From pioneering air-pollution control programs in Los Angeles County in

So when Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León introduced Senate Bill 100 in January, the expectations were high. The measure committed California to generating 50 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2026 – four years earlier than the present goal – and to 60 percent by 2030 and to 100 percent by 2045. No government remotely as large as California’s had made such a commitment.

In spring interviews with reporters at an energy conference in Orange County, the Los Angeles Democrat depicted his bill as a common-sense measure to goad investor-owned utilities into making long-term shifts in their infrastructure to prepare for an all-renewable future. He said progress had been so quick that he expected the state to meet the 50 percent renewable standard “in the early 2020s without breaking a sweat.” But he also depicted SB100 as setting up “the most ambitious program in the world.”

When it passed the California Senate on a mostly party-line vote in May, the world took notice. The New York Times set the tone: In a 2,100-word analysis headlined “Fighting Trump on Climate, California Becomes a Global Force,” it depicted the bill as a key part of California’s determination to take over the global lead in environmentalism from Washington.

But earlier this month, SB100 failed to even get a floor vote in the Assembly as lawmakers wrapped up business for the year. A Desert Sun report depicted the decision as “unexpected.”

That’s not how it looked to some insiders. Business groups spent months hammering home the argument that it was risky to commit to 100 percent renewable energy use when it was not clear that was either feasible or safe for a modern economy. In a June interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Gary Ackerman, executive director of the Western Power Trading Forum, depicted SB100 as “reckless” and with a huge downside. The arguments echoed those made by Pacific Gas & Electric, Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, the state’s three giant investor-owner utilities, which quietly have established strong ties with Democratic lawmakers in poor districts buffeted by high energy costs.

IBEW adopted, modified utilities’ argument

Meanwhile, de León didn’t enjoy unified support on the Democratic front. An argument the utilities had been making – that SB100 was potentially a hugely disruptive force – was adopted and modified by some labor leaders. They worried what a 100 percent commitment to renewable energy might mean for thousands of union members. According to an NBC News report, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245, began opposing the bill in late summer because the local union alleged de León had gone back on his promise to protect union jobs.

But a third factor may also have been at play. De León has never enjoyed the broad goodwill accorded his predecessor, Darrell Steinberg, now the mayor of Sacramento. Soon after taking over as Senate leader in late 2014, de León was the target of a scathing column by then-Sacramento Bee pundit Dan Walters for mistakes, power plays and a lack of humility. He faced similar criticism from the Sacramento Bee’s editorial board.

De León has since emerged as a legislative powerhouse, at least according to the conventional wisdom that holds that the 2017 session was one of the most productive in recent history. But his clout couldn’t overcome the late-emerging opposition to SB100.

The lobbying will begin all over again for the measure in January, the Greentech website reported.

“We’re going to be back next year,” said Peter Miller, Western energy project director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the website. “I don’t want to underestimate the challenges to moving to a fully zero-carbon grid, but we can get there, and we will.”

Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes, R-Yucca Valley, survived

Nevertheless, anger over Mayes’ decision to work with Gov. Jerry Brown last month and lobby fellow Republicans to help secure an extension of the cap-and-trade program established by AB32 – the state’s landmark 2006 anti-climate change law – remains intense among some lawmakers and many conservative activists. Another challenge to Mayes’ leadership is expected at an Aug. 29 caucus at which an election will be held to determine who leads the Assembly GOP.

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, perhaps Mayes’ most critical colleague over his decision to help Brown round up seven Republican votes for AB398, is running. Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Big Bear Lake, is considered likely to run as well. There’s also been speculation about Assemblyman Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield.

Mayes’ decision to vote for the cap-and-trade renewal, and to work to bring several GOP lawmakers with him, came after weeks of negotiations with the governor. He believed he had won a major concession from Brown and Democratic legislative leaders that could eventually throttle the state’s costly, problem-plagued bullet-train project. Here’s a description from CalWatchdog coverage last month:

The concession ….  places a constitutional amendment drafted by Mayes before state voters in June 2018. If passed, it would lead to a one-time up-and-down vote in the Legislature in 2024 on whether to continue allowing the use of cap-and-trade revenue to fund the project. But the threshold wouldn’t be a simple majority. A two-thirds vote would be required to allow continued use of the funds – presumably giving GOP lawmakers a prime chance to pull the plug.

