path.”The Clean Air Act allows California to enforce stricter standards on car pollution than the federal government. It also allows other states to adopt California’s rules. But to do so, California needs a waiver from the EPA. When George W. Bush was president, the EPA refused to issue such a waiver, which was eventually granted after Obama became president.Trump’s nominee to lead the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/trump-picks-strident-foe-of-epa-20949" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">repeatedly sued the agency</a>, arguing that federal pollution rules violate state rights. Now he might lead a charge to limit the rights of states to enforce their own pollution rules to slow climate change.Within days of Trump’s election, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers <a href="http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA1078111110.PDF" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">sent the president-elect a letter</a> arguing that the “regulatory friction” caused by two sets of car pollution standards is “driving up vehicle costs.” The automakers implored Trump to eliminate California’s far-reaching clean car rules through what they call “harmonization” with federal regulations.“We could see the U.S. EPA refuse to grant future waivers; there’s even been some talk that they could try to strip away existing waivers,” said <a href="http://www.ccair.org/our-people/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Bill Magavern</a>, the policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air, a California nonprofit. “It’s safe to say California would sue in either instance.”<a href="https://law.stanford.edu/directory/michael-wara/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Michael Wara</a>, an energy and environment expert at Stanford Law School, said the federal government could go further than car standards and try to revoke the rights of states to limit heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution billowed by power plants. It could also jeopardize “anything that smells like foreign policy” by states, Wara said, including linkages between a carbon pricing system operated jointly by California and Quebec.“Anything that looks and feels like a treaty — that creates binding obligations on both sides — is going to face increased judicial scrutiny,” Wara said. “Here, if there is any conflict, the state loses.”Not all talk of federal preemption is hypothetical. Rep. Michael Burgess, a Republican from Texas, <a href="http://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/01/05/document_gw_14.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">introduced a bill last week</a> that would repeal federal efficiency standards affecting washing machines, dryers, ceiling fans, fridges and other appliances. It would also prevent states from adopting any product standards governing “energy conservation or water efficiency.”The Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, supports Burgess’s anti-regulatory drive on appliances, but it’s worried that his bill would curtail state rights.“We don’t believe the federal government should mandate energy conservation,” said <a href="http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/l/nicolas-loris" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Nicolas Loris</a>, a Heritage Foundation energy and environmental policy fellow who has analyzed Burgess’s bill. “But we don’t think the federal government should prohibit the states from doing so.”<div></div><a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-jerry-brown-says-californians-1478821311-htmlstory.html" class="external text" title="http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-jerry-brown-says-californians-1478821311-htmlstory.html" rel="nofollow" external.png="external.png" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" style="margin: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background: url(">Gov. Jerry Brown warns Trump that California won't back down on climate change</a>.<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/08/18/california-s-climate-policies-good-gold-state-s-economy" class="external text" title="http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/08/18/california-s-climate-policies-good-gold-state-s-economy" rel="nofollow" external.png="external.png" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" style="margin: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background: url(">According to the analysis from Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) analysis, CA AB 32 and related climate policies have pumped some $48 billion into the state economy over the past decade while helping create about 500,000 jobs.</a>Assembly Bill 32, also known as AB 32 or the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California to reduce climate-cooking greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — which meant cutting emissions about 25 percent from where they were at in 2006, when AB 32 was passed by the California State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. see <a href="https://ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wiki/index.php/California" class="external text" title="https://ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wiki/index.php/California" rel="nofollow" lock_icon.gif="lock_icon.gif" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" style="margin: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background: url(">CA</a>.<p class="yiv6631658051article-title" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1478279287562_4178" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" geneva="Geneva" sans-serif="sans-serif" align="left" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; line-height: 24px; font-weight: bold;"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://desmogblog.cmail20.com/t/t-l-httdhdl-yuirlyty-jt/" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1478279287562_4177" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; outline: none;">Oil Industry Wastewater Injection Has Overpressurized Aquifers For Decades, Threatening California Drinking Water</a><table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word;"><tbody style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; width: 315px;"><tr style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; border-collapse: collapse;"><td class="yiv6631658051w30" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" geneva="Geneva" sans-serif="sans-serif" border-collapse="border-collapse" collapse="collapse" width="15" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; border-spacing: 2px;">
</td><td helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" geneva="Geneva" sans-serif="sans-serif" border-collapse="border-collapse" collapse="collapse" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; border-spacing: 2px;">
</td></tr><tr style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; border-collapse: collapse;"><td class="yiv6631658051w30" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" geneva="Geneva" sans-serif="sans-serif" border-collapse="border-collapse" collapse="collapse" height="5" width="15" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; border-spacing: 2px;">
</td><td helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" geneva="Geneva" sans-serif="sans-serif" border-collapse="border-collapse" collapse="collapse" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; border-spacing: 2px;">
</td></tr></tbody></table><div class="yiv6631658051article-content" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1478279287562_4172" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" geneva="Geneva" sans-serif="sans-serif" align="left" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 18px;">A new report from the Washington, D.C-based Environmental Action Center (EAC) on California’s underground injection program finds that oil industry wells in the state have been overpressurizing some aquifers for decades, risking the contamination of neighboring aquifers that might contain drinkable water. Despite full awareness of the problem, state regulators have done little to stop them.<div>http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/10/28/oil-wastewater-underground-injection-threatens-drinking-water-california</div></div>=<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/plastic-bag-lobby">http://www.alternet.org/environment/plastic-bag-lobby</a>When the tiny, picturesque community of Bisbee, Arizona, decided to ban single-use plastic bags in 2014, leaders in the plastics industry worried Bisbee had sparked a trend. Other Arizona cities—Kingman, Flagstaff, Tempe—were considering similar restrictions; soon, the bag makers feared, the whole state would fall. So they did what corporate lobbyists do in a reliably conservative state: They persuaded legislators and the governor to declare bans like Bisbee’s illegal.Next door in deep blue California, where more than <a href="http://www.cawrecycles.org/list-of-local-bag-bans/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">150 local jurisdictions</a> have already banned the bags, defending the market sector of the single-use plastic bag has proved altogether more complicated. Sixty percent of polled Californians say they support a plastic bag ban; rescinding the existing bans would be impossible. So instead the industry put its muscle into holding off a statewide ban.For a while, it succeeded. Assemblymember Julia Brownley authored <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1951-2000/ab_1998_bill_20100827_amended_sen_v94.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">a bill </a>in 2010 that would have outlawed single-use carryout bags of any material; it failed in the Senate after the Virginia-based American Chemistry Council worked hard to defeat it. But in 2014, State Senators Alex Padilla, Kevin de León and Ricardo Lara collaborated on a less restrictive law, one that would ban most plastic bags but allow grocery stores to charge 10 cents for each paper replacement. It earned the support of the California Grocers Association, and eventually the United Food and Commercial Workers union. It allows for the continued use of thicker plastic bags that will last for 125 uses or more and directs $2 million in loans to job creation in the recycled and reusable grocery bag industry. In August of that year, the bill made it all the way to the governor’s desk.So the bag lobby pursued its last available option. Before 2014 was out, the plastics lobby had <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Makers-of-plastic-bags-gather-signatures-to-5984107.php" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">collected enough signatures</a> to place the plastic-bag ban, Senate Bill 270, on hold and put it to a referendum on the November 8, 2016 ballot.“Our contention is that it’s a special-interest giveaway to grocers in the state,” says Jon Berrier, spokesman for the American Progressive Bag Alliance, a consortium of mostly out-of-state plastic-bag manufacturers and an offshoot of the American Chemistry Council. “It bans a 100-percent recyclable product produced in America with American labor, that according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency accounts for only 0.3 percent of the waste stream.“The idea that you’re going to reduce waste or litter banning plastic retail bags,” he says, “is simply false. Sacramento special-interest politics threw data and science out the window.”Berrier is right that plastic bags account for only a small percentage of our garbage. (The vast majority of it is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/smm_graphic_msw_generation_rates.jpg" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">paper, yard trimmings and food</a>.) But single-use plastic retail bags are a singularly pernicious kind of trash. Easily airborne, they float away from conscientious neatnik and litterbug alike, to find their way into mountain streams, storm drain culverts, ocean gyres and, eventually, the gullets of marine animals from cetaceans to sea birds. Sea turtles mistake them for jellyfish and suffer <a href="https://youtu.be/csfQ6StBWcU" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">excruciating deaths by starvation</a>; pelicans spear through them and strangle. On a recent paddle down the Los Angeles River, I saw white plastic bags clinging to the trees; my fellow kayakers playfully dubbed them “grocery-bag flowers.”Plastic bags can be <a href="http://charmeck.org/mecklenburg/county/news/Pages/New-Recycling-Campaign-Aims-for-Increase-in-Plastic-Bags-and-Wraps.aspx" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">recycled</a> at special, dedicated facilities, but you can’t just toss them into a blue bin. Sent to ordinary processing centers, they clog up sorting screens and have to be cut out with <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-plastic-bag-ban-recycling-0731-biz-20150730-story.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">hook knives and saws</a>. They don’t degrade, but disintegrate, turning ocean and freshwater into a diluted chemical soup.But they are also big business, earning their manufacturers $100 million to $150 million every year in California alone. The short list of generous contributors to the No on 67 campaign contains only one in-state individual or company, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Durabag_Co.,Inc." target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Durabag</a> of Tustin, California, which contributed a mere $50,000 early on. The rest of the donors list consists of out-of-state companies whose futures depend on the persistence of their industry: Advance Polybag of Sugar Land, Texas ($946,833); Formosa Plastics of Livingston, New Jersey ($1,148,441); Hilex Plastics of Hartsville, South Carolina ($2,783,739); Superbag of Houston, Texas ($1,238,188).It has already been money well spent, and not just because a victory in the nation’s bellwether state could set a trend, while a loss could spread bag bans like a virus. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, simply by delaying Padilla’s bill for 18 months, the industry has bagged $15 million in profit.Steve Maviglio, a spokesperson for the Yes on 67 campaign that supports the ban, says that the plastics lobby’s concern over the predicted job losses rings hollow, considering that almost no single-use plastic bags are made in California. The thicker plastic bags allowed in Padilla’s law will, on the other hand, add to the state’s manufacturing economy, adding several hundred jobs. The plastic industry’s claim of <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bag-732835-plastic-ban.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">2,000 jobs lost</a> “is incredible and nonsense,” Maviglio says.The plastics lobby could, however, win this one—not least because the wording of the referendum on the ballot is confusing. “It’s not intuitive that we need to vote ‘Yes’ for the law to go into effect,” says Diz Swift, a member of the League of Women Voters in Berkeley. “People might say, ‘Oh, no, I don’t want the law vetoed, I want it to go into effect,’ and mistakenly vote ‘No.’” (To be clear, a “No” vote on Proposition 67 will overturn the bag ban; a “Yes” will uphold it.)Even more confusing is that the plastic bag alliance has put another proposition on the ballot – Proposition 65 – that would direct the 10-cent bag fee toward a special wildlife conservation fund. Berrier says the measure came out of the bag alliance’s research. “Only 25 percent of the people we asked had any idea where that 10 cent bag fee would go,” he says. “A lot of people thought it was going to the environment, or to local government.” When they find out it’s going back to the grocers, he says, “They’re outraged. They want it to go to an environmental purpose.”To Swift, however, putting Proposition 65 on the ballot above Proposition 67 is a blatant attempt to skew the vote. Only the most sophisticated and well-informed voters will understand what it all means. “The money goes into a fund that sounds really good,” she says. “It’s for drought mitigation, clean drinking water, regional parks, litter removal and habitat restoration. But it requires creating a bureaucracy that doesn’t really help.”Maviglio is more blunt. “We call 65 the Screw the Grocers Initiative,” he says flatly. “They’re trying to send a message to grocers in other states who would hop aboard a statewide ban.” Single-use bags cost grocers anywhere from six to 16 cents per bag, “and that doesn’t include delivery and stocking,” Maviglio claims. “There’s no windfall there.”If that’s not persuasive enough, he asks voters to consider the source. Prohibitions against plastic bags have been carried by the most grassroots of efforts—community organizations, moms, local environmental groups. The Arizona ban on plastic-bag bans, he says, comes straight out of the <a href="https://www.alec.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">American Legislative Exchange Council</a>, a think tank that assists corporations in state lawmaking, with an emphasis on <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/03/13060/barring-plastic-bag-bans-another-alec-bill-takes-aim-local-democracy" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">preempting local control</a>.“The plastics industry has no regard for the environment,” Maviglio says. “It would be hypocritical of them to put something on the ballot to help wildlife.”To be fair, Berrier doesn’t argue that helping wildlife is the point: The goal of Prop 65, he says, is only to highlight where the bag-fee money goes after grocers collect it.“The language is very plain and simple,” he insists, “and it will have its intended effect.”jarvis oppo
20 Billionaires who have contributed to or endorsed Proposition 39 as of November 6, 2000.<div id="tablepress-18-no-3_wrapper" class="dataTables_wrapper no-footer" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; clear: both; line-height: 24.5px; word-spacing: 3px;"><table id="tablepress-18-no-3" class="tablepress tablepress-id-18 boys_club dataTable no-footer" role="grid" style="padding: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; width: 786px; border: none; clear: both; margin: 0px !important;"><thead style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><tr class="row-1 odd" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><th class="column-1 sorting" tabindex="0" aria-controls="tablepress-18-no-3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" aria-label="Name: activate to sort column ascending" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px 20px 8px 8px; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-left: none; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; position: relative; cursor: pointer; outline: 0px; width: 179px; background: 0px 0px rgb(217, 237, 247); float: none !important;">Name</th><th class="column-2 sorting" tabindex="0" aria-controls="tablepress-18-no-3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" aria-label="Occupation: activate to sort column ascending" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px 20px 8px 8px; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-left: none; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; position: relative; cursor: pointer; outline: 0px; width: 293px; background: 0px 0px rgb(217, 237, 247); float: none !important;">Occupation</th><th class="column-3 sorting" tabindex="0" aria-controls="tablepress-18-no-3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" aria-label="Worth: activate to sort column ascending" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px 20px 8px 8px; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-left: none; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; position: relative; cursor: pointer; outline: 0px; width: 52px; background: 0px 0px rgb(217, 237, 247); float: none !important;">Worth</th><th class="column-4 sorting" tabindex="0" aria-controls="tablepress-18-no-3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" aria-label="Contributed: activate to sort column ascending" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px 20px 8px 8px; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-left: none; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; position: relative; cursor: pointer; outline: 0px; width: 150px; background: 0px 0px rgb(217, 237, 247); float: none !important;">Contributed</th></tr></thead><tbody class="row-hover" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><tr class="row-2 even" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 0px; border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">MOORE, GORDON EARLE</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 0px; border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">RETIRED EXECUTIVE (INTEL)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 0px; border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$26.0</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 0px; border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$199,609.00</td></tr><tr class="row-3 odd" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">WALTON, JOHN T.</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">CHAIRMAN (TRUE NORTH PARTNERS)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$17.0</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$2,000,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-4 even" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">SCHWAB, CHARLES R.</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">CHAIRMAN /CEO (CHARLES SCHWAB)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$10.0</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$100,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-5 odd" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">SAMUELI, HENRY</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">CO-CHAIRMAN/CTO (BROADCOM)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$10.0</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$365,081.50</td></tr><tr class="row-6 even" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">WAITT, THEODORE W.</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">CHAIRMAN (GATEWAY)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$8.4</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$100,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-7 odd" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">SIEBEL, THOMAS M.</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">CHAIRMAN/CEO (SIEBEL SYSTEMS)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$6.4</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$500,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-8 even" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">MORGRIDGE, JOHN P.</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">CHAIRMAN (CISCO SYSTEMS)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$5.6</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$471,250.00</td></tr><tr class="row-9 odd" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">BROAD, ELI</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">CHAIRMAN/CEO (SUNAMERICA)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$5.2</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$254,051.64</td></tr><tr class="row-10 even" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">BREN, DONALD L.</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">CHAIRMAN (IRVINE COMPANY)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$4.0</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">ENDORSED PROP. 39</td></tr><tr class="row-11 odd" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">MCNEALY, SCOTT G.</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">CEO (SUN MICROSYSTEMS)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$3.5</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$125,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-12 even" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">PERENCHIO, ANDREW</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">CHAIRMAN (UNIVISION)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$3.1</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$100,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-13 odd" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">FISHER, DONALD</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">CHAIRMAN (THE GAP)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$2.7</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$500,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-14 even" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">FISHER, DORIS</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">MERCHANDISE CONSULTANT (THE GAP)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$2.7</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$500,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-15 odd" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">LITTLE, JOHN E.</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">FOUNDER/CEO (PORTAL SOFTWARE)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$1.9</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$1,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-16 even" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">JACOBS, IRWIN MARK</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">CHAIRMAN (QUALCOMM)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$1.5</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$50,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-17 odd" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">HAWKINS, JEFFREY C.</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">CHAIRMAN/CPO (HANDSPRING)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$1.3</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$381,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-18 even" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">COOK, SCOTT D.</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">BUSINESS EXECUTIVE (INTUIT)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$1.2</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$997,993.96</td></tr><tr class="row-19 odd" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">CHAMBERS, JOHN</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">PRESIDENT/CEO (CISCO SYSTEMS)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$1.0</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$520,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-20 even" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">DOERR, L. JOHN</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">VENTURE CAPITALIST (KLEINER PERKINS)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$1.0</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$3,010,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-21 odd" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">KHOSLA, VINOD</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">GENERAL PARTNER (KLEINER PERKINS)</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$1.0</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background: 0px 0px rgb(249, 249, 249); float: none !important;">$1,000,000.00</td></tr><tr class="row-22 even" role="row" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><td class="column-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">20 TOTAL BILLIONAIRES</td><td class="column-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">
</td><td class="column-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$113.50</td><td class="column-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; vertical-align: top; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; float: none !important;">$11,174,986.10</td></tr></tbody></table></div><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/california-fracking-blm-1998974785.html">http://www.ecowatch.com/california-fracking-blm-1998974785.html</a>A California judge struck down a bid Tuesday by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to expropriate more than 1 million acres in central California for oil drilling.Judge Michael Fitzgerald <a href="http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/28-Order-on-XMSJs%209-6-16.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">found</a> that the BLM failed to consider the dangers of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/fracking/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">fracking</a>, which is part of the formal application process. Two environmental groups, the Center for Biological Diversity and Los Padres ForestWatch, brought the lawsuit against the BLM.<div class="share-tab-img share-buttons share-trigger" style="max-width: 100%; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative; overflow: hidden;">
</div>"The bureau failed to take a 'hard look' at the environmental impact of the resource management plan, when, under the RMP, 25 percent of new wells are expected to use hydraulic fracturing," Judge Fitzgerald said in his ruling.
