Victoria Rome's Blog: U.S. Law and Policy

Efficient TVs Coming to California

2010-01-05T00:55:07Z

Working for an environmental organization I am accustomed to seeking out “green” products when shopping. This year I found several in unsuspecting places as I did my holiday shopping. Did you know you can buy a tricycle made of mostly recycled materials? We got one for my two year old.

There’s also this cool solar powered remote control car I got for my five year old. Anyone who has replaced the batteries on kids’ toys knows how liberating it is to have a great toy that doesn’t need batteries – ever! I found both of these at a major retailer. At many stores I find one section, albeit a small section, that offers environmentally friendly products that are either super efficient or are made out of recycled materials. There are cell phones made from old phone parts and recycled plastic, an idea that is long overdue given that most of us only keep our cell phones for a year or two. Even a recent visit to the eye doctor yielded a dozen choices of frames made from recycled material.

But what if consumers didn’t have to seek out environmentally preferred products? What if every product met a strong environmental performance standard? That day has come to California for one of our most central household products, the television. As my colleague Noah Horowitz wrote here and here, the California Energy Commission’s efficiency standards for new televisions mean that, starting in 2011, every television sold in California will be an efficient one. Conscientious California consumers won’t have to worry if their local Best Buy or Target stocks energy efficient TVs. The new TVs will be so efficient in fact, that once the standards are in full effect, California won’t need to build that new 500 megawatt power plant and will save almost $1 billion in the form of lower electricity bills.

The new TV standard doesn’t address every aspect of environmental performance; for example, there is no requirement for the TV to be easily disassembled for recycling. But for TVs, refrigerators, cell phone chargers and other products that meet energy efficiency standards, Californians don’t have to look for the one, usually tiny “green” section of the store to do their part for the Earth. And I’ll bet most people don’t know that their cell phone charger is regulated so that it doesn’t use inordinate amounts of power just by being plugged in to the wall. They just want it to charge their phone. That’s the great thing about efficiency standards. They nudge manufacturers to do better - to innovate so that their products use less energy with no tradeoff in performance or availability. Despite claims of “empty shelves” from the D.C. based Consumer Electronics Association, which has been fighting the TV efficiency standard for years, there are close to 300 models on the market today that meet the higher standard, known as the Tier 2 standard, three years before it goes into effect. For a list of the most efficient models on the market today go here.

My family is a bit behind the times when it comes to home entertainment. Case in point: we don’t have a digital TV or subscribe to cable so we needed a digital converter box when all broadcasting switched to digital last summer. But as my children grow up I can already anticipate repeated requests for a new flat screen television and a Wii or Xbox or whatever new game might come along. Video game consoles are due for development of energy efficiency standards because they consume excessive amounts of power when left on but are not in use. I’m proud that California keeps forging ahead with energy efficiency standards so that when we finally upgrade our TV or buy that new video game console, we will have a wide range of products to choose from and won’t have to seek out the little corner where they keep the efficient ones.

For Good and Ill the California Legislature Met its Deadline (Almost)

2009-09-29T23:42:05Z

When pushing up against a deadline, do you feel more productive? There's something about human nature that causes us to submit a work product at 11:59 to meet a midnight deadline. The California legislature is no different. After going through the traditional process of committee hearings and floor votes for nine months, many details of final bills are not decided until the last minute and brand new bills spring up days, or even hours, before the legislature is scheduled to adjourn. As my colleagues wrote about here and here, these last minute bills usually signal trouble or can occasionally represent progress, as in the case of water, where the final language came together on the last day of session, but represented an agreement among stakeholders who are often at odds.

Increasingly though, last minute deals are struck between a few powerful players who hope the public isn't paying attention as they try to jam their bill through with maneuvers like rule waivers, "gut and amend" (Sacramento-speak for completely removing the contents of a bill and putting in new language), and rushed committee hearings late at night where legislators and advocates get their first look at actual bill language. More and more, late attacks seem to target environmental and public health protection laws. There were plenty of these attacks in the final hours of this year's legislative session and two harmful bills regrettably made it through. Despite the last minute defense we were forced to play, environmental advocates and our champions in the legislature kept pushing to protect California's public health and natural resources and got some key bills through to the Governor's desk.

Here's a rundown of some of the top environmental bills that we hope the Governor will sign:

Renewable Portfolio Standard: SB 14 and AB 64 would require California utilities to acquire 33 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020, setting the most ambitious targets in the country.

