« Sandbox - 16apr15 | Main | Constitutional Convention – The debate continues »

17 April 2015



What were you bragging about last night jon?? A dose of facts for ya'.


Keep it up Steve, the day will come someone has had enough of your slanderous attacks and false accusations, and will drag your happy ass into court. More and more Internet TROLLS like yourself are paying dearly. Just say'n...

Steven Frisch

See, you guys must have me confused with someone who would automatically be against renewable energy development because of bird mortality. I am not--I believe we need to balance losses from climate impacts with losses from renewable energy development--cats and windows kill way more birds every year than either and turbines or oil.

Of course in some specific instances I might be against a enable energy project due to threatened and endangered species impacts, but that would be on a case by case basis....because this stuff is too complicated to be decided on an knee jerk ideologically driven reaction.

Posted by: Walt | 20 April 2015 at 12:47 PM

Steven Frisch

Seriously Walt, welfare queen is a well known derogatory cultural term in common use since the 70's. If anyone would have a case for slander it would be me, for your implying I give people blow jobs for money. But the only slanderous part is the 'money,'which is an illegal activity.

By the way, the era of shaming someone with sex is soon 80's :)

George Rebane

Administrivia - Gentlemen, this comment stream has gone both off topic and ad hominem. Please relate back to SoJ or take it to the Sandbox. If we want to continue debating AGW then I can open a dedicated post to that topic with a link back to this comment stream so that all your good thoughts here will still be related.

StevenF 124pm - And because this stuff is so complicated, its resolution will only be through "ideologically driven" decisions that hopefully will not be "knee jerk". We recall that reasoned decisions are made to extremize some utility function which in this case is a social utility. And ALL utility functions are subjective - in this case being assembled from ideological considerations that allocate value over the spectrum of attributes included in the utility function. Only people not yet familiar with how decisions are made continue to believe that objectivity rules, while those both familiar and cynical continue to pander the naïfs that their decision methodology includes 'all the information' and produces an 'objective' result.

Steven Frisch

Note: this is where the conversation veered off into climate change:

Posted by: Gregory | 18 April 2015 at 08:15 AM

But my response was not to debate climate change, it responded to the original posts reference to the cost and benefit of regulation which you refereed to in the original post; then you doubled doubled down on it in spade in the 'update.'

George Rebane

StevenF 154pm - true enough; SoJ formation does have fed imposed environmental factors affecting it, and perhaps that was the reason for launching the new thread. However, I did not know that my 19apr15 update "doubled down" on debating the veracity of AGW. It only obliquely inferred it by reference to the stifling environmental regulations that are peculiar to California. In any event, let's take the merits of AGW elsewhere.

But expanding on the latitude SoJ may have or not in fashioning its own set of environmental regulations is fair game under this post. And it is a worthy topic area since SoJ supporters maintain that such a more felicitous set of regulations would add to the draw of new businesses to SoJ.

Apropos to legion of outside assessments of California's disaster I add The Economist that I included in one of my KVMR commentaries in 2011.

Steven Frisch

I think it is important to note that the very same federal regulations and programs that affect the state of California would be in force in the state of Jefferson as well; the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Antiquities Act, Reynolds v. Sims, all would be enforced.

The benefit of being in California may be that the California AB 32 Scoping Plan and the Cap and Trade program and Low Carbon Fuel Standard that stemmed from it complies with the Clean Air Act, and it would be implemented for you by all of California,, instead of needing to navigate that shoal in the new State of Jefferson on your own. After all, the program is working, in fact it is a model for implementation across the country.

Steven Frisch

Oops, that should read "Clean Air Act" in the first paragraph.

George Rebane

StevenF 353pm - Is there an appropriate document you can link us to that summarizes the glories of AB32 as the basis for your claim that "the program is working" and indicates which states consider it a "model for implementation"?


Posted by: George Rebane | 20 April 2015 at 03:59 PM

Doesn't need to "work" George. Not as the term work is employed in common language. As long as the regulations are written, the right people employed, the program adequately funded, and the police/collection mechanisms in place it would be considered working..... "a model for implementation across the country".

George Rebane

fish 406pm - Point well taken; but for some reason I believe that StevenF wanted us to think of a more salubrious definition of 'work' in his 353pm - I could be wrong.