"The bureau is therefore obligated to prepare a substantial EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] to analyze the environmental consequences flowing from the use of hydraulic fracturing."The bureau's 1,073-page impact statement only mentioned fracking three times, SFGate <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Judge-blocks-oil-development-in-Central-9206391.php" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">reported</a>. BLM had commissioned a report from the California Council on Science and Technology two years ago, the judge noted. However, commissioning the study does not absolve the BLM from further analyzing the impact of fracking on the area for its current permit, Fitzgerald added.The area in question involves the following counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura.The agency has until Sept. 21 to present arguments as to why the judge should not issue an injunction to stop the plan.The contested land area provides shelter to more than one-third of the federally listed threatened and endangered species, as well as groundwater systems that provide water for agricultural and residential purposes, <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2016/oil-and-gas-09-06-2016.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">according to</a> the Center for Biological Diversity.Environmentalists lauded the ruling."The Obama administration must get the message and end this reckless rush to auction off our public land to oil companies," Brendan Cummings, Center for Biological Diversity's conservation director, said. "As California struggles against drought and climate change, we've got to end fracking and leave this dirty oil in the ground."ForestWatch executive director Jeff Kuyper also praised the ruling: "This ruling will protect public lands from the crest of the Sierra Nevada to the Central Coast from an influx of oil development and fracking. These treasured landscapes provide many benefits to our local communities and are too valuable to sacrifice for a few days' supply of oil."But, the petroleum industry wasn't as happy with the ruling."Hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments in California have undergone rigorous analysis and review, culminating in the most stringent environmental standards nationwide," Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, said. "Countless independent, state and federal science-based studies all agree. Hydraulic fracturing, when regulated, remains a safe technology that provides enormous benefits to American businesses and customers."This latest ruling is not the first time a federal judge has blocked BLM from developing California land because of its failure to consider the environmental implications of fracking.
In 2013, a different judge ruled that the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by issuing oil leases on Monterey County land without doing necessary studies on the impact of fracking. BLM is still completing an environmental review on fracking, and has not been able to issue any leases in that area.California has been a battleground state between companies eager to frack for oil and gas, and anti-fracking campaigns. So far, five California counties have banned the industrial practice, with Alameda County becoming the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/alameda-county-becomes-fifth-in-california-to-ban-fracking-1933900702.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">latest to do so</a>....<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/uncovering-californias-secret-massacre-whales-and-dolphins">http://www.alternet.org/environment/uncovering-californias-secret-massacre-whales-and-dolphins</a>CA funders:2016https://www.opensecrets.org/states/donors.php?cycle=2016&state=CA<table class="datadisplay" style="border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; width: 630px; line-height: 24px; background: rgb(224, 230, 236);"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;">Fahr LLC/Tom Steyer</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$38,458,844</td></tr><tr><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000037316" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Saban Capital Group</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$12,511,922</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;">Laurel Foundation</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$7,141,046</td></tr><tr><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000422" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Oracle Corp</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$5,324,217</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000508" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Chartwell Partners</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$4,893,624</td></tr><tr><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000015" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Chevron Corp</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$3,950,538</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;">Herb & Marion Sandler/Sandler Foundation</td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$3,445,200</td></tr><tr><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021890" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Capital Group Companies</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$2,941,604</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000279" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Dreamworks SKG</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$2,843,722</td></tr><tr><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000414" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Charles Schwab Corp</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$2,781,183</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000333" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Kleiner, Perkins et al</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$2,386,039</td></tr><tr><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000034038" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">GH Palmer Assoc</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$2,265,181</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000406" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">University of California</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$2,075,379</td></tr><tr><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000065804" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Thiel Capital</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$2,016,200</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000027353" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Majority Cmte PAC</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$1,968,687</td></tr><tr><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000068061" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Oberndorf Enterprises</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$1,933,543</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000025139" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Cooperative of American Physicians</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$1,892,515</td></tr><tr><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000035604" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Marcus & Millichap</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$1,678,779</td></tr><tr style="background-color: rgb(240, 243, 246);"><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000067823" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Alphabet Inc</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$1,645,016</td></tr><tr><td style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000750" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Stanford University</a></td><td class="number" style="padding: 5px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">$1,630,43x</td></tr></tbody></table><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/california-climate-policy-1988157045.html">http://www.ecowatch.com/california-climate-policy-1988157045.html</a>"This was retail politics and oil lost," was how Adrienne Alvord of Union of Concerned Scientists summed up the stunning <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-climate-advocates-win-victory-on-1471978657-htmlstory.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">environmental victory Tuesday</a> in the California legislature, a victory which cemented the state's commitment to a 40 percent reduction in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">climate</a> pollution by 2030.<div class="share-tab-img share-buttons share-trigger" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative; overflow: hidden;">
<div class="share-media-panel">It's not accidental that states providing climate leadership are the states with the biggest clean energy sectors, including California.Only a few weeks ago there was a strong consensus that the oil industry, by spending millions of dollars on behalf of a cadre of moderate Democrats in the Assembly, had blocked just such a doubling down on the state's existing 2020 goals. For the oil industry, victory was an existential necessity. Only by holding future <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/don-cheadle-climate-change-1979169137.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">climate</a> commitments hostage could the industry hope to get Gov. Brown to abandon the state's existing mandate that by 2020 the carbon content of fuels be cut by 10 percent. As a practical matter, the requirement means roughly 20 percent of California's more vehicles will be driving on something other than oil—electricity, natural gas or <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/biofuels-worse-for-climate-than-gasoline-1987926412.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">biofuels</a>.And oil knows it cannot withstand a competitive transportation fuels market. Once California creates such a market and builds businesses that can produce low carbon fuels at scale, fuels competition will go global and oil's empire will wither. But it looked like oil had survived to fight another day. Gov. Brown had signaled his next move by forming a ballot committee for a (high-risk) initiative for the fall of 2018. But a small group of climate and environmental justice advocates refused to let the Assembly moderates off the hook. Demanding a vote, they re-energized their broad coalition of main-line businesses, EJ advocates, labor, climate greens, the faith community, clean tech and clean fuels businesses, local government and public health advocates.Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon told them he would give them a vote once they had the votes—and on Tuesday he pulled the trigger, giving the oil industry, which thought it had won, only 24 hours to regroup. It wasn't enough and the Assembly passed SB32 by 47 votes, a six vote margin over the 41 needed. The California Nurses Association was heard from, but so was Ebay. Gov. Brown and the White House weighed in, but a lone Republican, Assemblywoman Catherine Baker joined them in supporting progress. Wednesday the Senate concurred and the bill, linked to an environmental justice focused companion bill, went to the governor for his signature.Why the victory? Quite simply, retail politics. <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Clean energy</a> now provides far more stimulus and creates far more jobs than fossil fuels. Clean power is seen by the public as the linch-pin of the state's economic future. Jobs on the ground trump oil industry ads on the screen. It's not accidental that states providing climate leadership are the states with the biggest clean energy sectors—California, Washington, Nevada, Oregon—and Iowa, with its nation leading wind sector and a public utility, Mid-America, that is planning to shortly hit 85 percent renewables and go on to 100 percent.And it's cheaper.The oil industry is in a state of shock. Their <a href="https://www.wspa.org/blog/post/wspa-statement-senate-bill-32-and-assembly-bill-197" style="text-decoration-line: none;">press release</a> bizarrely asserted that Rendon had scheduled the vote to "cover up" the fact that the state's latest auction for carbon emission permits had attracted few buyers—a result oil called "terrible." The auction simply reflected the fact that emitters, uncertain if the law would be extended past 2020, did not know how many permits they needed to buy. The oil industry conceded as much, saying "Today's miserable auction result reflects the market's lack of certainty." But it is revealing that oil called it "terrible" and "miserable" that the cost of carbon permits was low—demonstrating again that what they fear is not that decarbonizing will cost too much and hurt the economy, but that it will prove irresistibly cheap and strand them. Also revealing—SB32 was written precisely to provide the certainty whose absence the oil industry allegedly deplores!(In fact, the legislature is going home next week and Rendon had to bring the bill up more or less when he did. The short notice was tactical—but hardly conspiratorial).Ideological, right-wing opponents of climate progress and clean energy stayed more on message,<a href="http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2016/08/voters-feel-climate-change-legislation/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">releasing a poll purporting</a> to show that the public, all the other evidence to the contrary, didn't really favor tougher clean-up of carbon pollution or California climate leadership after all.Read carefully, however, the poll says something quite different. It confirms that most Californians want to move forward on clean energy and climate, believe that such progress is good for California even if others do not lead and want action. Even California Republicans are part of this consensus. Sixty-two percent of California Republican voters think that climate change is either a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the state. Again, of Republicans, 67 percent expect the changes resulting from global warming to occur in their lifetimes. A majority favor the state's current climate goals and a plurality favor the longer-term, more ambitious goals just passed.It is true that, if nudged to believe that after such action, "hundreds of local manufacturing facilities would be shut down and thousands of middle-class jobs would be lost in California" large majorities of Republicans, and Democrats and Independents, lose their appetite. But if you said to the same sample that ambitious climate progress would mean "continued economic growth, an end to air pollution, cheaper gas and billions of dollars of new exports for California industries" the supportive numbers among Republicans would probably jump from a plurality to a super-majority. The latter statement is the true one, it turns out—and, more or less, it is what most California voters are experiencing—which explains why, un-manipulated, even Republicans are happy that the state continues to move forward.But California is not the only arena where oil's long regime is coming to an end. Investors are watching warily as the majors—Chevron, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-sues-massachusetts-attorney-general-to-block-climate-fraud-inves-1891175093.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Exxon</a>, BP and Shell have now <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/largest-oil-companies-debts-hit-record-high-1472031002" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">accumulated an unprecedented $184 billion in debt</a>, fallen far short ($40 billion short in the first half of 2016) of their promised goals of paying their dividends from profits, not borrowing. Shell, Chevron, Exxon and BP have all seen their previous platinum grade credit ratings cut a notch. To placate investors, the majors pledge that they have new (but far from transparent) business plans to someday make money again—if only oil will stay at some magic level. For BP it's $50-55/barrel. Unfortunately, it has not been in that range since 2014.Many of the independent oil producers, of course, have gone bankrupt. Oil remains stubbornly below $50. Most independent analysts believe that for the oil majors, prices in the $75 range are required to compete with Persian Gulf and other OPEC members in the long term. And those prices, unequivocally, require one thing: a continuation of oil's monopoly in transportation fuel.California this week called the question. That monopoly is going away. Oil has lost before, but never because the retail politics of its competitors proved more compelling. This was no decisive battle. There may be none, just as there is no moment when the fate of the Roman Empire was sealed.But the sands of time are running. Oil's empire is in its decline and fall.A new analysis by a non-partisan business group finds that California’s climate policies have been a boon for the state’s economy.Assembly Bill 32, also known as AB 32 or the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California to reduce climate-cooking greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — which meant cutting emissions about 25 percent from where they were at in 2006, when AB 32 was passed by the California State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.According to the analysis from Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) analysis, AB 32 and related climate policies have pumped some $48 billion into the state economy over the past decade while helping create about 500,000 jobs. <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://desmogblog.cmail19.com/t/t-l-hrdillt-yuirlyty-jd/" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; font-weight: bold; background: transparent;">Read more.</a><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/08/18/california-s-climate-policies-good-gold-state-s-economy">http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/08/18/california-s-climate-policies-good-gold-state-s-economy</a><h2 dir="ltr" style="margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em;">California’s Drought Policy Serves Corporations First, People Second</h2>California is suffering a historic drought with no relief in sight. According to the latest report from NASA, California has less than a year’s supply of surface water left. In an executive order, Governor Jerry Brown, a self-proclaimed climate leader, imposed a 25% reduction on the state’s local water supply agencies, which serve 90% of California’s residents. Everyday citizens are being asked to cut down on shower times and lawn watering. While these are worthy efforts, they are mere drops in the bucket considering that residential and municipal use of water in CA account for less than 20% of water consumption. Instead of getting at the root of the problem and targeting water-guzzling agribusiness and the oil and gas industry, Governor Brown’s climate policy is pro-corporate, irresponsible and unsustainable.Despite the growing water crisis, there are no provisions in Brown’s water reduction plan to halt fracking, an extreme method of oil and gas extraction requiring high-pressure injection of millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand into deep rock setting free oil or natural gas unavailable through conventional drilling. Last year fracking production in the state used 70 million gallons of water,<a name="1" id="1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">1</a> the equivalent of 514 households annually.<a name="2" id="2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">2</a> Although proponents of fracking may claim that the combined water use of 514 households is not that high, water used in fracking is highly contaminated and not returned to the annual water cycle, unlike household wastewater.It was recently learned that California officials allowed oil and gas companies to dump this contaminated water into federally protected aquifers that could have been used for drinking and irrigation purposes.<a name="3" id="3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">3</a> Illustrating the corporate control of regulatory agencies, 46 percent of the state permits authorizing these practices were granted in the last four years, the same four years during which the EPA warned California regulators they were not doing enough to protect underground water reserves.In the Central Valley, many Latina/o farmworkers are struggling for their livelihoods due to years of drought. As a result of last year’s extreme weather, 17,000 farmworker jobs and 400,000 acres of farmland were lost.<a name="4" id="4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">4</a> Other Californians are living entirely without running water. In East Porterville, for example, people are turning to costly and environmentally destructive bottled water to meet household needs.<a name="5" id="5" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">5</a>We can also look at Nestle Corporation’s privatization of our water to further understand how corporate rule is impacting every Californian. In Sacramento, tens of millions of gallons of Sacramento municipal water are being withdrawn by a local Nestle plant. Nestle uses and bottles thousands of acre-feet of California water. An acre-foot, roughly speaking, equals 326,000 gallons, enough to supply a family’s yearly needs.Nestle and other bottling companies buy water at a pittance and sell it back to the public at exorbitantly high rates. As California’s water disappears, the investment portfolios of some of the nation’s most profitable corporations are being flooded.In a recent interview Nestle CEO Tim Brown was asked if halting waster extraction was in the company’s plans. Brown responded: “Absolutely not. In fact, if I could increase it, I would. …If I stop bottling water tomorrow, people would buy another brand of bottled water. ...It’s driven by consumer demand,  it’s driven by an on-the-go society that needs to hydrate.” <a name="6" id="6" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">6</a>Is it possible that CEO Brown never heard of a reusable drinking water bottle?Out of this Nestle Corporation debacle, the “Crunch Nestle Alliance” formed. The group has singled out Sacramento City Hall, saying Nestle’s privatization was made possible through a “corporate welfare giveaway.” Nestle pays Sacramento $186.00 per 215,000 gallons of water taken from the area aquifers.  Those 215,000 gallons bring the Nestle Corporation a whopping $2.1 million in profit.<a name="7" id="7" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">7</a> The Crunch Nestle Alliance has successfully blockaded a Sacramento Nestle plant several times, raising awareness that water is a human right not a commodity to sell on the open markets.<h3 dir="ltr" style="margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em;">Notes</h3><a href="http://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-1#[i]" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">1</a> <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/03/us-california-drought-fracking-exclusive-idUSKBN0MU01M20150403" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/03/us-california-drought-fracking-exclusive-idUSKBN0MU01M20150403</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/fracking-california-water_n_6997324.html" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/fracking-california-water_n_6997324.html</a><a href="http://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-1#2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">2</a> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/06/3643184/california-70-million-gallons-fracking/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/06/3643184/california-70-million-gallons-fracking/</a><a href="http://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-1#3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">3</a> <a href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/05/ap-oil-drilling-waste-dumped-into-calif-aquifers-used-for-irrigation-drinking-water/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/05/ap-oil-drilling-waste-dumped-into-calif-aquifers-used-for-irrigation-drinking-water/</a><a href="http://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-1#4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">4</a> <a href="http://fusion.net/story/114463/as-california-goes-dry-latinos-suffer-disproportionately/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">http://fusion.net/story/114463/as-california-goes-dry-latinos-suffer-disproportionately/</a><a href="http://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-1#5" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">5</a> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/20/east-porterville-california-drought-bottled-water-showers-toilets" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/20/east-porterville-california-drought-bottled-water-showers-toilets</a><a href="http://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-1#6" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">6</a> "<a href="http://act.credoaction.com/go/9027?t=8&akid=14671.4145021.Mht8oM" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Starbucks Moves Ethos Water from California after Drought-shaming</a>" The Washington Post, May 12, 2015<a href="http://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-1#7" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">7</a> <a href="https://criticl.me/post/crunchnestle-alliance-1179" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">https://criticl.me/post/crunchnestle-alliance-1179</a><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/california-could-sound-the-loudest-call-yet-for-overturning-citizens-united/">https://www.thenation.com/article/california-could-sound-the-loudest-call-yet-for-overturning-citizens-united/</a> California Could Sound the Loudest Call Yet for Overturning ‘Citizens United’
The California Supreme Court clears the way for voters to demand a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics.
By John Nichols
January 5, 2016

sf styrofoam, 6 gun laws incl bullet buttonspier pro contrilhttp://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/07/04/sit-in-gun-control-jackie-speier-redwood-city/
---breitbart BS
<h2>the wake of “gunpocalypse,” Second Amendment supporters in California are vowing civil disobedience: “Come and take it.”</h2>Governor Jerry Brown signed six of the 11 new gun control bills that <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/07/01/gunpocalypse-passes-now-sitting-governor-browns-desk/">passed</a> the California legislature last week, including a ban on “the sale of semiautomatic rifles equipped with bullet buttons.”Bullet buttons are simple mechanisms that allow a gun owner to switch out an empty magazine for a full one.In addition to the ban on the sale of such rifles, Brown also signed bills that will require law-abiding citizens to go through a background check before being allowed to buy ammunition.After signing the bills, Brown <a target="blank" href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_1511_Signing_Message.pdf">released a statement</a>, saying, “My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”Senate President Kevin de Léon (D-Los Angeles) <a target="blank" href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun-721296-laws-brown.html">praised</a> the new laws, according to the Orange County Register:<blockquote>“Taken together, these bills will save lives and make our communities, our families and our children safer,” de Leon said in an email. “Where Republicans in Congress have turned a deaf ear, we have answered the cries of the mothers, fathers, family members and friends who have lost loved ones to gun violence.”</blockquote>But many law-abiding gun owners do not see how the Second Amendment is protected by more gun control. In fact, gun owners rallied near Sacramento’s Cesar Chavez Plaza on Saturday morning to to say the new controls simply turn “law-abiding citizens into criminals.”For that reason, they have no plans to obey.According to the <a target="blank" href="http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article87414902.html">Sacramento Bee</a>, the protesters held banners which proclaimed, “WE WILL NOT COMPLY.”Corey Gwathney helped organize the rally. He said, “They’re infringing on our rights, and we’re not going to stand for that.”AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio.--http://www.govtslaves.info/gun-rights-activists-say-they-wont-comply-with-californias-new-laws/---his 401k plan
...
