Cross-posted from the CA League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) blog,Groundswell.
A report recently released by the BlueGreen Alliance – "More Jobs, Less Pollution"– makes a new case for recycling. Often cited by people as the easy “green” thing to do in our lives, it now turns out that recycling plays an important role in helping our economy rebound.
The more we work to divert our waste from landfills and towards recycling and re-using, the more people we will employ. After all, it takes many hands to sort and reform glass, plastics, paper, and other materials.
During the recent California legislative session, CLCV helped to pass Assembly Bill 341 (Chesbro). AB 341 will create new green jobs in California by expanding recycling to every multi-family dwelling and business, and mandating that the state recycle at least 75% of the garbage that it generates by 2020.
AB 341 is another great example of California taking the lead on important environmental issues. More Jobs, Less Pollution describes the impressive economic and environmental benefits that would result if the federal government were to follow California’s lead:
Achieving a 75 percent diversion rate for municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and demolition debris (C&D) by 2030 will result in:
A total of 2.3 million jobs: About 2.7 times as many jobs as exist in 2008.
Lower greenhouse gas emissions: The reduction of almost 515 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (eMTCO2) from diversion activities, an additional 276 million eMTCO2 than the Base Case, equivalent to shutting down about 72 coal power plants or taking 50 million cars off the road.
Less pollution overall: Significant reductions in a range of conventional and toxic emissions that impact human and ecosystem health.
Unquantified benefits of reducing ecological pressures associated with use of non-renewable resources, conserving energy throughout the materials economy, and generating economic resiliency through stable, local employment.
Sadly, many recycling programs around the nation don't even come close to being as rigorous as the one that California is setting up via AB 341. The good news is that with our state taking the lead on yet another environmental issue, we provide a successful blueprint for the rest of the country. California is known as a trend setter for a reason, and this time it can be with how we handle our waste.
Want to get involved?TAKE ACTION: Check out BlueGreen Alliance's action alert asking President Obama to support a more aggressive recycling agenda modeled after California's.
BERKELEY (March 29, 2011) - In a bold move to bolster one of the few bright spots in California's economy and set a precedent for strong renewable electricity standards nationwide, the California Legislature today approved a bill that would require utilities in the state to obtain at least 33 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable sources, such as the wind and sun, by 2020.
Promoted by the governor and legislative leaders in both houses as part of a green jobs stimulus package, the bill would create the most aggressive renewable energy requirement in the country and position California as a national leader in clean energy investments.
(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)
This morning Assembly Speaker John Pérez and Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg announced the Clean Energy Jobs Initiative, a package of four bills that focus on green jobs and clean energy growth.
Why the focus on green jobs? You might remember that a couple weeks ago I reported on a report by nonpartisan think-tank Next 10 that shows green jobs in California growing more than three times faster than overall state employment. During this time of economic recession and high unemployment in California, it makes sense for our legislative leaders to focus on the job sector that's growing relatively rapidly.
33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (Sen. Joe Simitian): This measure requires both public and private energy providers to procure 33 percent of California’s electricity from renewable resources (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) by 2020.
Streamlined Siting for Renewable Energy Projects (Assembly Member V. Manuel Pérez): This measure reduces red tape, expediting the siting and construction of renewable energy projects throughout California.
Career Technical Education (Senator Darrell Steinberg): This measure aligns high school curriculum with high-demand jobs in emerging markets. Grant funding would be provided to high schools for delivering the skills and knowledge students need for successful employment in clean energy field. Such curriculum restructuring will also encourage students to stay in school because they’ll know they’re gaining real-world skills from their studies.
Economic Incentives to Increase Energy Efficiency (Assembly Member Nancy Skinner): This bill would use a portion of state ratepayer funds to provide loan guarantees for residents and small business owners investing in energy efficiency and renewable technologies on homes and commercial property. Reducing loan risk also reduces loan interest rates, increasing demand for energy improvements which in turn increases production and the jobs that come with it.
(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)
Today a report was issued by our friends at nonpartisan think-tank Next 10 that shows green jobs in California growing more than three times faster than overall state employment.
