In a column posted earlier this week on San José Inside, I looked back on the energy battles of 2013, as big utilities launched attacks on policies like net metering to stifle innovation and maintain their profit margins, only to be turned back at every turn by an organized coalition of solar companies.

Led by The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC), the top rooftop solar companies successfully preserved net metering in Idaho, Louisiana, Arizona, and California. And following TASC’s lead, the 40-year-old Solar Energy Industries Association (or SEIA) took on a stronger tone in its advocacy. The shift at SEIA coincided with the naming of Nat Kreamer, CEO of Clean Power Finance (CPF), as Vice Chairman of SEIA’s Board of Directors.

Kreamer’s typically aggressive tone toward big utilities behind the scenes contrasts with a relatively amicable public front. As reported in my earlier article, according to a CPF spokesperson, CPF works with TASC while not identifying as an official public member.  Publicly they have taken “a more measured approach with utilities” because of their unique business model as the confluence between supply and demand.

In my column, I referenced Kreamer’s military background and suggested that he may see himself and CPF as a “double agent” in the struggle for our energy future. CPF seemed to embrace this image by re-posting the column on their website.

As if to drive the point home, this week CPF announced a new partnership with midwest utility investor Integrys that creates “a residential solar finance fund through the CPF Market, an online platform that empowers electric power companies to invest in residential solar.” You can read more in this CPF press release.

Typically, CPF will allow their partners on the solar installation side to promote their own brand through the CPF Market. Indeed, in a note sent to those partners, CPF talks about how other vendors “put their brand first,” and goes on to say, “We support your brand by being ‘white-label’ to your customers.” Conversely, the deal with Integrys puts the utility company front and center, which Kreamer makes clear in the press release:

“CPF is currently the only residential solar finance company that allows a retail energy company such as Integrys Energy Services to set the parameters of its fund, promote its brand to consumers and own 100 percent of the asset.”

Perhaps influenced by Kreamer’s leadership, the SEIA called the development “very good news,” citing the boost that big utility investment can deliver to the residential distributed generation (DG) solar sector. Because recent energy battles are happening mostly in the public eye thanks to expanded press coverage, it’s hard to think of CPF as a double agent in the traditional, covert sense. Instead, it may be more accurate to label their tactics as a “carrot and stick” approach.

Regardless of what you call it, time will tell if the approach bears fruit in the long term. At the very least, it will be an interesting story to watch in the year ahead.

In the latest chapter of the “Rentseekers” of Big Energy stifling growth in the disruptive rooftop solar industry, consider for a moment the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), which is trying to change the rules on rooftop solar customers in the middle of the game.

Since 2009, thousands of LADWP’s customers have signed lease agreements with third-party providers and had systems installed. These contracts were approved by DWP. Now, LADWP is trying to force hundreds of the city’s most recent solar customers to re-sign their contracts, attempting to force solar companies to insert amended language even though the utility acknowledges they had approved the contracts on no less than three separate occasions.

On precisely none of those occasions did their reviewers catch what they suddenly perceive to be language that may in fact violate their own standards for contract language.

By slowing the progress of solar energy and creating such a difficult consumer and business experience, LADWP is acting in direct contrast to the city’s goals for solar growth. Regardless, without re-signed contracts, LADWP says it will not allow these customers to interconnect their solar systems to the grid. This prevents them from accessing the benefits of local, clean power, and from lowering their electricity bills.  

The re-signing process has been extremely confusing and off-putting, especially for those who already have systems built on their rooftops. It, once again, puts the rooftop solar industry – a major source of job growth – at odds with the municipal utility. (See previous criticisms of LADWP, their delays, and inefficiencies here.)

Solar companies and constituents are in the process of contacting L.A. council offices, so there is hope that a policy fix is be on the way. Moreover, Mayor Garcetti has made his plans for increased distributed generation in L.A. clear. After all, the City did approve the original contracts that solar companies have used.

Meanwhile, interconnection is on hold for hundreds of families. Consumers are trying to do the right thing, and solar companies and customers have complied throughout the process, yet the utility is forcing everyone to jump through hoops despite approving the original course.

