• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is why I have chosen to work on conservation as an individual andI encourage others to do so also.

There is one group here that seems to do a lot of reading and research on this issue. They have taken the time to do so to educate themselves and others.

There seems to be some others who seem to always to do this


A bit of humor on a Friday.
 
Pete, I agree, we do indeed have an impact on the environment. Some of us are trying, but not quite there yet!

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article9134210.html

Then some of us are not doing a whole lot;

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/en...ew-pollution-maps-public/stories/201502110023

Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania as a whole needs to abandon coal, oil and natural gas. Clean up that water and air. Mandate cap and trade. Go 100% solar and wind.

California has the right plan.
 
Text is funnier than the cartoon!!

But what difference does it make anyway as man has no impact on the environment?!

California Legislature Delivers Environmental Justice for Poor Communities

Up to $100 Million a Year Would Be Spent to Install Solar Panels On Low-income, Multifamily Housing
September 25, 2015

LOS ANGELES — The national push for alternative energy sources often does not reach one of the largest segments of the U.S. population: low-income, minority communities.

But a bill on California Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk is the most ambitious in the nation to focus on a population that is frequently seen as the last to benefit from green technologies.

The Multi-Family Affordable Housing Solar Roofs program will pay up to $100 million a year for at least 10 years to install solar panels on 210,000 affordable housing units.

“It’s the longest-term program. It makes the largest investment in getting solar into low-income communities and is the only program that gets the economic benefits of solar directly to tenants,” said Amy Vanderwarker, a co-director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance.

It’s estimated that tenants would save more than $38 million a year in utility bills and an additional $19 million a year in benefits such as solar tax credits, for a total of $1.8 billion over the life of the program.

“It’s a huge deal,” said Parin Shah, a senior strategist for the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, based in Oakland, California. “There isn’t anybody else putting resources where their rhetoric is.”

And the solar bill is only one of five passed by the California legislature earlier this month that directly address environmental justice for poor communities of color — action cheered by environmental activists.

AB693stats500.jpg


http://caleja.org/2015/07/ab-693-bringing-renewable-energy-to-environmental-justice-communities/

Pete,

I tried searching the internet to find out what you and yours are up to besides lip service. Found nothing. Maybe you can post something how you and Pittsburgh have helped the poor and the environment at the same time.
 
California air regulators order 10 percent carbon emissions cut for all fuel sold in state

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California regulators on Friday restored ambitious rules to cut transportation fuel emissions 10 percent within 5 years, a decision that gives Gov. Jerry Brown a boost for his climate change agenda.

The rules further strengthen California's toughest-in-the-nation carbon emissions standards, but oil producers warn the changes could drive up costs for consumers at the gas pump.

The changes are expected to add a few cents a gallon to the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel in the state that already has some of the highest gas prices in the nation. The state estimates a typical commuter will pay an extra $20 to $24 in 2017, increasing to $52 to $56 in 2020.

"We are on a path to reduce our dependence on petroleum and this program is a key piece of that action," Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, said ahead of the vote.

Brown, a Democrat, has vowed to intensify his fight against climate change after the oil lobby helped kill a Democratic legislative proposal earlier this month to slash statewide petroleum use by half in 15 years. The board is the state's top regulatory agency to enforce rules aimed at reducing air pollution.

Regulators voted 9-0 to re-adopt its low-carbon fuel standard, which requires producers to cut the carbon content of fuels 10 percent by 2020 to help the state meet its emission-reductions goals.

The program was initially adopted in 2009 but the reduction target has been frozen at 1 percent because of a court fight. Friday's vote allows the state to resume its program; modifies rules in response to industry concerns about price spikes; and gives companies more credits for using renewable hydrogen and other investments to reduce pollutants.

Supporters say the program is worthwhile because it will encourage greater use of cleaner biofuels and electric vehicles, which can be cheaper to operate than those powered by gasoline or diesel.