But the complexity of the concession and its distant possible payoff didn’t enthrall many Republican lawmakers, whose opposition to AB32 is a core element of their political platform. There was also fury that Mayes rounded up so many Republicans that Democrats didn’t have to pressure two of their Assembly members in swing districts to vote for a cap-and-trade extension that is unpopular with their constituents. AB398 passed 55-25, with one vote more than necessary to meet the two-thirds threshold for adoption.

Meanwhile, an argument that Mayes has increasingly made in recent weeks – that AB398 provided state GOPers with a chance to rebrand themselves and broaden their appeal – has faced ridicule from those who say the party’s core values are opposition to higher taxes and overregulation.

State GOP board issues harsh rebuke

Mayes’ rough month continued last Friday, when the board of the state Republican Party voted to urge Mayes to step down. The vote was 13-7, with one abstention. State GOP chair Jim Brulte was among the yes votes.

More than 20 local Republican organizations have also issued formal denunciations of Mayes.

Mayes, 40, has worked as a financial planner. He entered politics on the Yucca Valley Town Council and also worked as a top aide to a San Bernardino County supervisor. He was first elected to the Assembly in 2014.

In 2011, after his seven-year run as governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger had plenty of reasons to worry about how his time in elected office might be remembered. It wasn’t just that he was widely viewed as an under-performing leader who never lived up to his early promise as a brash outsider who would tackle unaddressed state problems. An ugly scandal broke in his final days in office, triggering a political firestorm, and an even more embarrassing scandal emerged soon afterward.

On his last night as governor, Schwarzenegger commuted the prison sentence of Esteban Nuñez – the son of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, his friend and occasional political ally – from 16 years to 7 years for his manslaughter conviction in the killing of a San Diego college student. Schwarzenegger initially characterized the sentence as extreme, given that the student died after being knifed by another man. But in an interview with Newsweek three months later, he said he commuted the sentence because “of course you help a friend.” The younger Nuñez is now a free man as a result.

In May 2011, as his celebrity marriage to Maria Shriver collapsed amid intense gossip, Schwarzenegger admitted to fathering a 13-year-old boy with Mildred Baena, long a maid at his Brentwood estate. The revelation triggered headlines around the world.

Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez cited both scandals in a scathing column that saw them as evidence that Schwarzenegger “has always seemed to live in his own celebrity world by his own twisted rules of privilege and entitlement, his life an orgy of self-glory.”

Legacy play pays off in big way

But six summers later, such harsh rebukes are hard to find. Instead, Schwarzenegger’s image has been resurrected to a considerable degree. His 2006 legacy play – shepherding Assembly Bill 32 to passage to make a California a pioneer in targeting and reducing the greenhouse gases believed to help cause global warming – has paid immense dividends.

This was on display last week when Gov. Jerry Brown featured Schwarzenegger at the signing ceremony for legislation extending the state’s cap-and-trade program for emissions that was established by AB32, with the men swapping praise for being leaders on what they called the world’s most pressing issue.

Last October, on the 10th anniversary of AB32’s signing, Schwarzenegger was also featured at an event organized by the governor’s office.

This was nothing new for the Austrian-born movie star, who’s been feted around the world for his environmental leadership. The praise is usually unstinting, and doesn’t note interesting nuances about AB32’s actual record – starting with the fact that the main reason for declining emissions in California in recent years is not the landmark law but the increased use of cheap, relatively clean natural gas, a fossil fuel of the sort the law targets. In 2015, Forbes said natural gas – not renewable energy – was “easily California’s most important source of energy.”

But now Schwarzenegger finds himself winning praise for another reason: His history offers an easy way for journalists to make the point that President Donald Trump doesn’t speak for all Republicans when he either questions whether climate change is real or opposes ameliorative efforts by the government to reduce its effects. A Nexis news database search shows major publications from Los Angeles to New York to London to Singapore have regularly made this point since Trump’s inauguration.

