HERE AT SimanaitisSays, I avoid political matters, especially local ones. There is a surfeit of websites addressing them and, besides, statistics show that typically more than half of you, bless your hearts, don’t live in the U.S., let alone California.
However, a couple of recent events prompt this item, and perhaps it has general interest because of social engineers telling us how to live, though they often choose to live quite otherwise.
A California State Senate proposal cutting gasoline use by 50 percent by 2030 has been overturned. On a local level, there is also news from Los Angeles that mirrors a modest suggestion of my own, which I share anon.
California State Senate Bill 350 addresses climate change with a wide range of requirements. Today, 25 percent of California’s electricity is produced from renewables. SB350 would raise this to 50 percent by 2030 and also double the energy efficiency of existing buildings in the same timeframe. What got a lot of attention was its goal of cutting gasoline use by 50 percent in the next fifteen years.
In September 9, 2015, The New York Times reported “California Democrats Drop Plan for 50 Percent Oil Cut.” Locally, The Orange County Register, September 13, 2015, described it as “Governor Dealt Rare Setback.” Both suggested that it was a win for oil companies which were said to have spent a “multi-billion-dollar advertising campaign” on the matter.
And, I might add, it’s a win for California drivers too, who already live with clean-air objectives of the state’s Air Resources Board. CARB, as it is known, is a panel charged with devising standards, for example, on the makeup of gasoline sold in the state. Californians pay around a dollar more per gallon than the national average for our unique Reformulated Gasoline Phase 3, a fuel that requires 146 pages of CARB documentation to describe its clean-air benefits.
CARB’s document on Reformulated Gasoline Phase 3 can be had in .pdf format.
Nothing is mentioned about the dirty air blowing into California from other states or countries. But that’s another story.
In any event, SB350 is now rattling one less saber. And, on an immensely more productive level, also reported in The Orange County Register, September 13, 2015, was Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s announcement that the city was putting its money where its mouth is.
Los Angeles will lease 160 Battery Electric Vehicles which, given California’s cleaner-than-national-average electrical grid, promise to “reduce greenhouse emissions and also make less noise.” One assumes their sirens will still operate when needed.
The Orange County Register continues, “The Los Angeles Police Department will use 100 of the vehicles, while the Fire Department, General Services and Water and Power Department will lease the remaining 60. More than 100 plug-in hybrid vehicles will also be acquired.”
Garcetti noted that the new acquisitions will give Los Angeles the largest city-owned BEV fleet in the country.
In an admittedly trivial way, maybe letters to my State Assembly Member and Senator had some effect. Briefly, I offered a modest suggestion: The State of California operates a large fleet of vehicles. Why not require these State Legislature social engineers to test the efficacy of proposals on themselves before inflicting them on the rest of us? ds