Steven Frisch

No, let's be clear, it works. It set out to create a regulated carbon market that was stable, predictable and trusted and it is. It set out to increase renewable energy to 20% of the state mix by 2020 and it will exceed that. It set out to place fuels under a cap and reduce the carbon intensity of fuels and it is doing that, and has been successful so far with a stable and predictable market for fuel allowances. It set out to attract capital to new technologies and it has done that. It set out to create employment in new energy fields and it has done that. I have posted either links to those documents already or quoted from them.

I may do so again tonight just so the links are all in one place.

The problem you have with the program is that it places a price on carbon and re-distributes the revenues, which is fine if you have a problem with that, I can understand your opposition, but it is doing that quite successfully, so the program works.

George Rebane

StevenF 503pm - The Boston Consulting Group is a respected consultancy not known for bought and paid for results. They were hired to study the UC Davis Expert Review of the impact of AB32 regulatory effects. Their conclusions are detailed - thereby readily exposing them to refutation - and they give no cause for happy dancing. In short, BCG assesses AB32 to be the disaster that I personally have heard every businessman I've talked to whose enterprise involves machinery and transportation. Yet you may be right in that it 'works' for govt employees and those kept alive on subsidies. It most certainly will not work for California consumers - either those who work or are retired.

But readers can check details for themselves.

Steven Frisch

I find it ironic George that you would post a 'projection' of future results as evidence to support your point of view when your critiqued me earlier in this thread for relying on predictive future models rather than real results. Now cone on, you can admit it, you did, didn't you?

Here is the statement from the BCG report itself:

"The Boston Consulting Group was engaged to conduct a comprehensive study to better understand the impacts AB 32 regulations will have on fuel markets, businesses, consumers and the California economy."

I don't necessarily have a problem with with using predictive models, sometimes they are all we have. And after all the theory at least is that we learn from the past. I think we should do predictive models of anticipated future effects of regulation...but we should also model benefits at the same time...and the BCG study did not do that.

That was the major flaw in the study when it was independently reviewed by a team assembled by UC Davis. Now before you say that review must have been biased, it was paid for partly by the Western States Petroleum Association, the same group that paid for the BCG study.

1. The BCG report studies losses in the oil industry but does not take into account any job gains in other industries.

2. The report does not take into account domestic sources of ethanol it bases its pricing model on imported Brazilian ethanol and assumes no new production.

3. The BCG report assumes that California drivers will not drive less in response to changes in prices, whatever the reason; we all know people drive less when the price is higher.

4. The BCG report assumes no new alternative vehicles will come available during the time frame, and we know from production numbers that electric vehicles have already quadrupled in the time since the report was issued, now making up almost 2% of the California market, and are continuing to rise as a % of the market.

5. The BCG report assumes some refineries in California will shut down as demand drops; but there is no real rationale for this, refiners could just diversify into the biofuels business. I suggest they start with woody biomass.

7. The BCG report assumes that as laid off refinery workers lose their jobs they will not get jobs anywhere else, and does not,once again take into account job increases in alternative fuels or vehicles.

Now once again these are predictive models, and the proof will begin the pudding, but at least weight the pudding accurately. Weigh the positive externalities.

Steven Frisch

By the way George, did you note that the report was issued in June of 2012, almost 3 years ago? Some of the data I referenced easier on this thread was based on actual performance since the Cap and Trade system and the low carbon fuel standard went in. Perhaps we can learn more from tracking the actual results.

Steven Frisch

Hmm...looks like EV's and Plug in Hybrids are available on the market, and sales seem to be increase about 200% per year since 2010, and EV's and PIH's are 2.5% of the market combined.....still too few on the road...butnew EV's are coming on the market every month and prices are dropping. Watch what happens when Tesla comes down to $40k. Still too rich for my blood but probably affordable for many more.


George Rebane

StevenF 744pm - Good points. Let's take them at face value until better data comes. But I did want to have some 3rd party indication that AB32 is not all wine and roses. The point still not made IMHO is the beneficial impact of AB32 on CA's economy - your thesis that added regulations and taxes/costs are net wealth creators, and that you (and no one else for that matter) have not been able to prove here or elsewhere.

BTW, the kinds of 'predictive models' that BCG used in its study are the standard type of economic analysis tools that everyone in the industry - including feds, CA, AB32 proponents, the ones you cited, etc - uses for economic impact projections. Not to be confused with the climate models. But yes, even these models depend on some brown numbers and don't take all known and unknown factors into account - they are just the 'standard of care'.

