De Leon panel-packing scheme died handily

Good morning. TGIF and TG for the three-day weekend.

Everyone is looking back at the recently wrapped legislative session. And while Democrats will walk away from it with a long list of environmental accomplishments, one got away.

A bill sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would have added three members to the South Coast Air Quality Management Board, which regulates air quality in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties.

And while that probably seems as dull as watching paint dry to nearly everyone who just read it, the measure had major implications for Republicans, local governments, business interests, environmentalists and residents of the broad district that has some of the most toxic air in the nation.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• On the heels of a Los Angeles Times story saying she was making a play for voters on the right, Democratic Senate candidate Loretta Sanchez pushed Gov. Jerry Brown to sign a bill increasing minimum penalties in sexual assault cases, according to CalWatchdog.
• “More than 250 of California’s 1,228 charter schools, including dozens in Southern California, violate state law by keeping out low-performing students and creating unfair admission policies, according to the American Civil Liberties Union,” reports The San Bernardino County Sun.
• “A major effort to overhaul the state’s energy regulator surprisingly collapsed after late legislative maneuverings led to the unraveling of the broad coalition that had pushed for changes at the scandal-ridden agency,” writes the Los Angeles Times.   
• Democrats in Sacramento pushed through the broadest liberal agenda in recent memory. The Sacramento Bee has more. 

Legislature:

• Gone ’til December. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mfleming

New follower: @TonyQuestUSA

A bill sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would have added three members to the South Coast Air Quality Management Board, which regulates air quality in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties.

And while that probably seems as dull as watching paint dry to nearly everyone who just read it, the measure had major implications for Republicans, local governments, business interests, environmentalists and residents of the broad district that has some of the most toxic air in the nation.

De Leon introduced the board-packing plan shortly after Republicans engineered a takeover of the board, swinging the focus from environmentalists to business interests. In December, the board disregarded SCAQMD staff recommendations and instead adopted rules on refineries backed by the oil industry, and in March it ousted the the longtime director who had been seen as anti-business.  

Representatives to the board are local city council members and county supervisors, appointed locally. De Leon’s bill would have added three seats to the 13-member board, appointed by the the Senate Rules Committee (which de Leon chairs), the Assembly speaker and the governor.

During floor debate, proponents argued that the measure was about adding diversity to the almost all-white board that had no Latinos, which defies the demographics of the heavily-Latino region. 

“Needless to say, I’m disappointed,” de Leon told CalWatchdog on Thursday. “Any time people of color are excluded from decision-making processes directly tied to their health and wellbeing, fundamental change is needed. This is a textbook example of institutional racism.”

De Leon added that Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, a Republican who also sits on the SCAQMD board, is termed-out and will soon be replaced by “someone far more progressive on the matter,” likely shifting the balance of power back to the environmentalists. 

However, of the current board’s ethnic composition, and the persistent lack of diversity, belies the fact that it’s largely been in Democratic, or environmentalist, control for years. De Leon did not say whether he’d reintroduce similar measures in the future.

Local control

Many opponents of the measure argued that the bill was a power grab by state policy makers at the expense of local control. And the large bloc of Democrats who either voted no or abstained suggest that the matter is not purely partisan.

“State versus local, that’s what this is about,” said Mike Madrid, a GOP strategist who helped devise the SDAQMD takeover. “It happened to be Republicans, but it was a state/local fight.”

But it was still a big win for Republicans, who are steadily slipping in their share of voter registration throughout the state, face the very real possibility of a Democratic supermajority in the Legislature next year and are not considered a consistent threat in any statewide election. For Republicans, local offices are where they can have a policy impact.

And despite several major policy victories for environmentalists, the defeat of the de Leon measure is a big win for the advocates of economic development. 

John Husing, the chief economist of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, has been studying Southern California’s economy since 1964. His research suggests a correlation between the rise of poverty and the rise of environmental regulations in the state. Husing argues that while the policies have had a positive impact on air quality in the region, the policies are imbalanced in relation to business development and subsequently drive poverty, which affects health. 

“The whole air-quality, green initiative is having detrimental effect on moving people out of poverty and into the middle class,” Husing said of the SCAQMD region and the neighboring central valley.

Environment v. economy

Environmentalists have often said that any job loss associated with these air-quality policies would be offset by job creation in green sectors. However, Husing says statistics say that isn’t true, at least not in areas with high unemployment, like many communities in the SCAQMD.

Citing data from the California Employment Development Department and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Husing said from 2010 to 2016 the U.S. added 836,000 manufacturing jobs, compared to California which added 42,500 — a mere 5.1 percent. While the growth rate is on pace with with the national average, it lags by over 50 percent behind the state’s share of gross state product.

Husing said that the sluggish growth of manufacturing jobs in the state is attributed to three factors: Companies leaving, companies growing beyond the state’s borders and out-of-state companies refusing to grow in the state.

“Whose affected by that? It’s not the companies,” Husing said. “They’re doing fine some place else. It’s workers whose jobs are never created. … So you’re basically cutting off routes to the middle class for those workers.”

