The Renewable Energy Bill - is this
another hidden tax?
On October 7, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed another
Climate bill (SB 350) which requires conversion of at least one-half of the
current electrical demand to a renewable source within 15 years. This legislation is 48 pages in length and
full of the usual conditions and legal jargon but is a bit short on specific ideas
as to how this State would actually get the job done.
In 2006,
the Governor signed into law AB 32 which requires the reduction of statewide
"Green House Gases" (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels. Here again the legislation
gives polluters approximately 14 years to comply and is a bit short of specific
instructions.
It
turns out the Air Resources Board (ARB) utilized California's "Cap and Trade"
program as an enforcement device to implement AB 32. In general, the policy requires companies
producing pollution, such as a utility or a refinery, to buy "permits" from the
State which would allow a specified amount of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases into the air each year.
These purchases cost polluters $-millions per year leaving us to ask
why? It would appear, instead of buying
credits from the State, the polluters could spend the same money to correct
their air quality problem.
But,
following the circular logic being utilized here: Legislators pass an air
pollution law - the polluters pay $-millions for some sort of credits - then polluters like PG & E (a public utility)
simply pass their costs on to the consumer which results in a "hidden" tax.
Gee
Mr. Governor, are you aware you already have a program in progress which is
converting electricity into a renewable source?
There are several "Solar Energy" outfits which offer a program to
install solar devices provided the customer's electric bill
exceeds $100 per month! The idea
is that the $100 threshold allows recovery of equipment and installation costs
and saves the customer money at the same time - a good deal for everyone!
The
problem is there are more than a million households who use natural gas in conjunction
with electricity but cannot reach the $100 electrical threshold.
It would
appear that a more intelligent solution to your proposal, (instead of this
ridiculous 48 page monstrosity), would be to institute a program to assist
those home owners, who now use natural gas, to convert to electricity so they
can take advantage of the existing solar energy program. Moreover, this would reduce the use of
natural gas which does contribute to air pollution.
Possibly
a no interest rate loan or some form
of financial help might move your program along faster and with a good deal
more common sense!
The
down side for those politicians who have never seen a tax they did not like,
this idea by-passes the cap and trade boondoggle and the
resulting "hidden" taxes!