environment

Measure B, which will bring 400 MW of solar power to Los Angeles, is the focus of one of the largest labor-environmental alliances of the new Obama era. Key enviromental leaders showed their strong support for Measure B last week, speaking out on the steps of LA's City Hall:

http://www.greenenergygoodjobsla.com/blog/entry/ed-begley-jr.-environmen...

The Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters recently blogged about their support for Measure B on their website. The link is below:

http://www.ecovote.org/blog/?p=508

As election day approaches Measure B continues to attract a broad coalition in favor of green energy and good jobs.

California has always been a land of pioneers– and since the 1970s it has originated innovative energy and environmental policies that have served as models for the rest of the nation. Landmark pieces of legislation and investment have encouraged the creation of everything from cleaner cars to a smarter electric grid. We have spurred the growth of new industries while preserving one of the planet's most beautiful natural landscapes. Measure B is the next big step in this proud tradition and will make Los Angeles the solar capital of the United States.
What Silicon Valley was to the computer chip, Los Angeles can be to the solar panel. If voters pass Measure B, Los Angeles will become the living laboratory for President Obama's promise to create five million green jobs. Below are links that put Measure B in the context of the burgeoning national green jobs movement:

This article from this month's issue of Rolling Stone describes how:

"If the president wants an energy policy that creates jobs while protecting the environment, one state holds the answer: California."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/25833544/look_west_obama

This advertisement, the first general election TV spot run by the Obama campaign reminds us of the new President's promise to put people back to work by transforming our energy system:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRgWpa_rnWQ

This article from Time magazine discusses the promise of green jobs to improve the lives of working Americans:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1852183,00.html?iid=spher...

This editorial by S David Freeman- former General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power- describes how Measure B will make LA the solar hub of America:

http://www.greenenergygoodjobsla.com/news/entry/sun-can-offer-l.a.-a-wor...

On March 3rd we can not only provide green energy and good jobs for Los Angeles but lead the rest of the nation towards a clean renewable energy revolution.

There are many, many questions worth asking PA Consulting about why they are releasing a rehash of a private report compiled in a few days with what they admit was, “limited data”. This thrown-together presentation diverges strongly from the conclusions of the exhaustive independent analysis done over more then two months by Huron Consulting, which included 450 hours of interviews and 10,000 cost simulations. Huron pegged the price of implementing Measure B at around a billion dollars without tax credits and grants factored in which would make the cost significantly lower. This means that rates would increase, (if at all), a little over a dollar per month (at the very most) and that LADWP customers will continue paying the lowest rates in Southern California.

The full Huron report can be found at:
http://www.ladwpnews.com/posted/1475/Measure_B_Analysis.251664.pdf

PA Consulting has apologized to the DWP for the embarrassing and
politically-motivated leak of their hurried and incomplete slide show.
Yet opponents of Measure B continue to tout rehashed versions of it in
an effort to confuse voters as to the costs of Measure B.

Not only as advocates for green energy and good jobs but as members of
the public, we hope the press will ask PA consulting just a few vital
questions:

How many days did PA consulting have to complete the report?

How many hours of interviews did they conduct?

How many solar manufacturing plants did they visit?

How many cost simulations did they run to reach their estimates?

What is the confidence level of their figures?

Did they consult with LA-based solar manufacturing facilities, and if so, who?

Did they interview the management at any solar training facilities? If so who?

Who was the "report" intended for?

Isn't it true that it was based on, "limited and incomplete
information" and included a, "guarantee that it would never be
publicized"?

Do they regret the manner in which their incomplete work was released
to the public?

Did Andrew Rea of PA Consulting write an email apology to the DWP? Why?

Were PA Consulting's estimates ever intended to allow stakeholders to
make decisions with confidence?

Was PA Consulting's report even based on information from this year
and did it even consider the final version of Measure B?

Why did they feel it was necessary to include a long list of
disclaimers at the end of their "report"?

Do they dispute the far more comprehensive analysis of Huron consulting?

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Monihayan once said, "everyone is
entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." An exhaustive
report released by an experienced independent firm confirms what we
have been saying all along- that Measure B will bring green energy to
LA and create thousands of good local jobs while keeping the LADWP's
rates the lowest in Southern California. So, the biggest question of
all is:

Why are the opponents of Measure B still peddling their own distorted
and discredited set of "facts"?

