Posted on 04/27/2015 5:24:36 AM PDT by thackney
California is the most critical state in the country, with 38.2 million people and a GDP of $2.3 trillion, equal to Texas and Pennsylvania output combined. Depending on your perspective I guess, California has become famous/infamous for its progressive energy policies. California is our “clean energy” capital, with cap-and-trade, the most alternative fuel vehicles, unmatched efficiency laws, and a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard for electricity by 2020. Yet, electricity (+40%) and gasoline (+$1.00) prices in the Golden State are well above the U.S. average, and oil and natural gas are still easily the state’s leading sources of energy. Stringent regulations for exploration and production, uncertainty surrounding future policies, and lengthy permitting processes have pushed many oil companies away. And many in the state are against the shale and offshore development that has large potential. California has slipped to 3rd place in highest crude producer in the country, down 36% since 1990 to 560,000 b/d. This has installed a growing reliance on imported petroleum, although gasoline imports are limited because strict environmental policies block outside suppliers from entering California’s CARBOB market.
One controversial oil policy California adopted under its Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) has been the 2009 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which requires a 10% reduction in “carbon intensity” for transportation fuels by 2020, taking into account full life-cycle emissions, including extraction, refining, transportation, and consumer use. The California Air Resources Board implements by assigning carbon intensity scores to various oils from around the world (it might surprise to know that there are over 170 types of traded crude). California utilizes a complicated credit-trading scheme that requires all transport fuels consumed in the state meet an average declining standard of carbon intensity. Suppliers must demonstrate that the mix of fuels they provide meets certain standards for each....
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Problems I have with article is very first line saying California is the most important state.(baloney) Just being big does not make it more important.
Also, the line near the end saying that environmental practices are ‘well intended’. Also baloney. The environmental movement is chiefly driven by foisting by govt onto gullible public the financing of ‘green schemes’ that enrich a few people like Al Gore.
It has never come close to being a valid substitute for fossil fuels. Think the ethanol racket that is supposed to be renewable but in actuality causes more fossil fuels to be burnt than it saves. And enriches ADM, the chief supplier of ethanol, and one of the biggest DS lobbyists.
Forbes has come down in my mind with publishing of material like this.
“Just being big does not make it more important.”
Sadly, in many ways it does. California is such a big market, manufacturers producing everything from dish soap to cars change their product lines to meet California’s requirements. No matter where you live, your daily life is probably affected by California lunacy.
Most important is certainly subjective, at least they clarified it was based upon population and GDP.
It show the hypocrisy and shortcomings of their policies.
Definitely written from a biased point of view...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.