It wasn't so long ago that Texas oil companies and other supporters of Proposition 23 (the Dirty Energy Proposition on the November 2010 ballot) were arguing that California's landmark clean energy policies needed to be suspended because enforcement would stunt the state's economic recovery. Next 10's report shows just the opposite: The green job sector is leading the state in economic growth.
The report shows that between 1995 and 2009, green jobs expanded from 111,000 to 174,000, growing 56 percent. And this growth is happening across the state and across multiple job sectors.
The Bay Area and the Sacramento Area led the state in green job growth, expanding by 109% and 103% respectively since 1995. Job growth hasn't been confined to Northern California though - green jobs grew in Orange County by 67% and the San Joaquin Valley by 55%.
From 1995 to 2009, the energy generation sector created the most green jobs, adding nearly 20,000 jobs across the state, including almost 3,000 jobs from January 2008-2009, at the height of the economic recession.
The Sacramento Bee reported yesterday that "BP, the energy giant responsible for the largest offshore oil spill in history, helped develop [California's] framework for teaching more than 6 million students about the environment."
That's right; the same people who brought you the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are helping to shape the education of millions of students. In fact, the environmental education curriculum will be used in "kindergarten through 12th-grade classes in more than 1,000 school districts statewide."
The thought of BP - or any big oil company - playing a role in designing education on environmental issues makes me very nervous. In California, we've got Texas oil companies spending millions of dollars trying to kill our landmark clean energy and climate law. That's bad enough; we certainly don't need a British oil company writing our kids' education materials.
Dollie Forney, a mother of three from San Jose said, "This is outrageous. Now our schools and officials are so cash-strapped and unimaginative and desperate we are allowing Big Oil to write our children's curriculum? "
The fact is, over the years, BP has rightly earned the title of having "the worst safety and environmental record of any oil company operating in America." Of course, that's not much of an honor, especially when you consider how BP came by its miserable environmental reputation. This includes being slapped with "the two largest fines in OSHA history -- $87.43 million and $21.36 million -- for willful negligence that led to the deaths of 15 workers and injured 170 others in a March 2005 refinery explosion in Texas." BP also "agreed to pay a $50 million fine and plead guilty to a felony violation of the Clean Air Act, and was fined "a total of $21 million for manipulating the California electricity market, Enron-style."
It's not a pretty picture. All of which raises the question, why would anyone even think of giving this company a say in designing education materials on the environment, of all topics? As Lisa Graves of the Center for Media and Democracy says, "I'd hate to see how a section in future textbooks mentioning the BP oil spill will look."
When I attended Netroots Nation last week, I didn't need to drive the streets of Las Vegas to see the abandoned worksites, boarded up buildings, and closed factories. I can see that in my own district. Too many of us are not making it in America.
Congressional Democrats responded with a two-step approach. In the first half, we sought to stabilize the economy, rein in Wall Street, provide lifelines to families in freefall, and immediately put Americans back to work. We're now nearing the second half, where our job creation strategies must be complemented by a long term commitment to bring back American manufacturing.
In California, Nevada, and across the nation, people out of work through no fault of their own outnumber new jobs available. Five people are out of work for every one job available. The Great Recession led to widespread job loss, and without a new approach to economic development, good manufacturing jobs will continue to be shipped overseas. If we don't make it in America, we won't make it America.
It's a happy day in Spain today. Sure, the whole World Cup was kind of a big deal. But there's something else: Spain has now leapfrogged the United States as the biggest producer of solar power.
Spain has opened the world's largest solar power station, meaning that it overtakes the US as the biggest solar generator in the world. The nation's total solar power production is now equivalent to the output of a nuclear power station.
Spain is a world leader in renewable energies and has long been a producer of hydro-electricity (only China and the US have built more dams). It also has a highly developed wind power sector which, like solar power, has received generous government subsidies. (GuardianUK)
I'll save you all the technical details that got me (as a huge nerd) interested in the story, but instead look at the economic and societal impacts. In the end, rankings really don't have much of a real meaning. I guess that it's good for the Spanish national psyche, which after the 20% unemployment and the "socialist" government's ill-advised austerity program could use a boost. But, the greater issue is what is Spain doing better than us. And here in California, we should be kicking Spain's butt all on our own.