I'd still like for you to address California's aggregates, because that impacts the most people and gets folded into national economic stats, including the comparative ones.

And I also maintain that AB32 has had and will have absolutely no effect on any of the measurables on climate change to support any AGW hypothesis.

Thanks for sticking in there.

Russ Steele


What happens when the electric vehicle market becomes saturated? Sales year to date in US have slowed, with positive sales of just 3% for the year according to Inside EVs. For the last three years the top EV sellers have been the Cheve Volt and the Nissan LEAF. In both cases their sales have declined.

Cheve Volt
Last year (2014) 18,805 cars were been sold – which was down 18.6% from 2013 when GM moved 20,702 Volts. This means that the Volt is the first electric vehicle to post two consecutive years of falling sales in America.

Nissan LEAF
Overall Nissan has failed to hit year ago levels each month this year. In total 4,085 LEAFs are have been sold in 2015, down 21% from last year when 5,184 were moved.

It is true that other auto manufactures have introduced EVs to the American market in 2014 and have captured some buyers. But, in 2014 the EV sales (123,040) was only .74% of the total sales market (16,531,136). EVs only satisfied 3/4s of 1% of the auto buying market. Only 25,538 more EV were sold in 2014, than 2013. Not a huge increase in sales, if EV are going to take over the highways.

It is going to be a while before we see 20% of the vehicles on the road will be EVs.

I checked the New Apple Pug In App and the State of Jefferson has more EV Charging Stations than Nevada County.

Steven Frisch

Russ, my response was relative to both policy and market conditions in California not nationally.

Here are the figures in California:

"In 2012, Californians bought 6,197 pure electric cars — such as the Nissan Leaf and the Tesla Model S — and 14,701 plug-in hybrids, including the Chevy Volt. Last year, sales jumped to 21,963 electrics and 20,235 plug-in hybrids, according to the Polk research firm.

For the first 8 months of 2014, Californians bought 15,251 pure electric cars and 16,239 plug-in hybrids."

We are over 100,000 on the road and it is increasing rapidly.

I agree that it is going to be a while before 20% of the vehicles on the road are EV/PIH, under current conditions probably 10 years. But the point I made was that the BCG report did not take that into account.

Re: the availability of charging stations, I have been puzzled by the APP you are using for a while. I've noticed your comments in the past based on the APP and it definitely is lagging behind installations. It also may be a statement about the limitations of crowdsourcing because I have the EV APP and it is not accurate. But I agree we need more installations. We have about 8 locations with at least 20 charging ports in Truckee (not counting the ski areas) right now. Looks like you have 4 stations with 8 ports in GV/NC. I have been watching their use in Truckee and the ones at hotels (Cedar House and Best Western) seem to be in very regular use (which should tell hoteliers something about getting a competitive advantage). The 6 Tesla supercharging stations at the Safeway in Truckee are in pretty regular use as well, I check every time I am there; that is a 30 minute charge.

I know TRPA is working on a plan right now to install a supercharging network that will link the central Sierra to Tahoe, Reno and Sacramento because we worked on getting them the grant to design and install it. I agree it is going to take some time to get the infrastructure in place.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: George Rebane | 20 April 2015 at 09:30 PM

"BTW, the kinds of 'predictive models' that BCG used in its study are the standard type of economic analysis tools that everyone in the industry - including feds, CA, AB32 proponents, the ones you cited, etc - uses for economic impact projections."

Actually George CARB and other AB 32 proponents do not recognize the BCG methodology as valid in this case. The model is based on only counting negative externalities of the regulation. The entire point of the regulation is to create positive externalities and as such the methodology does not fit the case. CARB and California, by placing a price on carbon, is in the business of changing behavior. You may disagree with that, which is fine as I said above, but the entire point of pricing carbon is to change behavior, and that means positive changes have to be counted as well.

Let's consider this in another case. When we tax cigarettes part of the point is to raise money for childhood and early adult intervention programs. When California added a $2.00 tax on cigarettes the number of people who smoked went down by about 50%. Should we not count the public health benefit of reduced smoking as a positive externality? Clearly the state saved billions in publicly subsidized health care costs.

Steven Frisch

BTW, one more point, lets not confuse the results of the BCG study with Cap and Trade. LCFS and C&T are two different programs. The BCG study only looked at the impact of the LCFS on the oil industry. It was not a study of the overall impact or cost benefit of the C&T program.