Cory Gwathney, a co-organizer of the protest who lives in Chico, said the rally had been in the works for over two months. The initial goal was to prevent Brown from signing the bills, Gwathney said, but because the laws were signed prior to the protest, the activists changed their message to one of noncompliance.“He passed them yesterday before we could get out here, which sort of threw a wrench in the plans,” said Gwathney. “Now we’re just trying to send the message that we’re probably not going to comply. They’re infringing on our rights, and we’re not going to stand for that.”Gwathney said it’s unlikely people will actually register their bullet-button rifles or turn in their large-capacity magazines as the laws require. People have invested thousands of dollars in bullet-button rifles, ammunition and magazines, Gwathney said, joking that his guns are his 401(k) plan.Protester Steve Sarvar traveled from San Jose to participate in the rally. Sarver is a member of American Patriot the III% California, a group that takes its name from the claim that only 3 percent of colonists during the American Revolution fought on the battlefield against Great Britain.[see militia 2nd amend right to kia B)]
Due to last Sunday’s neo-Nazi protest at the Capitol, at which 10 people were injured, including five who were stabbed, law enforcement kept a close watch on Saturday’s event, Sarvar said, but there was no violence.“I went over to the officers and asked them, ‘Do we look like criminals to you?’ And they all said that no, we didn’t,” Sarvar said. “But then I told them that this legislation that’s just been signed into law is going to turn ordinary people into criminals.”Jorge Riley, president of the Sacramento chapter of the conservative California Republic Assembly organization, also traveled from Chico for the protest. He said people need to work through the legal system to try to stop the new laws.“There needs to be a complaint filed with an injunction because these are an unconstitutional set of laws that have been passed, and they shouldn’t be able to become laws until they are reviewed by a judge,” Riley said. “It’s unconstitutional, that’s why we have judicial review.”Riley described the Legislature and Brown’s actions as “reckless and irresponsible,” adding that they are trying to “usurp the federal Constitution” by passing legislation that conflicts with federal law.The new laws will also be ineffective in preventing mass shootings like the recent Orlando massacre and last December’s San Bernardino attack, protesters argued. Assault weapons played a role in both shootings.“When you pass laws that restrict guns, you stimulate a black market,” said Riley. “So the only thing is that people will still have guns, but they’ll have them illegally.”Scott said the activists will continue protesting at the Capitol and in other parts of California, though many gun rights advocates may have resigned themselves after hearing about the laws Brown signed.“I think a lot of people who planned on coming out today didn’t come out after all, because they think it’s a lost cause,” Gwathney said.http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article87414902.html
<div style="width: 1px; height: 1px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; overflow: hidden;">
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article87414902.html#storylink=cpy...</div>
“Real Time” host Bill Maher, during his “New Rules” segment Friday, peacocked California’s thriving economy after the state raised taxes on its wealthiest citizens.“If Republicans are going to keep calling states ‘laboratories of democracy,’ they have to start looking at the results from the lab,” Maher said, noting that after California raised taxes on the wealthy, the state now sits sixth on the list of world’s largest economies. “Whereas states like Kansas and Louisiana that went back to the old trickle-down theory of ‘cut taxes on the rich and they’ll always do the right thing,’ are financial catastrophes.”Maher explained that, after former-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger left office, California elected Democrats up and down the ballot, “so we can really study what happens when liberal policies are tried unimpeded. And the only thing I have to say to Republicans about that is: scoreboard, bitches.”Watch the full segment below:https://youtu.be/BtNbMD96xgY
6/16 ban cigs 7/11 3x ads<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18.75px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">California convenience stores would have one less sales category under a measure moving through the legislature.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18.75px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">On June 2, the state Senate passed a bill that would restrict tobacco sales to cigar shops. This piece of legislation, known as SB 1400, was introduced by state Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont).<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18.75px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The bill now moves to the state Assembly.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18.75px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Under current California law, retailers selling tobacco products must obtain a license from the state Board of Equalization. Retail locations currently include convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations, drug stores, airports, hookah lounges and tobacco shops.  - See more at: http://www.csnews.com/product-categories/tobacco/california-bill-would-remove-tobacco-c-stores#sthash.i4FX4gZU.dpufhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/18/1527955/-The-fossil-fuel-industry-lied-to-us-about-climate-change-In-California-we-re-fighting-backmojo...
Irrigation water appears to be a major loophole in a food safety program that otherwise strictly controls what farmers can apply to their land. Notably, the organics program does prohibit the use of sewage sludge-based fertilizer, a product widely used on nonorganic farms that <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/05/sludge-happens" target="blank">sometimes contains chemicals such as flame retardants and pharmaceuticals</a>.On Monday, California Assemblyman Mike Gatto, a Democrat from Glendale, introduced <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520162AB14" target="blank">a bill</a> that would require crops irrigated with wastewater from oil and gas operations to be labeled as such. "No one expects their lettuce to contain heavy chemicals from fracking wastewater," he <a href="http://asmdc.org/members/a43/news-room/press-releases/mike-gatto-proposes-bill-to-label-food-irrigated-with-contaminated-fracking-water" target="blank">explained in a press release</a>.That's especially true if their lettuce is labeled "organic," adds Adam Scow, the California director of the environmental group Food and Water Watch: "I think most people's logic would tell them that's not a practice consistent with organic standards."
http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/10/farmers-irrigate-crops-oil-water/When most people think of California, the first images that probably come to mind are the state’s sun-soaked beaches, the Hollywood hills and the fog-drenched Golden Gate Bridge. But a new documentary web series, <a href="https://spotlightcalifornia.com/" target="blank">Spotlight California</a>, wants to show viewers the California you don’t see on postcards.The five-part series, hosted by actress and comedian Kiran Deol, is investigating the impact of <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=drought">drought</a>, water and air pollution, and gas price gouging in California.The goal is to “raise awareness of these issues, give voice to the Californians being directly impacted and create an opportunity for people to join together and to take positive actions in communities across the state,” explained <a href="https://nextgenclimate.org/" target="blank">NextGen Climate</a>, which is funding the project.“With this project, I want to shed some light on the powerful players who have tilted the economic tables in their favor, profiting at the expense of our families,” <a href="http://ecowatch.com/author/tom-steyer/">Tom Steyer</a>, president of NextGen Climate, said. “But I also want to highlight stories from people working hard to balance the scales; folks who maintain a positive attitude during tough times, while making a big difference.”The first episode, which aired Jan. 26, took viewers into the heart of the drought, where half the residents of the low-income community of East Porterville in the Central Valley struggle to find fresh water.Watch here:The second episode, which aired last week, highlighted another aspect of the drought. It shows how farmers are using <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/05/3654388/california-drought-oil-wastewater-agriculture/" target="blank">treated oil wastewater to irrigate their crops</a>, despite the fact that nobody has tested the wastewater to see if it’s safe.“There are farmers so desperate for water in one particular irrigation district called Cawelo, they’re taking some wastewater to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-drought-oil-water-20150503-story.html" target="blank">irrigate crops from Chevron</a>. It’s being used to grow food for people—citrus crops, grapes, pistachios,” Tom Frantz told Deol in the episode.“You grow an orange—it’s 90 percent water when it gets to the consumer,” Frantz continued. “Where did that water come from? It’s the irrigation water. The irrigation water is toxic, even at very tiny amounts. Is there a tiny amount of toxicity now in the fruit? Nobody is testing that yet. And they’re salting up their soil by using this water, which means ultimately they’ll have to stop growing everything.”Seth Shonkoff of <a href="http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/" target="blank">PSE Healthy Energy</a> explained to Deol that “until we have a list of the chemicals that are going into oil and gas wells and in what volumes and what are their toxicities, we’re flying blind.”In order to find out the health impacts of using recycled oil water on crops, Deol joined water scientist Scott Smith as he covertly tested the water for toxic chemicals at the Cawelo wastewater treatment plant.“We found oil and these nasty solvents,” which can cause “kidney damage, liver damage and cancer,” Smith said.Watch the second episode here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking
The oil and gas industry is touting the potential of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking" title="Fracking">fracking</a> in California to tap the largest <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tight_oil" title="Tight oil">tight oil</a> formation in the continental United States, which they say contains up to 64 percent of the nation's deep-rock oil deposits.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-mm-1">[1]</a> Fracking in California is primarily used to extract oil. In some cases fracking is taking place on private land without the owner's knowledge.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-2">[2]</a>The <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Western_States_Petroleum_Association" title="Western States Petroleum Association">Western States Petroleum Association</a> (WSPA), whose members account for 80 percent of the oil and natural gas drilled in California, said WSPA companies fracked 628 oil wells in 2011 -- about a quarter of all oil and gas wells drilled across the state that year.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-3">[3]</a> In 2013 California's Department of Conservation director Mark Nechodom estimated the state "might see around 650 hydraulic fracturing jobs a year."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-4">[4]</a>More common than fracking in California is acid jobs, an old well completion method that involves pumping chemicals such as hydrofluoric acid into wells to melt rocks and other impediments to oil flow. Companies are not required to report when they do it.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-5">[5]</a> A report released in January 2015 stated that nearly half of all new oil wells in the state of California employed the use of fracking.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-6">[6]</a><div id="toc" class="toc"><div id="toctitle"><h2>Contents</h2></div></div><div id="toc" class="toc"><ul><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Background">1 Background</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#History">2 History</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Oil_and_gas_estimates">3 Oil and gas estimates</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Production">3.1 Production</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Drilling_wells">4 Drilling wells</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Use_of_diesel_fuels">4.1 Use of diesel fuels</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Natural_gas">4.2 Natural gas</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Los_Angeles_County">4.3 Los Angeles County</a><ul><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-9"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Inglewood">4.3.1 Inglewood</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-10"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Long_Beach">4.3.2 Long Beach</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Kern_County">4.4 Kern County</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-12"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Monterey_County">4.5 Monterey County</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-13"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Santa_Barbara_County">4.6 Santa Barbara County</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-14"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Offshore">4.7 Offshore</a><ul><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-15"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Oil_spill_in_Santa_Barbara">4.7.1 Oil spill in Santa Barbara</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-16"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Ventura_County">4.8 Ventura County</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-17"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Public_lands">4.9 Public lands</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-18"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Fracked_oil_by_rail">5 Fracked oil by rail</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-19"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Water_use_and_wastewater">6 Water use and wastewater</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-20"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Risk_assessments">6.1 Risk assessments</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-21"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Leaks.2C_spills.2C_and_accidents">6.2 Leaks, spills, and accidents</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-22"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#California_aquifers_contaminated">6.3 California aquifers contaminated</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-23"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Benzene">6.4 Benzene</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-24"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Toluene">6.5 Toluene</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-25"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Illicit_dumping">6.6 Illicit dumping</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-26"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Farming_impacts">6.7 Farming impacts</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-27"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Injection_wells">7 Injection wells</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-28"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Earthquakes">7.1 Earthquakes</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-29"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Exemptions">7.2 Exemptions</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-30"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Porter_Ranch_storage_container_leak">8 Porter Ranch storage container leak</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-31"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Other_oil_recovery_methods">9 Other oil recovery methods</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-32"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Acidizing">9.1 Acidizing</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-33"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Cyclic_Steam_Stimulation">9.2 Cyclic Steam Stimulation</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-34"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Citizen_activism">10 Citizen activism</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-35"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#State_lawsuit">10.1 State lawsuit</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-36"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Federal_lawsuit">10.2 Federal lawsuit</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-37"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Santa_Barbara_County_2">10.3 Santa Barbara County</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-38"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#San_Benito">10.4 San Benito</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-39"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Mendocino_County">10.5 Mendocino County</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-40"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Monterey_County_2">10.6 Monterey County</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-41"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Los_Angeles_County_2">10.7 Los Angeles County</a><ul><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-42"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Lawsuit_Against_the_City_of_Los_Angeles">10.7.1 Lawsuit Against the City of Los Angeles</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-43"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Demonstrators_disrupt_DOGGR_workshop">10.7.2 Demonstrators disrupt DOGGR workshop</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-44"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Group_attempts_to_stop_Long_Beach_fracking_permits">10.7.3 Group attempts to stop Long Beach fracking permits</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-45"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Long_Beach_2">10.8 Long Beach</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-46"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Culver_City">10.9 Culver City</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-47"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Orange_County">10.10 Orange County</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-48"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Carson">10.11 Carson</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-49"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#State_level">10.12 State level</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-50"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Fracking_studies">11 Fracking studies</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-51"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Legislation">12 Legislation</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-52"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Regulations">12.1 Regulations</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-53"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Disclosure">12.2 Disclosure</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-54"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#State_and_City_Moratoriums">12.3 State and City Moratoriums</a><ul><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-55"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#L.A.City_Council">12.3.1 L.A. City Council</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-56"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Beverly_Hills_Moratorium">12.3.2 Beverly Hills Moratorium</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-57"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Compton_Moratorium">12.3.3 Compton Moratorium</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-58"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Santa_Barbara_County_Moratorium">12.3.4 Santa Barbara County Moratorium</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-59"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Notification_of_drilling">12.4 Notification of drilling</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-60"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Water_use_and_the_California_drought">12.5 Water use and the California drought</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-61"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Regulations_2">13 Regulations</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-62"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Governor_Brown_considers_fracking_standards">13.1 Governor Brown considers fracking standards</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-63"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Regulations_proposed">13.2 Regulations proposed</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-64"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Well_classification_type">13.3 Well classification type</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-65"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Public_disclosure">13.4 Public disclosure</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-66"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Study_on_hazards">13.5 Study on hazards</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-67"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Lobbying">14 Lobbying</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-68"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Citizen_groups">15 Citizen groups</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-69"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Industry_groups">16 Industry groups</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-70"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Companies">17 Companies</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-71"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Reports">18 Reports</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-72"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#EWG">18.1 EWG</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-73"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#EWG_Wastewater">18.2 EWG Wastewater</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-74"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#DOGGR_Well_Injection">18.3 DOGGR Well Injection</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-75"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Resources">19 Resources</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-76"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#References">19.1 References</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-77"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#Related_SourceWatch_articles">19.2 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-78"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#External_links">19.3 External links</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-79"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#External_Articles">19.4 External Articles</a></li></ul></li></ul></div><h2>Background</h2>In a 2008 paper prepared for a meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Pinnacle Technologies reported the fracking process "has been applied to a large scale in many Central and Southern California fields to enable economic development and reasonable hydrocarbon recovery. Example formations include the Belridge Diatomite, Stevens Sands, Etchegoin, Antelope shale, McLure shale, McDonald shale, Point of Rocks sands, Kreyenhagen shale, Ranger sands, the UP Ford Shale, and the Monterey shale.” It also stated that "[b]ased on the initial experience and formation properties, it is believed that hydraulic fracturing has a significant potential in many Northern California gas reservoirs.”<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-7">[7]</a>Before 2014, the Division of Oil and Gas of the California Department of Conservation did not monitor, track or regulate hydraulic fracturing,<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-8">[8]</a> stating in a Feb. 16, 2012 update to its website that “fracking is used for a brief period to stimulate production of oil and gas wells” in California, but “the Division doesn’t believe the practice is nearly as widespread as it is in the eastern U.S. for shale gas production,” negating the need for monitoring. What the Division does not say, according to the Environmental Working Group, is that most fracking in California is used for oil, not gas, production.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-rs-9">[9]</a>The passing of State Senator Fran Pavely's SB 4 put in place some process to track <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hydraulic_fracturing" title="Hydraulic fracturing" class="mw-redirect">hydraulic fracturing</a> and another enhanced well completion form called acidizing.Center for Biological Diversity researchers note that ten California counties: Colusa, Glenn, Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Sutter, Kings and Ventura.