Let’s hope L.A. moves forward and changes the course.  

As a sports fan, a question always pops to mind whenever I consider the story of David and Goliath: Who would take this match-up in a best-of-seven series? That’s because, in most sports, over time, the laws of averages come into play, the inherent advantages of one competitor win out over the disadvantages of the other, and a true champion is crowned.

So how do we explain the recent run of success that has the blossoming solar industry (i.e. David) routing monopoly utilities (Goliath) all across the country? Well, like they say in sports, they don’t play the games on paper. And the same would seem to apply in the world of competitive energy.

Since the beginning of summer, solar supporters have racked up a 3-0 record against big utilities…

Louisiana

In late June, the Louisiana Public Service Commission voted to maintain the policy that gives rooftop solar customers fair credit for the excess electricity they deliver back to the grid. This policy is known as net energy metering. It is a critical piece of revolutionizing our energy grid because it supports and encourages customer choice and private investment in rooftop solar.

As you might expect, the entrenched utility industry has been trying to kill net metering policies across the country since solar benefits like this put their profit margins at risk. But with net metering on the books in 43 states, the playing field may be too large for even big money special interests to execute a cohesive game plan. Which brings us to…

Idaho

Shortly after the landmark decision in Louisiana, Idaho Power tried to alter their net metering rules and lost huge when the Idaho Public Utilities Commission released its net metering decision, denying the utility most of its proposed changes. Among the highlights from that decision are that there will be no cap on net metering moving forward, no modification to the existing pricing structure, and no expiration of excess generation credits. All three points are huge victories for the solar industry.

California

But the big dog in any national policy debate will always be the Golden State. As the most populous state in the nation and the 8th largest economy in the world, decisions made on the left coast tend to wash over the rest of the country in time. So, it’s big news for solar energy that the California Legislature passed a bill (AB 327) in the final days of this year’s session that protects our state’s net metering policy. And in a coup for solar advocates, it had the support of the utility industry.

Originally seen as a solar killer, AB 327 received a makeover with amendments to: 1) lift a suspension order on net metering that would have gone into effect at end of next year; 2) provide certainty around how the current net metering cap is calculated, 3) provide a framework for removing the cap altogether and 4) remove the existing ceiling on California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which means the Public Utilities Commission can require utilities to get more than just 33% of their electricity from renewable energy sources.

By all accounts, this is a policy unique to California, and it encourages continued development of renewable resources on all fronts.

Kudos for this impressive run of victories is due to advocacy organizations like The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) and the nonprofit group The Vote Solar Initiative. For the sake of our environment and consumer choice, we should hope their successes continue.

You might assume that the solar energy industry represents one united group, working together in harmony towards a renewable energy future.  It’s a beautiful thought, but evidently this is not the case.  Within the solar industry there is conflict arising between rooftop solar and large scale solar developers — namely First Solar — which sees rooftop as a threat to its future success.

James Hughes, the CEO of First Solar, a solar panel manufacturer and PV power plant developer based in Tempe Arizona, has come out publicly against net metering.  Despite the fact that studies show distributed solar provides $34 million in annual benefits to all Arizona Public Service ratepayers, Hughes makes false claims that net metering is a subsidy “funded by all other utility customers who must pay proportionately more in rates.”  He uses false information to make a direct attack on his own industry.

You might ask why First Solar has such strong opposition to the success of rooftop solar.  The answer to that question can be found in the company’s 2012 Annual Report, in which it identifies rooftop solar as an obstacle that is likely to get in the way of the execution of its Long-Term Strategic Plan.  The rooftop solar market is not part of First Solar’s business strategy, and the company admits that it will “have a material adverse effect on our business.”

You might assume that the solar energy industry represents one united group, working together in harmony towards a renewable energy future.  It’s a beautiful thought, but evidently this is not the case.  Within the solar industry there is conflict arising between rooftop solar and large scale solar developers — namely First Solar — which sees rooftop as a threat to its future success.