Doesn't need to "work" George. Not as the term work is employed in common language. As long as the regulations are written, the right people employed, the program adequately funded, and the police/collection mechanisms in place it would be considered working..... "a model for implementation across the country".

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 20 April 2015 at 05:03 PM

No, let's be clear, it works. It set out to create a regulated carbon market that was stable, predictable and trusted and it is.

No it sets up a compulsory "tax" that allows the sale of carbon "indulgences" on a secondary market. This was the basis of one of the legal challenges. The state prevailed as I'm sure you're quite aware. The state prevails regularly in "tax" cases.

-On Nov 12, 2013 The California Chamber of Commerce launched the first industry lawsuit against the auction portion of California’s cap-and-trade program on the basis that auctioning off allowances constitutes an unauthorized, unconstitutional tax. The complaint was filed for Sacramento Superior Court and seeks to stop the auction and have the auction regulations declared invalid. However, California superior court has rejected the challenges to the state’s cap-and-trade program, upholding a significant element of California’s suite of programs to comply with AB 32 and to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The problem you have with the program is that it places a price on carbon and re-distributes the revenues, which is fine if you have a problem with that, I can understand your opposition, but it is doing that quite successfully, so the program works.

Another hallmark of a government revenue collection the ability to spread it around to keep people who stand to benefit from the "redistribution"onboard as opinion setters. Cough....cough....bucket shops who prepare "Climate Action Plans" spring to mind as falling into this category.

.....and of course it is a "model" for implementation across the country. The most important aspect of any "tax" program is that those who pay it not be given an opportunity to escape the tax. It remains to be seen if the rest of the states follow.

You haven't refuted any point in my earlier post.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: fish | 21 April 2015 at 06:39 AM

Fish, it is the courts and the legislature that determines what is and is not a tax in our society. If you support the rule of law, as I know you do, then you have to acknowledge that that is the process.

My main point is that Russ and others here predicted that the California carbon market would suffer the same fate as the early experiments at the EU and the failed CCX market. But what California managed to create is a market that is stable, predictable, and trusted by all of the participants. The proof is there, it has been up and running for years, everyone required to is participating, and the price of carbon is holding steady at roughly $12 per ton.

The Cap and Trade market worked.

Your opposition to the program is your opposition to the principle of setting a price on carbon, capping emissions, and reducing, because you do not think it is necessary. You think (but the courts disagree) it is a tax. That is fine as I said, it is a values decision for you. But governments reflect collective social values not individual ones, and that is what happened in this case. A majority of the people of the state of California said, "we want to put a price on carbon and reduce emissions", that was tested in the legislature, courts and at the ballot box, and your values lost.

I am not going to refute the value of climate action planning. I support it because I am convinced that it is necessary to meet the challenge of climate change.

My organization advances climate action planning because we think it is necessary for the future safety and well being of our communities. We believe climate change is real, its growing negative impacts are largely human caused, and we have a responsibility to address it. Those are our personal values.

Now it just so happens that climate action planning also provides some very valuable co-benefits.

At the local government level understanding GHG emissions helps them do better and more cost effective infrastructure and operations planning saving them money in the long run.

It helps local projects evaluate CEQA GHG impacts because it does inventories that can establish a baseline and measures against those, removing the burden under state law of individual project proponents doing them.

Measuring GHG emissions helps local government qualify for funding under the programs established at the state level to reduce GHG emissions. We think that since we are paying into these funds we should have access to them.

Doing climate action planning helps prepare for emergency response to natural disaster.

Doing climate action planning helps predict and plan to reduce human health costs, which are often passed on to the taxpayer.

Doing climate action planning helps to identify emerging private sector opportunities in mitigation and adaptation.

Let's play this out in another sphere; my guess is many here would have been against increase gasoline taxes, because they are generally against taxes. Does early opposition to gasoline taxes stop locals from accessing the funds for local projects (Dorsey Drive Interchange comes to mind). No.

Whether we like it or not, and as you noted that case has been decided, we are paying into the fund to reduce emissions; we should access to fund projects.

Your opposition is noted, and ideological, and you lost, and it is time to move on.

George Rebane

re StevenF 733am - Unfortunately, whatever color lipstick you put on the government's taking your money at the point of a gun, it is a tax (or tribute?) pure and simple.