Schwarzenegger directly sought to promote this narrative with his late June visit to Paris to meet with French President Emmanuel Macron and jointly criticize Trump for his decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord signed by President Obama in December 2015. Schwarzenegger used social media – including the image shown above – to publicize his meeting with Macron.

“One man cannot destroy our progress,” said Schwarzenegger, who turned 70 on Sunday. “One man can’t stop our clean energy revolution. And one man can’t go back in time.” He laughed heartily at Macron’s mocking Trump for not wanting to “make the planet great again.”

His new cause: redistricting reform

Now Schwarzenegger is trying to build on another of his accomplishments while governor. He led the successful push for Proposition 11 in 2008 and Proposition 20 in 2010 to assign redistricting duties for state and congressional districts to a nonpartisan commission and intends to lobby for similar reforms in other states. His official website declares “let’s shine a light on gerrymandering,” which has been blamed for increasing partisanship and discouraging moderates of both parties by packing voters with similar views into uncompetitive districts.

Schwarzenegger “has a Terminate Gerrymandering Crowdpac that he’s pledged to match dollar-for-dollar,” Politico reported last week. “He’ll be appearing at events, meeting with lawyers, having his team jump in to rewrite incomprehensible charts of the ‘efficiency gap’ and other technicalities ahead of Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin gerrymandering challenge that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg … called ‘the most important’ case of the Supreme Court’s next term.”

It was just nine months ago that Gov. Jerry Brown basked in the

A Sacramento Bee account laid out how the four-tern governor had come to see the issue as vital to his legacy and considered the conference “the crucial event for the future of the world” because of its potential to inspire much broader efforts to curb the emission of greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming.

But back home, Brown’s vision is getting a much tougher reception than it did in France. It’s increasingly unclear whether the governor can even garner enough support in the California Legislature for legislation that would build on AB32. While the measure, SB32, won approval from the Assembly on Tuesday and is likely to be approved by the Senate next week, its implementation is tied to the passage of AB197 by Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, D-Coachella. SB32 can only take effect if AB197 is approved this session.

Garcia’s measure would both increase legislative oversight of the state Air Resources Board and require the air board to put more pressure on local factories and oil refineries to cut their emissions. This, in theory, would respond both to greens’ concerns that the cap-and-trade framework is too passive and to state lawmakers’ anxiety over the air board throwing its weight around in ways that cost local jobs.

Siding with ‘people’ over ‘polar bears’

Such a concern about the effects of environmental laws on local jobs wasn’t raised by many Democrats during 2006 when AB32 was approved. But since California switched to the “jungle primary” in 2012 — in which the top two candidates in the June primary advance, regardless of party — the Legislature has seen a surge in business-friendly Democrats suspicious of the green agenda.

“It’s great to hear about saving polar bears and hugging trees, and making sure we address global warming from a world perspective,” Garcia told the Los Angeles Times. “But how about people?”

Last year, these pro-business Democrats teamed with Republicans to kill Gov. Brown’s and Senate President Kevin de Leon’s push for a 50 percent reduction in gasoline use by vehicles in California by 2030.

Increasingly, it looks like Brown’s best option to build in on his legacy is a 2018 ballot measure extending AB32. Polling shows Californians support even more ambitious climate change policies than AB32.

In 2010, Proposition 23 — a measure to repeal AB32 — was rejected by state voters, 62 percent to 38 percent.

The governor may also try to use executive orders to extend AB32. But few authorities on California’s government believe a current governor can bind the actions of future governors or legislatures.

But that looks like a premature judgment based on the events of the past year. Business interests and the California Chamber of Commerce have had consistent success in working with moderate Democrats in the state Legislature who share their wariness toward far-reaching measures that could hurt the economy or make life more costly in their home districts.

The most prominent example: For the second straight year, a bloc of Democrats are getting in the way of Gov. Jerry Brown’s desire to gain significant environmental legacies.

Last year, they opposed the governor’s call for a law mandating that vehicles on California’s roads and freeways use 50 percent less gasoline by 2030. Brown worked with Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, to enact Senate Bill 350 and establish California as a trailblazer yet again on pioneering environmental legislation.