James Hughes, the CEO of First Solar, a solar panel manufacturer and PV power plant developer based in Tempe Arizona, has come out publicly against net metering.  Despite the fact that studies show distributed solar provides $34 million in annual benefits to all Arizona Public Service ratepayers, Hughes makes false claims that net metering is a subsidy “funded by all other utility customers who must pay proportionately more in rates.”  He uses false information to make a direct attack on his own industry.

You might ask why First Solar has such strong opposition to the success of rooftop solar.  The answer to that question can be found in the company’s 2012 Annual Report, in which it identifies rooftop solar as an obstacle that is likely to get in the way of the execution of its Long-Term Strategic Plan.  The rooftop solar market is not part of First Solar’s business strategy, and the company admits that it will “have a material adverse effect on our business.”

In order to protect itself from the perceived threat of rooftop solar, First Solar is filing comments against net metering in states like Arizona and Nevada where a significant portion of its large-scale project portfolio is located, and where the preservation of net metering policies is up for evaluation.  Nevada is the site of two of the company’s large scale projects, which means the utility in that state is a major customer for First Solar. Comments filed in Nevada by First Solar advocate for thwarting the growth of their own industry by attacking residential solar.  Similarly, First Solar filed comments with the Arizona Corporation Commission on September 18, 2013, in which it claims that the spike in rooftop PV growth has led to a financial burden on ratepayers and utilities.  As I mentioned above, studies show this is not true at all.

Rooftop solar’s popularity among ratepayers and utilities does not come exclusively from the fact that it is a renewable source of energy.  In addition to societal benefits, it is also a form of distributed generation – which means that it is energy produced close to where it is used. In areas where the grid is constrained and electricity demand is on the rise, utilities have the potential to save millions by avoiding the costs of paying for new power lines and purchasing more electricity. Utility scale solar just cannot compete with that.

What do potatoes, surfing, and Mardi Gras have in common?  They represent states where leadership has made decisions demonstrating a strong commitment to rooftop solar.  Over the past several months, the states of Idaho, California, and Louisiana have served as battlegrounds where the rooftop solar industry and its advocates have successfully defeated monopoly utility attempts to limit or eliminate net metering. In all three states where the battles have been waged, utility regulators and legislators’ decisions have led to the preservation of net metering. Net metering is the cornerstone solar policy that gives rooftop solar customers full retail credit for the excess energy they put back on the grid.  So far the score stands at 3-0, with solar in the lead.

What do potatoes, surfing, and Mardi Gras have in common?  They represent states where leadership has made decisions demonstrating a strong commitment to rooftop solar.  Over the past several months, the states of Idaho, California, and Louisiana have served as battlegrounds where the rooftop solar industry and its advocates have successfully defeated monopoly utility attempts to limit or eliminate net metering. In all three states where the battles have been waged, utility regulators and legislators’ decisions have led to the preservation of net metering. Net metering is the cornerstone solar policy that gives rooftop solar customers full retail credit for the excess energy they put back on the grid.  So far the score stands at 3-0, with solar in the lead.

Policies like net metering, along with innovative financing options and the fact that the cost of solar energy has dropped dramatically, has led to tremendous growth in rooftop solar installations over the past decade.  This growth has come unwelcomed by utilities that see the trend as a threat to their revenue and growth.

Utilities are attempting to hinder the progress of rooftop solar by pushing legislation that limits or eliminates existing net metering policies.  Utilities want to do away with net metering because they are dependent on a centralized, monopoly model that is being threatened by the emergence of rooftop solar and other forms of distributed generation.

While the rooftop solar industry has three victories under its belt, the war is not yet over.  Net metering battles continue to crop up across the US, but the solar industry has history and public opinion on its side. It’s been said that utilities are like the typewriter lobby resisting modern computers.  Plus, consumers want the freedom, predictability, and cost savings of rooftop solar.  In a recent poll from Arizona, about 67 percent of respondents said solar is the energy source they want to encourage most.