And unfortunately the people of California voted for AB32 and turned down Prop23 based on no such fine knowledge of science and/or economics. It was instead based on the successful misrepresentation of AGW and Man's ability to purposely impact global warming. But, of course, the True Believers continue to reject all of that with their 'science', even with the latest IPCC admissions withstanding.

Comparing gasoline taxes with carbon taxes is a bit specious. There was a time when gasoline taxes did indeed return a collective value when applied to the construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure. There is no such equivalent value returned from carbon taxes. Citing irrelevant mediating numbers does not make it so. The aggregates tell the tale.

But this discussion is properly coming down to the seminal matters of acceptable government functions and modes of operation, and that we'll dedicate an upcoming post to that.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: George Rebane | 21 April 2015 at 09:39 AM

There is a direct link between the carbon tax and a return of collective value applied to the construction and maintenance of real projects. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is no different than the Gas Tax Fund. This year it received approximately $853 million in revenue which is going back out as projects to fund transportation, housing, energy, etc

Here is the link: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/summaryproceedsappropriations.pdf

But I think you are correct George this comes down to difference of opinion about world view and the role of the private sector vis a vis the government.


No wonder Steven Frisch, CEO of the Sierra Business Council, had his head expode when I wrote (arguably on topic), "Global warming has been the central theme of California Democrats for about a decade and the scientific consensus facade AB32 is based upon is crumbling. From the high speed train to how we generate electrical power, the state is being operated on the principle that we must exorcise carbon dioxide from our lives, short of ceasing to breathe (iirc gases from exhalation are about 40,000ppm CO2). What happens to political power in California if (meaning when) the AGW meme collapses?"

Frisch's 7:33AM finally answered my question of 18 April 2015 at 08:15 AM... the Democratic Party in California would be rudderless if and when the AGW meme collapses, and the raison d'etre of the wretchedly misnamed Sierra Business Council would be lost.

As Judith Curry noted in Congressional testimony last week, ‘What is being proposed is ineffective, it’s not going to do anything even if the U.S. is successful at meeting 80 percent reductions by 2050 this is going to reduce warming by about a tenth of a degree centigrade. It’s not going to do anything.’

Prop 23 promised affordable renewable energy with no pain while making the air clean for our kids with asthma and for all the cute bunny rabbits playing in the forest. Oh, and the Frisco Giants beat the Texas Rangers, go Giants! Tom Steyer alone spent as much as all the Prop 23 proponents, 10 million bucks, and even I was lukewarm to the measure because it *didn't* challenge the science claims... the 23 message was 'Yes, CO2 will kill us all but let's wait to solve the problem until we can afford the expense' while the Steyer financed message was all about the kids and the bunnies. No pain, all gain.

Apple used to make stuff in California... now it gets made in China where I think they're still building a new coal fired power plant every week or two. But we're showing the world how to remove carbon from our lives. Really?

At the time of the 23 vote, the pause had only lasted 13 years and IPCC senior scientists were saying it would have to last 15 years to be a significant challenge to IPCC dogma. Now that we're at 18 years and counting (some say several years longer), the line in the sand is 20 years.

Steve, most of the people voting on 23 didn't even take your "Your friend, the Amoeba" science class; the electorate doesn't get to define science any more than they can redefine Pi to be 3.

Steven Frisch

You know what Gregory, the tone was actually nice with you gone.

Here is the deal, election have consequences, we kicked your asses at the polls, Californians are solidly behind AB 32, and that is not going to change.

It is even less likely to change now that we are pricing carbon
and actually investing in solutions that improve the lives of real people, who VOTE.

My motivation is all about the FACT that I believe climate change is an existential threat to the planet and human survival on it and nothing else.

So you can needle all you want to. We WON and you LOST.

I am going to do everything I can to implement a policy that changes things for the better and you can go back to polishing the leather on your cushy airplane, spouting your self aggrandizing elitist bullshit, and being irrelevant.

George Rebane

StevenF 1046am - Excellent link! While I'm not aware that Sacramento is doing anything with the AB32 taxes save putting them into the general fund (where it predictably gets pissed away on dubious vote buying programs and allaying public employee pensions), the expenditures outlined by CARB make my case in spades. I believe there is no one living today who will get any measurable benefit from the monies extracted by AB32. And yes, there is the ideological determination that private citizens would much better spend those monies to the increase of the common weal.

Still no apologetics for the aggregative and comparative indicators of California's economic performance?