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-10">[10]</a> The exact number of fracked wells in the state is unknown, but the Environmental Working Group states that it "is clear that the total likely reaches into the thousands. Industry documents show that by the mid-1990s, more than 600 wells had been fracked in one Kern County oil field alone. Representatives of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Halliburton" title="Halliburton" class="mw-redirect">Halliburton</a> told EWG in the fall of 2011 that 50-to-60 percent of new wells being drilled in Kern County were hydraulically fractured."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-rs-9">[9]</a>In June 2013 the Los Angeles Times reported that a USC/LA Times poll showed that more than 70% of California voters favored banning or heavily regulating chemical injections into the ground to tap oil and natural gas.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-11">[11]</a> It was reported in September 2013 that Californians (51 percent) continue to oppose than favor (32 percent) increased use of fracking, according to a statewide survey released Wednesday evening by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-12">[12]</a><h2>History</h2>Hydraulic fracturing - creating fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations - has been used on thousands of wells in California for over fifty years, according to a review of scientific articles by the <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ewg.org/release/california-deserves-disclosure-fracking-chemicals-and-water-use">Environmental Working Group</a>.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-rs-9">[9]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-mm-1">[1]</a> The current fracking technique of high-pressure water, chemicals, and sand is often seen as originating in the late 1990s, in the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Barnett_Shale" title="Barnett Shale">Barnett Shale</a> in Texas.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-NYRB_08.03.2012-13">[13]</a>In November 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported that Gov. Brown fired Derek Chernow, then head of the Department of Conservation, as well as Chernow's deputy, Elena Miller, after they generated a memo highly critical of "unconventional" oil extraction methods, primarily steam injection but also encompassing fracking. The process was put under a microscope in 2011 after an oil company worker died in Kern county from falling into a boiling cesspool of fracking discharge. Brown pushed Chernow to relax the regulations in 2011, but instead Chernow generated the memo concluding that relaxing regulations would violate federal laws. Shortly thereafter, Brown fired Chernow and his deputy, and installed Mark Nechodom, who sided with Brown and reduced the heightened scrutiny that had been placed on underground injection. In January 2012, The Times reported that <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Occidental_Petroleum" title="Occidental Petroleum" class="mw-redirect">Occidental Petroleum</a> made a $250,00 contribution to Brown. Shortly after, the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources said it did not plan to monitor or manage use of the technology unless the legislature requires it or the agency is handed “evidence of manifest damage and harm.”<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-14">[14]</a>In 2012, regulators told the Los Angeles Times that they monitor drilling operations "quite thoroughly" under existing law, but also said there is a "need for more disclosure of what chemicals are used in oil production." According to the Times: "State Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), chairwoman of the Committee on Natural Resources and Water, wrote to state regulators [in 2011] asking basic questions: 'Where does fracking take place; How often is it used; And what are the potential risks?' Regulators had few answers, saying they had 'limited data' because the state has no reporting requirements."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-mm-1">[1]</a>Many state regulators assert that fracking in California is "radically different" from drilling in other parts of the U.S., saying the process has long been performed in the state for shorter duration with much less water to loosen crude in depleted oil wells.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-mm-1">[1]</a>At a March 28, 2012 hearing, lawmakers criticized the Gov. Brown administration's lack of actions on fracking, and state environmental officials <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/329945-california-fracking-disclosure-request.html">requested</a> that energy companies disclose where they conduct fracking operations and what chemicals they inject into the ground to tap oil deposits. At the time, only 78 of the tens of thousands of California oil field injection wells where fracking may be taking place were listed on a national fracking registry. Regulators also are considering whether to launch an independent study to assess effects of the practice, and are planning to undertake a statewide "listening" tour for public comment. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-15">[15]</a><h2>Oil and gas estimates</h2><div class="thumb tright"><div class="thumbinner" style="width: 302px;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/File:Montereyformation.gif" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/thumb/9/95/Montereyformation.gif/300px-Montereyformation.gif" class="thumbimage" height="365" width="300" /></a><div class="thumbcaption"></div></div><div class="thumb tright"><div class="thumbinner" style="width: 302px;"><div class="thumbcaption">Montery Shale Formation in California.</div></div></div>California is estimated to have more <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tight_oil" title="Tight oil">tight oil</a> (shale oil) than <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Shale_gas" title="Shale gas">shale gas</a>. Most estimates focus on the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monterey_Shale" title="Monterey Shale">Monterey Shale</a>, a rib-shaped formation that extends from northern California down to the Los Angeles area, offshore, and onto the outlying islands, spanning 1,750 square miles. Counties include Kern County, Orange County, Ventura County, Monterey County and Santa Barbara County, California. It is composed of many substances<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-16">[16]</a> and is not flat like other shales due to frequent earthquakes.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-17">[17]</a>Some companies have called the Monterey Shale "arguably the largest shale play in the US."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-shale-18">[18]</a>Estimates vary about how much oil lies in the state's shale rock formations. The estimate of "technically recoverable oil" is determined by multiplying the total amount of "oil-in-place" by the “recovery factor,” or the percentage of oil that can be recovered with today’s technology.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-dr-19">[19]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Venoco" title="Venoco">Venoco</a>, one of the companies with a significant presence in Monterey, once said there might be 300 billion barrels of oil in the Monterey Shale, but their first well was labeled "uneconomical," and their estimate has been seen as far too high.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-jr-20">[20]</a>In 2011, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said there could be up to 15 billion barrels of crude in the Monterey Shale,<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-jr-20">[20]</a> an estimate repeated by the Department of Energy<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-Brown-21">[21]</a> and NY Times.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-22">[22]</a>In May 2014 the EIA said 600 million barrels of oil can be extracted from the Monterey Shale with existing technology, cutting by 97% its earlier estimate of 13.7 billion barrels.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-23">[23]</a>In October 2015 the U.S. Geological Survey trimmed the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monterey_Shale" title="Monterey Shale">Monterey Shale</a> estimates further. The organization now estimates that the San Joaquin Basin portion of the Monterey Shale to 21 million. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-24">[24]</a><h3>Production</h3>The Energy Information Administration estimated that Monterey would produce 550 million barrels total per well, but “operators today are reporting typical flowrates averaging only around 350 to 400″ barrels per day, according to a November 2012 article in <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.worldoil.com/November-2012-Unlocking-the-secrets-of-the-US-largest-onshore-oil-reserves-Monterey-Santos.html">World Oil</a> (fee required). According to Dave Roberts at Grist: "At 400 barrels a day, it would take a well 3,767 years to hit 550 million barrels."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-dr-19">[19]</a>Geologist J. David Hughes of the Post Carbon Institute argued that "initial productivity per well from existing Monterey wells is on average half to a quarter" of EIA assumptions, and cumulative recovery of oil per well "is likely to average a third or less of that assumed by the EIA." This estimate comes from his 2013 analysis of existing data: "1,363 wells have been drilled in shale reservoirs of the Monterey Formation. Oil production from these wells peaked in 2002, and as of February 2013 only 557 wells were still in production. Most of these wells appear to be recovering migrated oil, not 'tight oil' from or near source rock as is the case in the Bakken and Eagle Ford plays." He concludes that the EIA's 15 million barrel estimate is likely highly inflated.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-25">[25]</a><h2>Drilling wells</h2>The database maintained by the oil and gas industry’s website Frac Focus, where companies can voluntarily disclose information about their fracking practices, lists 78 wells in California as of Feb. 21, 2012. According to the Environmental Working Group: "Of these, one is in Los Angeles, one in Ventura County and two are off the coast of Long Beach. One is shown near Santa Barbara on a map, but the attached documentation places the well in Kern County. The other 73 wells are also in Kern County. All of these wells were fracked sometime in 2011 or 2012. Listings on Frac Focus are entirely voluntary and are known to be incomplete, so this accounting is not likely to be comprehensive."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-rs-9">[9]</a><h3>Use of diesel fuels</h3>In 2011, a Congressional investigation determined that 26,444 gallons of diesel fuel had been injected into California wells in hydraulic fracturing fluids from 2005-2009.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-rs-9">[9]</a><h3>Natural gas</h3>In 2011 notices to drill new natural gas wells in Northern California were received at a rate not seen in over twenty years. As of August 2011, the California Department of Conservation issued 178 permits to drill new wells in Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Solano, Sutter, Yolo, San Joaquin, Sacramento and Tehama counties. At that rate, 267 notices would be filed by the end of 2012, compared to 137 in 2000 and 78 in 1995.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-26">[26]</a><h3>Los Angeles County</h3>In October 2015, DOGGR released to the public an audit of its regulation program. The audit concluded that since 2007, most oil projects in the Los Angeles area had not been subject to a required annual review.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-27">[27]</a><h4>Inglewood</h4>In 2012 it was reported that <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/PXP" title="PXP">PXP</a> was using fracking in the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Inglewood_oil_field" title="Inglewood oil field">Inglewood oil field</a>, the nation's largest urban oil field, which has been operating in Los Angeles since the 1920s and extends up through parts of the central coast and San Joaquin Valley.A 2006 release of noxious gases at the Inglewood Field galvanized community members and environmental groups to sue Los Angeles County, forcing it to augment protections the county had previously created in partnership with PXP. The parties reached a settlement in 2011 that further limited PXP's oil drilling activities, including reducing the number of wells the company could drill. As part of the settlement agreement, PXP agreed to conduct a study that examined the feasibility and impact of current and future fracking at the oil field. It would be the first study to look at the impact of fracking in California, including its impact on groundwater.According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the community that surrounds the oil field did not know about the 2012 test fracking until March 9, after the fracking was complete. According to FracFocus, the two vertical wells were fracked in September 2011 and January 2012. PXP used up to 168,000 gallons of water laced with chemicals in one well to a depth of about one and half miles. The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, is concerned the impact such practices may have on the above water supplies.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-28">[28]</a>Over one million people live within five miles of the site. The fracking site also sits atop a fault line capable of 7.4 magnitude earthquake.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-29">[29]</a>On October 10, 2012, the environmental consulting firm Cardno ENTRIX released a <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.inglewoodoilfield.com/res/docs/102012study/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Study%20Inglewood%20Field10102012.pdf">report</a> commissioned by PXP, entitled “Hydraulic Fracturing Study: PXP Inglewood Oil Field,” which concluded that fracking could be done safely in the area and seismicity could be mitigated. Cardno Entrix had previously been hired by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/TransCanada" title="TransCanada">TransCanada</a> to do the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Keystone_XL_Pipeline" title="Keystone XL Pipeline">Keystone XL Pipeline</a>. PXP and Los Angeles County contracted with JPMartin Energy Strategy LLC to peer review the report. J.P. Martin is director of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shale_Resources_and_Society_Institute&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Shale Resources and Society Institute (page does not exist)">Shale Resources and Society Institute</a>, which was created after a gas industry-funded lecture series on shale gas at SUNY Buffalo. SSRI produced a study in May 2012 finding no averse effects with fracking; all four co-authors were later found to have ties to the oil and gas industry, prompting 83 SUNY Buffalo faculty and staff members to call for an independent investigation into the origins of the SRSI.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-30">[30]</a><h4>Long Beach</h4>Fracking takes place off the coast of Long Beach, California on man-made oil islands. It was reported in 2013 that 203 fracking operations had taken place offshore Long Beach at six different sites over the past 20 years.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-31">[31]</a>An April 2015 investigative piece in OC Weekly noted that since 2012 there have been at least 22 hydraulic fracking operations completed offshore in Long Beach as well as at least 150 acidizing operations and 90 gravel packing jobs.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-32">[32]</a>In late June 2015 Thums Long Beach Co applied for nine fracking permits for offshore operations in Long Beach. The permits, which is the first step to get the operations approved, were okayed by the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-33">[33]</a><h3>Kern County</h3>Kern County produces the most oil of any county in the U.S. In 2015 Kern had around 42,000 active wells. The county is responsible for 75% of California's oil wells and 95% of the fracking<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-34">[34]</a>As of May 2012 there are 95 drilling wells posted on FracFocus, with the vast majority of the fracking projects reported in Kern County. FracFocus pinpoints a cluster of 58 wells fracked in 2011 between Lost Hills and McKittrick by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/XTO_Energy" title="XTO Energy">XTO Energy</a>/<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ExxonMobil" title="ExxonMobil" class="mw-redirect">ExxonMobil</a>. Many of the frack jobs pumped several hundred thousand gallons of water into wells about 3,000 feet deep. Another cluster of 12 wells in the Wasco-Shafter area was fracked in 2011 by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Occidental_Petroleum" title="Occidental Petroleum" class="mw-redirect">Occidental Petroleum</a>.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-35">[35]</a>In May 2012, Kern County's biggest oil producers, consenting to a request by state regulators, agreed to share information about their fracking operations by the end of June 2012. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Chevron" title="Chevron">Chevron</a>, Berry Petroleum Co., Bakersfield's Aera Energy LLC and other members of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Western_States_Petroleum_Association" title="Western States Petroleum Association">Western States Petroleum Association</a> will disclose data on their work with fracking on fracfocus.org.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-36">[36]</a>NASA found the second brightest <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Methane" title="Methane">methane</a> hot spot in the U.S. from space appears to be above Harris Ranch, California’s largest beef producer, and near the Bakersfield oil fields.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-37">[37]</a>In November 2015 the Kern County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to approve one single environmental to take in effect December 2015 that would fast track individual projects in as little as seven days. Three oil industry groups spent more than $10 million in crafting the proposal.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-38">[38]</a><h3>Monterey County</h3>As of 2012 Venoco holds about 256,000 gross acres in the Monterey Shale formation, which starts in Monterey County and stretches across central California. An additional 60,000 acres have already been drilled. The firm has drilled more than 20 wells across the formation since 2010, and invested $100 million -- or nearly 40 percent -- of its 2012 expenditure budget to exploring for oil. The company has drilled four exploratory wells in Monterey County and plans for nine more.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-39">[39]</a>A move to ban fracking in Monterey County is slated for the November 2016 election.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-40">[40]</a><h3>Santa Barbara County</h3>In 2011 County of Santa Barbara made it difficult to frack onshore by mandate that all <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hydraulic_fracturing" title="Hydraulic fracturing" class="mw-redirect">hydraulic fracturing</a> on unincorporated county land be reviewed and approved. The county did not subject cyclical steaming and acidizing to this process. This happened after <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Venoco" title="Venoco">Venoco</a> spilled waste water in a field of riesling grapes in northern Santa Barbara County near Vandenberg Air Force Base. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-41">[41]</a>Based on information gathered from a 2010 oil prospectus from <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Venoco" title="Venoco">Venoco</a>, investigated by the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), and confirmed by the federal government, there was fracking done in 2009 on the Gail oil platform in the Sockeye field in federally controlled waters near Santa Cruz Island in the Channel Islands.In another financial disclosure document there are hints from Venoco's public filings that the company planned to enhance, through prop fracture (an older method of enhancing older wells) or possibly fracking, their other active offshore oilfield in California state waters, known as the South Ellwood -- a field approximately seven miles long and part of the northern flank of the Santa Barbara channel and extending to the Ventura basin.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-42">[42]</a><h3>Offshore</h3>For more information see <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Offshore_fracking" title="Offshore fracking">Offshore fracking</a><div class="thumb embedvideo tright" style="width: 406px;"><div class="thumbinner" style="width: 400px;"><div class="thumbcaption">Offshore Fracking in California.</div></div></div>In July 2013 the news site Truthout reported that federal regulators approved at least two hydraulic fracturing operations on oil rigs in the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast of California since 2009 without an updated environmental review to account for modern fracking technology. Regulators approved both operations by signing off on modifications to existing drilling permits. In an internal email, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Chief of Staff Thomas Lillie wondered how the agency could allow fracking offshore without producing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the effects. No studies have been performed on the effects of fracking fluids on the marine environment.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-ml-43">[43]</a>It was later reported that the BSEE gave “categorical exclusions” to oil companies for frack jobs on existing offshore oil rigs, allowing them to proceed with the activity in the federal waters off California without public disclosure or environmental impact analysis. According to federal guidelines, categorical exclusions are intended for projects that don’t warrant an environmental review because they don’t normally “result in significant environmental harm.”<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-44">[44]</a>According to a BSEE fact sheet, fracking has occurred 11 times in the Pacific drilling region during the past 25 years, although BSEE officials say the number is only an estimate. Under heavy pressure from environmental groups and state politicians, the California Coastal Commission launched an investigation into offshore fracking, saying it was not aware that fracking technology was being used offshore. On August 6, nine California lawmakers sent letters to the Interior Department and the EPA demanding a federal investigation into offshore fracking, and asking the coastal commission to review federal offshore fracking permits and use its authority to block fracking activities that could harm the California coast.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-ml-43">[43]</a>An October 2013 Environmental Defense Center review and analysis of federal records received through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showed that at least 15 fracs have occurred offshore California, with several more proposals pending. But according to EDC: "More fracs have almost certainly been conducted, however, as federal regulators were until recently unaware that the practice was being used." Saying the offshore frac jobs raise questions about compliance with environmental laws, EDC recommends a "moratorium on offshore fracking and other forms of well stimulation unless and until such technologies are proven safe through a public and transparent comprehensive scientific review" and to "prohibit the use of categorical exclusions (exemptions from environmental review) to authorize offshore fracking and other forms of well stimulation."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-45">[45]</a>According to interviews and drilling records obtained by the Associated Press in October 2013, energy companies employed offshore fracking at least 203 times at six locations over the past two decades. The drilling sites included waters off Long Beach, Seal Beach, and Huntington Beach, all popular tourist areas.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-46">[46]</a>A settlement to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity against the U.S. Department of the Interior prompted an offshore fracking moratorium off the California coast. A press release by the Center for Biological Diversity stated that the "agreement requires the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to analyze the environmental dangers of offshore fracking and acidization under the National Environmental Policy Act. The settlement also prohibits federal officials from authorizing these inherently dangerous practices in federal waters until that analysis is concluded."