About AB 327

As explained in a Vote Solar press release: AB 327 is “a net metering and rate reform bill that contains a number of strong provisions for distributed solar. AB 327 ensures that one of California’s most important solar consumer rights, net metering, will stay in place until at least 2016 instead of being suspended as soon as next year. It also gives the California Public Utilities Commission authority to remove caps on participation in the program altogether for the first time in California history. These changes chart the way forward toward long-term solar industry sustainability, and will help hundreds of thousands of homes, schools and businesses go solar and lower their electricity bills.”

The future of solar energy in the state of California just got a little brighter.  Thanks to the recent passage of Assembly Bill 327 — a piece of legislation supported by solar advocacy groups and big investor owned utilities alike — rooftop solar will be accessible to more California residents.

The future of solar energy in the state of California just got a little brighter.  Thanks to the recent passage of Assembly Bill 327 — a piece of legislation supported by solar advocacy groups and big investor owned utilities alike — rooftop solar will be accessible to more California residents.

When it comes to energy legislation, investor owned utilities (IOUs) such as PG&E and Southern California Edison are not very often on the same side of the fence as solar advocacy groups like The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) and the Vote Solar Initiative (VSI).  However, thanks to the leadership and successful collaborative efforts of California Gov. Jerry Brown, AB 327 has brought the IOUs and solar advocates together.

Since AB 327 lifts the ceiling on percentage of California’s energy generation that must come from renewable sources and brings stability and certainty to state’s solar net metering program, it supports the objectives of solar advocacy groups.  Net metering gives solar customers full retail credit for the excess energy they put back on the grid.  AB 327 removes the suspension on net metering that would have gone into effect at the end of this year and paves the way for completely uncapped net metering.  

The fact that the bill also includes provisions that give the California Public Utilities Commission new considerations for rate reform makes it attractive to IOUs.

Before the passage of AB 327, the future of net metering was uncertain.   This uncertainty threatened continued growth, especially the notable growth that the industry has seen in lower and middle income communities in recent years.  According to John Stanton, co-Chair of TASC and VP of Policy and Electricity Markets for Solar City, “Passage of this legislation means more Californians will now have access to cleaner, cheaper and better energy.”  Greater stability that the continuation of the program provides in the solar market also equates to more jobs in the state.

Next stop for AB 327: the Governor’s desk.

The California state Assembly will shortly take up a bill authored by California’s biggest climate hawk, Fran Pavley, to regulate fracking. Her SB4 bill promises to impose a comprehensive regulatory scheme instead of the current utter lack of regulations and instead of the weak regulations proposed by the state’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Regulations. It will cover not only fracking, the process of fracturing and pulverizing rock to get at its precious fossil fuels, but acidization, the process of dissolving rock in hydrochloric acid or worse to get at the same fossil fuels. The bill will study induced seismicity and require groundwater monitoring. It’s backed by an impressive array of green groups including California League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council. SB4 has already passed the state Senate and an Assembly committee, so it’s close to becoming law.

I share Senator Pavley’s concern for the climate. I volunteered for her in a close election last fall; I walked for her, I phone-banked for her, I helped raise thousands of dollars for her, I live-tweeted debates, and I helped other bloggers write about her. She gave me a social media shout-out at a volunteer thank you lunch last year. I’m proud to call her my State Senator.

Unlike other states where the frackers brag about extracting the allegedly “cleaner,” “bridge fuel” natural gas, California will be fracked for oil. The Monterey Shale, running from Monterey to Los Angeles under the richest farmland in the country, contains 400 billion barrels of oil. And it’s particularly carbon-intensive, sour, heavy crude – the California Air Resources Board ranks (PDF) some California oil as the dirtiest in the world, even above the filthy Canadian tarsands. Fracking and other unconventional extraction techniques could release about 15.5 billion barrels of that oil – about 2/3 of the United States’ reserves. I’ve previously calculated that California’s fracked up oil is as bad as Keystone XL for the climate.

I helped get a resolution calling for a moratorium on fracking through the California Democratic Party in April. Alas, bills calling for a moratorium couldn’t pass the California Assembly in May. At the same time, the political landscape has drastically shifted since 2012, when very weak regulatory bills couldn’t even make it out of committees. A June 2013 poll shows that 70% of Californians want fracking either banned or heavily regulated.