Nice chart of the expenditures of the $832 million siphoned off the producers to somehow lower our carbon output and reduce climate change. What exactly is a disadvantaged community anways? I am guessing that this is liberal regressive dog whistle nuance speak for stupid people and how I buy them off to keep the gravy train a' rollen. Speaking of trains...they have even managed to steal the money that was supposed to be returned to rate payers and fund the low speed train from bum F Egypt north to South bum F Egypt. And here I read that all of the proceeds were going to be refunded to rate payers. Oh maybe I missed the 'nuance' and the posted meant after government administrative fees, crony payouts, vote buying allocations and shipping and handling charges than we pee ons would get our take.

Steven Frisch

Funny George, I am working on securing funding for numerous projects in the Sierra Nevada from these sources, including water savings for small water districts, affordable housing, transit, and EV charging stations. I guess we will see if anyone benefits form those.

I will start working on some specific examples of business investments stemming from climate adaptation and mitigation. There are so many.

Steven Frisch

BTW, although I know it is convenient to think these monies will go into the general fund and get pissed away, the source of the funding and their expenditures are very closely linked by two precedent setting legal cases that require a nexus; Sinclair Paint v. California and Sandstorm v. County of Mendocino. The funds can only be used to reduce GHG emissions by law.

Steven Frisch

I never said all proceeds would go back to ratepayers. I said all proceeds from the cap on emissions related to power generation by investor owned utilities are going back to ratepayers. If you are a PGE customer you probably saw a rebate on your bill either this month or next month.

George Rebane

StevenF 1207pm - Much look forward to your reports. BTW, is there another word for when government takes money from those who earned it so it can 'invest' in businesses in which its citizens will not invest?


Sorry, Stevie, my "cushy" airplane has a 1980's tuck and roll fabric interior and not a square inch of leather, not at all like the Gulfstreams that the Gores, the Camerons or the di Caprios enjoy. Joking with a number of Netjets pilots walking their picket lines last year at a Nevada airport, I told them I'm so poor I have to fly my airplane myself... and I also change the oil, grease the bearings and change the tires.

You're losing where it counts, in the peer reviewed literature and in reality. The pause continues and, a number of solar physicists believe, we're approaching a Maunder-ish solar minimum which, the last time, resulted in record low temperatures and the Thames freezing solid every winter.

Sorry I wasn't here to ask an inconvenient question... all those electric vehicle numbers... you might try to dig out how many were to private buyers and how many were to government fleet buyers (especially in California) for those swarms of officers harassing the people and eating their substance, and try to guess how many were purchased strictly to get legal access to the only freeway lanes moving during rush hour. Somehow, I'm an elitist for owning an old airplane able to use a mile of California public asphalt that has a gate to keep Frisch out, but the owner of a $70k Tesla purchased to be able to drive to work in The Valley on road I can't use in my 34mpg Prizm is a climate Muslim, properly submissive to Frisch's climate caliphate.

George Rebane

Gregory 1214pm - Hmmm, "climate caliphate" has a nice ring to it.


George, checking, I'm sad to say I wasn't the first to coin it... there are nearly 300 google hits. It came to mind comparing Frisch's latest screeds to islamic calls for submission by the non believers and payment of the tax they demand, and enduring the slaps they may mete out even after payment.


For extra credit, one might compare the stimulative value of taking money from the people to stimulate commerce related to CO2 reductions to the stimulative value of breaking windows and starting fires for the economic benefits of rebuilding or replacing what just got destroyed.

Again, I'm not a SoJ supporter, but the fatally flawed Prop 23 won in the vast majority of SoJ counties.

Steven Frisch

Proposition 23 lost in Nevada County 55-45, lost in Placer and El Dorado, lost in 4 other proposed SOJ counties, and lost with the majority of the population within the proposed State of Jefferson.

I do like the point that you are so dismissive of the voters though!

Jeff Pelline

Well said Steve! ROFLOL.


Fish, it is the courts and the legislature that determines what is and is not a tax in our society. If you support the rule of law, as I know you do, then you have to acknowledge that that is the process.

Oh no I get it. It just brings back memories of the ObamaCare bait and switch whereas a tax wasn't a tax until it was a tax. Was curious to know if you could admit it.

Whether we like it or not, and as you noted that case has been decided, we are paying into the fund to reduce emissions; we should access to fund projects.

Your opposition is noted, and ideological, and you lost, and it is time to move on.