But the California oil industry’s argument that such a law would be costly and especially painful for poor residents — buttressed by campaign donations to sympathetic lawmakers and TV attack ads — eventually led Brown and his allies to give up on the gasoline provision of the bill, unable to muster majority support in the Assembly. Criticized for being indifferent to the needs of the environment, the moderate bloc fired back. Then-Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno, said the California Air Resources Board ignored how much its rules would hit the pocketbooks of the poor.

Governor hunting for green policy legacy

Now perhaps the state’s most famous environmental measure of this century — AB32, the sweeping 2006 law requiring a long-term state shift to cleaner but costlier forms of energy — could face a 2020 sunset without an even stronger measure taking its place, as environmentalists have long hoped.

This prospect led Brown to take the extraordinary step of trying to bind future governors and Legislatures to ambitious environmental goals that extended to 2030 — 11 years after he left office. The California Air Resources Board said Brown’s executive order was legal because “AB32 explicitly states the intent to maintain and continue reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases beyond 2020.”

State Senate Minority Leader Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, asked the Legislature’s legal staff whether this was valid. In April, she got her reply.

“We think the determination of a standard for the statewide (greenhouse gas) emissions limit is a fundamental policy decision that only the Legislature can make,” Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine wrote. 

Since then, environmentalists — and, behind the scenes, possibly Brown himself — have been lobbying to pass an extension of AB32 and seeking to revive Brown’s push to cut petroleum use as well. As the Sacramento Bee’s Dan Walters reported recently, they’re not making progress. At least 15 Assembly Democrats could pair with 28 Assembly Republicans to block any bills they consider too hard on poor Californians.

It appears that California is now like the other three megastates — Texas, New York and Florida — in which pro-business Democrats have significant power in their legislatures.

The state senator who changed California politics

This development suggests that former state Sen. Abel Maldonado could end up being a more consequential figure in California politics than many governors. The only reason the jungle primary exists is that the Santa Maria Republican rancher would only provide the final vote needed to enact the state budget in 2009 if the Legislature gave California voters the chance to amend the state Constitution in the June 2010 primary.

Democratic legislative leaders went along both because of their desperation to get a budget in place with temporary tax hikes — and because of their confidence they could defeat the measure in June 2010.

They failed, with voters backing the historic change to a “top two” primary by 54 percent to 46 percent.

Cap-and-trade critics had always warned that as soon as programs were introduced, there would be aggressive efforts to game and/or cheat the rules to make money. With these warnings reinforced by the EU scandal, California officials in early 2013 said they’d learned their lesson. Greenbiz.com reported that …

California, with the advantage of advanced warning, has taken the EU market’s lessons to heart. It has recognized the crucial need to tightly control — and extensively oversee — who can participate in the carbon market and how. With the help of the state Attorney General’s office, California has adopted more stringent rules than the EU ETS [Emissions Trading Scheme].

State tax credits for payments to indigenous communities?

Now, however, the Brown administration is pondering relaxing these rules by allowing companies to get pollution credits by paying for preservation of forest lands in Brazil.

The idea has been discussed for years but has picked up momentum of late. According to recent reports, state regulators are closer than ever to formally expanding the cap-and-trade program by allowing polluting industries to offset their carbon emissions by paying indigenous communities in the Amazon to preserve the rain forests in their region. 

This idea has won praise from environmental groups, who have long depicted preservation of the rain forests in the Amazon delta as a global priority. They call it a great way for Brown to burnish his environmental legacy.

The Western States Petroleum Association has also been supportive, saying industries need options to meet their commitments under AB32 and related laws.

Brazil’s huge corruption scandal bodes poorly for CA program

But the initial coverage of Brown’s trial balloon omitted mention of two key issues: Gaming and cheating of cap-and-trade programs remains a huge problem around the world, and Brazil has both a long history of corruption and a lack of transparency.

In early 2015, Foreign Policy magazine reported how the European Union’s program had become a “playground for gangsters, international crime syndicates, and even two-bit crooks — who stole hundreds of millions of dollars in pollution credits.”