SB4 may pass the Assembly and be signed by Governor Brown. At that point, it’s likely that the California legislature will consider fracking “safely regulated,” check it off the to-do list, and get back to its main job of repairing years of damage caused by Republican budget cuts. There will be no appetite for tougher laws, just as there is no hope for single-payer legislation in the post-Obamacare national landscape. And the bill will act as a green light to major players currently claiming “regulatory uncertainty” as a reason not to dive headlong into fracking up the Golden State.

On the other hand, if SB4 fails in the Assembly, a fracking moratorium bill will emerge next year, and the clamor to do something will increase.

SB4 is California’s equivalent of a Nebraska bill changing the route of the Keystone XL pipeline, but not stopping or even slowing down our headlong rush to burn all the oil.

And what happens if we do burn all the oil? James Hansen’s latest paper provides a dense, depressing answer: burning all the Earth’s fossil fuels would raise the temperature of the Earth an average of 25 degrees C, making most of the planet uninhabitable.

SB4 presents a choice for California Democrats. Do they regulate the trade secrets and what happens to the produced water and whether the neighbors know what’s going on? Or do they say no to a carbon-intensive project that would undo all of the state’s progress on clean energy?

Last night, I attended a meeting of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party’s Resolutions Committee to speak on behalf of a resolution I wrote. The resolution calls for the University of California and California State University endowments, and institutional investors California Public Employees Retirement Systems and California State Teachers’ Retirement System to divest from fossil fuels within five years.

And I wore clean underwear to the meeting. Just to spite Fox News.

The reasons behind the resolution are simple. Climate change caused by burning of fossil fuels is the greatest challenge facing the next few generations of humanity. Efforts to legislate solutions have often been stalled by fossil-fueled politicians; hence, a movement has sprung up to divest institutional funds from fossil fuel companies, popularized by Bill McKibben in his Rolling Stone piece on global warming’s terrifying new math.

The “warm” argument for divestment points out the morality. It’s not primarily an economic strategy, but a moral and political one. Just like in the struggle for civil rights or the fight to end Apartheid in South Africa, the more we can make climate change a deeply moral issue, the more we will push society towards action. Fossil fuel divestment, explicitly modeled on the successful anti-apartheid movement, has been endorsed by Nelson Mandela. If it’s wrong to wreck the planet, than it’s also wrong to profit from that wreckage. At the same time, divestment builds political power by forcing our nation’s most prominent institutions and individuals (many of whom sit on college boards) to choose a side. Divestment sparks a big discussion and gets prominent media attention, moving the case for action forward.

The “cold” argument for supporting divestment recognizes that smart institutions will get out of the carbon bubble before it bursts. Investors are now beginning the long ugly process of grappling with the fact that the unburnable carbon in fossil fuels will create stranded assets, i.e., assets worth less on the market than on a balance sheet. One estimate has 55% of investors’ portfolios exposed to risk. Standard & Poors warns of oil firms’ credit downgrades. The Motley Fool sees fossil fuels as modern asbestos stocks.

And getting on the fossil fuel divestment bandwagon is smart politics. The Fossil Free website shows over 250 colleges and universities have movements calling for their endowments to divest from fossil fuels. Give them a reason to enthuse about Democratic Party action.

Of course, Fox News doesn’t like the fossil free movement. A Fox News host claimed that those of us who want to divest from fossil fuels don’t want clean underwear. My retort, via Twitter: “hey @FoxNews – I wear clean silk lingerie and I support #fossilfree divestment. But no one who believes the BS you spew will ever see it.”