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-bio-47">[47]</a><h4>Oil spill in Santa Barbara</h4>In response to a moderate sized oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in May 2015, environmental groups warned that such spills are likely to happen again as long as offshore oil drilling, including fracking, continues to take place off the coast of California.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-48">[48]</a>On May 19, 2015 a rupture in a pipeline owned by All American Pipeline caused over 142,800 gallons to spill on the beach and ocean. It is commonly known as the Refugio Oil Spill named after Refugio Beach located just north of Santa Barbara where the majority of the crude landed.State wildlife workers would eventually collect and tall both dead and live birds and animals from the spill. The tally would include 202 dead birds, 65 live ones, 99 dead mammals, including 15 dolphins, and 63 live mammals. Sixty nine pelicans, sea lions, loons, and others would be treated and later freed.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-49">[49]</a> Sea mammals were found washed up in the cities of Ventura and Oxnard south of the spill.Federal regulators from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration determined in February 2016 that external corrosion was the cause of the spill.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-50">[50]</a>The Santa Barbara Independent reported that federal regulators determined that All American Pipeline employees waited 89 minutes to report the spill.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-51">[51]</a>More than onshore and offshore oil employees facilities lost their jobs because oil was no longer transported through the area.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-52">[52]</a>ExxonMobil’s Heritage, Harmony, and Hondo platforms were out of commission after the Refugio Oil Spill shut down the All American Pipeline.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Venoco" title="Venoco">Venoco</a> was one of several local operating companies negatively effected by the pipeline spill. On February 16, 2016 Venoco missed submitting its $13.7 million semi-annual interest payment. Venoco, ExxonMobil, Freeport-McMoRan offshore oil platforms ceased operating shortly after the spill because the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration shut down pipelines moving crude oil to refineries. In November 2015, Venoco reported a net loss of $203.3 million for the third quarter.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-53">[53]</a><h3>Ventura County</h3>Oxnard, California is home to an active tar sands field located in a large field of farmland. The Oxnard oil field has both wells drilling to the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monterey_Shale" title="Monterey Shale">Monterey Shale</a> and cyclical steaming wells to attract bitumen, also known as tar sands. In 2011 tar sands drilling destroyed a field of broccoli. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-54">[54]</a><h3>Public lands</h3>In October 2013 Los Angeles County leaders voted unanimously to oppose a plan to drill for oil in publicly owned parkland in the Whittier hills, saying the proposal would undermine open space protection throughout the county. The drilling was proposed by Matrix Oil Co. in agreement with the city of Whittier, neither of which said they will recognize the county's vote. Litigation is underway. The dispute is over whether the city has the right to allow oil drilling on 1,280 acres it purchased in 1994 with about $17 million of Proposition A funds, which were intended for conservation purposes. Under terms of the proposed lease, Matrix would use slant-drilling technology to tap an estimated 20 million barrels of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tight_oil" title="Tight oil">tight oil</a>, in exchange for the city receiving royalties. Whittier officials believe that they are legally entitled to the oil because they say the city retained the mineral rights, even if the land was purchased with county bond money for conservation purposes.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-55">[55]</a><h2>Fracked oil by rail</h2><div class="thumb tright"><div class="thumbinner" style="width: 302px;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/File:MK-CP873A_CALTR_G_20141007112737.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/thumb/3/35/MK-CP873A_CALTR_G_20141007112737.jpg/300px-MK-CP873A_CALTR_G_20141007112737.jpg" class="thumbimage" height="353" width="300" /></a><div class="thumbcaption"></div></div><div class="thumb tright"><div class="thumbinner" style="width: 302px;"><div class="thumbcaption">California Oil Imports Rising.</div></div></div>In October 2014 the Wall Street Journal reported that California rail depots that will begin to handle oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale. In order to handle the demand, Alon USA Energy Inc. is building the state’s largest oil-train terminal Kern Country. That terminal, which is to be completed in 2015, will receive 150,000 barrels of oil a day in Bakersfield, California. Additionally, Plains All American Pipeline is opening a 70,000-barrel-a-day oil-train terminal, also located in Bakersfield. The oil for this terminal will also come from fracked gas from North Dakota's Bakken Shale.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-56">[56]</a>The Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery in Arroye Grande, California plans to expand its rail line. The first Environmental Impact Review indicated the oil on the rail would be the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/North_Dakota_and_fracking" title="North Dakota and fracking">North Dakota</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bakken_formation" title="Bakken formation">Bakken formation</a> Shale. The October 2014 Environmental Impact Report indicated the rail would only haul Canadian tar sands from Alberta's boreal forests.Trains coming and going from Santa Maria Refinery would travel the path of the Union Pacific Rail, on tracks shared by Amtrak. They would make the journey north through Ventura and Santa Barbara County to the Nipomo Mesa, through Paso Robles, Salinas, and San Jose. Then they head through Richmond, then Berkeley. The cities of Moorpark, Richmond, and Berkeley city councils passed resolutions calling for stricter regulations on crude oil trains. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-57">[57]</a><h2>Water use and wastewater</h2>The average fracked well in California used 166,714 gallons of water, according to a 2013 Ceres report.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-58">[58]</a>In 2011, onshore oil and gas drilling wells in California produced more than 2.5 trillion barrels of produced water; over 126 million was produced at the Inglewood oil field of Los Angeles County.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-59">[59]</a>A 2014 report by World Resources Institute found that ten gas deposits "sit atop aquifers that are being withdrawn at rates that far exceed their natural recharge rate," including California's Monterey formation, which covers the southwest coastal region around Los Angeles and inland near Bakersfield as well as in Texas and the Rocky Mountains.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-60">[60]</a>In 2014, fracking in California used 75 million gallons of water.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-61">[61]</a><h3>Risk assessments</h3>As of 2012, California has not assessed fracking’s risks to California’s groundwater, according to a 2012 Environmental Working Group (EWG) report. The report cites a 2011 letter in which Sen. Fran Pavley asked state regulators to “provide the results of any risk assessments that the State of California has conducted regarding potential groundwater contamination associated with hydraulic fracturing.” The agency responded: “The division does not know of any state risk assessment regarding potential groundwater contamination associated with hydraulic fracture.”<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-rs-9">[9]</a>According to Clean Water Action (CWA), fracking poses many risks for California's water supply since a single frack well can use upwards of hundreds of thousands to millions of gallons of water. Additionally, CWA second's EWG's report that fracking could pollute groundwater supplies in the state.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-62">[62]</a>A 2015 report by EWG, which analyzed data released by the state during the first year of new reporting requirements, found high levels of benzene in fracking wastewater. Additionally, the study revealed "the presence of hundreds of chemicals, including many linked to cancer, nervous system damage and reproductive disorders."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-63">[63]</a><h3>Leaks, spills, and accidents</h3>In 2009, a jury in Kern County found that 96 million barrels of wastewater from drilling had leached from holding ponds onto a farmer's property, resulting in contamination of the aquifer beneath his land.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-64">[64]</a> According to the Environmental Working Group: "It’s unknown if any of this wastewater came from hydraulic fracturing; what is clear is that California’s ground and drinking water are not being adequately protected from the hazards of fracking and oil and gas operations in general."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-rs-9">[9]</a>In 2010, contaminants from a wastewater <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Injection_well" title="Injection well">injection well</a> bubbled up in a west Los Angeles dog park.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-65">[65]</a><h3>California aquifers contaminated</h3>In July 2014 California state regulators shut down 11 fracking wastewater injection wells over concerns that the wastewater might have contaminated aquifers used for drinking water and farm irrigation. Following the shutdown, the EPA ordered a report within 60 days. In October 2014, the California State Water Resources Board has sent a letter to the EPA which confirmed that "at least nine of those sites were in fact dumping wastewater contaminated with fracking fluids and other pollutants into aquifers protected by state law and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-66">[66]</a><h3>Benzene</h3>Data released in February 2015 from a report on California fracking found that there was 700 times the federal standard amount of Benzene in fracking waste fluids. The raw data showed that 98% of wastewater samples taken from 329 fracking sites in the state had dangerous levels of benzene, which is a known carcinogen. The data was gathered over a one year period by the Center for Biological Diversity.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-67">[67]</a>The EWG ran tests on 293 wastewater for the organization's 2015 wastewater report. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Benzene" title="Benzene">Benzene</a> was found in 99 percent of the samples. All detections exceeded the California drinking water standard. Eighty percent exceeded it by factors of 100 to 1,000. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-68">[68]</a><h3>Toluene</h3>Toluene, a neurotoxin classified as a potent reproductive toxin under Proposition 65. The EWG ran tests for toluene in 293 <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hydraulic_fracking&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Hydraulic fracking (page does not exist)">hydraulic fracking</a> wastewater samples. EWG detected toluene in 83 percent of the samples at levels above the drinking water standard. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-69">[69]</a><h3>Illicit dumping</h3>In February 2015, Kern County water officials discovered hundreds of unlined fracking wastewater pits that were operating without permits. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board found that more than one-third of the region’s active disposal pits were operating without proper permits. The unlined pits raise concerns that groundwater could be contaminated in the area. The operators of these sites will not be shut down, but will have to apply for permits and monitor the sites if they are near water sources.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-70">[70]</a><h3>Farming impacts</h3>In August 2015 California State Assemblyman Mike Gatto, who represents the Los Angeles. area, introduced a bill that will be considered as part of the California Legislature’s Special Session on health. The bill, if it passes, would require labels to be placed on food that was grown using fracking wastewater.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-71">[71]</a><h2><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Injection_wells" title="Injection wells" class="mw-redirect">Injection wells</a></h2>Over 25,000 oilfield injection wells are operating in the state. Injection wells are used to increase oil recovery and to dispose of the salt and fresh water produced with oil and natural gas. Class II wells involve injecting fluids associated with oil and natural gas production operations - generally the brine that is produced when oil and gas are extracted from the earth.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-72">[72]</a>On July 7, 2014 California's Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources "issued cease and desist orders to seven energy companies warning that they may be injecting their waste into aquifers that could be a source of drinking water, and stating that their waste disposal 'poses danger to life, health, property, and natural resources.'" In all 11 companies were ordered to stop injections, while 100 more were being reviewed in California's Central Valley, which has been impacted by a severe three-year drought. State officials were concerned that toxic waste from injection wells could enter groundwater supplies that farmers are using to irrigate crops in the region.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-73">[73]</a>In March 2015 California regulators ordered a halt to wastewater injection operations at 12 underground well sites in Kern County. The action was part of a systematic statewide review of injection related to the oil and gas industry.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-74">[74]</a>In 2015, the U.S. EPA conducted an investigation into the state's regulation of wastewater injection wells. The U.S. EPA charged the state for allowing drillers to inject oil waste into federally protected aquifers. More than 2,500 illegal injection wells were identified in California. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-75">[75]</a>In October 2015, the state shut down 33 wells that were injecting wastewater into California aquifers. As of October 2015 the state shut down a total of 56 wells in the state that were pumping wastewater into local aquifers.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-76">[76]</a>In 2016 Stanford University scientist, Rob Jackson, identified hundreds of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hydraulic_fracturing" title="Hydraulic fracturing" class="mw-redirect">hydraulic fracturing</a> wells drilled into California aquifers located less than 2,000 feet below the surface.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-77">[77]</a><h3>Earthquakes</h3>According to USGS Earthquake Science Center’s Art McGarr, there are no high-volume waste-water injection wells in California located within areas of high population density, to his knowledge. There is also, however, no way to verify this due to the lack of state and federal disclosure laws.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-78">[78]</a> Wastewater injection into disposal wells has been linked to a series of small earthquakes in Ohio<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-79">[79]</a> and the U.S. mid-continent.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-80">[80]</a>Geologists in a February 2016 article in Geophysics Research Letters tied a September 2005 swarm of earthquakes near the White Wolf fault in Kern County to three wastewater disposal wells nearby. Using hydrogeological modeling, the authors found that wastewater disposal likely contributed to seismicity via localized pressure increase along the active fault.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-81">[81]</a><h3>Exemptions</h3>A 2012 ProPublica <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.propublica.org/series/injection-wells">investigation</a> into the threat to water supplies from underground injection of waste found the EPA has granted energy and mining companies exemptions to release toxic material in more than 1,500 places in aquifers across the country. The EPA may issue exemptions if aquifers are too remote, too dirty, or too deep to supply affordable drinking water; however, EPA documents showed the agency has issued permits for portions of reservoirs that are in use, assuming contaminants will stay within the finite area exempted. More than 100 exemptions for natural aquifers have been granted in California, some to dispose of drilling and fracking waste in the state's driest parts. Though most date back to the 1980s, the most recent exemption was approved in 2009 in Kern County, an agricultural area.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking#cite_note-82">[82]</a><h2>Porter Ranch storage container leak</h2>http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/05/11/california-regulators-are-approving-fracking-permits-near-fault-lines
 =<a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/29032016/climate-change-deception-oil-companies-exxon-california-legislation">http://insideclimatenews.org/news/29032016/climate-change-deception-oil-companies-exxon-california-legislation</a>Fossil fuel companies in California could face investigation under legislation introduced by a state senator who says the proposed law is designed to hold industry accountable for "many years of public deception" and fraud over the scientific evidence about climate change.The Climate Science Truth & Accountability Act would extend the statute of limitations under California's Unfair Competition Law from four to 30 years, giving greater leverage to state and local prosecutors to file civil charges in connection with the conduct of fossil fuel companies going back decades.The legislation, introduced by Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), would give prosecutors authority to delve into the issues dating to the heart of the denial era.The legislation was inspired by investigative news stories, <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent;">including those by InsideClimate News</a> (ICN), and an investigation by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that disclosed ExxonMobil and the oil industry were aware of the dangers of global warming from the burning of fossil fuels as far back as the 1970s.The ICN stories and <a href="http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent;">later articles</a> by the Los Angeles Times in tandem with the Columbia University Journalism School—along with a <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.VvmQ6tIrJkh" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent;">UCS report</a> last year—revealed that the company went on to spearhead industry efforts in the late 1980s to derail regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and cloud public understanding of climate science.The bill takes aim at fossil fuel companies over concerns that they have deceived the public for decades about their products' impact on climate change, and seeks to hold them accountable.Based on his review of the recent disclosures, <a href="http://sd26.senate.ca.gov/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent;">Allen</a> said there are serious issues that warrant investigation."I want to give law enforcement the tools they need to hold people accountable for their actions if that's where the evidence takes them," he said. "Certainly everything we've seen suggests there may be a really strong case."'Unfair and Deceptive Practices'Allen said the legislation is not a directive to law enforcement to pursue prosecutions, and he emphasizes the bill does not change the standard of proof or alter legal due process.Yet <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2778259-SB1161ClimateScienceTruthAccountabilityFactSheet03.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent;">a summary of the bill</a> by Allen's office concluded: "Given the environmental, health, and economic impacts that Californians are already paying for as a result of the fossil fuel industry's many years of public deception and their efforts to block action on climate change, it is important to hold the industry responsible."Keeping the statute limited to only four years undermines the state's ability to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for their unfair and deceptive practices that extend back well beyond four years, as well as the damages and risks that Californians and everyone else must face for centuries to come."Extending the deadline for filing environmental cases would expose fossil fuel companies like Exxon to greater liability, said Richard Frank, professor of Environmental Practice and Director of California Environmental Law and Policy Center at the University of California, Davis. "If the statute of limitations is extended, that means a now powerful environmental prosecutorial tool will become even more powerful," said<a href="https://law.ucdavis.edu/faculty/frank/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent;">Frank</a>, who served nearly 30 years as a deputy in the California attorney general's office.The unfair competition statute allows the California attorney general, a district attorney, or a city attorney of a city with more than 750,000 people to bring legal action against a business that has committed "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s] and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising," as it relates to climate change.As the law stands now, it is difficult for prosecutors to file cases involving violations older than four years. That would change if Allen's bill becomes law."It would open up a much wider window for companies to be held accountable for their conduct," Frank said.It could be applied to possible violations by ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies for making deceptive public statements about what it knew about climate change and any attempts to obfuscate the truth, Frank said.Cases brought under the law are civil, not criminal. That means violations can result in hefty fines and court orders to halt the illegal conduct.The law could also be employed in civil litigation by private citizens who can prove to a court they have sufficient connection to, and harm from, the alleged violations. The proposed law also would also apply to so-called "private party" cases, in which stockholders might sue a company.The bill must make its way through several senate committees before coming up for a vote in June before the full body. If it passes, the legislation will be forwarded to the assembly for consideration and a vote later in the summer. A final bill, if passed by the Democratic-held senate and assembly, could be on Gov. Jerry Brown's desk by August.Brown, also a Democrat, and state lawmakers have a history of taking steps to combat climate change and curb toxic carbon pollution. Most recently, Brown signed ambitious legislation to expand renewable energy use to 50 percent and double energy efficiency in buildings by 2030.Exxon already is the <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/05112015/new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-subpoena-Exxon-climate-documents" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent;">target of an investigation by the New York attorney general's office.</a> Investigators for Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have issued a subpoena demanding Exxon turn over documents related to its climate change studies, and the way the company represented that information to the public. During a press conference Tuesday with five other attorneys general and former Vice President Al Gore, Schneiderman confirmed that California Attorney General Kamala Harris has also launched an Exxon climate probe. The attorneys general of Massachusetts and the Virgin Islands announced their own investigations of the oil giant. Adrienne Alvord, California and western states director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the proposed expansion of California's statute of limitations is vital because the state is already experiencing the costly, damaging effects of climate change."We want to ensure that the state has the ability to hold fossil fuel companies legally accountable for the decades of deception and damages they have caused to public health, property and the environment in California," she said.<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/gop-primary-alameda-county-california-donald-trump-ted-cruz-republicans-relevant">http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/gop-primary-alameda-county-california-donald-trump-ted-cruz-republicans-relevant</a>ca coal divest joneshttp://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2016/statement010-16.cfm
 
 <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/29/rooftop-solar-wars/">http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/29/rooftop-solar-wars/</a> CPUC supports
 
<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/22/monsanto-sues-california-glyphosate">http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/22/monsanto-sues-california-glyphosate</a>

...
