In 2008, they passed Proposition 2, which mandated more comfortable hatching quarters for chickens. Because of the cost to farmers of expanding chicken coops, a grace period was allowed of six years, to Jan. 1, 2015.

As NBC reported, the extra time allowed farmers time to “invest in operations to make sure that every hen would have at least 116 square inches of space, or about a square foot. One thousand laying hens, for example, now require a facility measuring more than 800 square feet.” That’s about double the space egg-layers enjoyed previously.

Now that the clock has run out on preparation time, egg prices are poised to rise even higher. According to the Associated Press, the cost of breakfast will rise for consumers across the country, not just California:

“The new standard, backed by animal rights advocates, has been criticized by chicken farmers in Iowa, Ohio and other states who sell eggs in California and will have to abide by the same requirements. California is the nation’s largest consumer of eggs and imports about one-third of its supply.”

Nationwide, the market could eventually adjust. UC Davis economist Daniel Sumner told the AP “prices initially could rise sharply this year but he expected them to eventually settle 10 to 40 percent higher in California and return to their normal prices elsewhere in the country.”

That would leave Golden Staters paying a premium that other Americans, with less comfortable chickens, would avoid.

Foie gras

The egg price jump also ties into the ongoing foie gras controversy. As CalWatchdog.com previously reported, for now, foie gras is back on Californian menus.

In a brief ruling that skirted deep questions of constitutional law, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson held this week that federal poultry regulations “preempt” what was a statewide ban on the delicacy, a rich dish made from the liver of force-fed geese or ducks.

But as Daniel Fisher noted at Forbes, supporters of the ban swung quickly into action. “The Humane Society immediately urged California to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, which has been friendly toward the state’s extraterritorial regulatory efforts in the past.”

Notably, the activist organization referenced another hot area concerning chickens: eggs.

According to Fisher, the “foie gras ban ran afoul of federal law controlling the ingredients in poultry products, the Humane Society said, while the egg ban involves the process of raising chickens.”

There, the important distinction concerns out-of-state production and in-state consumption. The Ninth Circuit’s ostensible treatment of the foie gras case will turn on its interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Faced with a previous challenge to the ban, the Ninth Circuit did not object to the way that Sacramento’s ban on foie gras made it impossible under state law for out-of-state producers to import the food into California. Nevertheless, Wilson held that federal poultry law prevailed over California’s policy.

Different argument

So the Humane Society and other ban defenders want the Ninth Circuit to consider a different argument: California should be able to ban food production that requires what they consider cruelty to animals — even for out-of-state production.

In a case last fall, Judge Kimberly Mueller, of the Sacramento Division of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, held that out-of-state producers of eggs running afoul of California’s new rules lacked “standing” to sue — meaning  the capacity of a party to bring suit in court.

Now the Humane Society and its allies expect to show in-state standing before the Ninth Circuit.

All told, California’s food fight isn’t just set to expand. It’s set to escalate, perhaps even to the national level.

Is California the greenest and fairest state when it comes to clean fuel standard regulations? No on both counts, contended the Wall Street Journal in a recent editorial, “California’s Green Trade War.” It said “economic protectionism” is behind the Low Carbon Fuel Standard of 2009 of the California Air Resources Board.

The Journal accused CARB of rigging the pollution regulation game by prejudicially giving Alaskan crude oil the same emissions score as California crude oil, which has four times the amount of carbon.  The Journal said California is cornering the market on “advanced” biofuels made from soybeans, landfill waste byproducts, and animal lard by penalizing out-of-state ethanol producers.

CARB Executive Officer Richard Corey rebutted that, insisting that California’s air pollution regulations are both “fair and green.”  Corey maintained CARB no longer calculates crude oil carbon density that way.  Corey said CARB now uses a computer model vetted by regulators and affirmed by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals.

