Kimberly Ayers

Coastal communities need to ponder the future of homes like these in Redondo Beach.

California Governor Jerry Brown is picking up the climate baton from his predecessor, planning his first climate conference. According to officials, Brown will host  the Governor’s Conference on Confronting Climate Change, currently pegged for December 15th at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco.

The conference is still taking shape but recent remarks from the administration seem to imply that the focus will be on planning for climate change impacts. “We have to move from planning to action…and we are behind,” says Julia Levin, Brown’s deputy secretary for climate change and energy at the California Natural Resources Agency.

“We need to be shifting toward ‘doing.’ We are not doing enough on the ground,” said Levin, adding that “Given today’s budget constraints, we need to prioritize” and “move forward on the things that make sense now.” Levin was on the climate stump in Santa Monica last week at a hearing hosted by State Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), who chairs the Senate’s Natural Resources and Water committee.

Levin pointed the audience to Cal-Adapt.org, a synthesis of the latest climate data from the state’s scientific community “of how climate change might affect California at the local level” (there’s a permanent link from the main Climate Watch page).  She also highlighted a coming climate adaptation policy guide for local governments, a joint effort of CalPoly and the state’s emergency management agency. And there’s a Sea Level Rise task force in the works: sixteen agencies are putting together all the different science on the subject.

Former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger hosted a series of international climate “summits,” the first of which made the biggest splash. That’s when then-President-elect Barack Obama made a video appearance in which he promised aggressive climate action at the federal level. Most of that promised action has yet to materialize.

What the SRO crowd in Santa Monica heard was a call for updating the business-as-usual model of civic planning at the county and local level; the need to take the climate science on paper and put it into practice with homes and bridges, private businesses and public ports.

Out of the now-familiar science came several points for coastal stakeholders.

-  Warming temps and earlier mountain snow melts will set the stage for more wildfires: we’ve seen a four percent increase since 1985, according to Tony Haymet of Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

- At the same time, we should “establish a preference for green infrastructure over [the] gray” of concrete, said Louis Blumberg, who runs California climate programs for the Nature Conservancy.

- Current development along the California coast should take account of rising sea levels, not just the standard 100-year flood, according to a list of eleven recommendations from a Pacific Institute report that co-author Matthew Heberger highlighted.

It was right on message to have the hearing in the council chambers of a city that relies heavily on coastal tourism and is bounded by mountainsides that burn with startling regularity.

Gretchen Weber

Gov. Jerry Brown with Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire and Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas.

In his keynote address at this week’s National Clean Energy Summit, Vice President Joe Biden said America is at a crossroads when it comes to energy, and that the choice is clear.

“If we shrink from deciding that we’re going to lead in the area of alternative energy, renewable energy, then we will be making the biggest mistake this nation has made in its entire history,” he said.

The Vice President was joined by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, California Governor Jerry Brown, and other political and industry leaders at the summit, which is in its fourth year and is sponsored by several entities, including the Center for American Progress and Nevada Senator Harry Reid.

“If we don’t lead in this new energy technology, we’re going to follow, and I’d hate like hell to be trading the importation of oil, for the importation of new technologies,” said Biden. “Neither is very acceptable.”

Biden said that the last two years, the United States has fallen behind China and Germany in domestic clean energy investments.

In his address, Energy Secretary Steven Chu laid out a road map for the United States, saying that if the nation wants to lead, it needs to invest in research and education. He also recommended creating a clean energy development agency and a federal clean energy standard in order to spur private investments.

In an interview after his speech, Chu said that California’s renewal portfolio standard of 33% by 2020 does just that.

“Manufacturers of wind and solar can actually make this — they know they have a market, that utility companies will actually buy this, and that stimulates investments in those areas,” he said. “The government necessarily has to put money into research, but you also need a market draw, and that market draw is ultimately going to be driven by a price on carbon. But in the meantime, you need things like renewable or clean energy standards for that market draw.”

Governor Jerry Brown told summit-goers that the policy is working for California.

“California’s 33%-by-2020 goal has stimulated real investment, real money is coming in, by the billions, and they know that we’re committed, we’re going to make it happen. If the United States had a similar goal, it would be good.”

Brown said the state granted permits for 5,000 megawatts of new solar and wind power last year alone, with 15 times that amount currently in the permitting process.

Craig Miller

Fifteen years from now, the average car in the United States must get nearly 55 miles to the gallon,  according to new fuel-efficiency standards proposed Friday by the Obama Administration.  That’s a sharp increase from the current requirement that vehicles average 34.5 miles per gallon by 2016.

California officials, environmental groups, and automakers are praising the new rules, which would require  a fleet-wide average for cars and light trucks of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

On a call with reporters today, Governor Jerry Brown called the new regulations, “probably the brightest light I’ve seen in Washington in many a month, if not years.”

Brown said the new standards would encourage technological innovation, reduce fuel consumption, and cut greenhouse gas emissions across the state and the country.