 Last September, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued plans to add glyphosate to the state’s list of chemicals known to cause cancer, making it <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/08/california-becomes-first-state-to-label-monsantos-roundup-as-a-carcinogen/">the first</a> state in the country to do so. The state agency’s decision came after the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC), the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm, infamously <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8/fulltext" target="blank">declared</a> that glyphosate was a “possible carcinogen” in March 2015.Monsanto has long maintained the safety of their flagship product and has vehemently denied glyphosate’s link to cancer. The agribusiness giant has also <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/26/monsanto-demands-who-retract-report/">demanded a retraction</a> of the IARC’s report.Monsanto is now suing OEHHA and the agency’s acting director, Lauren Zeise, in California state court, citing a <a href="http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/GlyPHG062907.pdf" target="blank">2007 study by OEHHA</a> that concluded the chemical was unlikely to cause cancer, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSKCN0UZ2RN" target="blank">Reuters</a> reported.“The IARC classification of glyphosate is inconsistent with the findings of regulatory bodies in the United States and around the world, and it is not a sound basis for any regulatory action,” Phil Miller, Monsanto’s vice president of regulatory affairs, told Reuters.<div class="rve" data-content-width=""><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" width="500"><a href="https://twitter.com/MonsantoCo">@MonsantoCo</a> just sued <a href="https://twitter.com/california">@California</a> for trying to protect people from <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/glyphosate?src=hash">#glyphosate</a> <a href="https://t.co/yfcO8VXGlC">https://t.co/yfcO8VXGlC</a> <a href="https://t.co/swEP8IfedX">pic.twitter.com/swEP8IfedX</a>— Nathan Donley (@Nathan_Donley) <a href="https://twitter.com/Nathan_Donley/status/690346679971790848">January 22, 2016</a></blockquote></div>OEHHA’s effort to list glyphosate as a known carcinogen falls under <a href="http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/admin_listing/intent_to_list/090415LCset27.html" target="blank">California’s Proposition 65</a>, in which the state is required to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. The same law, otherwise known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also requires that certain substances identified by the IARC be listed as known to cause cancer.The <a href="http://www.monsanto.com/files/documents/monvoehha.pdf" target="blank">case</a>, known as Monsanto Company v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, et al, case number 16-CECG-00183, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno.According to the lawsuit, the St. Louis-based company is accusing OEHHA of delegating law-making authority to “an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, and foreign body without providing intelligible principles or procedural safeguards to define the boundaries of that authority or prevent its arbitrary exercise.”Monsanto claims that OEHHA has violated the company’s right to procedural due process under the California and United States Constitutions.The lawsuit claims that listing glyphosate under Proposition 65 would violate Monsanto’s right to free speech and compel it to affix “false and/or misleading” statements to its products: “If glyphosate is added to the Proposition 65 list, Monsanto will be required to provide a ‘clear and reasonable warning’ on its glyphosate-based products that states that the products contain a chemical ‘known to the state to cause cancer.'” Monsanto argues that this label would damage its reputation and violate its First Amendment rights.<a href="http://www.hortweek.com/monsanto-takes-legal-action-prevent-flawed-listing-glyphosate-californias-prop-65/retail/article/1380469" target="blank">Citing</a> conclusions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/12/glyphosate-cause-cancer/">European Food Safety Authority</a>, Monsanto maintains that glyphosate does not cause cancer.Listing glyphosate as a carcinogen would cause irreparable injury to Monsanto and the public, and would require Monsanto to spend significant sums of money to re-label and re-shelf its products, the lawsuit said.OEHHA has yet to issue a response to the lawsuit. Scientists and advocacy groups, however, have spoken out against the litigation.<div class="rve" data-content-width=""><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" width="500">Monsanto's grounds for suing California over its cancer warning for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/glyphosate?src=hash">#glyphosate</a> include that it violates Monsanto's First Amendment rights!— GMWatch (@GMWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/GMWatch/status/690556185381081088">January 22, 2016</a></blockquote></div>“Monsanto’s decision to sue California and attack the most well-respected cancer research agency in the world, the IARC, is absurd,” Dr. Nathan Donley, scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, told EcoWatch via email. “Why would California use anything other than the gold standard to inform its public health decisions?”Roundup, which generated Monsanto $4.8 billion in 2015 revenue, is the world’s most popular herbicide. The chemical is applied onto “Roundup Ready” crops that are genetically modified to resist applications of the spray.Monsanto, however, is facing a slew of <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/20/monsantos-roundup-glyphosate/" target="blank">criticism from environmentalists</a> as well as <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/16/lawsuits-monsanto-cancer-roundup/">mounting class-action lawsuits</a> over the controversial chemical.In September, two separate U.S. agricultural workers <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/30/monsanto-sued-roundup-causes-cancer/">slapped Monsanto with lawsuits</a>, alleging that the company caused their cancers. They also argued that the company “falsified data” and “led a prolonged campaign of misinformation” to convince the public, farm workers and government agencies about the safety of the Roundup.<div class="rve" data-content-width=""><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" width="500"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Monsanto?src=hash">#Monsanto</a> Sued by Farm Workers Claiming <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Roundup?src=hash">#Roundup</a> Caused Their Cancers <a href="http://t.co/NRhlrUScrR">http://t.co/NRhlrUScrR</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/GMOjournal">@GMOjournal</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GMO?src=hash">#GMO</a> <a href="http://t.co/l0qMxc5qaW">pic.twitter.com/l0qMxc5qaW</a>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/649238781606920192">September 30, 2015</a></blockquote></div>YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE<a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/21/gmo-alfalfa-gone-wild/">Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered Roundup Ready Alfalfa Has Gone Wild</a><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/17/non-gmo-project-seeds/">Demand for Non-GMO Products Hits the Seed Industry</a><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/15/corn-monsanto-mexico/">59 Indigenous Corn Varieties at Risk as Monsanto Eyes Mexico</a><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/14/gmo-potato-j-r-simplot/">FDA Approves Genetically Engineered Potato</a>
 <a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/california-drilling-plan-verges-insanity-environmentalists-say">http://www.alternet.org/environment/california-drilling-plan-verges-insanity-environmentalists-say</a>AKERSFIELD, Calif. (CN) - Environmental groups sued Kern County for a zoning revision they say will allow the oil industry to drill 73,000 new oil wells in unincorporated areas - 10 a day for 20 years.Among the severe and illegal shortcomings of the new county ordinance is that it treats the drilling of 72,490 oil and gas wells on 2.3 million acres for 20 years as a single project, the local and national environmental groups say.The Committee for a Better Arvin, Committee for a Better Shafter, and Bakersfield-based Greenfield Walking Group sued the county, its Board of Supervisors and its planning and development department on Thursday in Superior Court. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity joined as plaintiffs. It is the Top Download at Courthouse News on Monday.The Western States Petroleum Association, California Independent Petroleum Association, and the Independent Oil Producers Agency are named as real parties in interest."The oil industry is trying to fast-track permitting for thousands of oil wells," plaintiffs' attorney William Rostov told Courthouse News."It's unfortunate that the Board of Supervisors went along with the oil industry on this. Our clients feel they have no other recourse but to take it to court."Kern County, at the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, already has some of the worst air pollution in the country, from oil drilling, pesticides, dust and microparticulates, and ozone from auto and farm machinery exhaust.The rezoning violated the California Environmental Quality Act, one of whose purposes is to educate the public about projects in their vicinity, Rostov said.He said the new ordinance would drastically transform Kern County and have a "tremendous effect" on water and air quality. The county knows about the impacts, but did not properly analyze them, he said. "This is a very important case that could affect Kern for decades to come," Rostov said. "We think we have a very good case."According to the lengthy complaint: "Proposed and paid for by the oil industry, the ordinance and the accompanying final environmental impact report ('Final EIR') purport to authorize the development of up to 3,647 new oil and gas wells and extensive associated construction and operation activities, each year for 20 to 25 more years, without any further, site-specific assessment of those activities' health and other environmental impacts. The ordinance jeopardizes the health and well-being of hundreds of thousands of people across Kern County."Kern County, population 839,631, at the southern end of the Central Valley. Nearly the size of New Jersey, it extends from Delano, its northernmost city, south to the Tehachapi Mountains, east into the Mojave Desert and west across the San Joaquin Valley.Its two biggest industries are agriculture and oil and gas development. Kern produces one-tenth of the nation's petroleum and is the top oil-producing county in California, with 81 percent of the state's active oil wells.That number will surge drastically if the amended ordinance, approved on Nov. 9, is allowed to stand, the environmentalists say...=However many of these important measures are in trouble in the U.S. California’s landmark legislation is now <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-plastic-bag-ban-20150223-story.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">officially on hold</a>, gma padilla<a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-plastic-bag-ban-20150223-story.html">http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-plastic-bag-ban-20150223-story.html</a>with a referendum to repeal the ban added to the ballot for November 2016. Florida and Arizona have both already passed bills making the banning ofplastic bags illegal. Powerful and large special interest lobbying groups are behind these “ban bans” as well as litigation aimed at already existing bans. Outside interests are funding these efforts to dissuade and dismantle local level legislation. Primary among them is the ProgressiveBag Affiliates, funded by the largest plastic bag manufacturers in the country and the American Chemistry Council.[http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/27/worlds-largest-wildlife-corridor-california/ World’s Largest Wildlife Corridor to Be Built in California] 9/15. See [http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wiki/index.php?title=Category:Wildlife Wildlife].Hello, and thank you.
 Earlier this month (on September 11th), SB350 The Kevin de Leon Clean Energy bill passed and was signed--with due credit to all of you who called your assembly reps, and who called out the reps I listed in my last e-mail including Sebastian Ridley Thomas. Thank you for calling those who classically never vote to sign clean energy bills. This one made it.It has taken me far too long to share the lukewarm news. Why lukewarm? Because the bill was compromised, of course. It was butchered! I had heard that Republican Assembly reps (who are probably getting corporate kickbacks) negotiated the bill down harshly. You can see the bill in the link below. 

It depresses me. I say "yes, let us celebrate moving forward with this plan for more clean energy by 2030." But why, why is it always a compromise on environmental health? Why is it so hard for these leaders we have elected to 'get it?!' We (and correct me if this was not your motivation in voting for them) voted for our leaders to help us as their constituents. We vote for our leaders as our emissaries, our voices, as our representation! So why, why, why is it so difficult for them to understand that they work for us?! Not for corporations! 
 I leave you with that. Please keep voting and please keep on your reps to protect our; water, air, land and food. It is about our collective survival. 
 Thank you for caring. 
 -Aura Walker (Civilian, Activist and Concerned Parent)Link that shows how SB350 was butchered: <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1443541862292_2135" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350</a>How Governor Brown is voting: <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article35665722.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article35665722.html</a> Introduced by Senator De León (Coauthor: Senator Hill) <table id="billvotes" summary="Votes table is ordered by date. The second row of each date entry is the list of legislators voting aye, the third row those voting no, and the fourth row those where no vote was recorded" style="border: 1px solid rgb(49, 81, 102); padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; vertical-align: baseline; border-spacing: 0px;"><tbody style="border-width: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" /></table> <table><tbody><tr style="border-width: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td colspan="5" headers="ayes 09/02/15" class="columnField" style="border-width: 0px 1px 1px 0px; padding: 0.1em 0.5em 0.75em; margin: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border-right-color: rgb(225, 224, 220); border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(225, 224, 220); border-bottom-style: solid;">Ayes: Alejo, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Dababneh, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins</td></tr><tr style="border-width: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td colspan="2" style="border-width: 0px 1px 1px 0px; padding: 0.1em 0.5em 0.75em; margin: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border-right-color: rgb(225, 224, 220); border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(225, 224, 220); border-bottom-style: solid;"> </td><td colspan="5" headers="noes 09/02/15" class="columnField" style="border-width: 0px 1px 1px 0px; padding: 0.1em 0.5em 0.75em; margin: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border-right-color: rgb(225, 224, 220); border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(225, 224, 220); border-bottom-style: solid;">Noes: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Cooper, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk</td></tr><tr style="border-width: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td colspan="2" style="border-width: 0px 1px 1px 0px; padding: 0.1em 0.5em 0.75em; margin: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border-right-color: rgb(225, 224, 220); border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(225, 224, 220); border-bottom-style: solid;"> </td><td colspan="5" headers="nvr 09/02/15" class="columnField" style="border-width: 0px 1px 1px 0px; padding: 0.1em 0.5em 0.75em; margin: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; border-right-color: rgb(225, 224, 220); border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(225, 224, 220); border-bottom-style: solid;">No Votes Recorded: Brown, Daly, Ridley-Thomas</td></tr></tbody></table> =<a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/03092015/california-bill-divest-largest-pension-funds-coal-fossil-fuel">http://insideclimatenews.org/news/03092015/california-bill-divest-largest-pension-funds-coal-fossil-fuel</a>california is one governor's signature away from becoming the first state to mandate its major public pension funds to at least partially divest from fossil fuel holdings, which could have ripple effects across the nation.<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded">The California Assembly voted 47 to 30 on Wednesday to mandate the state's two largest pension funds divest from coal assets. It now heads to Gov. Jerry Brown's office for approval. The Senate voted in favor of the measure in June.Even though the legislation—<a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB185" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">Senate Bill 185</a>—awaits the governor's signature, Brown has been a strong advocate of climate action and has helped steer the state toward being a leader in renewable energy, so divestment proponents are already celebrating. RL Miller, chair of the California Democratic Party's environmental caucus, was "very happy" and "giddy" after the vote."This is the beginning of an avalanche," said Miller, <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22052015/california-democrats-approve-sweeping-fossil-fuel-divestment-resolution" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">who has helped build support</a>for fossil fuel divestment within the California Democratic Party for several years.The website 350.org, a green group that has supported divestment efforts across the country, lays out the primary argument for divestment as: "If it is wrong to wreck the climate, then it is wrong to profit from that wreckage." Fully divesting involves selling off stocks and bonds tied to oil, natural gas and coal companies, and the process can take months to years.Targeted in this bill is the <a href="https://www.calpers.ca.gov/" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">California Public Employees' Retirement System</a>(CalPERS) and  <a href="http://www.calstrs.com/" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">California State Teachers' Retirement System (</a>CalSTRS), which combined represent more than 2.4 million retirees. They are the country's two largest pension funds, worth nearly $500 billion. Less than one percent of those funds are invested in coal assets.The legislation forbids them to make new investments or renew existing investments in coal companies, and mandates they sell their holdings in these companies by July 2017. Prior to divesting, the groups can first encourage the companies to transition to clean energy generation.The retirement funds can choose not to divest if it proved to be financially detrimental to the pension funds. But with the <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/18052015/coals-future-facing-three-hurdles-and-steady-decline-projections-epa-clean-power-plan" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">coal industry struggling</a>, many supporters of the bill believe divestment is inevitable."Coal is losing value quickly and investing in coal is a losing proposition for our retirees; it's a nuisance to public health; and it's inconsistent with our values as a state on the forefront of efforts to address global climate change," the bill's sponsor, Senate leader Kevin de León, a Democrat, said in a statement.Ricardo Duran, a spokesman for CalSTRS, told InsideClimate News in an email: "CalSTRS did not take a position on the bill. We are assessing the level of thermal coal that meets the legislative definition and believe it may be approximately a $40 million holding."Any effort to remove thermal coal from the portfolio must first meet the board’s standard of fiduciary care. CalSTRS' first priority is, and always has been, safeguarding the financial futures of our members and their families, and to make decisions solely in the interest of our members and their beneficiaries."Officials from CalPERS said they would comment after the bill is signed.Beyond California, lawmakers in several states, such as <a href="http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/krueger-ortiz-announce-fossil-fuel-divestment-act" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">New York</a> and<a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11062015/mass-lawmakers-propose-5-billion-pension-fund-cleansing-divestment-oil-coal-gas" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">Massachusetts</a>, have proposed similar legislation this year. The success in California could create "a huge wave of momentum" for other states and the global divestment movement, said Brett Fleishman, a senior analyst for 350.org based in California.Emily Kirkland, a divestment activist in Cambridge, Mass., told InsideClimate News, "The decision of the California Assembly to divest from coal is an enormous victory for the growing international divestment movement—and a direct challenge to legislators in Massachusetts, who are considering a bill to divest the state pension fund from coal, oil and gas."Kirkland, the communications coordinator for environmental organizations Better Future Project and 350 Massachusetts, added: "Massachusetts could still be the first in the nation to divest from all fossil fuels, but with California moving towards divestment from coal, and other states actively considering even more sweeping divestment bills, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing."The California legislative session ends in two weeks and state lawmakers have several climate-related bills to decide on, of which the divestment bill was perhaps the least contentious.Lawmakers now have to decide the fate of <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">Senate Bill 350</a>, which requires the state generate at least 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources by the end of 2030, and <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">Senate Bill 32</a>, which sets out an aggressive schedule for state greenhouse gas emission cuts over the coming decades. These bills have drawn a fierce campaign of opposition from the fossil fuel industry, and de León <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-senate-leader-says-oil-industry-fear-mongering-on-sb-350-20150819-story.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">has accused the industry of "fear-mongering.</a>"So, while RL Miller of the California Democratic Party's environmental caucus was very happy about the divestment bill, Miller told InsideClimate News: "I’ll be happier when SB 350 passes."</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-see-also-view field-type-viewfield field-label-hidden" style="margin-bottom: 1em;"><div id="toggleFlyout"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div class="view view-related-stories view-id-related_stories view-display-id-block view-dom-id-e349083c4b316b0b29c38ca51c2e9ed2"><div class="view-header"><div class="field-label" style="font-weight: bold;">See Also:</div></div><div class="view-content"><div class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22052015/california-democrats-approve-sweeping-fossil-fuel-divestment-resolution" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">California Democrats Approve Sweeping Fossil Fuel Divestment Resolution</a></div></div><div class="views-row views-row-2 views-row-even"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11062015/mass-lawmakers-propose-5-billion-pension-fund-cleansing-divestment-oil-coal-gas" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">Mass. Lawmakers Propose a $5 Billion Pension Fund Cleansing</a></div></div><div class="views-row views-row-3 views-row-odd views-row-last"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20032015/map-tracking-academias-fossil-fuel-divestment" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">Map: Tracking Academia's Fossil Fuel Divestment</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div> =<a href="http://www.globalpossibilities.org/california-lost-5-billion-in-public-pension-funds-due-to-fossil-fuel-investments-last-year/">http://www.globalpossibilities.org/california-lost-5-billion-in-public-pension-funds-due-to-fossil-fuel-investments-last-year/</a>
 6/7/15Last week 33 California senators/district reps/ assembly reps voted "No" on Assemblyman Das Williams' Bill AB-356 asking to monitor California's clean groundwater, in order to protect what is left during a 4 year drought, from Fracking waste/toxic chemical disposal/dumping. Even more insulting is the fact that Williams represents Santa Barbara and Ventura County, where an estimated 101,000 gallons of Plains All American Pipeline crude oil leaked on May 19th into Santa Barbara Refugio state beach. Tar is now washing up all the way down to Redondo beach: <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oil-spill-cleanup-extends-to-ventura-county-20150529-story.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oil-spill-cleanup-extends-to-ventura-county-20150529-story.html</a> I had warned about this in previous posts. Ever since this leak, dolphins, sea lions, pelicans and other wildlife are dying along the coast, especially near the leak site. Here are the names of those who voted "No" and who do not deserve to represent us in a public office. They have done us a disservice. I urge you to look up your rep and call them if their name is on these lists. Insist they overturn their vote immediately on your behalf. Who voted No vote on AB-356: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Cheryl Brown, Chang, Chávez, Cooley, Daly, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Harper, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk. And of course Governor Brown has ignored our pleas.