The appeals case referred to is Rocky Mountain Farmers Union et al. vs. Corey (California Air Resources Board, Sept. 18, 2013). This case overturned a lower district court in the case of Rocky Mountain Farmers vs. Goldstene (June 16, 2010), which found that CARB discriminated against out-of-state fuel providers and violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs in both court cases — a group of farmers, growers, dairy farmers, truckers and the petrochemical industry — now want an en banc (meaning all judges) decision by the Ninth Circuit to affirm the panel's decision so the case can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit suffered an 86 percent reversal rate by the U.S. Supreme Court in the last term. So the plaintiffs are hoping that temporary defeat will become ultimate victory.

Judge dissented

Judge Mary H. Murguia issued the sole, partial dissent from the three-judge panel's ruling. Her dissent was based on Table 6 of CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which she said explicitly “differentiates between in-state and out-of-state ethanol, according more preferential treatment to the former at the expense of the latter.”  This violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, she wrote on page 73.

Table 6 is excerpted below, which clearly shows different values for in-state and out-of-state fuels. The main differences are CARB’s unfavorable scoring of “electricity” usage by Midwest ethanol fuel providers compared to California’s; and equal “land use” scores for in-and-out-of-state ethanol providers. Arguably, growing corn for ethanol in California uses much more valuable water than in the Midwest, which enjoys plentiful rain and rivers, but both have the same “land use” score.

Murguia was appointed to the Ninth District in 2010 by President Barack Obama. She is the twin sister of civil rights leader Janet Murguia. So one might expect her to take liberal positions. But in this case she did not.

Corey claims that out-of-state fuel farmers are supportive of CARB’s standards. But Corey’s rebuttal letter failed to explain why farmers from both California and the Midwest had brought the lawsuit against CARB.

Fifth District Appeals Court says CARB’s computer model needs vetting

Corey also failed to mention in his letter a parallel lawsuit brought by a Midwestern corn ethanol producer and a Sacramento research firm in a case before the Fifth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of the State of California.  The case is POET vs. CARB, June 15, 2013. In that case, the State Appeals Court also upheld CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, but required corrections.

Among the corrections, CARB must prove there are significant negative effects on the environment from Nitrogen Oxide emissions, rather than just assert such effects.  Also, CARB must allow public comment on the carbon intensity values assigned to land use changes and the formulas used in the Global Trade Analysis Project computer model used by CARB. Additionally, four emails from consultants originally left out of CARB’s analysis must be included in the rulemaking file.

Both court cases do not necessarily support Corey’s claim that California is green and fair.  To do that, a comparison with the state of Texas may be helpful.

Why doesn’t Texas have same bad air pollution as California?

California has nine out of the worst 25 cities for air pollution in the U.S.: Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Visalia, Fresno, Sacramento, El Centro, San Diego, Hanford and Merced.  Texas only has two cities on the list: Dallas and Houston.

The major causes of smog in Dallas and Houston are cars and plastics, oil and gas production. Most other Texans live in plains and plateaus where any potential toxic substances are dissipated quickly into the atmosphere. Texas is topographically greener than California despite its greater energy usage, but 12 million less population.

Texas relies on coal fuel for 32 percent of its energy use, while California only depends on coal for 3.7 percent of its total energy usage (but 15.5 percent of its electricity usage).  Texas imports coal fuel from Wyoming to run TXU power plants in Dallas, while California imports coal powered electricity from Utah to light up Los Angeles.  Texas imports its pollution; California exports it.  With a much higher usage percentage of so-called “dirty” coal-generated power than California, one would think that Texas would suffer from greater air pollution.  But it doesn’t.  Why?

The answer is most Californians live in nine topographic basins along the coastline that serve as traps for smog.  The major cause of smog in California cities is an inversion layer of warm air above cooler air that makes a toxic trap. Natural smog traps cause smog, not only man-made airborne substances.

Who is the greenest and fairest of them all?