Unlike other rules the state has adopted requiring cleaner-burning fuel or more fuel-efficient vehicles, the standard, first proposed in a 2007 executive order from then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, calls for counting all the pollution required to deliver gasoline, diesel or alternative fuels to in-state consumers — from drilling a new oil well or planting corn to delivering it to gas stations.

In addition to tailpipe emissions, it includes factors such as whether an ethanol factory uses coal or natural gas to power production or an oil rig uses diesel fuel to drill.

Regulators are targeting transportation fuels because California's roughly 30 million vehicles account for about 40 percent of the state's emissions — the largest source. The rest comes from generating electricity and industrial manufacturing, as well as commercial, residential and agricultural uses.

All fuels are measured against a baseline pollution standard. If a fuel falls above or below the baseline, it generates a credit or deficit that other producers can buy and sell to meet the target.

It's up to fuel producers to figure out how to meet the goal, whether by changing production methods, using ethanol or electric vehicles for transportation or buying credits on the market.

After the rule's initial adoption, out-of-state refiners and ethanol companies were among those who sued, arguing that transporting the fuels into California alone made them less competitive against in-state producers. They argued the law unconstitutionally limits interstate commerce.

The U.S. Supreme Court let stand a 2013 appeals court decision upholding the fuel standard.

Opponents continue to challenge the state's authority to regulate out-of-state production. Oil firms are also trying to block a similar standard enacted in Oregon, the only other state with a clean fuel standard.

Friday's move to restore California's program is not related to Volkswagen drawing international attention for violating separate federal and state rules that regulate emissions from vehicles.


http://www.usnews.com/news/science/...lators-to-restore-emissions-cutting-fuel-rule


CA gasoline consumption falls for 7th straight year

New government statistics released Tuesday show gasoline consumption in California dipped for the seventh straight year in 2012.

State tax receipts show a 95.3 million gallon decline in 2012 from the previous year, or about 0.7 percent, according to the California State Board of Equalization. Californians consumed 14.5 billion gallons of gas in 2012, including aviation gasoline.

The Board of Equalization is preparing to increase the state excise tax on gasoline July 1 to make up for a shortfall in related revenue and adjust for future projections.

Retail gas prices in California already are among the highest in the nation.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2013/apr/30/California-uses-less-gasoline/


Everyone should understand that the price of gasoline at the pump will continue to go up in California, consumption will go down, resulting in less tax revenue which the state will make up by raising taxes.

Businesses that are sensitive to fuel cost will raise prices.

The cost of living in California is going up.
 
Businesses Leaving California In Droves

The ‘Dust Bowl’ was a genuine weather crisis that went away without expensive government regulation regarding the size of dust motes, how far one could travel each day over dry ground and airborne water interdiction.

One could say the climate changed and for the better.

Another California company has announced it’s pulling up stakes. After 103 yrs in the Los Angeles area, Farmer Brothers (NASDAQ:FARM) coffee is heading East for either Oklahoma City or Dallas–Fort Worth.

Farmer Brothers, which began selling coffee door–to–door and grew into a nationwide presence, joins Toyota (NYSE:TM) and Nissan (OTCMKT:NSANY) as another high–profile company driven out by storms of rules, regulations, and costs whipped up by gale–force political demagoguery.

Along with the company and its prestige, California will lose 350 jobs, with paychecks ranging between $40,000 and $80,000, it cannot spare.

In the short run, the move will be expensive.

According to the Los Angeles Business Journal, “Farmer Bros. expects to incur roughly $35- to $40-M in new facility costs with an additional $20 to $25-M in anticipated capital expenditures for machinery, equipment, furniture and other necessities.”

Some of that cost theoretically will be covered by the sale of the company’s Torrance headquarters. Not many firms are moving into California and finding a local company ready to endure the Golden State’s punishing gauntlet of regulations, regulators and assorted Red Tape could be tough.

Still, once the move is complete and the company is up and running in the Sooner State or the Lone Star State it expects to save $12 to $15-M annually over what it would cost to operate in California. Now that is a Sunny business climate.

Farmer Brothers was unhappy about being taxed and micromanaged by politicians and bureaucrats with no business experience.