State Parks: The legislature approved two bills to help protect state parks. SB 372 would prevent "non-park" uses of our parks (like toll roads) and SB 679 would make it more difficult to sell off state parks in difficult economic times.

Global Warming: AB 1404 would ensure that industries required to reduce their global warming emissions could only use offsets for up to 10 percent of the reductions required by California's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32).

AB 828 would bolster the California Green Building Code by ensuring that the state's public health and environmental agencies have a say in designing green building standards.

SB 406 would help fund public transit operations, which have been zeroed out in the state budget, by allowing regions to add $1 or $2 to vehicle registrations. The bill would also fund efforts to improve pedestrian and bike access and give people alternatives to driving.

SB 728 would also increase transportation options by improving implementation of a "parking cash-out" program. Parking cash-out requires large businesses that provide free parking to employees to also offer those employees the option of receiving the cash value of those parking spaces if they choose to get to work without a car.

There are two bills that we hope the Governor will veto. AB 1318 and SB 827 are blatant misuses of the legislative process to undermine pending NRDC and environmental justice groups' litigation against the South Coast Air Quality Management District over its air emission credit scheme which plaintiffs argue (and the court agrees) need to be analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These bills would allow scarce air pollution reduction credits that should be reserved for small businesses and essential public services like hospitals and schools, to be available for power plants that are capable of purchasing the offset credits on the open market. Senator Alan Lowenthal, a legislative champion who joined in the fight against these bills wrote an Op-Ed about the damage that SB 827 would inflict, not only on air quality in the most polluted region in the country, but to the state's decades-old fundamental environmental protection law.

Click through to NRDC's Take Action Page to urge the Governor to sign the good bills and veto the two harmful ones.

Finally, I say the legislature "almost" met its deadline because technically, they should have adjourned before midnight on Friday, September 11. SB 827 wasn't heard in committee until 11:30pm that day. The legislature extended its own deadline a bit and didn't officially adjourn until the early morning on September 12. That's the thing about deadlines. Sometimes extending them makes sense. But sometimes a hard and fast deadline is necessary to stop bad ideas from taking hold.

California Leaders Pass Budget and Reject Offshore Oil Deal

2009-08-01T00:09:44Z

During a recent family vacation in Colorado, I relished the absence of daily news about California's budget woes. It was a welcome reprieve to spend a week recreating, visiting with family and friends, and forgetting the budget deficit and California leaders' inability to agree on a comprehensive set of lasting solutions.

When I got back in early July though, I was right back into it. California started issuing IOUs instead of paying its bills and the "Big 5" (Governor Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders from each party) were meeting almost daily to come up with a plan to close the deficit, which stood at around $23 billion. After several weeks of negotiations, the legislature passed a budget on July 24 and the Governor signed it on July 28th. Wall Street is still determining California's credit worthiness and the State Controller is examining whether he can stop issuing IOUs. While the latest set of cuts and accounting tricks should ease California's cash flow problems, most budget watchers expect that the legislature and the governor will need to revisit the budget again in just a few short months. Revenues are still falling short of estimates, unemployment is high, and lawsuits have been filed over some of the budget provisions, compounding uncertainty.

The budget deal is mostly bad news for the environment. Severe cuts could lead to the closure of up to 100 state parks and public transportation is further decimated despite strong support for more transit investments. The budget also eliminates a program that lowers property taxes for farmers who agree to conserve their land, and abolishes the state's Integrated Waste Management Board which manages recycling and hazardous waste programs.

One piece of good news, however, is that the State Assembly voted down a misguided bill that would have granted the first new offshore oil drilling lease in 40 years. My colleague Leila Monroe recently wrote about the offshore oil deal and an alternative proposal that would have generated a lot more money, but didn't gain traction with Republican leaders this time around. The effort to push this deal through in closed-door budget negotiations demonstrates yet again that California's budget process is undemocratic and needs reform.

I'm hopeful that people will express their feelings about the loss of schools, parks, public transportation, healthcare and other vital services to their elected representatives; and that people's demands for a responsible state budget will shift the political winds and lead to real reform in Sacramento. Until then NRDC will fight to keep budget negotiations from derailing environmental progress. But I may need to get out beyond California's borders once in a while to gain perspective and recharge.