After all, we have all the inherent advantages (and many more) that Spain has. The California economy is bigger than that of Spain. The Spanish economy is roughly 1.46 trillion, ours is roughly 1.85 trillion. Spain has plenty of sun, we have plenty of sun. Spain has a population that is concerned with the environment, as does California. (Though we'll get some hard numbers with the Prop 23 question of AB32 repeal.)
So why is Spain now producing a nuclear power station's worth while we're still diterhing around the margins? Well, there's the obvious issue of our grid. The upgrading of the grid was supposed to be one of the big projects emerging from the Recovery Act, and that's happening as we speak. BUt, unfortunately, that's still going to take a while. The funding was cut down from the original bill, and we will still need plenty of time to really be able to manage the grid as well as we hope to in the future.
We'll also need to think about combining energy storage capacity with the new green energy. You can start with flywheels and that sort of thing, but the big hope on that front is a grid that can tap into a whole network of batteries parked in the garage of every house. Like...say a fleet of electric cars that can be charged and discharged in times of high or low loads.
But the biggest failure on our part is that we just haven't aimed high enough. We've been content to play around the edges, and our power companies haven't vigorously pursued green power. This is one of the reasons that the defeat of Prop 16 was so critical. Had PG&E won that measure, they would have been able to shut down competition and controlled all of the purchasing of power. Instead, we can work through our elected representatives to bring more green power.
In the end, you don't get to be the world's leader by spouting platitudes. It's nice to hear the Governor talk about green power, and for Meg Whitman to tut-tut the concept. But California needs a leader that will affirmatively drag our economy into the new green economy. Years ago, they used to call Jerry Brown Governor Moonbeam.
Well, today, we need Governor Sun Ray or Wind Gust. How's about it Jerry?
This country and the planet cannot afford to delay climate and clean energy legislation. It is that simple. Every day Washington politics puts our clean energy future on hold our economy gets weaker, our enemies get stronger, and the planet gets more polluted. It has been almost a year since the House approved comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation to create jobs, cut our oil imports in half and reduce the carbon pollution that threatens us all, and we are still waiting for the Senate to act. The time is now for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that jump-starts our economy, strengthens national security, and leads to a healthier planet.
After the preparations had been made, the tally sheets from our phone calls completed, the carpools worked out, and the volunteers scheduled, I headed to Los Angeles with the hope that after the weekend was complete, there would be no question in the minds of the CDP delegates that Gavin Newsom has the grassroots support necessary to win the Lt. Governor's race against whatever the GOP throws at us in November.
In the weeks prior to the convention, our team of students from all across the state had been talking to delegates, volunteers, and fellow young voters about Mayor Newsom's candidacy and about his bold, new ideas that will be required to dig California out of our seemingly never ending state of economic misery.
The pitch was not hard to make. Young people are drawn to Newsom's campaign. We see public higher education becoming unaffordable to more and more Californians. We fear that in five or ten years our state won't be able to compete in an evolving global economy, and we worry that the living wage jobs that we will need in order to support our families will be harder and harder to find. While we are confident that our state will come to its senses when it comes to Gay Marriage and LGBT rights, we are concerned that the relentless beat of the status quo won't provide the framework necessary to drastically change the way we look at issues like immigration, the environment, and budget & tax reform. We have watched the forces of regressiveness drag our state (and our futures) under the surface, and we are ready and eager to support Gavin Newsom, who has proven time and time again in San Francisco that tangible change is not only possible, but it is also necessary.
Over the past week, Sarah Palin encouraged Tea-Party candidates to make energy issues a central part of their campaigns. "There's nothing stopping us from achieving energy independence that a good old national election can't fix," she said.
If you go to the website for the US Chamber of Commerce (USCOC), America's "voice of business" that claims to represent the interests of over 3 million businesses, it feels like you've found the site for a right wing advocacy group. There are clips from FOX News (that aren't making fun of them), attacks on healthcare and financial regulatory reform, and links to Wall Street Journal op-eds claiming that America has more to fear from the political influence of labor unions than from corporations with annual profits in the billions. The implication is clear -- American businesses have right wing values.