In October, Forbes magazine reported on a slew of new scandals, starting with schemers in Russia and Ukraine being accused of using the EU cap-and-trade market to sells counterfeit credits for 600 million tons worth of carbon dioxide emissions. The account noted that the less sophisticated a nation’s law-enforcement system, the more likely cap-and-trade scams were to be — and that some of the world’s richest people and companies were taking advantage.

“The cap-and-trade system of emissions trading is very difficult to control and its effects are diluted. … It is precisely because I am a market practitioner that I know the flaws in the system,” Forbes quoted financier-investor George Soros as saying.

Meanwhile, in January, Transparency International reported that over the previous year, Brazil’s corruption problems were growing worse at a faster rate than in any nation on the planet. Agence France Presse reported last week that a scandal involving billions of dollars of missing revenue from state oil giant Petrobras continued to grow, with dozens of government and business leaders implicated.

Efforts to remove President Dilma Rousseff from office have been complicated by the fact it is hard to find many credible critics of Rousseff within the Brazilian government, given how many prominent Brazilian politicians are either directly tied to the scandal or indirectly tied through close political alliances.

According to Calmatters, state air board officials said they would look to avoid problems caused by Western nations’ cap-and-trade programs in another tropical nation: Nigeria. But the issues there involved indigenous communities being denied use of forest lands they relied on because of restrictions under new conservation agreements — not necessarily the problems that California could risk if it counts on Brazil as a partner in a cap-and-trade pact. 

But there was also some eye-rolling. How could a governor who will be out of office in January 2019 possibly impose binding conditions on future chief executives and Legislatures beyond those established in AB32 and other emission-focused legislation formally adopted by the Assembly and Senate?

Now it turns out that the Legislature’s top attorney — Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine — shares this skepticism. Last week, state Senate Minority Leader Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, released a letter by Boyer-Vine responding to her questions about whether Brown could change state law by fiat.

“We think the determination of a standard for the statewide (greenhouse gas) emissions limit is a fundamental policy decision that only the Legislature can make,” Boyer-Vine wrote. She noted that under state law, the Legislature couldn’t assign sole policy-making authority on the issue to the governor even if it wanted to.

The California Air Resources Board defended the legality of the governor’s order with a statement that didn’t address the specific legal points made by Boyer-Vine.

“While the 2020 limit is an important first step in measuring progress, climate change will not end in 2020 and AB32 explicitly states the intent to ‘maintain and continue reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases beyond 2020,’” a spokesman told the Sacramento Bee.

Echoes of D.C. fights — with one big difference

The emerging battle has crucial similarities to the fights over executive authority in Washington, where Republican lawmakers have backed lawsuits challenging President Obama’s orders on immigration, pollution and other issues. But one big difference is that the Sacramento scrum is over a policy area in which California’s legislative and executive branches are generally in sync: greenhouse gas reduction.

But an Associated Press story about Boyer-Vine’s opinion hinted at why Brown prefers a unilateral approach to either deferring to or working with the Legislature on a measure expanding upon AB32 a decade after its passage:

Overturning the executive order would be a blow to Brown’s effort to establish a legacy and a global identity as a crusader against climate change. …

While Democrats maintain overwhelming control of the Legislature, Brown would face difficulty winning legislative approval for his emissions targets. A group of moderate Democrats in the Assembly has sided with business interests against efforts by Brown and conservation groups to create stronger environmental protections.

“The Legislature should not advance the cap-and-trade program under this dark legal cloud,” said Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber.

That’s what happened in 2006 when Arnold Schwarzenegger worked with legislative leaders to shape Assembly Bill 32, the landmark law forcing a shift to cleaner, costlier sources of energy. And it’s what happened in the last month with Jerry Brown and the bill increasing the state’s minimum wage steadily until it reaches $15 an hour in 2022, which Brown signed Monday. A provision that allows future governors to suspend an increase in bad economic times was included at Brown’s insistence:

Brown had warned a $15-an-hour wage must be done carefully, noting costs to employers and the state. But with a measure heading for the November ballot, he negotiated with unions and other advocates to include provisions that allow governors to postpone an increase if the economy falters.