Public Transportation on Life Support

2008-11-20T04:51:08Z

California's budget deficit is bad and getting worse as revenues decline along with the sagging economy. The urgency of the situation requires consideration of both spending cuts and new revenues. But it's hard to understand how Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature see the wisdom in eliminating meager funding for public transportation - the triple win transportation option that helps people get to work, reduces pollution, and helps stimulate the economy by producing jobs. Yet our state leaders have cut transit funding to a bare bones level over the past few years. And when the Governor called a special legislative session to deal with the budget crisis, he proposed draining and then eliminating funding for transit operations.

Previous raids on public transportation have exacerbated shortfalls and we are seeing the consequences--agencies around the state have reduced service, deferred maintenance, and raised fares. Transit in some regions is on life support. More cuts could pull the plug on this vital service at a time when it's needed more than ever.

Not only would the Governor's proposal eliminate state support to run environmentally friendly public transportation, it would expedite construction of new roads and highways while skirting environmental review. The Los Angeles Times discusses whether this move conflicts with commitments made in passing SB 375. Investing in roads may create some construction jobs, but without consideration of environmental consequences, public dollars could perpetuate a petroleum-based, backward looking economy at a time when we need 21st century options.

The Surface Transportation Policy Project reports that dollars spent on public transportation create 19% more jobs than the same amount spent on new roads and highways. We must align funding and policies to spur innovation, promote clean energy, create green jobs and provide alternatives to driving. Fortunately, California voters had the wisdom and foresight to pass Proposition 1A, a measure supported by NRDC, which will help build high-speed rail in California. Several local measures also passed in November, demonstrating widespread support for transit. Let's hope California "leaders," who are behind the public on this issue, reject the latest proposal and ensure strong funding for public transportation.

Too Much Direct Democracy?

2008-10-16T23:36:30Z

California voters face a dizzying array of 12 state initiatives this November in addition to regional and local measures that may be on the ballot. The state initiatives cover a wide-range of issues from energy policy to animal confinement to criminal sentencing. These and the other issues on the ballot are complex and would affect California's environment, quality of life and fiscal health. According to polls by the Public Policy Institute of California, Californians value their ability to make state policy at the ballot box partly because they don't think very highly of their representatives in Sacramento. However, many of us who work in the capital city see that all of this direct democracy actually compounds the state's problems by locking in spending formulas and poorly written laws along with many unintended, negative consequences.

California is the only state that does not allow the Legislature or initiative proponents to repeal or amend a ballot measure, so once passed; an initiative can only be changed by another vote of the people. Because there is so little chance to change an initiative, some that do pass are eventually tossed out by the courts. Only 24 states allow voter initiatives in the first place and 11 of those limit measures that impact the state budget. The Initiative and Referendum Institute has a map of initiative states.

The November ballot has two examples of initiatives that seem reasonable at first glance but would actually run counter to their stated goals. Prop 7 says it's about increasing renewable energy but would put the brakes on renewable energy development in California. Read more from Craig Noble about why NRDC and every major environmental organization recommend voting NO on Prop 7.

Prop 10 is another measure that claims to be about renewable energy but is about promoting one fuel, natural gas. NRDC strongly supports policies that bring about a clean energy economy and reduce our dependence on oil, but Prop 10 would provide enormous subsidies, in the form of a $5 billion bond, to natural gas while leaving behind other options that are more efficient and pollute less. Focusing on one fuel over other solutions unnecessarily adds more pressure to drill and is a poor investment. Leading environmental and consumer groups, as well as the state's major newspapers join NRDC in opposing Prop 10.

But before you start thinking of voting NO on all state initiatives this November, there is one that would help California's environment and give us a world class passenger rail system. Prop 1A would provide bond funding to build a high-speed rail line that will allow people to travel from Los Angeles to the Bay Area in about 2 ½ hours. California's population is growing and is expected to reach 50 million by 2030. And since cars and light trucks create a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, replacing car and plane trips with electrified train travel is a key part of the solution to global warming. Prop 1A will help our economy too by creating hundreds of thousands of green-collar jobs in the construction and operation of the system.

California's initiative process could use some tweaks. Limiting the number of measures on each ballot might be a good start! But for the coming election Californians need to decide how to vote on the 12 measures before them. More on the three I've mentioned can be found on NRDC's website.