Here is the list of those who were too wishy washy to vote at all: No Votes Recorded At All: Alejo, Baker, Bonilla, Calderon, Cooper, Dahle, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gonzalez, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones, Low, Medina, O'Donnell, Rodriguez, Weber.<a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=cD6PBFRWZGyBgLgzeonKBA" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432485144547_458109" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; line-height: 1.35em; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Don't let the Governor get his way. Help oppose Trailer Bill 831, which creates a broad CEQA exemption for whatever the Governor wants. Urge Senate and Assembly budget leadership to prevent this language from getting into the budget.</a>  = <div id="pf-src" style="height: auto; width: 779px; border-bottom: 2px dashed rgb(221, 221, 221); padding-bottom: 6px; line-height: 16px;"><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/02/california-exempts-big-oil-big-ag/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=f54b63fd2d-Top_News_4_9_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-f54b63fd2d-85920373" class="pf-src-url" style="word-wrap: break-word; display: block; float: right; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: default;">http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/02/california-exempts-big-oil-big-ag/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=f54b63fd2d-Top_News_4_9_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-f54b63fd2d-85920373</a> </div><h1 id="pf-title" style="margin: 1em 0px; clear: both; direction: ltr; break-inside: avoid !important;">Drought-Stricken California Exempts Big Oil and Big Ag from Mandatory Restrictions</h1>Cole Mellino<div id="pf-content" style="clear: both; direction: ltr;"><div class="pf-content"><div class="eco_share_wrap hide-for-medium-down" style="line-height: 19.04px; widows: 1;"><div class="eco_share_cell eco_share_subscribe">The April 1 snowpack assessment in California, which <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/01/snowpack-california-drought/" style="word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;">set an all-time record for lowest snowpack levels</a> in the state’s history, finally spurred Governor Brown’s office to issue an executive order to residents and non-agricultural businesses to cut water use by 25 percent in the first mandatory statewide reduction in the state’s history.</div></div>But some groups have been exempted from the water restrictions, specifically big agriculture, which <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/30/how-growers-gamed-california-s-drought.html" target="blank" style="word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;">uses about 80 percent of California’s water</a>, and oil companies. <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/2/after_warmest_winter_drought_stricken_california" target="blank" style="word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;">Democracy Now! discussed on their show today</a> the new mandates and the implications of exempting some of the biggest water users in the state.<a href="http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/california/" target="blank" style="word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;">Food & Water Watch California</a> is one of the groups critical of Governor Brown for failing to cap water usage by oil companies and corporate farms, which grow water-intensive crops like almonds and pistachios, most of which are exported out of state or overseas, reports Nermeen Shaikh of Democracy Now! “In the midst of <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/19/california-drought-impact-farmers/" style="word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;">a severe drought</a>, the governor continues to allow corporate farms and oil interests to deplete and pollute our <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/01/david-suzuki-without-water-we-die/" style="word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;">precious groundwater resources</a>,” says Adam Scow of Food & Water Watch California.Shaikh and fellow reporter, Amy Goodman, then turn to Mark Hertsgaard, author of a new book, Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth, and whose latest story is <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/30/how-growers-gamed-california-s-drought.html" target="blank" style="word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;">“How Growers Gamed California’s Drought.”</a> Hertsgaard, an expert on big agriculture and the drought in California, discusses how the price of water is far too low and how we’re still wasting far too much water. “If we priced [water] properly, which means a little bit higher, there’s enormous strides California could be taking with water efficiency,” says Hertsgaard. “We could essentially wipe out the effects of the drought.”But right now we have billionaire farmers like <a href="https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/09/28/18762178.php" target="blank" style="word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;">Stewart Resnick</a> bragging about record profits and record production in water-intensive crops like pistachios, almonds and alfalfa, while poorer communities where farmworkers live “don’t have water coming out of their taps anymore,” says Hertsgaard.Watch the full clip here: YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE<a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/01/snowpack-california-drought/" style="word-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;">California’s Dire Drought Leads to Record Low Snowpack Levels at 6%, Triggers Mandatory Conservation Measures</a>=http://www.alternet.org/environment/activists-shut-down-nestle-water-bottling-plant-sacramentoEnvironmental and human rights activists, holding plastic “torches” and “pitchforks,” formed human barricades at both entrances to the Nestlé Waters bottling plant in Sacramento at 5:00 a.m. on Friday, March 20, effectively shutting down the company's operations for the day.  Members of the “Crunch Nestlé Alliance" shouted out a number of chants, including ”We got to fight for our right to water,” “Nestlé, Stop It, Water Not For Profit," and “¿Agua Para Quien? Para Nuestra Gente.”  The protesters stayed until about 1 pm, but there were no arrests.Representatives of the alliance said the company is draining up to 80 million gallons of water a year from Sacramento aquifers during a record drought. They claim Sacramento City Hall has made it possible through a "corporate welfare giveaway."“This corporate welfare giveaway is an outrage and warrants a major investigation,” Coalition spokesperson Andy Conn said. “For more than five months we have requested data on Nestlé water use. City Hall has not complied with our request, or given any indication that it will. Sacramentans deserve to know how their money is being spent and what they’re getting for it. In this case, they’re getting ripped off.”http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-27/california-gun-microstamping-law-is-upheld-by-federal-judge

local power:
 An energy revolution is breaking out in California and a few other states, one that could radically increase the amount of renewable energy available to citizens and end the tyranny of <a href="http://grist.org/series/utilities-for-dummies/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">foot-dragging utilities</a>. Outside of the rapidly falling costs of solar power, it’s just about my main source of domestic optimism these days.I’m talking about community choice, or, in the horrid legalese, “community choice aggregation.” I’ve <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-to-make-illinois-into-a-clean-energy-leader/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">discussed it before in passing</a>, but it’s starting to seriously catch on, so I want to take a closer look.—Say a town, city, or county is dissatisfied with the power it gets from its utility — it’s too expensive, or too dirty. One option would be for each municipality to leave its utility and form its own “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/business/energy-environment/cities-weigh-taking-electricity-business-from-private-utilities.html?pagewanted=all&r=0" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">municipal utility</a>.” That has its advantages, but it’s a pretty huge step, since the municipality would have to take over not only power procurement but grid operation and maintenance, billing, customer service, etc. In many smaller towns, it’s not practical.The other, emerging option is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Choice_Aggregation" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">community choice aggregation</a>, whereby a county or municipality takes over only the job of buying and selling power, leaving grid management and billing to the utility. It aggregates customers from every participating city, town, and county and uses their collective purchasing power to procure exactly the kind of electricity it wants.The two main motivations to opt for CCA are cheaper power and cleaner power. At least to date, those two goals have not come into conflict. In most cases, CCAs get power that’s cheaper and cleaner than what they were getting from their utility. (Whether those goals conflict in the future will be of keen interest.)CCA must be enabled by legislation and it has been in six states: California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Rhode Island. According to the website<a href="http://www.localpower.com/CommunityChoiceAggregation.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Local Power</a>, which tracks these things:<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.25rem; padding: 0.5625rem 1.25rem 0px 1.1875rem; border-left: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); line-height: 1.6;">Today, 5% of the U.S. population is under CCA service for electricity in 1300 municipalities, including well-known population centers like City of Chicago, Cincinnati, Cape Cod, Sonoma County as well as hundreds of less known small towns and rural counties. CCA formation by municipal ordinance or local election is allowed and provided for under state laws governing 25% of the U.S. electricity market.</blockquote>—California has been particularly on the ball. Marin County <a href="https://mcecleanenergy.com/how-we-started" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">started</a> the state’s first CCA program — it now serves 125,000 customers. Sonoma County has <a href="http://solarsonomacounty.org/Resources/Community-Choice-Aggregation.aspx" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">followed suit</a>. San Mateo County is <a href="http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/supervisors-to-call-for-study-on-countywide-clean-energy-plan/Content?oid=2920329" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">considering it</a>; county supervisors just voted to do a study of the proposal. The mayor of San Francisco, who’s running for reelection this year, has <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Lee-decides-to-back-S-F-clean-power-program-but-6041780.php?cmpid=twitter-mobile" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">reversed his previous opposition</a> to the city joining a CCA. Now he says his only objection was that there wasn’t enough local power required!Perhaps the most <a href="http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/08/14/the-brewing-rift-over-community-choice-aggregation/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">interesting battle</a> is happening in San Diego. Whereas San Francisco represents only about 5 percent of utility giant PG&E’s customer base, San Diego represents over 40 percent of San Diego Gas & Electric’s. That’s a big chunk to lose!CCA is a key part of San Diego’s <a href="http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/02/28/the-climate-action-plan-by-the-numbers/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Climate Action Plan</a>, which among other things commits the city to a legally binding target of 100 percent renewables by 2035. There is effectively no way for it to hit that target if it has to accept whatever power SDG&E sees fit to buy for it.There have been <a href="http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/08/14/the-brewing-rift-over-community-choice-aggregation/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">various efforts</a> to kill CCA at the state level, some supported by the state chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), many of whose members work for utilities. The local San Diego chapter of IBEW, however, supports the city’s 100 percent renewables target. The fate of the San Diego’s climate plan, or at least CCA’s place in the plan, remains <a href="http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/jan/28/soon-say-whether-community-choice-aggregation-will/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">uncertain</a>. It if did go through, it would represent something of a watershed for the CCA movement.—CCAs vary from place to place, but Cali’s share a few common features. They are opt-out rather than opt-in — customers can choose to remain with the utility, but they have to affirmatively indicate as much. That alone ensures high participation rates (readers of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X/gristmagazine" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Nudge</a> will understand why).There are tiers of participation: in Marin, you can choose a base level 50 percent renewables or pay a premium for 100 percent renewables; in Sonoma, it’s 33 percent or 100 percent. Some also include a premium option for 100 percent localrenewables. The tiered system allows low-income customers to choose an affordable option while more eco-minded or well-off residents can indulge their aspirations.CCA can also give a huge boost to a bunch of other policies that utilities typically fight or slow-walk, including net metering, feed-in tariffs, and efficiency programs. This <a href="http://climateprotection.tumblr.com/post/108851211732/all-in-for-local-clean-energy" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">post by Woody Hastings</a> lists a few of the benefits that came along with the Sonoma County CCA. In addition to the basic benefit — giving those consumers more choices in energy — it also has 30 percent lower emissions than the utility, and it boasts rates that are 5 to 8 percent lower than the utility’s (depending on the tier).Sonoma’s CCA features a robust net metering program, “<a href="https://sonomacleanpower.org/netgreen/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">NetGreen</a>,” that compensates solar customers better than the utility. It features a version of my own favorite policy, feed-in tariffs, in the form of “<a href="https://sonomacleanpower.org/profit/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">ProFiT</a>,” which guarantees clean energy developers favorable terms for the power they feed into the grid. It has doubled the amount of solar in Sonoma County’s energy mix and established<a href="http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/101546/sonoma-clean-power-plugs-in-big-geothermal-solar-deals/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">power purchase agreements for 70 megawatts of new solar</a>. And it will bring the level of geothermal in the county’s mix up to around 23 percent by 2018.Perhaps best of all, enrollment in the plan’s phase-one rollout was much higher than expected: 85 percent of customers stayed with the CCA.Not every CCA is going to spur all those policies. But that’s kind of the point: they will enable the exact mix of policies that best expresses the needs and values of their customers. It will give consumers some power and agency in the process, something they haven’t had for some time.—Is CCA power really cheaper? At least in California, at least so far, yes. These charts come <a href="http://voiceofsandiego.org/topics/government/fact-check-community-choice-lowers-energy-rates/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">via San Diego reporter Lisa Halverstadt</a>:2014California House Races: Logue and Knight Of California's three known ALEC members, two ran for higher office in this election: state Rep. Dan Logue (R-3) for U.S. House district three against incumbent Rep. John Garamendi (D). Garamendi, who outspent Logue, won his race with 52% of the vote. ALEC member state Sen. Steve Knight (R-21) ran for U.S. House district 25 against fellow Republican former state Sen. Tony Strickland. Knight won the election. - See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/node/12654#sthash.DkN3oZ13.dpuf
 <div><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/08/22/california-honeybees/">http://ecowatch.com/2014/08/22/california-honeybees/</a></div><div>
</div><div>dpr stalls</div><div class="byline economy"><a href="http://alternet.org/">AlterNet</a> [1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/janet-allon">Janet Allon</a> [2]</div><div class="story_comments">
</div><div class="headline"><h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">Krugman Divulges Real Reason Conservatives Freak Out About California Success Story</h1></div><div class="the_body body_economy clearfix"><div class="big_story_tools_bottom_container"><div class="authors_signup"><div class="talk_box"><div class="clear"> </div></div><div class="clear"> </div><div class="story_tools_bottom"><div class="text-size"><div class="story_tools_email"><div class="story_tools_print"><div class="story_tools_share"><div style="clear: left;"><div class="story-date">July 25, 2014  |  </div>Paul Krugman feels terribly sorry for conservatives who predict doom whenever taxes are rasied slightly, and social programs are delivered, and then, lo and behold, the promised catastrophe does not materialize. You'd think they'd scurry away, tails between legs, issuing mea culpas and feeling horrible about themselves.In <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/opinion/paul-krugman-california-tax-left-coast-rising.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&r=0">Friday's column,</a> [3] he discusses California, the "left coast," where Governor Jerry Brown had the audacity to push through a modestly liberal agenda of higher taxes and spending, a higher minimum wage, and enthusiastic implementation of Obamacare.The horror, conservatives said. As Krugman writes:<blockquote>A representative reaction: Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute declared that by voting for Proposition 30, which authorized those tax increases, “the looters and moochers of the Golden State” (yes, they really do think they’re living in an Ayn Rand novel) <a href="http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/californias-economic-suicide-and-other-news-from-yesterdays-ballot-measures/">were committing “economic suicide.”</a> [4] Meanwhile, Avik Roy of the Manhattan Institute and Forbes claimed that California residents were about to face <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/01/the-shocking-truth-about-obamacares-rate-shock/">a “rate shock”</a> [5] that would more than double health insurance premiums.</blockquote>Well, darned if the catastrophe didn't happen. Krugman offers numbers, as he usually does, to bolster his case:<blockquote>If tax increases are causing a major flight of jobs from California, you can’t see it in the job numbers. Employment is up 3.6 percent in the past 18 months, compared with a national average of 2.8 percent; at this point, California’s share of national employment, which was hit hard by the bursting of the state’s enormous housing bubble, is back to pre-recession levels.On health care, some people — basically healthy young men who were getting inexpensive insurance on the individual market and were too affluent to receive subsidies — did face premium increases, which we always knew would happen. Over all, however, the costs of health reform came in below expectations, while enrollment came in well above — more than triple<a href="http://news.coveredca.com/2014/05/covered-california-enrollments-for.html">initial predictions in the San Francisco area</a> [6]. A recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund suggests that <a href="http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/07/10/45272/survey-finds-rate-of-californias-uninsured-slashed/">California has already cut the percentage of its residents without health insurance in half</a> [7]. What’s more, all indications are that further progress is in the pipeline, with <a href="http://acasignups.net/14/04/27/various-sundry-insurance-cos-thrilled-also-fault-plenty-late-payments">more insurance companies entering the marketplace</a> [8] for next year.And, yes, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/10/us-usa-california-budget-idUSKBN0FF2G520140710">the budget is back in surplus</a> [9].</blockquote>But does the stubborn right flank ever examine the actual results, search their souls and reconsider their positions? Ha! Instead they just try to downplay the good news. California is not adding jobs as fast as Texas, they say. Gotta be the tax rates. <aside data-marginalia-type="sprinkled" data-skip-to-para-id="story-continues-4">Krugman's answer to that:</aside><blockquote>For the big difference between the two states, aside from the size of the oil and gas sector, isn’t tax rates. it’s <a href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-20.pdf" title="Table 1">housing prices</a> [10]. Despite the bursting of the bubble, home values in California are still double the national average, while in Texas they’re 30 percent below that average. So a lot more people are moving to Texas even though wages and productivity are lower than they are in California.And while some of this difference in housing prices reflects geography and population density — Houston is still spreading out, while Los Angeles, hemmed in by mountains, has reached its natural limits — it also reflects <a href="http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4132841?uid=3739832&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104004173881">California’s highly restrictive land-use policies</a> [11], mostly imposed by local governments rather than the state. <a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/behind-the-population-shift/">As Harvard’s Edward Glaeser has pointed out</a> [12], there is some truth to the claim that states like Texas are growing fast thanks to their anti-regulation attitude, “but the usual argument focuses on the wrong regulations.” And taxes aren’t important at all.</blockquote>The lesson of the California comeback is a familiar, but it bears repeating. "You should take anti-government propaganda with large helpings of salt," Krugman writes. "Tax increases aren’t economic suicide; sometimes they’re a useful way to pay for things we need. Government programs, like Obamacare, can work if the people running them want them to work, and if they aren’t sabotaged from the right. In other words, California’s success is a demonstration that the extremist ideology still dominating much of American politics is nonsense."</div>7/3/14On Monday, thanks to overwhelming grassroots support, the California Assembly passed the Overturn Citizens United Act by a vote of 49-22! Governor Jerry Brown now has only a few weeks to sign the bill -- which will put it on the ballot for voters to decide this November. =<a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/breaking-news/20140529/california-joins-7-other-states-put-33m-zero-emission-vehicles-road">http://insideclimatenews.org/breaking-news/20140529/california-joins-7-other-states-put-33m-zero-emission-vehicles-road</a><h1 class="title" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0px; letter-spacing: -1px;">California Joins 7 Other States to Put 3.3M Zero-Emission Vehicles on Road</h1><div id="node-32343" class="node node-type-breaking_news clear-block" style="padding-bottom: 1em;"><div class="meta" http="http" insideclimatenews.org="insideclimatenews.org" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" solve="solve" images="images" dot-bottom.png="dot-bottom.png" background-position="background-position" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" style="padding-bottom: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; background-image: url("><div id="authoredBy" style="width: 343.969px; float: left;"><div style="width: 185.203px; float: right; text-align: right;">May 29, 2014</div><div style="clear: both;"><div class="pagecount"><div class="content"><div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-source"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item odd">(Mercury News)</div></div></div><div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-body"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item odd">California leads the nation in electric vehicle sales, and now is joining forces with Oregon and several Northeastern states to put 3.3 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025.Gov. Jerry Brown and his counterparts in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont signed a set of agreements Thursday that includes adding zero-emission vehicles to public fleets and harmonizing building codes to make it easier to install electric-vehicle charging stations."This is not just an agreement but a serious and profoundly important commitment," Brown, long a champion of electric vehicles, said in a statement. "From coast to coast, we're charging ahead to get millions of the world's cleanest vehicles on our roads."</div></div></div></div></div><a href="http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201405010850/b">http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201405010850/b</a><a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/27/6356478/big-business-channels-money-to.html">http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/27/6356478/big-business-channels-money-to.html</a><div id="story_header"><h1 id="story_headline" class="entry-title" style="line-height: 1em; margin: 0px;">The Public Eye: Big business channels money to California’s moderate Democrats</h1><div class="byline" style="margin: 8px 0px;"><h2 id="story_subheadline" style="line-height: 1em; margin: 3px 0px 0px;">By <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/search_results/?sf_pubsys_story_byline=%22Laurel%20Rosenhall%22&link_location=top" title="Read more articles by Laurel Rosenhall" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Laurel Rosenhall</a>
<a href="mailto:lrosenhall@sacbee.com" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">lrosenhall@sacbee.com</a></h2><div class="pubdates" style="padding-bottom: 1.5em;"><div class="published" title="2014-04-27T00:00:00-0700" style="padding: 0px;"><h2 id="story_subheadline" style="line-height: 1em; margin: 3px 0px 0px;">Published: Sunday, Apr. 27, 2014 - 12:00 am</h2><div title="2014-05-01T09:58:10-0700"><h2 id="story_subheadline" style="line-height: 1em; margin: 3px 0px 0px;">Last Modified: Thursday, May. 1, 2014 - 9:58 am</h2></div></div></div></div></div><div id="articlebody" class="lingo_region entry-content" style="line-height: 1.5em;">They are Democrats, yet their votes in the Capitol have helped big business continue fracking in California and defeat a bill dictating pay and benefit levels for Wal-Mart workers.As California’s Republican Party shrinks, the influence of moderate Democrats in the Capitol is growing. But pinning down exactly who belongs to the group is not easy.Unlike caucuses organized around political parties or ethnic identity, the so-called moderate caucus has no government-paid staff, and the group is not officially recognized by the Legislature.<div style="width: 1px; height: 1px; line-height: normal; overflow: hidden;">