Stephen Johnson is the EPA chief who rejected his own staff's recommendations to grant California a waiver to regulate our own greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Boxer hauled him in front of the environmental committee she chairs for a grill session to see what the heck prompted him to ignore science and decades of legal precedent. LAT

"I was not directed by anyone," Johnson said at a hearing before the environment and public works committee, denying he had been influenced by political pressure from the White House or anyone else. "This was solely my decision."

Johnson failed to mollify Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the committee chairwoman and perhaps his fiercest critic, who vowed to press ahead with her investigation into how the EPA chief reached his decision. Within hours of his testimony, she introduced legislation -- co-sponsored by 17 senators, including Democratic presidential front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois -- to overturn the decision.

Good. They should. There appears to be no reasonable explanation for the rejection other than the car industry doesn't like California regulating its own air.

In his first Capitol appearance since denying California's request late last month, Johnson drew the ire of other Democratic senators whose states also want to enact greenhouse-gas-emission standards for new cars and trucks that are more stringent than the federal government's.

"Your agency's decision to deny California a waiver just defies logic to me," Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told Johnson. "It's clearly a decision, I believe, that's based on politics and not on fact."

Boxer called Johnson's decision "unconscionable" and accused him of going against the advice of his legal and science advisors and siding instead with the auto industry, which has resisted California's efforts to implement its tailpipe law.

There are fifteen other states that have sided with California and want to enact the same regulations we passed.

The EPA has stonewalled Boxer's attempts to get information on the decision. They even went to far as to cover up some documents with duct tape. Yes duct tape. It would be amusing if the subject were not so important to our quality of life.

In all reality it will likely take a new administration and a Democratic at that to let the states regulate their own greenhouse gas emissions.

There is a lot to get up to speed on and a relative light news day, so here are a few of my favorite articles from today for folks to chew on.

• A bunch of new laws went into effect yesterday, including another $.50 raise in the minimum wage. Great news for the countless workers trying to eek out a living on what is now $8 an hour.
• The Bee has a good overview on the health care deal, done in a Q and A style. Go check it out for the basics on the proposed legislation that is awaiting the Senate's action.
• Steve Lopez has an excellent column today telling the story of one kid who is being screwed by Blue Cross. It is just one of tens of thousands that could be told. There is something seriously wrong with our health care system.
• California is suing the EPA after it rejected our request for a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Bush is sure to drag this one out until the end of his term. Meanwhile global warming gets worse. Fabulous isn't it?

The EPA dragged its feet for years and when they finally ruled it was not surprising to see them turn down our waiver request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. It is another in a long line of anti-environmental rulings from the Bush Administration. They are using the passage of the energy bill as an excuse to deny the waiver. AP:

The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday slapped down California's bid for first-in-the-nation greenhouse gas limits on cars, trucks and SUVs, denying a request for a waiver that would have allowed those restrictions to take effect.

"The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution _ not a confusing patchwork of state rules," EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson told reporters on a conference call. "I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone."

I will wait for the laughter to stop about the Bush Administration moving forward with a solution on greenhouse gas emissions before bringing you another excerpt.

The long-awaited decision amounted to a serious setback for California and 16 other states seeking the new car regulations to achieve their anti-global warming goals.

The tailpipe standards California adopted in 2004 would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks beginning in the 2009 model year.

Under the Clean Air Act, the state needed a federal waiver to implement the rules.

"It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation. We will continue to fight this battle," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. "California sued to compel the agency to act on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today's decision and allow Californians to protect our environment."

This was the first time that EPA has fully denied a waiver since Congress gave the states the ability to apply for a waiver back in 1967.

It is unclear how California and the other 12 states who signed on to adopted our emissions standards will proceed. I would imagine there will be lawsuits of some variety. It may be impossible to get anything done until there is someone else in the White House.

This is an incredibly nerdy story, but one that will effect every single person in California and our environment. LAT:

But by unanimous vote, the California Air Resources Board adopted a number that will ultimately drive the operations and habits of every industry, business, farm, household and automobile in the Golden State.

The board's decision that 427 million metric tons of greenhouse gas were released over California in 1990 effectively launched a massive scientific and regulatory effort aimed at combating climate change that scientists say is threatening the planet.

As board Chairwoman Mary Nichols put it, "This was the crucial first step: Now California can lead the nation in the effort to slash greenhouse gases."

The CARB has been moving forward with all deliberate speed towards implementing AB 32. This was a major step, from which most other decisions will be made.

California's 2006 landmark global warming law, the first in the nation, requires that, 13 years from now, the state reduce its emissions of planet-heating carbon dioxide and other gases to 1990 levels.