The vote

The measure failed just before the stroke of midnight on Wednesday, 30-36. And while it is seen as a victory for Republicans, the measure was largely defeated by the 14 assemblymembers, all Democrats, who didn’t vote.

Those who didn’t vote were Luis Alejo of Watsonville, Joaquin Arambula of Fresno, Kansen Chu of San Jose, Jim Frazier of Oakley, Rich Gordon of Menlo Park, Adam Gray of Merced (who was not present), Kevin Mullin of South San Francisco and Shirley Weber of San Diego. The six who didn’t vote and live in the region were Ian Calderon of Whittier, Eduardo Garcia of Coachella, Mike Gipson of Carson, Roger Hernandez of West Covina, Chris Holden of Pasadena and Patrick O’Donnell of Long Beach.

The California Assembly voted unanimously Monday to keep control of the fire rings with local cities. The vote countered restrictions on the fire rings imposed last year by the Southern California Air Quality Management District, as well as a potential total ban.

The Press-Telegram reported last July:

“DIAMOND BAR – Despite vocal opposition from some beachgoers, the South Coast Air Quality Management District board Friday approved restrictions on fire pits on Southland beaches.

“The restrictions require fire pits to either be kept at least 700 feet away from the nearest residence. The rings can be closer than 700 feet to residences if the rings are at least 100 feet apart from each other — or at least 50 feet apart if a city has 15 or fewer rings. The measure also includes restrictions on beach fires on high-pollution days.”

A bipartisan effort led to Assembly Bill 1102, co-authored by two Orange County assembly members, Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, and Sharon-Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton. If the bill becomes law, before a city is forced by the AQMD to remove the fire rings from the beaches in Orange and Los Angeles counties, the AQMD would be required to work with local coastal cities and oversight agencies to:

• Prove there will be no loss of beach access;
• Prove there will be no harm to local economies under any AQMD regulations;
• Address  environmental concerns.

2013 resolution

Last year, Allen authored ACR 52, which read:

“This resolution supports the protection of California’s beaches, access to those beaches, and important traditions that are integral to our culture and beach lifestyle, such as fire rings….

“Beach bonfires are a safe and inexpensive recreational activity and are enjoyed by all the members of our community, regardless of socioeconomic class.… Beach attractions result in optimum economic and community activity, from gatherings of family and friends, beach barbeques, community events, and beach sports, and much more.”

After the non-binding resolution passed, it was evident the AQMD was not going to reverse the bonfire bans. So Allen and Quirk-Silva announced AB1102, legislation to officially reverse the AQMD’s actions.

“The fire rings have been an important part of our beach experience for over 60 years,”  the group Save the Southern California Beach Bonfire Rings explains on its website and Facebook page. “They provide an affordable means of gathering family and friends on Southern California shores to celebrate our outdoor beach lifestyle with s’mores and hotdog roasting under the stars, all while enjoying the glow of a warm fire.”

Allen pointed out that banning the fire rings would cut $1 million a year in fees for Huntington Beach and $19 million for all Orange County coastal cities.

Health concerns

The push to ban fire rings originated in Newport Beach from residents who live near the beach and don’t like the smoke wafting into their homes. According to the Daily Pilot:

“Under the rule, Newport Beach, whose application to the California Coastal Commission to remove its fire rings first spurred the AQMD to look into a possible ban, can get rid of its 60 fire pits near the Balboa Pier and at Corona del Mar State Beach.”

Allen also told CalWatchdog.com that those who live along the ocean in many coastal cities don’t like the beach crowds and have complained to local officials about the noise from nighttime bonfires.

Even though the homeowners bought the property knowing it was attached to publicly accessed beaches, residents demanded government regulators ban the fire pits to keep people off the beaches at night.

However, homeowners complaining about people using the beach near their homes would not elicit much sympathy.

Stronger reasons for removing the rings came after the American Lung Association claimed the fire pits are a health hazard.

“Fire rings are creating hazards in communities that are damaging to one’s health and to the health of residents who live nearby,” said Bonnie Holmes-Gen, senior director for policy and advocacy for the American Lung Association in California. “We’re very concerned about the impact of the smoke, … and it contributes to asthma attacks, strokes, a number of respiratory illnesses, and it can even cause premature death.”

Holmes-Gen said particulates in wood smoke are especially dangerous to young, developing lungs. Holmes-Gen said teenagers and young adults, the very people supposedly at the greatest risk from beach fires, are the most frequent attendees at the fire pits.

Yet the bill analysis says, “[T]he greatest health effect from wood smoke exposure originates from the fine particles that can cause health problems ranging from minor irritations such as burning eyes and runny noses to chronic illnesses such as bronchitis.”

Bill proponents also point out beach wind speed is usually high, cleaning the air.

Regulating wholesome, inexpensive fun

“Beach bonfires are an activity enjoyed by people from all across California, including those who cannot afford multi-million dollar beachfront homes,” Allen said in the Assembly Monday.  “This legislation will ensure that every Californian has access to our beautiful beaches through the affordable iconic activity of a beach bonfire.”