California has been fighting for tighter emissions restrictions on passenger vehicles for years.  In 2002, the state began seeking a waiver from the EPA so it could set its own greenhouse gas emission standards for cars, but that wasn’t granted until 2009.  Last year the Obama Administration announced the first greenhouse gas emissions standards on a national level, based on California regulations for vehicles manufactured through 2016.

The state had been set to announce its own rules for model years 2017-2025, but in January the Air Resources Board announced that it would commit to a shared deadline with the federal government.

Officials from the California Air Resources Board worked closely with federal agencies, automakers, and environmental groups to develop the new rules.

“California has been pushing, starting way back with the Governor Reagan/President Nixon era, right up to to the present,” said Brown. “And what this demonstrates here, is that with this persistence, the auto companies have finally come on board, and that innovative role for California was crucial in all this.”

According to the White House, the new fuel standards will save 12 billion barrels of oil and eliminate six billion metric tons of CO2 pollution, and save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump.  In California alone, the new standards would save 180,000 barrels of oil a day, equal to cutting the state’s oil consumption by 20%, according to the non-profit group Environment California.

“We think this is a very good deal, and we are happy and proud to have played a role in shaping it,” said California Air Resources Board head Mary Nichols.

“What California does is push the envelope.  But not just for the sake of pushing the envelope. We do this because we have a need to reduce the impact of our whole transportation system on our environment and to improve its economic performance,” Nichols said.

Cars and light trucks are currently responsible for 28% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Craig Miller

Governor Brown moves forward with plans to encourage more local solar generation in the state.

California has been on something of a solar frenzy recently, approving permits for more than 4,000 megawatts of new solar power in 2010 alone. Most of that is in the form of large, industrial-scale installations, which will provide lots of power, but also will require transmission infrastructure to get the clean energy from the desert sun to where its needed, primarily, the coastal cities.

This week Governor Jerry Brown is focusing on the other kind of renewable energy: the local kind that is smaller in scale and doesn’t require transmission to get where it’s needed. He’s hosting a conference at UCLA this week to promote his eight-point energy plan announced in June, and map out how the state can meet his goal of 12,000 megawatts of local, renewable energy by 2020. That goal would basically quadruple the state’s current supply of small-scale renewables, according to the non-profit Environment California. The Brown plan consists of specific goals but leaves creation of incentives to regulatory agencies such as the California Energy Commission.

In 2006, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, which aims to build 3,000 megawatts of rooftop solar power by 2016.  As part of this program, the California Solar Initiative provides incentives for installations on homes and commercial buildings for customers of the state’s state’s three investor-owned utilities: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E).  Currently, total small-scale installed capacity in California is 924 megawatts, including 194 megawatts that were installed in 2010, according to the California Public Utilities Commission.

(Photo: Lorie Shelley, CA. State Senate Photographer)

California’s utilities now have their marching orders: to provide one third of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

Now that the “33-by-20″ target is a mandate backed by state law, supporters say it will lure more renewable energy investments to California. There’s evidence that it already is.

Calling it a “breakthrough,” Governor Brown signed the bill into law at the dedication of a new SunPower Corp. manufacturing plant in Milpitas, near San Jose. And he laid down a challenge:

“Last year six thousand megawatts of solar installations were produced by China and one thousand by the United States. Now, are we up for changing that? I think we are.”

Supporters say the 33% requirement provides a stable market for renewable energy, while critics fear it will mean higher electric bills. A statement from the California Republican Party said:

“Governor Brown is pressing ahead as if the pieces of papers he signs magically and automatically result in higher revenues or a better standard of living. The laws of economics, however, overrule Brown’s political laws.

Magical or not, the law has appeared to conjure up federal dollars for the state. Energy Secretary Steven Chu seized the occasion to announce $50 million in federal funding for renewables in California, and nearly $3 billion in loan guarantees for two big projects.

“Thanks to forward looking policies and forward-looking businesses, California will be the center of the action in helping the United States in building a bright energy future,” said Chu at the signing.

Part of that bright energy future includes SunPower’s brand new plant in Milpitas, which is expected to employ about 100 people.

President Obama has pledged to double the nation’s renewable power output by 2035.

Photo: Craig Miller

While Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown debate the pros and cons of the state’s global warming law (AB 32) and the ballot initiative that would suspend it (Proposition 23), two of the four “alternative” candidates interviewed this morning on KQED’s Forum program, attacked the science behind California’s climate change policy.

“I’ve become convinced that the whole thing is an exaggeration at best, and a scam at worst,” said Dale Odgen, the Libertarian Party candidate.  “The science has been fudged in order to get grants for people.  People like Al Gore have used it to become even more wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.”

Expressing a similar sentiment, Chelene Nightingale, the American Independent candidate, appeared to focus on the cause, telling host Michael Krasny that “We’re gonna have climate change. We’ve had it since the beginning of time ’til the end of time,” but that the prevailing opinion of climate scientists is,”based on junk science.”

Their views are in stark contrast to those of the majority of Californians, according to a July survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. In it, 73% of respondents said global warming is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” threat to the economy and quality of life in the state.  The survey also found that 54% of Californians believe the effects of climate change have already begun.