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/27/6356478/big-business-channels-money-to.html#storylink=cpy</div> </div>..,.Unlike caucuses organized around political parties or ethnic identity, the so-called moderate caucus has no government-paid staff, and the group is not officially recognized by the Legislature.“The question I always get when I go give speeches about the mods is, ‘Who are you guys? Is there a website? A roster?’ ” said Assemblyman Henry Perea, the Fresno Democrat who leads the loosely defined caucus. “The answer is ‘no.’ ”Instead, the center of operations is an art-filled office in midtown Sacramento, where two political entrepreneurs have created a hub that fosters ties among major corporations – including energy companies, drugmakers and insurers – and lawmakers who cast swing votes affecting the industries’ bottom lines. These business-friendly Democrats can serve as a balancing influence against the liberal wing of their party and its historic ties to environmentalists, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/trial+lawyers/" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border: none; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">trial lawyers</a> and unions.The two consultants – <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/David+Townsend/" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border: none; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">David Townsend</a> and Chris Tapio – have created a multifaceted operation in their I Street office to build the moderate caucus. They work behind the scenes to raise money from corporate interests, pour it into political campaigns and run an industry-funded nonprofit group that pays for “policy retreats” on business issues. Together, they serve as the fundraising and policy arms of the Legislature’s moderate caucus.The setup has never been challenged by California’s political watchdog. Few lawmakers or lobbyists are willing to discuss it publicly. Yet the operation has triggered hushed complaints from those left out of the loop that outside interests have found an influential path around the traditional legislative system.“What you don’t want to have is a situation where private interests are underwriting de facto staff or the political operation of elected officials. The whole idea for elected officials is that they are beholden to taxpayers, not special interests,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C.“When you have these caucuses and special groups, the problem crops up that the lines become very murky.”Townsend and Tapio are not registered as lobbyists. They say they don’t urge any action on specific bills. But they have used money from businesses that do lobby the Legislature to build a political infrastructure that puts the two consultants close to key decision-makers. Through <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/campaign+donations/" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border: none; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">campaign donations</a> and gifts of meals and travel, their operation has touched about half the Democrats in the state Assembly and about one-fifth of <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/Senate+Democrats/" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border: none; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">Senate Democrats.</a>Townsend is a veteran political consultant who was a strategist on Gov. Jerry Brown’s election four years ago and managed both of Kevin Johnson’s successful campaigns for Sacramento mayor. He helped run the campaign for the 2010 measure – placed on the ballot by the Legislature – that created nonpartisan legislative primaries with the goal of attracting more moderate candidates of both parties.Success of that measure likely will grow the bloc of Democrats that make up the moderate caucus, for which Townsend serves as a political consultant. He manages its political action committee, which works to elect moderate Democrats by both giving directly to candidates and mounting independent campaigns.“We want people up here who are thoughtful, who can work together and find a way to compromise,” Townsend said. “All we’re about is trying to cook a better product.”‘The chance to come in’Since 2009, Townsend’s Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy PAC has spent $5.7 million, campaign finance filings show. Roughly a quarter of that has gone toward fundraising events at golf resorts and fine restaurants, where corporate donors and their lobbyists mingle with a handful of Democratic legislators. The PAC pays a fundraising company owned by Tapio’s wife, Carrie McKinley, to put on the events.Tapio runs a nonprofit called the California Issues Forum, which further connects moderate Democrats with business representatives over meals, panel discussions and industry tours. Last year, state legislators reported receiving nearly $17,200 worth of hospitality from the California Issues Forum on their statements of economic interest. The group took lawmakers to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/San+Francisco/" class=" lingo_link" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">San Francisco</a> to meet with drugmakers and tour biopharmaceutical companies, and to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/San+Diego/" class=" lingo_link" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">San Diego</a> for a discussion with oil industry leaders and air quality regulators on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/transportation+infrastructure/" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border: none; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">transportation infrastructure</a> and California’s law to reduce pollution.An overlapping list of donors support Tapio’s nonprofit as well as Townsend’s PAC and his public affairs firm, Townsend Raimundo Besler & Usher. Townsend does not get paid by the PAC he operates, but a few of its contributors, including PG&E and the California Hospital Association, are paying clients of his firm.The California Issues Forum takes in roughly $500,000 a year in donations, annual tax filings show, and pays six-figure salaries to both Townsend and Tapio. While the law doesn’t require nonprofit groups to disclose their donors, Tapio provided a list at The Bee’s request. It shows that real estate interests, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/oil+companies/" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border: none; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">oil companies</a> and health care businesses that provide the bulk of the funding for Townsend’s PAC also contribute to Tapio’s nonprofit.Some donors to Townsend’s PAC, including Chevron and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., also support another nonprofit Tapio runs to advance Johnson’s efforts as Sacramento mayor to create a “strong mayor” system, build a new arena and promote the arts.Many of the businesses that contribute to the moderate caucus PAC also give <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/campaign+donations/" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border: none; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">campaign donations</a>directly to candidates. But giving to the PAC provides additional political benefits to corporate donors, allowing them to give more than the law allows them to contribute to individual candidates, while simultaneously currying favor with multiple lawmakers. About two dozen sitting lawmakers have received campaign support from the PAC, either through direct contributions or independent campaigns to help them.PG&E, for example, gave the PAC $35,000 on a single day last June – far more than the $4,100 it is permitted to give an individual lawmaker’s campaign.In 2013, six senators and 26 Assembly members reported gifts from the California Issues Forum, ranging from a $9.77 breakfast for Sen. Marty Block of San Diego to more than $1,900 worth of meals and trips for Perea, the assemblyman who heads the moderate caucus.“It’s not that the money corrupts people. The money finds people that agree with whoever has the money,” Townsend said. “You’re not using the money to convince somebody.”But the money does help get your argument heard, said Alex Creel, chief lobbyist for the California Association of Realtors, which has been the biggest donor to the moderate caucus PAC since 2009, contributing more than $800,000.<div style="width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow: hidden;">
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/27/6356478/big-business-channels-money-to.html#storylink=cpy</div> ...‘Bills of concern’Perea said the moderates are a self-defined and shifting group of lawmakers who generally represent districts where voters are closely split between Democrats and Republicans. Their communities are largely blue-collar, he said, and face both high <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/unemployment/" class=" lingo_link" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">unemployment</a> and environmental problems that include poor air and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/water+quality/" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border: none; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">water quality.</a>“We understand that we need industries to create more jobs,” Perea said. “But we want to do it in a way where we’re recognizing the environmental issues that may result from those jobs.”He touted the moderate caucus’s role last year in shaping legislation concerning the oil extraction method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Environmentalists originally sought to ban fracking altogether, but Perea’s caucus objected, saying the jobs were too important for California. Moderate Democrats successfully negotiated a bill that regulated fracking but didn’t ban the process, causing the environmentalists who originally supported the bill to oppose it.As the “convener” of the moderate caucus, Perea puts together monthly lunch meetings where advocates can talk to legislators about their issues. Recent meetings have featured private college leaders asking lawmakers to restore cuts in Cal Grant scholarship funding, Perea said, and an association for apartment building owners discussing new bills that would restrict their ability to evict tenants. That group, the California Apartment Association, has contributed $97,500 to the moderate caucus PAC since 2009.Perea also manages a list of bills – one he will not make public – that the moderate caucus is working to amend or kill.“We really look at each piece of legislation and we think, ‘OK, what does this mean for jobs and what does this mean on the regulatory environment?’ ” Perea said. “Then we get input from everybody – from the industries that are affected, from the advocates that are pushing the measure.”Perea’s list – “bills of concern,” he calls it – is distributed electronically, only to lawmakers he considers part of the moderate caucus. Its secretive nature is a source of annoyance to legislators and lobbyists who suspect their measures are on the list.Sen. Loni Hancock, a liberal Democrat from Berkeley, said she thinks many of her bills have been targeted. She’s currently trying to revive one from last year that she put on hold when it ran into opposition from moderate Democrats in the Assembly.Hancock’s SB 691 calls for increasing the penalties from $10,000 to $100,000 on companies that emit toxic <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/air+pollution/" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border: none; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">air pollution</a> in a catastrophic incident. She introduced it in response to the 2012 fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond that sent thousands of people to seek medical care for problems including eye, throat and respiratory irritation.Hancock said Chevron never came to her to lobby against the bill, and the company does not report SB 691 as a bill it lobbied last year. But Chevron is a big political donor, and has given the moderate caucus $505,000 since 2009, making it the second-largest contributor to Townsend’s PAC. It also donates to Tapio’s nonprofit group.“I think it’s like ‘follow the money,’ ” Hancock said. “Most of the money for campaigns comes from PACs and corporations. Does it have an influence in what is possible in terms of legislation? I think the public needs to look and judge for itself.”‘Sitting in the middle’The moderate caucus was launched in 1998, Townsend said, in response to a battle between a liberal Assembly speaker and a handful of more moderate Democrats. That year, a half-dozen Democrats in the Assembly wanted to vote against a bill by then-Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa that would have increased the amount of pain-and-suffering damages courts can award victims of medical malpractice.Their opposition was enough to doom the bill, Townsend said, prompting the lawyer lobby pushing for it to threaten campaigns to run the six Assembly members out of office.“The decision was made by the six – we better raise some money to protect ourselves from the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.sacbee.com/trial+lawyers/" class=" lingo_link lingo_link_hidden" style="outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; border: none; cursor: pointer; display: inline;">trial lawyers,</a>” Townsend said.And the moderate caucus was born, he said, using PAC money from business groups to elect Democrats who would counter the liberal arm of the party.<div style="width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow: hidden;">
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/27/6356478/big-business-channels-money-to.html#storylink=cpy....</div> WSP chevron 9 mil lobby frack sacramento 4/14 =
 <h1 class="title-news">Californians On Climate Change: 65 Percent Call For Immediate Action On Environmental Issues</h1><div class="comments_datetime_new border_none relative v05" data-beacon="{" p="p" mnid="mnid" entrybyline="entryByline">Ventura County Star  |  By Timm HerdtPosted: 08/01/2013 9:27 am EDT </div><div class="float_left">Californians, apparently feeling better about the state's economic prospects, believe more strongly than ever that their state government should act immediately to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.That was among the findings of a poll conducted by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, which surveys state residents each year on a range of environmental issues.Nearly two-thirds of Californians, or 65 percent, said the state should "take action right away" rather than wait until the economy improves. That was 9 percentage points higher than last year and the highest level since pollsters began asking the question in 2008."If we look at what's changed over time, it's attitudes about the economy," pollster Mark Baldassare said. "There's more confidence going forward."The poll surveyed 2,103 residents in landline and cellphone interviews conducted July 9-23. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.The percentage of those who desire action nearly matches the percentage of Californians (63 percent) who believe the effects of global warming already have begun. Also, 22 percent believe the effects will manifest in the future, while 11 percent believe there will never be any effects.More than three-quarters of respondents said they consider global warming a very or somewhat serious threat to California's future economy and quality of life. Among a list of potential threats, most cited concerns about wildfires that are more severe.On other environmental issues, a slight majority, or 51 percent, said they oppose increased use of hydraulic fracturing,commonly known as fracking, the oil-drilling process in which a mixture of water, sand and chemicals is injected at high pressure into wells as a means to create fractures in subsurface rocks. Only 35 percent said they favor increased use.In addition, 50 percent of adults, including 62 percent of those who said they support its increased use, favor stricter regulations on fracking.Those findings come as the state appears poised for a resurgence of oil drilling as energy companies search for techniques that will allow them to tap the Monterey Shale formation, said to be the largest source of shale petroleum reserves in the nation.One technique is expected to be the increased use of fracking. The state has no existing regulations on the practice, and efforts are underway both administratively and in the Legislature to adopt rules to require disclosure of chemicals used in the process, advance notification and before-and-after testing of groundwater to detect possible contamination.Californians feel differently about another major oil-related issue, the construction of the controversial Keystone pipeline to transport Canadian oil supplies to refineries in Texas. A slight majority, or 51 percent, of Californians support construction of the pipeline, with 34 percent opposed.Consistent with findings from last year, Californians remain opposed to both additional oil drilling off the coast and construction of nuclear power plants.As recently as 2009, state residents were closely divided on those issues, and in fact a slight majority had emerged in support of offshore oil drilling. But support for offshore oil plummeted after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, as did support for nuclear power plants after a nuclear plant in Japan was the site of a meltdown after a 2011 earthquake and tsunami.The poll also measured public approval ratings for Gov. Jerry Brown and President Barack Obama.Support for Brown among likely voters reached its highest level since his election three years ago, at 54 percent.Obama received 54 percent approval among registered voters, down from 58 percent in May but up from 53 percent a year earlier. _===
 Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:09 PM PDT<h2><a id="titleHref" href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/01/1228303/-Californians-Oppose-Expanded-Fracking">Californians Oppose Expanded Fracking</a></h2>by <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/user/Dan%20Bacher">Dan Bacher</a><a class="type-user do-hotlist do-updateContent size-tiny off altTooltip ajaxON" alt="Follow this author" href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/01/1228303/-Californians-Oppose-Expanded-Fracking#?friend_id=263646&is_stream=1">Follow</a><div id="intro">A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) reveals that the majority of Californian residents oppose expanded fracking in the Golden State.Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) employs huge volumes of water, mixed with sand and toxic chemicals, to blast open rock formations and extract oil and gas. The technique is environmentally destructive, resulting in pollution to groundwater supplies and streams, as documented in the documentary films Gasland 1 and 2, directed by Josh Fox."As state legislators debate stricter regulations on fracking—already under way in California—51 percent oppose increased use of the drilling method used to extract oil and natural gas (35% favor it, 14% don’t know)," according to PPIC,  a nonpartisan research foundation. "Asked whether they favor or oppose stricter regulation of fracking, 50 percent say they are in favor. Among those who favor increased use of fracking, 62 percent also favor stricter regulation."The controversial technique, currently unregulated and unmonitored by California officials, has been used in hundreds and perhaps thousands of oil and gas wells across the state, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.The survey asked about another hotly debated plan to increase the supply of oil: construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canada to Texas refineries. Half of Californians (51%) favor building the pipeline, 34 percent oppose it, and 15 percent don’t know."Californians are conflicted when it comes to controversial efforts to expand the oil supply,” said Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. "Slim majorities favor building the Keystone XL pipeline but also oppose fracking, with many wanting stricter regulation of the practice.”  Delta advocates fear that much of the water destined for the proposed peripheral tunnels under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) will be used to expand fracking in California. The tunnels will hasten the extinction of Central Valley Chinook salmon, steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species.As oil companies gear up to frack massive petroleum deposits in the Monterey Shale and build the Keystone XL Pipeline, the poll also found that 65 percent of Californians say the state should act immediately to cut greenhouse gas emissions.The poll — the second this summer to find strong California opposition to fracking — puts new pressure on state lawmakers and regulators and Gov. Jerry Brown to halt fracking expansion in the state. A USC/Los Angeles Times poll in June found that more than half of California voters — 58 percent — favor a moratorium on fracking.It's time for a fracking moratorium“Californians are telling pollsters and policymakers they don’t want fracking pollution fouling up our state,” said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. “There’s strong public support for a moratorium on this dangerous practice. We need to stop the oil industry’s fracking expansion now, while there’s still time to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the climate we depend on."Oil companies, represented by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), are increasingly interested in fracking the Monterey Shale, an oil-laden geological formation beneath some of the state’s most productive farmland, important wildlife habitat and scores of towns and cities."Fracking routinely uses numerous toxic chemicals, including methanol and benzene. A recent Colorado School of Public Health study found that fracking increases cancer risk and contributes to serious neurological and respiratory problems in people living near fracked wells," according to Siegel.Fish and wildlife are also at risk. Fish, including endangered Central Valley Chinook salmon and steelhead, can die when fracking fluid contaminates streams and rivers. Birds can be poisoned by chemicals in wastewater ponds and the intense industrial development that accompanies fracking pushes threatened or endangered animals out of wild areas they need to survive, Siegel stated."Drilling and fracking also release huge amounts of methane, an extremely powerful global warming gas," said Siegel. "Methane is about 105 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas over a 20-year period. Burning the estimated 15.5 billion barrels of oil in the Monterey Shale will generate more than 6.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to calculations based on Environmental Protection Agency figures."Besides threatening groundwater supplies, endangered salmon and steelhead in the state's rivers and bird populations through the state, fracking also poses an enormous rise to California's marine waters.Ocean fracking operations in Santa Barbara Channel approvedAn investigative piece by Mike Ludwig at www.truthout.org on July 25 has confirmed that federal regulators approved at least two fracking operations on oil rigs in the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast of California since 2009 without an updated environmental review that critics say may be required by federal law.These operations were approved as state officials and corporate "environmental" NGO representatives gushed about the alleged "Yosemites of the Sea" and "underwater parks" created in Southern California waters under the "leadership" of Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association."The offshore fracking operations are smaller than the unconventional onshore operations that have sparked nationwide controversy, but environmental advocates are still concerned that regulators and the industry have not properly reviewed the potential impacts of using modern fracking technology in the Pacific outer continental shelf," said Ludwig. (<a href="http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/17765-special-investigation-fracking-in-the-ocean-off-the-california-coast">http://www.truth-out.org/...</a>)  "Oil drilling remains controversial in Santa Barbara, where the memory of the nation's third-largest oil spill lingers in the minds of the public. In 1969, the nation watched as thick layer of oil spread across the channel and its beaches following a blowout on an oil rig, killing thousands of marine birds other wildlife. The dramatic images helped spark the modern environmental movement and establish landmark federal environmental laws that eco-groups continue to challenge the government to enforce," Ludwig noted.The current push by the oil industry to expand fracking in California, build the Keystone XL Pipeline and eviscerate environmental laws was made possible because state officials and MLPA Initiative advocates greenwashed the key role Reheis-Boyd and the oil industry played in creating marine protected areas that don't protect the ocean.Reheis-Boyd chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force to create alleged "marine protected areas" that fail to the protect the ocean from fracking, oil drilling and spills, pollution, military testing, wind and wave energy projects and all human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. She also served on the task forces for the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast.Reheis-Boyd apparently used her role as a state marine "protection" official to increase her network of influence in California politics to the point where the Western States Petroleum Association has become the most powerful corporate lobby in California. The association now has enormous influence over both state and federal regulators. (<a href="http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/lawsuit-filed-against-fracking-oil-lobbyist-says-its-safe">http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/...</a>)Oil and gas companies spend more than $100 million a year to buy access to lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento, according to Stop Fooling California (<a href="http://www.stopfoolingca.org/">http://www.stopfoolingca.org</a>), an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies' efforts to mislead and confuse Californians. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) alone has spent more than $16 million lobbying in Sacramento since 2009.As the oil industry expands its role in California politics and environmental processes, you can bet that they are going to use every avenue they can to get more water for fracking, including taking Delta water through the peripheral tunnels proposed under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).The industry will also use its power to expand fracking in the ocean, as evidenced by the recent approval of ocean fracking operations off the Southern California coast, unless Californians rise up and resist these plans!</div>
 </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>