But what were those levels? That's the question that scores of state, federal and industry economists and engineers finally determined after a year of feverish data-mining involving 13,000 separate calculations.

There was a massive amount of data that needed to be collected, analyzed and reported. Now that the CARB has accepted those numbers they can move forward on implementing regulations that will move California's greenhouse gas emission back in line with what it was in 1990, not an easy task.

Changing directions won't be easy: Greenhouse emissions have risen an estimated 13% since 1990. The air board figures that if nothing were done, emissions would rise to 600 million metric tons in 13 years. To reach 1990 levels by 2020, the state will have to slash emissions by 30% over projected levels.

And that's only the beginning: Globally, planet-heating gases will have to be cut 80% by mid-century, scientists say, to avoid the worst effects of climate change, including rising sea levels, melting snow caps and glaciers, spreading deserts, water shortages and species extinction.

It is a daunting task, but California is leading the rest of the country on environmental regulation and greenhouse gas emission reductions and that is done through the actions of the CARB.

It was just last week that there were rumors floating around that the Democrats were going to strip a roll-back on a tax break for oil companies. Bush is threatening to veto, but they are moving forward with it anyways. SFChron:

Democratic leaders circulated a summary of the legislation that includes the new taxes as well as a requirement for a 40 percent increase in automobile fuel efficiency, a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel, and a mandate for utilities to use renewable fuels.

Republicans earlier this year blocked Senate attempts to pass new energy taxes, contending they would hinder domestic oil and gas production. Democratic supporters of the taxes said that with oil hovering near $90 a barrel and the industry making large profits, the tax breaks aren't needed.

The White House has said repeatedly that if the energy legislation singles out the oil companies for new taxes, advisers would recommend that President Bush veto the bill.

Of course restoring an old tax is an increase in the world of Bush. The Democrats are just seeking to repeal the tax breaks given to the major oil companies by the Republicans.

There has been a lot of work done here in California on environmental issues, but the federal government has been a lot slower to act. It may be some time yet, given the president's veto threat, but momentum has been building like never before.

It is one of those slow days where the premier California political columnist writes his piece on the California Hall of Fame. So how about a few quick links.

• Looks like redistricting is back on track again, now that Arnold has backed an initiative advanced by good government groups. It does not include federal seats, just state ones.
• File this one in the California international leadership file. California pension funds are teaming up with 150 corporate executives to demand greenhouse gas emission cuts.
• The failure of Congress to pass an SCHIP bill is about to have dire consequences for the children currently enrolled in California's health program for poor children. Without a bill and thus the funding, thousands will be taken off the rolls and go without health coverage.
• Cost of living raises for legislators are going into effect during a time when the state is running a deficit. Some legislators have refused the raises, most of whom are up for re-election.

That's all I have today. Hopefully tomorrow there will be more interesting stories worth a full post.

It know it's not a thrilling story, but the plans the California Air Resource Board is putting together is one of the biggest environmental stories in the country. California has huge ambitious goals to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and the CARB is tasked with figuring out how we get there and issuing regulations to ensure it happens. SacBee:

The state Air Resources Board will launch into a yearlong planning effort today that it hopes will yield a workable plan for slashing California's annual greenhouse gas emissions by 100 million metric tons in just 12 years.

That goal – the equivalent of cutting the state's gasoline use almost 70 percent – represents most of the reductions mandated under Assembly Bill 32, passed last year. The specific regulations enacted to meet it likely will affect virtually every sector of the California economy, from how electricity is generated to how new communities are planned.

Many of the emissions reductions will be straightforward expansions of energy-efficiency programs that the state already has pursued for years. But others – like rules that could affect land use – will put the agency in unfamiliar regulatory territory.

At today's public meeting in Diamond Bar, the agency will consider how to divide the state's greenhouse-gas sources into six economic sectors: electricity; local initiatives and land use; transportation; business and industry; agriculture; and forestry.

It is an enormous task, with huge implications.

California's sunshine laws are really valuable in letting us track the CARB's process. We may have a decimated newspaper staff, but they have been paying a lot of attention to these meetings, especially given the vest interest in corporations influencing this process. Not only is there a lot at stake for the environment, but the regulations will have potentially large fiscal impacts on various corporate sectors. So let the sunlight shine.

File this one in the unsurprising development department. The auto industry is moving in court to block California from enforcing its own regulations about tailpipe emissions. Chron:

The legal battle over global warming moved Monday to the Central Valley, where the auto industry tried to convince a federal judge that California's attempt to limit car emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases is beyond its authority.