Their comments came on the same day that a group of scientists and policymakers delivered a new report to the desk of Obama Administration science and technology advisor John Holdren, concluding that the United States must adapt to a changing climate now and prepare for increasing impacts on urban infrastructure, food, water, human health, and ecosystems in the coming decades.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has compiled a list of documents and statements that attest to the consensus on climate change in the scientific community.

Neither Whitman nor Brown have said much about the science of climate change, choosing instead to focus on their plans regarding AB 32 and the role global warming legislation plays in the state’s economy (Brown says it’s good for the economy. Whitman says it hurts).  Both candidates say they oppose Prop 23, but Whitman has said that as governor, she would suspend AB 32 herself, under a provision written into the law.

The other two candidates for governor interviewed on Forum — Carlos Alvarez of the Peace and Freedom party and Laura Wells of the Green Party — did not discuss their views on climate science during the program.  Wells did express her support for AB 32.

Whitman made the statement Wednesday during a confrontational interview on radio station KFI in Los Angeles. After several minutes of being hounded on immigration issues by hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou, the questioning switched abruptly to Prop 23. Whitman may have been worn down just enough to finally tip her hand.

Though she prefaced her remark by saying she had not made her “final decision” on the matter, if her position holds, it means that both she and her Democratic opponent, Jerry Brown, oppose the measure. Brown recently told an editorial board at The San Jose Mercury-News that the candidates’ respective positions on AB 32 and Prop 23 was “the defining difference” between the two contenders.

Though Whitman says she continues to support a one-year suspension, she also mentioned that under provisions of AB 32 itself, the Governor can suspend the law’s regulations for up to three years. Here’s what the law actually says under Part 7; Miscellaneous Provisions:

38599. (a)  In the event of extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic
events, or threat of significant economic harm, the Governor may adjust the applicable deadlines for individual regulations, or for the state in the aggregate, to the earliest feasible date after that deadline.
(b)  The adjustment period may not exceed one year unless the Governor makes an additional adjustment pursuant to subdivision (a).

On the KFI radio program, Whitman called that above provision a “safety valve” and, saying she wants to be “smart and green,” reaffirmed her intention to use this provision to suspend AB 32 for one year. Prop 23 would suspend the law until state unemployment drops nearly seven percentage points from its current rate of more than 12%.

Fans and mortal enemies of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) all exude certainty about what the carbon emissions-cutting law will do for–or to–the state’s economy. Lately the debate has escalated into full-scale PR warfare. Major battlefronts include:

- A signature campaign for a ballot initiative to suspend the law

- An online campaign to boycott oil companies funding the above

- Studies & surveys from both sides proclaiming their case

- A gubernatorial candidate who has vowed to suspend AB 32

This week both sides weighed in afresh.

The California branch of the National Federation of Independent Business today announced support of what proponents still call the “California Jobs Initiative,” even though the measure has been renamed by Attorney General Jerry Brown, who supports AB 32.

The measure would suspend most provisions of the climate law until the state’s official unemployment rate improves substantially from its current 12.5% level. NFIB statements say “the measure is headed for the November ballot” but only if proponents gather more than 400,000 required signatures.

John Kabateck, executive director of  NFIB/California said in a conference call with reporters today that his organization would help gather signatures to qualify the measure. He called the climate law “one more arrow in the quiver of damage and pain inflicted on small business right now.” In a companion news release, Kabatek ventured that full implementation of AB 32 would cost California more than a million jobs.

California’s non-partisan Legislative Analyst has concluded that while the exact job impact is hard to pin down, AB 32′s overall effect would be relatively minor compared to the state’s total economy.

Meanwhile, pro-AB 32 activists are circulating an online petition calling for a boycott of Valero and Tesoro, two Texas-based oil companies that are helping bankroll the suspension measure in California.

The NFIB announcement followed by one day the unveiling of a new poll showing support for AB-32 among California voters. The survey shows 58% of Californians “favor” the law either “strongly” (34%) or “somewhat.” One in four surveyed said they strongly opposed the measure. Sixty-four percent said they supported charging industry for excess emissions, while 31% opposed that. The poll was conducted in March by Field Research for Next 10, a public policy think tank that strongly supports AB 32.  Field polled about 500 voters for the survey, which has a margin of error of 4.5%.

Business is sharply divided over AB 32. The viewpoint of those wary of it is generally represented by the AB 32 Implementation Group. Other business leaders strongly support the law, including it’s cap-and-trade provisions. An outspoken example is Barry Cinnamon, CEO of Akeena Solar, who recently laid out his position for Alison van Diggelin, publisher of the Fresh Dialogues blog site.

In that conversation, Cinnamon skewered the “inane commentary” of  gubernatorial candidates calling for the undoing of AB 32. Republican candidate Meg Whitman has pledged to order a one-year “moratorium” on regulations under AB 32, on her “first day as governor,” calling the policy “wrong for these challenging times.”