 

Those provisions would allow governors to suspend annual wage increases short of $15 if officials project that the state’s budget reserves will be in the red, or if employment and sales tax revenue decline. Governors would need to decide each September whether to suspend increases coming the following January.

That’s from the Sacramento Bee.

AB32’s escape hatch was never used

But will this escape hatch ever be used? The history of AB32 suggests not. Schwarzenegger was adamant that there must be a way that the law could be suspended, as the Los Angeles Times reported in an Aug. 31, 2006, story about negotiations over the law:

For his part, Schwarzenegger won the ability for the governor to suspend the rules for as much as a year in cases of “extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic events or threat of significant economic harm.”

But in the years that followed, California had among its roughest economic stretches since the Depression. Unemployment, which averaged 4.9 percent in 2006, went to 5.3 percent in 2007, 7.2 percent in 2008, 11.3 percent in 2009 and 12.4 percent in 2010. Fewer Californians had jobs in 2010 than in 2000 — even as the state’s population went from 33.9 million to 37.3 million.

Business interests who said higher energy costs put California at a competitive disadvantage implored Schwarzenegger to suspend AB32. They eventually backed Proposition 23, a 2010 ballot measure that sought but failed to suspend the landmark law on greenhouse gases.

Not only did Schwarzenegger reject the idea that AB32 had an economic downside, he promoted the idea that it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and touted the claim that California would inspire the world to adopt similar laws. Republican critics said he was more concerned about his legacy than Californians struggling in the recession.

If Brown invokes the clause that suspends the law steadily increasing the minimum wage in coming years, that too would muddy his legacy as the governor of the first U.S. state to have a $15 minimum wage law. If the person who succeeds him as governor in January 2019 suspends the law, that also would muddy California’s image as a bold, progressive state going places no state has gone before.

This account is from the Riverside Press-Enterprise:

The operators of a Mojave Desert solar power plant at the center of the Obama administration’s push to reduce carbon emissions faced an unusual task [earlier this month]. They had to prove to state air quality officials that they were complying with California’s cap-and-trade program to get carbon polluters to reduce their emissions.

 

The Ivanpah solar plant off Interstate 15 in northeast San Bernardino County makes electricity by focusing heat from thousands of mirrors onto water boilers mounted on top of three towers. Steam from the water then turns turbines that generate power.

 

But the plant also needs to burn significant amounts of carbon-emitting natural gas to operate and thus is required to be in the state’s cap-and-trade program.

 

The plant burns natural gas to heat water after sundown so that steam can be generated more quickly when the plant starts up in the morning, its operators have said. It also uses natural gas to keep electricity production up during cloudy days.

Controversial ‘offsets’ used to avoid CARB hit

The air board says the Ivanpah plant emitted 50,145 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2013. The P-E says that is about twice the threshold for forced participation in cap and trade. But because Ivanpah managed to cut net emissions by 10 percent in 2014 — to approximately 46,000 tons — plant operator NRG Energy is telling reporters that it is in compliance. The net emissions is key, because NRG confirmed that Ivanpah complied not just by reducing emissions but by buying greenhouse gas “offsets” from companies which do projects in various states and countries that reduce greenhouse emissions.

The markets for such offsets are huge and growing. But they are controversial given that they don’t necessarily provide pollution relief to affected communities.

The California air board policy adopted in 2013 allows offsets to be purchased in any state in the nation but with emission credits applying to how much companies are polluting in the Golden State. That drew sharp fire from some environmentalists.

The revelation that the mammoth Ivanpah uses so much fossil fuel perhaps shouldn’t be a surprise, given its size and complexity — it relies on 346,000 computer-synced mirrors spread over 5.6 square miles — and because solar power can be irregular.

But advocates of renewable energy say the conundrum of clean-energy plants relying on fossil fuels for their operational needs won’t last forever. They predict advances in battery technology will allow solar plants to store energy for use at night and on cloudy days.

The Santa Clarita-based BioSolar start-up firm is working with UC Santa Barbara researchers on such advanced batteries. In June, it issued a press release claiming it had made a huge breakthrough, prompting its stock price to surge. But since then its stock price has plunged, suggesting analysts have grown skeptical of the company’s claims.