The company voted with its feet, just as residents have been doing for decades.

California has had a net outward population migration that is bleeding the middle class dry. Now it appears business is moving to greener pastures, too.

http://www.livetradingnews.com/businesses-leaving-california-droves-96780.htm
 
Oppressive levies on businesses will cause statewide exodus

California is considering imposing the most ruthless set of taxes seen yet – a tsunami of levies that may trigger the worst raid on private-sector finances ever organized by the state’s politicians.

One result will be an increasing number of businesses leaving California for greener domestic or international pastures.

Gov. Jerry Brown and legislators will consider several proposals – including a new tax on previously untaxed services that will force companies to pay more for routine transactions, such as shipping a FedEx package, conducting bank transactions, hiring a contractor or relying on an independent auditor.

This “let’s tax everything in sight” measure will be on the backs of enterprises, ranging from Fortune 500 corporations down to a one-person entrepreneurial company. Estimated annual cost to businesses: $10 billion.

Then there is the fanatical $6 billion annual escalation in fuel and motor vehicle taxes, sure to hit any operation that owns or leases trucks or automobiles.

Also damaging is the potential elimination of Proposition 13’s tax-limiting protections for companies that own offices, data centers and factories – a “split roll” that would include virtually all non-residential properties. That will be another $9 billion paid annually by commercial enterprises.

Public employee unions are insisting on a multi-year extension of Proposition 30, which pushed income and sales taxes to the highest in the nation. That passed in 2012, after voters were told they were “temporary” taxes. Cost: $6 billion to $7 billion annually on businesses and individuals.

And so it goes, even though the state is awash in an unanticipated $6 billion tax surplus above Gov. Brown’s budget, according to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Astonishing.

It’s little wonder that companies leave California in full or in part, as reflected in a sampling of moves that have occurred quite recently.

Right now, Sage North America is relocating its headquarters from Irvine to Atlanta, where it will create 400 jobs. A company official said the project happened “very quickly.”

Another firm, iDiscovery Solutions, will shift its West Coast headquarters from Costa Mesa to Seattle – the latter office having opened only six weeks prior to the relocation announcement.

Los Angeles also is seeing many company departures, the latest being Go West Creative. The marketing agency said it didn’t intend to relocate its headquarters to Nashville when it opened there a few months ago, but that’s precisely what happened.

None of this is surprising because the state’s political establishment routinely ignores concerns expressed by business leaders.

For example, when launching a new facility in Forth Worth, Ehsan Gharatappeh, CEO of CellPoint in Costa Mesa, said, “Even if California were to eliminate the state income taxes tomorrow, that still would not be enough to put my manufacturing operations back in California.

Think about Dan Castilleja, president of DHF Technical Products, who said when relocating that it’s easier to expand in New Mexico than in the Los Angeles area, where “We are hampered by everything from payroll to taxes to regulation.”

Examples abound of companies leaving for other states – even to the so-called “Rust Belt” – because their friendlier business environments far outshine our disadvantages.

California’s public officials come across as being uncaring about the damage they inflict on businesses, investors, employees and their families and to the towns that lose jobs to distant locations.

As the California political parade demanding higher taxes becomes longer, look for the list of companies leaving California to become longer, too.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-678796-taxes-billion.html
 
Tax Hikes Loom for 2016 Ballot – Companies Leaving California

Although it may seem far in the distant future, there has been a great deal of speculation regarding what ballot propositions might appear on the 2016 General Election ballot in California. Focusing on just those proposals having the potential for real harm to taxpayers, here is our short list:

Sales And Income Tax Extension

An extension of the temporary sales and income tax increase voters approved with Proposition 30 in 2012 is being advocated by public sector labor leaders. The proponents will argue that, since Californians are accustomed to paying these higher rates, it should be more palatable to voters to make these tax increases permanent as opposed to some “new” tax.

Oil Severance Tax

An oil severance tax – taxing petroleum as it is extracted – is likely to be advanced by those who see an opportunity to soak an unpopular industry. They will count on the public not noticing that these taxes will be passed on to California drivers in the form of higher gas prices.