“This is just another family fun activity,” said Quirk-Silva. “We wanted it handled at the local level, but that is not to be.”

“This is a symbol of a free people,” Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia, added. “It should’t be regulated to a privileged few.”

Assemblyman Eric Linder, R-Corona, talked of fond family memories of a sunset on the beach, a bonfire, and roasting marshmallows.

“It would be hard to imagine the Orange County Coast without fire rings on the beach,” Allen said. “Now let’s go burn some wood.”

Solar power is popular nowadays as a “renewable,” non-polluting energy source. It helps California comply with AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gases in the state by 2020.

“Even on short winter days, California is breaking solar energy records,” declared environmental writer Chris Clarke on the website of KCET, America’s largest independent public TV station, which broadcasts across Southern California.

Clarke was jubilant that solar power had generated more than 2,800 megawatts of electricity just before noon on that day. There also was 1,898 megawatts of rooftop solar power generated on Dec. 4, but that was for the entire 24-hour day.  

Archived data for Dec. 4 is not available from the California Independent System Operator’s (ISO) website. So I double-checked the amount of solar power flowing into the state energy grid for Thursday, Dec. 11.  The numbers tell a different story.

Having served on the California Energy Crisis Task Force in 2001 for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (to which I currently have no affiliation of any kind), I believe I can competently double-check the claims about a major breakthrough for solar energy in California.  To understand the numbers that follow, it should be understood that a megawatt is enough electricity to power about 1,000 homes for one hour during non-peak load hours and a kilowatt is enough for one home for one hour.

Solar power marginally helpful during mid-day

During the midday hours from 2:30 to 5:30 p.m., it was true that solar power was producing from 6.77 to 8.15 percent of demand, as shown below:

Solar Contribution to CA Power Grid for Dec. 11 Mid Day Hours

Solar power not helpful during late hour peak load in winter 

The problem is that, in California, the peak demand for electricity comes late in the day, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., especially on cold winter nights such as Dec. 11.  During those hours, solar energy only contributed 5.07 percent at 6:30 pm, 1.48 percent at 7:30 pm, and zero percent from 8:30 pm onward, as shown below.

Solar Contribution to CA Power Grid for Dec. 11 Late Peak Hours

On December 11, there were two peaks in energy demand: one at 6:30 p.m. at 31,500 megawatts and another at 9 p.m., also at 31,500 megawatts.  The demand for electrical power at 7:30 p.m. was the same as for noon: 27,000 megawatts.    

During the entire 24-hour day of Dec. 11, solar energy contributed only 1.6 percent to the state power grid.

No demonstrable smog reduction

Moreover, there was no demonstrable decrease in air pollution on Dec. 11 that could be attributed to solar power’s output.  Unlike conventional power plants, solar power uses no fuel and thus does not emit air pollution.

But the mild 68 degree temperature in Los Angeles on Dec. 11 was not enough to produce an Inversion Layer effect, where warmer air at high elevations traps relatively cooler air below, creating a smog trap.  The South Coast Air Quality Management District reported air quality as “Good” for Dec. 11.  Remote centralized solar power plants may be reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but not within the crucial urban smog traps.

Conclusions

Here are the conclusions I was able to draw from comparing one winter day’s output of electricity from centralized solar power plants in California and imported solar power from surrounding states:

1. Thus far, centralized solar power is only marginally helpful in managing peak power loads during the mid-afternoon.
2. Centralized solar power is not helpful in managing sunset and late-hour peak power loads during the winter.
3. Centralized solar power does not demonstrably reduce air pollution on mild temperature winter days due to the modest Inversion Layer effect in California on colder days.
4. Solar power generation may have set a state record for megawatts generated on Dec. 4.  But, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, electricity generated from solar photovoltaic and solar thermal power plants are the two highest-priced sources of power by a wide margin. Centralized solar power runs from 15.9 cents to 25.1 cents per kilowatt-hour on average.  This is compared to 6.65 cents per kilowatt-hour from an efficient natural gas power plant that reduces air pollution by two-thirds over a coal-power plant.  And electricity from a non-polluting hydropower plant only costs 8.89 cents per kilowatt-hour on average. 

The media reports of record-setting solar power output are misguiding. Centralized solar power is an expensive option that doesn’t help meet late hour peak energy demands from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. in California, particularly during cold winter nights.

California has 10 existing large centralized solar power plants with a capacity of 713 megawatts and 14 pending solar power plants capable of producing 5,742 megawatts of power in the planning pipeline.

California can look forward to more hot solar power capacity, which won’t help in meeting late hour demands on cold winter nights, unless very expensive battery storage systems costing $250 to $4,500 per kilowatt hour are installed along electric transmission power line routes. A typical home in a mild climate uses 5,000 to 30,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year to run its natural gas heater in their home.

California has a lot of new centralized solar power coming online and battery storage systems that are being built on environmentalist faith, not proven technology. Better keep a warm sweater for cold winter nights in California unless you want to a huge winter electric power bill.