But on niche websites devoted to energy production and energy markets, the picture of how California is responding to its mandates is more muddled. A recent free report from SNL, the McGraw-Hill financial publication that typically charges for the proprietary information it provides to shareholders and potential investors, puts California’s progress in a different light:

Carbon laws are choking demand for coal-fired power in California, but the state still imports a large amount of coal-based power and is one of the nation’s top industrial users of coal, providing a needed market for Western producers facing dimming prospects elsewhere.

 

California’s carbon law AB32, which requires the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to return to 1990 levels by 2020, sets in-state plant performance standards that are too stringent for conventional coal units. But California is still importing coal-based power from neighboring states until current power purchase and plant ownership contracts expire.

 

In 2014, less than 5 percent of California’s total energy demand was served by coal and petroleum coke-fired plants, nearly all of it from plants outside the state, according to an Oct. 12 report from the California Energy Commission. By 2026, California will end virtually all its reliance on coal.

 

But at times, as much as 50 percent of Southern California’s electricity still comes from coal-fired plants, Steve Homer, director of project management for the Southern California Public Power Authority, or SCPPA, told SNL Energy.

 

The three main out-of-state coal plants serving California — the Intermountain Power Project in Utah, the San Juan plant in New Mexico and the Navajo plant in Arizona — together received 10.1 million tons of coal in the first seven months of 2015, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. …

 

California is also one of the country’s biggest industrial users of coal, although consumption for that sector is relatively small. In 2013, the latest year for state-level EIA data on industrial coal consumption, California was the eighth-biggest industrial coal user, burning 1.4 million tons.

How states game energy reports

The report is another interesting example of how states play games with energy exports and imports to make themselves look greener than they are. In 2010, Orange County lawmaker turned Austin policy wonk Chuck DeVore laid out how California and British Columbia benefit from this maneuvering:

California has become America’s largest electricity importer. With 37 million people producing about 13 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, California imports about 23 percent of its electricity.  …

Complicating matters are a trio of California energy policy laws passed in 2006: AB32, SB1368 and SB107. AB32 mandates a 30 percent reduction in California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 … . SB1368 outlaws the renewal of coal-fired electricity contracts — imported coal energy powered about 16 percent of California’s grid in 2008. While SB107 accelerated the requirement that California derive 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources [in 2010], renewable being defined as small hydro, geothermal, wind, solar and biomass (we missed the target, meaning utilities, read ratepayers, get dinged).

Enter government-owned BC Hydro and its Powerex subsidiary. With abundant hydro power potential, British Columbia is seeking to become the Saudi Arabia of “green” energy.  … [But] in fact, BC Hydro has imported more energy than it has exported in 10 out of 11 years.

What’s going on here? British Columbia sells its clean hydropower to neighboring governments which need to meet renewable energy mandates. But then it doesn’t have enough power for its growing economy, so it imports power from coal and gas-fired power plants in Washington state and Alberta.

A California compromise — or a loophole?

A 2014 Los Angeles Times story raised similar questions about the gaming of the intention of the state’s landmark climate change laws. Its key conclusion:

California regulators say they have taken steps to prevent utility company executives from outwitting them and insist state rules will lead to real reductions in carbon dioxide, the main gas scientists blame for global warming. But officials concede their efforts have run up against the limits of California’s ability to control what takes place outside its borders, a point the utilities also emphasize. …

Originally, California’s climate-change policies included a provision that would have demanded utility executives swear under penalty of perjury that the actions they took to reduce emissions would not result in a spike in greenhouse gases someplace else.

 

But federal officials warned Gov. Jerry Brown that too aggressive an effort to control emissions across state lines would risk disrupting the complex interstate electricity system.

 

In the end, the California Air Resources Board — which oversees the state’s 2006 climate-change law — allowed utilities a dozen “safe harbor” conditions under which electricity companies would be permitted to shift emissions to nearby states.

 

Critics called the conditions loopholes. …

 

The exemptions are so broad, the board’s own advisory committee cautioned, that all the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions made by electricity companies could end up existing only on paper.