Lawyers for car manufacturers, dealers and trade associations said California's 2002 law, the model for statutes in 11 other states, amounted to a requirement for higher gas mileage, a subject that only the federal government can regulate.

While mileage may be the main thing the car makers need to improve to reduce tailpipe emissions that is not what the law says. Here is another piece of their legal argument, which the judge immediately undercut.

Although federal law allows California to take a lead role in reducing air pollution, Congress never "intended a single state to have such sweeping authority to unilaterally set national fuel economy policy ... and profoundly affect a vital national industry," said Raymond Ludwiszewski, lawyer for a trade group of international automakers.

But U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii suggested that the industry's argument had been undercut by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in April upholding the federal government's authority to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

Ishii noted that the court - rejecting arguments by the Bush administration as well as the auto industry - found no conflict between the Environmental Protection Agency's duty to regulate air pollutants and federal transportation officials' authority to regulate fuel economy.

"Why would I treat state regulation differently than the EPA adopting regulation of greenhouse gases that affect fuel economy?" Ishii asked. He concluded the two-hour hearing by saying he would rule later.

Not exactly a positive sign for the auto industry. If the judge rules in favor of the state, then it is up to the Bush Administration to grant the waver, as the federal government usually does in these cases, or deny. Given the Bush Administration's approach to the environment, this one is not a given at all.

Peter Schrag asks today, are we back were we came in with regards to the four years Governor Schwarzengger has served in office. The answer is not much, other than landmark global warming legislation. SacBee

The Arnold era began with a huge deficit and is headed for another – maybe not of Gov. Gray Davis proportions, but immense enough. Departments have again been notified to prepare hefty cuts, the once loudly promised year of education threatens to shrivel to a whimper; the grand scheme for universal health care shows the shaky premises on which it was built.

His plan for universal care certainly, but that is not true of other plans that have been considered by the legislators. Here is the real nut of it:

Having gotten creamed in the 2005 special election in which he vowed to join the people in punishing the special interests and putting a rope around spending and the Legislature's self-serving redistricting system, he walked away from the state's fiscal and governmental dysfunction, and began his 2006 re-election year with (in his terms) an entirely new movie.

Through it all, he understood one thing better than his critics: The voters will never build a monument to a governor for raising taxes and/or cutting spending, both of which he probably needed to do to if he was to get the state's finances under control. But his whole career made clear that it's monuments he wants.

He does not care about details. He wants headlines, or as Schrag says, monuments.

And so he turned to the matters that would get them: global warming, health care, bonds for water projects, schools, highways – all of them advertised as free money that no one in the room would ever have to pay for. The fact that he wasn't born in this country liberated him from presidential ambitions and allowed him to play on a world stage and shoot for even larger targets.

What is missing here is our state's fiscal health, something all of these grand plans have a consequence on. There are plenty of other non-sexy issues he has ignored along the way, but none is bigger than the fact that the state is facing huge deficits.

What will come from the next three years? Will he leave us with a state in shambles but monuments to the great Arnold? Or will he actually put in the hard work. Will he walk away this year from the incredible work that has been done on health care? Or will he put in the hard work it takes to get a deal done and then campaign over the objections of the legislators in his own party?

This has been on to do list for California for a while. Back in 2002, California passed a law to regulate greenhouse gas emissions coming out of car tail pipes. It would force the car industry to make more environmentally friendly vehicles. The goal is obviously to reduce global warming. Unfortunately, the state does not currently have the power to enforce the regulations. To do that we need a waiver from the U.S. EPA. The Bush administration has been purposely dragging its feet. So, today California sued the federal government. LAT:

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way last summer for the EPA to approve state regulations to limit emissions of greenhouse gas from automobile tailpipes. But no action has been forthcoming.

The EPA has said it will act on the state's request by year's end, but today's move was a major assault on the federal government's perceived lack of action on what many national and world leaders consider the No. 1 threat to the planet.

"There's no legal basis for Washington to stand in our way," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who announced the filing of the lawsuit on the state Capitol steps along with California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown.

No more waiting around for the Bush administration to do the right thing. They don't want to. Thus the state has been forced to take legal action. We are joined by a number of other states.

The governor noted that 14 other states are formally siding with California in two lawsuits in U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.

California and the other states -- representing about 40% of the U.S. population -- have asked for a waiver from the EPA under the Clean Air Act so they can enforce regulations that limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars and other light vehicles.

These regulations would enable California to cut our carbon emissions by 1/4th in 2020, the equivalent of taking 6.5 million vehicles off of our roads. This is a huge deal and a lot is at stake.