Well Steve like all political questions it's never truly settled. I imagine that during the next severe downturn in the economy it will get a serious look again.

We'll see.


George, neither California's Climate Caliphate or the California Climate Caliphate have seen use until now. Enjoy.

Fish, a real change in climate in Sacramento won't be seen until there is a regime change, and that won't happen as long as public employee union dues can be used to pick the politicians that will determine public employee payrolls.

George Rebane

Gregory 1239pm - What part of the SoJ movement do you not support - 1) its premises, 2) its proposed solution, 3) both? What alternative course, if any, would you advise?


Posted by: Gregory | 21 April 2015 at 01:08 PM

.....and like everything that can't go on forever it won't.


George, while I think it would be better for the country if California was broken into two or three parts, I think the SoJ effort has zero chance of success.

What I propose is to take the Oregon Option, described to me by a Portland area financier... sit on your hands and do nothing for now; wait until a bankruptcy wipes out pension obligations to California public employees beyond the actual assets of CalSTRS and PERS. If public employees come to their senses before they bankrupt the state that's also fine by me.


Posted by: Jeff Pelline | 21 April 2015 at 12:54 PM

Well said Steve! ROFLOL.

My working theory is that hydraulic lubrication of the subsurface from fracking is not what's causing increased seismic activity. I assume that every time your fat ass hits the dirt during a ROFLOL session you set off tremors across the Western US.

Russ Steele


Support for your views on who is buying electric vehicles in 2014:

A coalition of Bay Area-public agencies has just made what they claim is the largest single governmental electric vehicle (EV) fleet purchase so far in America.

The total purchase of 90 EVs may not sound like a game-changer, but it’s actually one step in a longer journey toward sustainable transportation being led by the Bay Area Climate Collaborative (BACC), and fits into California’s overall zero-emissions movement.

George Rebane

Gregory 123pm - A plausible alternative. However it's not clear to me what path after portending or achieving bankruptcy would then lead to the peaceful separation of those who won't work from those who will.

Just to underline the record, I do believe that a robust yet still unsuccessful SoJ movement will have the best chance of a peaceful change of attitudes in both the urban centers and Sacramento. Of course, if we add public pension bankruptcies to that, then real progress toward California's bending away from socialism could be made.


Russ, the sad thing is that EVs aren't zero emission... they just move the location of the emissions from the city to the countryside.

Put in the wrong thread is my observation that the counties that didn't turn down Prop 23 sure looks like a Jefferson to me. California is a one party state, the one party dictated AB32, and the promise was we'd lead the world to a wonderful new fossil fuel economy. It ain't happening.

George Rebane

re Gregory 231pm - The transplanting of fossil fuel emission sites has been much discussed in these pages. What I have not seen resolved is which energy production pathway to a delivered ton-mile on the roads is lower in CO2 emissions, and also in total BTUs. Both can start in, say, coal mine, gas well, or wind farm as long as we have equivalent AVAILABLE BTUs delivered to the power generation plant.


George, sell a small car with a small three cylinder turbodiesel and the shape of the Volt, Leaf or Pious and you'll be less carbon intensive than that big Tesla can ever be... and it can transport you from Eureka to San Diego in a day, running either the heater or the a/c the whole way.

Regarding the people, Gallup thinks we're back to the '80's when it comes to the global warming scare.


Fixing a dropped word... "California is a one party state, the one party dictated AB32, and the promise was we'd lead the world to a wonderful new fossil fuel-free economy. It ain't happening."


If all of the proceeds from the crap and trade program are being refunded to the rate payers, why is it necessary to have this money taken from the producers of said power?


All those rosy EV numbers from Frisch don't resonate with the numbers from Motown:

Perhaps Frisch can provide the source of numbers that don't include sales to California state and local governments, but don't hold your breath.


This can't be good for the narrative...


Russ Steele


Here a little reality check on EVs:

President Barack Obama promised to put a million more hybrid and electric cars on the road during his tenure, but new research shows drivers are trading them in to buy sports utility vehicles (SUVs).

The auto-research group Edmunds.com found that “22 percent of people who have traded in their hybrids and [electric vehicles] in 2015 bought a new SUV.”

This number is higher than the 18.8 percent that did the same last year, but it’s double the number that traded in their electric car for an SUV just three years ago. Edmunds.com reports that only “45 percent of this year’s hybrid and EV trade-ins have gone toward the purchase of another alternative fuel vehicle, down from just over 60 percent in 2012.”