However, this assertion was challenged in 2009 when USCOC announced its opposition to attempts by the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. USCOC said that doing so would "strangle the economy", called for a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" as if human-caused climate change was yet to be proven, and threatened to sue the EPA if it decided to act without holding the trial. In response, Nike resigned from USCOC's board of directors, and major companies like Apple, Pacific Gas and Electric, PNM Resources and Exelon left USCOC completely.
It turns out that when it comes to climate change, US businesses aren't so conservative after all. That's why a group like American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) is so important. And if you own a business and believe the US should be doing more to fight climate change and help support the clean energy economy (which is creating jobs at 2.5 times the rate as the rest of the economy), you should seriously consider joining ABCE.
ABCE represents over 2,500 businesses of all shapes and sizes, including big companies like Gap Inc. and Warner Music Group as well as small local businesses from Al's Painting in Ann Arbor, MI to Zoey's Pizza in Manchester, NH. You don't need to be a business that focuses on green products or services to join -- all are welcome. There are no fees or dues to pay, no meetings to attend, no further obligations, and ABCE will not engage in any lobbying on your behalf. You don't need to resign from any other business coalitions. All you have to do to join is visit ABCE's website and enter some basic information about your business.
That's it. You're done. But you will have done something incredibly important.
So it's been over a week since Texas oil refiners (and two of California's worst polluters) Valero and Tesoro ponied up close to $2 million to launch a petition drive to get an initiative on the November ballot to kill AB 32, California's nation-leading legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels and encourage job creation in the booming green/clean energy and tech industries. Naturally, Valero, Tesoro and assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Chino), one of the initiative's primary sponsors, are doing their best to keep Texas Big Oil's involvement in the petition a secret, refusing to confirm or deny that Valero/Tesoro are actually the sole funders of the signature drive and stand to profit from insuring that Californians continue to breath some of the dirtiest, most unhealthy air in the nation.
Unfortunately for them, the secret is out. Supporters of AB 32, the environment and clean energy started a website, NoOnValero.com, to let Californians know that the effort to kill AB 32 is about Big Oil profits, not saving or creating jobs. They also staged a rally in front of a Sacramento Valero station to tell Valero to mind its own business. Below is news coverage of the event, and you can also visit the No On Valero Youtube channel to hear what the protesters think of Valero's involvement in trying to kill AB 32.
Not to be outdone, the Teabaggers, America's favorite racists and climate change/evolution deniers, decided to stage their own pro-Valero rally the next week. That's right, a rally to celebrate the fact that an out-of-state Big Oil company -- a member of one of America's most hated industries after banks and health insurers -- is attempting to further corrupt our political system and compromise the health of Californians. Because apparently Teabaggers, who claim to value what they call "freedom", think it's better if unelected Texas CEOs of heavy-polluting corporations write California's anti-pollution laws. Also, someone may want to tell the Teabaggers that Valero's involvement in the petition is supposed to be, you know, a secret. And I'll be curious to hear what Valero thinks of getting the support of a group known mostly for racism, unhinged anger, willful ignorance and irrational, apocalyptic conspiracy theories.
Stealthily and without fanfare, a petition has been launched to get a measure on the November ballot suspending AB 32, California's landmark legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions and spur green job growth. So who is funding the signature drive? None other than San Antonio-based oil refiners Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp. -- the #7 and #8 biggest polluters in California. From the LA Times:
Two Texas-based refinery giants have pledged as much as $2 million to fund signature gathering for a ballot initiative to suspend California's landmark global warming law [AB 32], according to Sacramento sources.
The companies, Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., own refineries in California that would be forced under the law to slash emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
But neither Valero or Tesoro is owning up to it.
A Tesoro spokesman did not respond to inquiries. But the company's website invites visitors to lobby Congress to ensure "fair" climate legislation and fight any effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Bill Day, a Valero spokesman, declined to confirm or deny the company's involvement, saying that "any contributions would come out in normal disclosures" under California's campaign laws.
And neither is Dan Logue (R-Marysville), one of the initiative's main sponsors. From NYTimes:
Dan Logue, the Republican assemblyman behind the suspension, also refused to discuss where funds had originated.