The Mayor went with a close ally who shares his goals to increase the development of renewable energy sources to head the Department of Water and Power. LAT:

As he stood next to the mayor, Nahai vowed to put the utility at the forefront in the development of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind.

"I see the bright promise of greening this utility . . . and having Los Angeles become the center, and the leader, for renewable energy," he said.

Nahai said he would assemble a DWP management team to specifically focus on renewable energy.

Developing renewable energy sources is critical to our sustainability and it is great to see it getting such a high priority. The key will be:, does the city simply purchase not so green power from out of state and ship it in, or does it develop it locally, emphasizing both good jobs and a clean environment?

Meanwhile, the environmental community is thrilled to see Nahai get the gig.

Nahai's nomination has the backing of several key environmentalists, who have lobbied the mayor's office and at least two council members for his appointment.

Former DWP chief S. David Freeman, a Villaraigosa ally who is considered one of the city's leading environmentalists, said Nahai would restore the utility to its "glory days."

"We finally have got the mayor's vision, and the general manager's ability, on the same page," said Freeman, who is Villaraigosa's president of the city's Harbor Commission.

I know I have been quiet the last few days, really it has to do with a slow news cycle when it comes to California state politics and quality of life issues. Today, it is time fore a link filled post, everything remotely tied to our usual topics of discussion.

• The issue of the state ordering flex-fuel vehicles then just running them on gas is back in the news. Sen. Dean Florez is holding a hearing to find out who knew what, when in the Schwarzenegger administration.
• Mary Nichols, the new head of the Air Board is selling off her stocks to comply with ethics laws.
• The Democrats in the legislature placed a bill on Arnold’s desk to increase payments to disabled workers. Will he sign it? Or will he say this issue needs to be studied some more like he did last year?
• This year is health care. Arnold has already declared that next year will be education. Stay tuned, it should be another interesting year. Loads of studies and polling has been completed this year, and will be fodder for next year’s policy battles.
• Speaking of health care, there is about to be a veto fight with respect to an expansion of health care coverage for children. Bush has threatened to veto it. If it does not happen, it will make the numbers much more difficult for reform here in California. Arnold and all of the Democratic legislators here have been pushing for its passage.

The legislature passed three bills, which would require more environmentally friendly building. They are sitting on Arnold's desk. Now the question is will he walk the walk on the environment? He should. These are common sense measures. SacBee:

If Schwarzenegger signs the bills, California could begin requiring more efficient use of water in new homes as well as energy-efficient lighting in large office buildings, and more state workers could find themselves treading on recycled carpet.

"If he's serious about reducing global warming, he needs to make buildings more efficient," said Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, co-author of Assembly Bills 888 and 1058, which deal, respectively, with commercial and residential buildings.

Building green used to mean a significant increase in expense. However, new innovation means that these regulations are increasingly cost effective. Over time the investment in technology pays off in reduced energy costs.

Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists say technology has improved enough that it doesn't cost much to build green. To appease opponents concerned about allowing a nongovernmental group to set standards, Lieu amended AB 888 to let the state's Building Standard Commission establish its own green standards.

The only way we are going to reach the governor's goals on greenhouse gas reduction and energy conservation is to actually regulate things like building efficiency.

The governor has set a goal to reduce energy use by 20 percent in state-owned buildings by 2015. According to the Department of General Services, the state has nine LEED-certified buildings and more than 100 on the way.

The California Air Resources Board is set today to propose new measures to cut our state's global warming emissions. These have been in the works for a while and will be a significant step towards reaching the goals of AB 32. LAT:

The proposals include retrofitting trucks, reducing pollution in computer manufacturing and requiring car owners to keep their tires properly inflated. Altogether, they would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2.8 million metric tons a year, an early dent in the 174 million metric tons that must be slashed by the year 2020.

"None of these are huge measures," board Chairman Mary Nichols said in an interview. "But added together, they are quite significant. . . . Every single action we take -- government, businesses, municipalities and individuals alike -- makes a difference toward ultimately cooling our planet."

California's landmark global warming law requires that emissions be reduced to 1990 levels over the next 13 years, a challenge that will require massive changes in many industries, including automotive and electrical power.

The CARB will continue rolling out these types of regulations in the years and months to come. These regulations bring us more than 1/5 of the way to the goal set by AB 32, so there is a lot more to do. It is a great start.

There appears to be some progress over at the Capitol, with signs that a deal may be imminent. The Republicans sound pleased, but Nunez does not seem particularly thrilled. SacBee:

Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman said Monday that the Senate has reached a tentative deal to resolve the state's protracted budget fight.