Split Roll Property Tax

Those on the far left are salivating over the prospect of an increase in property taxes for commercial property. This attack on Proposition 13 would split the tax roll so that business property will pay much more. The impact on small business and jobs will be glossed over with the usual platitudes like, “It’s for the children.” They will totally ignore that higher taxes on businesses are passed through to consumers in the form of higher costs for goods and services.

Tobacco Tax

A tobacco tax is also in the offing. The state tax on a pack of cigarettes is 87 cents. Those wanting more tax revenue would like to add another two dollars and will probably also claim it is a blow for public health because it will help smokers quit. Even if one opposes smoking, it has to be acknowledged that tobacco taxes are highly regressive as well as leading to more black market commerce which, by the way, goes untaxed.

Lowering of the Two-Thirds Vote For Bonds and/or Parcel Taxes

Of greatest concern to California homeowners is the possibility that the two-thirds vote requirement for local bonds and parcel taxes will be eliminated. These levies are repaid only by property owners. How realistic is this threat? Considering that, for the first time since Prop 13 was passed in 1978, a house of the California legislature actually passed this anti-13 proposal (ACA 8) the threat is very real.

Bag Tax

The “bag tax” – a charge on single use bags – is actually not a tax increase proposal. Rather, this tax was enacted by the legislature but is now subject to repeal via the referendum power by those opposed to the tax. The tax reflects “nanny government” at its worst.

Here are a couple of observations about this potential tax “tsunami” at the ballot box.

  • First, the threat from anti-taxpayer initiatives is even higher than in prior years because, for 2016, it is much easier to qualify initiative measures generally. This is due to the fact that the signature requirement is based on the most recent election’s voter turnout. 2014’s historically low turnout means that initiative measures now need far fewer signatures to qualify than in previous years.
  • Second, what happens if all these tax hikes appear on the ballot? Would this be the ultimate “Dooms Day” for taxpayers? Perhaps. But, in an odd way, it might be a positive development. By overreaching and asking for the moon, the tax-and-spend crowd might ensure defeat of all the measures as voters begin to add up how much these proposals, in the aggregate, are going to cost.
  • Third, while Californians in the last election were fairly generous in passing local tax measures, this does not necessarily translate into support for state tax hikes. Voters’ recent support for Proposition 30, discussed previously, was based on a perceived crisis for education if the taxes were not approved. Plus, the hikes were sold as “temporary.” Those conditions are not currently present. Californians are increasingly aware that we live in a high tax state and resistance to higher taxes will be high for the foreseeable future.
Farmer Brothers, a fixture in California for over 100 years, is just another of a long list of firms that, fed up with California’s high taxes and anti-business environment, have left for less costly states. Other recent refugees include Chevron, Nestle, Sony, Charles Schwab, Occidental Petroleum, Toyota, Campbell Soup, Nissan and Comcast, all of which have moved all or a significant portion of their work force out of state.

https://www.aoausa.com/magazine/?p=2909
 
is up and running in the Sooner State or the Lone Star State it expects to save $12 to $15-M annually
Five year payout for the cost is a very doable number.
Ironically California is dependent upon the oil and gas business for a large part of its income. 100% dependence upon non-fossil fuel is going to be an incredibly expensive proposition. Last. if we impose all the rules in the world and reduce oil and gas use by 90%, it will change the amount of CO2 very little and CO2 that is now being degassed from the oceans (the Ice ages sequestered billions of tons of CO2 at depth and in carbon on the ocean floor) is a product of a warming planet. That warming is the natural course of things since the end of the Ice Ages and the receding Ice sheets beginning about 15,000 years ago. This has happened at least 8 times in the past 250,000 years. It will happen again. And so warming is far better that cold. Cold probably forced the Neanderthals into close contact with Homo sapiens and resulted in their extinction by assimilation. The human population will have to move towards the equator. This would compress humanity into a far smaller space and require the available land to be plowed regardless the environmental consequence. It is a recipe for a mass extinction of mankind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top