So forget about the astroturf groups claiming the movement to kill AB 32 is a bunch of small local businesses worried about their survival in a tough economy. The mask is off the anti-AB 32 movement, and behind it is exactly what we thought we would find: big oil, big pollution, big corporations and the corporatist Republicans who love them. That's why Logue, Valero and Tesoro refuse to admit where the money for the ballot initiative is coming from, even if it means possibly violating California Fair Political Practices Committee regulations. The fact that Texas Big Oil is funding an initiative to keep California's air dirty and kill its burgeoning green economy is a PR nightmare.
So let's have no more illusions about what the move to kill AB 32 is all about.
California has always represented a better future, and we seem more impatient to get there than anyone else. The examples are endless: the settlers risking everything to reinvent themselves on California's fertile soil, the surfers who decided they'd rather surf the streets on skateboards than wait for waves, to the dotcom boom that created the internet age. When California is ready to lead, it's best if you get out of the way. Because when California leads, it often benefits the entire country -- and sometimes the world.
And California is ready to do it again, with a plan to guide America to a greener, cleaner, more sustainable future, and pull the nation out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. That plan is AB 32 (aka the Global Warming Solutions Act), California's nation-leading initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) to 1990 levels through a mix of energy efficiency, clean/sustainable energy investment and regulations to force California's polluters to clean up their own messes. In addition to improving the environment and the health of Californians, study after study show that AB 32 will be a major job creator with little or no impact on small businesses. That's why over 2,400 large and small businesses, many in California, have joined American Businesses for Clean Energy, a diverse coalition calling on Congress to pass clean energy and climate legislation. And with the green/clean economy creating job growth and venture capital investment at a faster rate than the rest of the economy, California could position itself to lead the nation and the world in exportable green technology and solutions, just as it has with computers, software and the internet.
But this is not the first time California has attempted to lead the nation with a pioneering piece of legislation to reduce GHGE. In 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate. It stated that any large automaker selling cars in California would have to derive at least 10% of its overall sales from cars that produce practically zero emissions -- with 2% of the cars producing no emissions at all -- by 2003. That meant that unless an automaker wanted to lose the huge California car market, they would have to begin making all-electric vehicles.
Last week, two conservative Republican Senators, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John Barrasso of Wyoming, called for an independent probe of the IPCC -- the international scientific body that summarizes the latest climate science -- and asked the Senate to halt all climate action until that happens.
The #1 argument by corporations and politicians who oppose reducing pollution, fighting climate change and moving America to a cleaner, greener, more sustainable future is that doing so will cost the country jobs and hurt the economy. In fact, since many corporations and politicians claim to believe that climate change is a serious issue that must be dealt with (eventually), the "sustainability = job killer" argument is essentially the only one they have.
And it's a lie -- scaremongering from dirty energy companies so they can keep polluting at current levels, protect their unsustainable energy monopoly and maximize their short-term profits. They claim that responsibly cleaning up their own poisonous mess -- instead of "socializing" the cost of dealing with it by spewing it into the air or dumping it in our oceans and streams -- will force them to raise energy rates. This is a way to blackmail small businesses into defending the status quo and joining their efforts to kill any legislation that promotes efforts to reduce pollution or invest in sustainable energy. But the dirty energy companies are simply fighting to be the last of the dinosaurs, forestalling the inevitable day when they join the fossils that created their fortunes.
The green economy isn't some untested theory or pie-in-the-sky fantasy -- it's already here, and its kicking butt. So here are some links that show why reducing pollution and embracing sustainable energy and green technology will create jobs and give our economy the boost it needs.
Five Things to Say about Clean Energy in Your Address
It is that time of year again. This Wednesday, January 27, 2010, the President will glide down the aisle in the House of Representatives, greeted by thunderous applause, and encounter the usually more dignified elected officials in a slightly teen-bopper, Beatles-esque-frenzy, practically climbing over each other to shake his hand.
In case you are tired of making your own New Year's resolutions, President Obama would like you to help him set his. He is inviting Americans to tell him what we think the administration's priorities should be for 2010.
Senate Democrats have sent a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger asking him to reconsider his veto of the renewable energy standard and subsequent executive order. The strongly worded letter has about as much currency as the eleventy billion-dollar bill, but it does explain why the Governor's hypocritical action is a bad deal for California.