“Never before have loyalty rates for alt-fuel vehicles fallen below 50 percent,” Edmunds notes.


George Rebane

re RussS 716am & fish 612am - Sadly the trumpeting of the progressives in support of AB32, as they present irrelevant and obfuscating data (and I take these at face value), totally confuses the gruberized Californians. That EVs are not gaining significant traction in the marketplace and are now suffering huge defections is suppressed by the lamestream, and most certainly not revealed by Washington from where flow the subsidies that support even the current meager numbers. It really is just another government workfare program that prevents capital flowing to where it is most productive. And its impact on the environment; you've got to be kidding.

Eddie Garcia

It has taken me quite a bit of time to read through 252 comments prompted by the subject of this thread. The State of Jefferson is a very simple concept and not deserving of barbed remarks or personal attacks.

The strongest driving force behind the movement to create the 51st state is the lack of representation we have in the twenty northernmost counties of California. Depending on where one draws the border, we have five or six votes combined for twenty counties in our state assembly and senate. The counties of Los Angeles and San Francisco alone have sixty votes. The result is that our voice is not heard.

We are told that the way to improve our representation is to build bridges. No matter how many bridges we attempt to build, we will be building a bridge to nowhere.

We are called secessionists, which implies we want to leave the Union. We plan to separate according to Article 4, Section 2 of our Constitution. Whether we are called Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Partiers or Democrats is not the issue. Whether we believe in freedom, representation and fiscal responsibility is the issue.

We believe the state of California has become too large and diverse to effectively govern and we consider our solution to be a win/win for both California and the new state. California could concentrate on its urban/suburban issues. The State of Jefferson could concentrate on the issues that concern the rural character of the Northern third of California.

Regarding the economic viability of the new state, our research has shown that the citizens of all but three counties pay much more in State and Federal taxes than they receive back. The “nay sayers” claim that all of Northern California depends on the rest of the state to sustain its services, but have provided no studies to substantiate this claim. We would be very happy to discuss this issue in a public forum with our opponents. And, we do intend to pay back our share of the debt California has accrued, not in one year as one blogger has suggested, but over the course of twenty years as outlined in our financial plan. That is probably faster than the remainder of the state will be able to retire their portion of the debt.

Our research does not even take into consideration the growth we feel we would enjoy from businesses that would be attracted to a state where taxes are low and regulations are not created to build empires and create compliance jobs for government officials.

It is amazing to see how many people dismiss SOJ as even a possibility. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers did not falter when facing the largest military in the world at a crucial time in our history. If they had , we might be singing “God Bless the Queen” instead of “The Star Spangled Banner”. When did we stop thinking outside the box? When did we just “cave in” because the road ahead did not seem possible or easy?

A recent statement caught my attention and is one worth contemplating. “When a citizen, elected official or government employee refuses to listen or think about new ideas that might benefit the people, you need to suspect or investigate their motives. None of us can become so arrogant that we believe we have the very best answer to everything,”

Recently a group called “Keep it California” has lined up in opposition to the State of Jefferson movement. It has organized as a PAC which smells of “politics”! The State of Jefferson is truly a grassroots, non-partisan movement driven by dedicated volunteers whose concern is to ensure a better future for their children.

Todd Juvinall

Though I think California can make it if we could reinstate representation by each county via the Senate, I wish you luck. The vocal opposition is primarily liberal democrats who love big government and less freedom for the individual. Since they have control of the State government, they can pass their laws to steal the assets of those hardworking middle class folks and hand the proceeds over to themselves and their pals. They will resist to the very end any attempts to diminish that power.

Russ Steele

Consumers have discovered that hybrids and EVs are not the car of the future:

Ford said today that it is planning to cut a shift at its Michigan Assembly Plant where it makes the Ford Focus compact car and C-Max crossover because of declining sales of small cars, hybrids and electric vehicles.

The automaker told workers and notified the state of Michigan that it will lay off 700 workers, starting June 22. The decision affects 675 hourly workers and 25 salaried employees who make the Focus, Focus ST, Focus Electric, C-Max hybrid and C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid at the Wayne plant.

Another reality check for Steven.

Todd Juvinall

When one of those EV's crashes into a house and breaks one of those Mercury lightbulbs, all hell will break loose. Can you imagine? SyeveF look out!

The comments to this entry are closed.