According to the Journal, California subsidizes homegrown biofuels by $23 billion. Political liberals are usually the most concerned about fairness and about giving subsidies to farmers. But there isn’t much, if any, opposition by fair-minded liberals about subsidies to farmers for green fuels.

Moreover, no less than the impartial California Legislative Analyst’s Office has inferred that CARB’s cap-and-trade auction of pollution permits is unfair.  This is because the LAO says an auction is unnecessary to accomplish CARB’s pollution reduction goals.

Arguably, moving California’s conventional power plants out of its smog basin traps might accomplish CARB’s pollution reduction goals without having to rely on expensive and grid-destabilizing green power. Instead, California is diverting population growth to coastal smog traps in the name of arresting “urban sprawl.”

              Table 6 Breakout (2011); Cal. Code Regs. Title 17, Sec. 95486 (b) (1)

The key to understanding Der Arnold is that everything is a pose. From posing his steroid-pumped muscles before “bodybuilding” competitions to posing before a camera for an “action” movie to posing as a governor. Pose…pose…pose.

So, too, with his “environmentalism.” He’s posing  before his peer group: rich leftists, from those in Hollywood and Silicon Valley in California to his Kennedy family back in exclusive, hyper-rich Martha’s Vineyard.

So he signed the jobs-killing AB 32 into law. And he opposes Prop. 23, which would suspend AB 32 until unemployment dropped to 5.5% for a year. Pose…pose…pose.

The proof always is before us. Consider this story:

A last-minute budget concession is heading to a struggling business founded by a political ally  and generous campaign contributor to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Pacific Ethanol, a firm founded by state Republican Party fixture Bill Jones, would be relieved of a requirement to meet strict environmental standards by a change quietly inserted into budget legislation Wednesday.

Jones is the former California secretary of state and was the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006.  Jones and Schwarzenegger have endorsed each other’s campaigns over the years, and Jones has given nearly $70,000 to Schwarzenegger’s political committees, state records show.

In August, the Schwarzenegger administration promised millions in subsidies that helped rescue Pacific Ethanol from bankruptcy. Part of the deal was that the firm, which uses corn to make the gasoline additive ethanol, would significantly reduce its carbon footprint within four years.

But a last-minute change to the statute allows the carbon reduction requirement to expire in two years, essentially letting Pacific Ethanol, and three smaller firms that qualify for the subsidy, off the hook.

A real “environmentalist” wouldn’t make an exception for political cronies, but would insist that everyone follow the law.

For a poser like Der Arnold, the law doesn’t matter. Only posing.

I’ve always thought Gov. Arnold’s embrace of extreme environmentalism, such as AB 32, was a scam to make him look good. Now we’re finally getting some facts to confirm that. From the L.A. Times:

Reporting from Sacramento — California’s energy commission has promised millions of dollars to a struggling corn ethanol business founded by a political ally — and generous campaign contributor — to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger despite public assurances that the commission’s environmental funds would not be used to subsidize that technology.

The money comes from a tax on car owners passed three years ago that goes to a fund for clean-energy technologies. When the fund was set up, its backers said it would not be used for corn ethanol, a decades-old gas additive that many environmental scientists argue is at least as bad for the planet as oil.

The decision to use the fund for an ethanol subsidy has the program’s creator crying foul.

“It’s appalling. We gave them a very clear direction where these funds should be going,” said former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, who wrote the bill that created the Alternative Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program. “Ethanol is yesterday’s news. It seems like there’s some inside deal going on.”

Pacific Ethanol, the largest of four companies eligible for up to $15 million in new subsidies offered under the program, was founded by former California Secretary of State Bill Jones, a fixture in the state Republican Party who has given nearly $70,000 to Schwarzenegger’s campaigns, state records show.

Jones himself, one of the few statewide Republicans elected in the last two decades, long has been a recipient of federal farm subsidies. And while in the Legislature back in 1991, he provided the key vote for passing Gov. Pete Wilson’s tax increases.

Any doubts government is nothing but a scam?