Respectfully, an Executive Order does not have the force and effect of law. Additionally, such a proclamation will only cause confusion and uncertainty to California's energy markets, jeopardizing California's role as the world leader in renewable energy development and green jobs.
As you noted when you signed AB 32, the landmark "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006," administrative actions are no substitute for a statute that is permanent and enforceable.
Directing the California Air Resources Board to implement an RPS program is a fundamentally flawed approach. The CARB is not an energy agency; it is an air quality regulatory agency. There are numerous provisions of law which impair the CARB's ability to implement a renewable portfolio standard. Assigning this new responsibility to the CARB will not result in new renewable energy being built soon--it will only lead to litigation, regulatory confusion, and delay.
In our view, it is essential to green businesses and the renewable energy investment community which bring jobs and capital into California, that California's 33% RPS be statutorily established and not subject to the whims of changing administrations.
There's only one reason that Schwarzenegger gave the CARB the ability to implement a renewable energy standard - so he can go on talk shows and crow that he's instituted an environmental achievement. Except, as is explained here, it won't. It will get tied up in court challenges and confusion, without a clear mandate for the standard or penalties thereto.
Schwarzenegger has responded to this by calling the Legislature's bill "protectionist," and saying that if we get water from the Colorado River, we should be able to get renewable energy from other states as well. The difference is that a commodity is not the same as a job. The twin goals of a renewable energy standard are to spur the usage of renewables as a means to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and to build a green-collar economy that will create millions of new jobs. Schwarzenegger would rather give those jobs away. And given the perilous state of the economy here in California, we simply cannot afford that.
Job losses in the public sector will prolong the economic pain in California through 2010 even as a recovery gets under way nationwide, two forecasters predict.
Jeff Michael, a forecaster at the University of the Pacific, said Tuesday that California's recession will be over before the end of the year. But the cutbacks in state and local government, along with the continuing fallout from the mortgage meltdown, will make 2010 feel like another year of recession, Michael said in UOP's latest quarterly forecast.
Similarly, the newest UCLA Anderson Forecast predicts a sluggish recovery because of the weak public sector. UCLA senior economist Jerry Nickelsburg is more optimistic than Michael about the housing market, and says California will outperform the U.S. economy starting in 2011.
Yet both economists say Californians can expect continued high unemployment for a couple more years or so. The unemployment rate is currently 11.9 percent in California and 11.8 percent in greater Sacramento.
And yet here is Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoing the only major bill that would produce any semblance of an economic recovery for California.
As Jim Evans, Communications Director for Sen. Steinberg, notes, the Governor is poised to veto a bill he championed, which would mandate the highest renewable energy standard in the nation, requiring utilities to get 33% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. But it's far worse than just a veto. Schwarzenegger wants to then set the standard himself by executive order. You can see why this would please him - he would be able to say that he boldly moved the state forward in the renewable energy space, while vetoing the bill from the Legislature that would do the same thing. And he wold significantly weaken the standard in a variety of ways.
The order presumably would set no limit on how much of the green power could be imported from other states.
Environmentalists who have been told about the governor's still-evolving plans said Schwarzenegger also was considering directing the California Air Resources Board to look at broadening the state's definition of renewable energy sources to include large hydroelectric dams and nuclear energy plants.
Critics questioned whether Schwarzenegger's order would be binding once he leaves office at the end of 2010. The validity of the order would be subject to a variety of potential legal challenges, they predicted.
So Schwarzenegger would allow utilities to outsource all the green jobs that would be created if power needed to be created on California soil, ruining the one area of potential economic recovery in the bill. He would put the standard on shaky legal ground, open to litigation and an unclear mandate. And he would hand a gift to the nuclear power industry by twisting arms at the Air Resources Board to change their definition of renewable energy.
This isn't just short-sighted, it's downright criminal. A high renewable standard could spurn all kinds of economic activity, but without a limit on importation, that activity will just go elsewhere instead of California. This is an effort of questionable legality for Schwarzenegger to reward corporate cronies with lower purchasing prices for green energy at the expense of California jobs.