He cautioned, however, that the Assembly and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger still need to approve the agreement. (snip)

Speaker Fabian Núñez said he would take the Senate deal to Assembly Democrats, but made no commitment to endorse it.

That is the politics of it, which to me seems like there is a reasonable possibility that the Democrats in the Assembly at the very least may balk at it. Here is more on the meat of this particular proposal.

Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, has been voicing concern over Attorney General Jerry Brown's aggressive moves to force local planners to include climate change in their development projects. Using the California Environmental Quality Act, Brown has sued San Bernardino County for failing to consider greenhouse gas emissions in its general plan.

Dutton has said he is worried that Brown and environmentalists would use the same tactic on billions of dollars the state is getting ready to spend on much-needed public works projects. He said he feared such a move would caused lengthy delays and prevent roads and bridges from being built or repaired.

To soothe GOP concerns, staff has drafted a compromise proposal that would place a moratorium on greenhouse gas-related actions against transportation bonds, approved by voters under Proposition 1B last fall. It would sunset after the state Air Resources Board adopts new regulations to comply with a state initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.

Basically, they want to be able to pollute while spending the transportation bonds on construction. That would sunset when the new regulations from AB32, the landmark greenhouse gas reductions bill, are enacted.

We should know more in the coming hours and days.

It's been just about two weeks since the Senate collapsed. Sad to say, that we might even be further away from a solution. Let's look at this mess in a bit of a random order. Lot's of things going on, even if there has been absolutely no progress.

14 Senators are holding up the budget until a majority of their far right cohort agrees to the deal, even though we only need one more vote. Essentially they are requiring that 74% of the legislature approves of the final budget. The two-thirds budget requirement is arcane as it is, but to require near unanimous consent is just absurd.

It is now clear that the Republican calls to change CEQA (see yesterday's post) are central to their demands. That is absolutely a non-starter for the Democrats and the Governor. In the wake of the dustup over the CARB, Arnold is not exactly in a position to start weakening environmental laws without a huge backlash. I am not sure where the Republicans think they are going to get a lot of support for their pro-business, anti-green argument in both the Capitol and the public. California has a lot of Republicans, but a large percentage of them are environmentally friendly. The same cannot be said for the Republican Senators who are holding out. They are very much out of the mainstream, arguably even within their own party.

Senator Perata has declared that he will not take up any more legislation until the budget is passed, something Nunez quite rightly disagrees with. The Republicans would love it if the progressive legislation that the Democrats have on tap, like AB8 (health care reform) get scuttled. It would allow the Republicans to further undermine our system of government.

Arnold really looks impotent here. Nothing he has done has worked. His strategy of disengagement on the budget until the last minute has proven to be a bad one. He seriously miscalculated the intentions of his fellow Republicans. This stalemate has the ability to seriously undermine a lot of the work he has done in the last year to try and prove that he can unite both parties and pass landmark legislation. If this keeps up, it will damage his chances at the 2010 Senate race, if he was even thinking of running in the first place.

Nunez and Perata are now looking for any possible leverage points they can find on the hold-out Republicans. Nunez is declaring Republican legislative priorities DOA. Perata is stripping folks from committee assignments. Unfortunately, there is not much power they hold over them. Each day that passes is a victory for the ultra right-wing conservative Senators.

This week momentum has emerged to repeal the 2/3rds vote requirement for the budget's passage. Speaker Nunez has declared that it will be a major priority for him. Doing that in conjunction with a re-examination of our tax system would make sense, however that tact did not work in 2004. Logically, it does make sense to address our revenue problems, as part of a larger budget discussion. Today Mark Leno has an op-ed in the Chronicle worth reading about reforming the budget process and historical look at the 2/3rds requirement.

The idea that a single legislator of the minority party can cause such suffering to millions of Californians is appalling. Maybe if the deadlock continues for another month or two, recognizing the risk that would present thousands of social-service providers, voters will more quickly understand that it is time to change the way we do business and enter the 21st century.

Obviously, the attempt in 2004 to address this very rule did not go well. The Republicans managed to scare the public about the potential for increased taxes. Nunez and Leno seem to be arguing for a ballot initiative to change it to a simple majority vote for the budget. That would fix the short term problems of the mechanisms for passing the budget, but looking at the tax vote requirement and Prop. 13 would address the supply problem. These are very thorny issues to say the least.

Right now there is not a clear or heck even a murky path to a resolution on the budget. Who knows when that will change or what will cause it to happen.