Since Ventura County became the first Democratic party in the nation to call for fossil fuel divestment last week, we’ve been joined by other Democratic clubs in California. If you’re interested in doing the same, here’s a template resolution:

WHEREAS, almost every government in the world has agreed that any warming above a 2°C (3.6°F) rise would be unsafe. We have already raised the temperature 0.8°C (1.4°F), which has caused far more damage than most scientists expected – a third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, consequences of inaction will result in devastating floods and drought;

WHEREAS, scientists estimate that humans can release roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees, while proven coal, oil, and gas reserves equal about 2,795 gigatons of CO2, or five times the amount we can release to maintain 2 degrees of warming;

and WHEREAS, California’s institutions of higher education and pension funds should encourage only those investments that allow students and retirees to live healthy lives without the impact of a warming planet, and thus campaigns to divest from fossil fuels have begun at campuses within both the University of California and California State University systems;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the (your county) Democratic Party calls upon the University of California and California State University endowments, and CALPERS and CALSTRS institutional funds to immediately stop new investments in fossil fuel companies, to take steps to divest all holdings from the top 200 fossil fuel companies as determined by the Carbon Tracker list within five years, and to release updates available to the public, detailing progress made toward full divestment;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Democratic Party send a copy of this resolution to the Governor of the State of California, Board of Regents of the University of California, Chancellor of the California State University system, and officials at CalPERS and CalSTRS, asking support for divestment from fossil fuels.

I’m very pleased to report that the Los Angeles County resolutions committee passed my fossil fuel divestment resolution unanimously – one committee member stated “You had me at the first ‘whereas’ clause.” It’ll go on to the full party meeting next week, where I’m told that it’ll probably be approved on a routine basis. And I’ll wear clean underwear in support…but won’t post pix to prove it.

The power of the petroleum industry in California may be unparalleled in the states. Its lobbying machine is stupendously successful.  For instance, California remains the only significant oil producer that does not tax oil extracted in the state. It has very weak–perhaps the weakest–regulation of oil and gas extraction, particularly hydraulic fracturing of deep deposits, known as “fracking.” State environmental laws are under constant attack.

State Sen. Michael Rubio, a Central Valley Democrat elected to his seat in 2010, was in an ideal spot to show whose side he was on in these fights.

Rubio, who resigned from the Senate Feb. 22 to work for Chevron as its chief California lobbyist, was chair of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, which oversees oil industry environmental issues. In 2011-12, he was a key Democrat on the Senate’s energy committee.

His most recent official action was an inaction: He was scheduled to co-chair his committee’s hearing on fracking with Sen. Fran Pavley. The hearing took place, airing widespread frustration with the weakness and loopholes of current and proposed state regulation of fracking. Rubio, however, was a no-show.

It’s obvious now that on Feb. 12 he was getting ready to jump ship to Chevron, and likely in no mood to hear citizen fears about water pollution, spoiled land and even fracking-induced earthquakes. But Rubio did, in his short tenure, leave a record that Chevron was surely tracking with admiration.

In hindisght, his biggest moment in the spotlight would have been his months-long campaigning on behalf of a corporate effort to weaken the California Environmental Quality Act. The changes would have particularly benefited the oil, energy and property development industries. The proposals didn’t become law, but they’re not dead yet. Rubio will just be working them from the other side of the fence.

In May 2012, Rubio also cast the deciding “no” vote against a bill (SB 1054) by Sen. Pavley that would have merely required oil companies to notify residents and businesses nearby in advance of fracking activities. The bill, vociferously opposed by the Western States Petroleum Assn. and other oil lobbyists, failed. Industry opponents of the bill recognized Rubio for his role in leading the opposition that killed a bill with wide public support.

Rubio also supported, and may have encouraged, the governor’s firing of two state energy regulators in 2011 after oil lobby complaints about their tightening of oversight.

(Oil and energy weren’t the only supporters he was courting. Rubio also championed the profits of Blue Cross over the pocketbooks of customers. He withheld his vote in 2011 from a measure that would have allowed the state insurance commissioner to reject health insurance rate increases that could not be justified. In the state Legislature, an abstention from voting is effectively a “no” vote, but with no accountability. It’s the coward’s way out. )

Chevron certainly knows what it’s getting with this new top lobbyist.

Rubio stated that he was leaving his elected post two years early to spend more time with his family, including a disabled child. No matter how much that weighed in his decision, the fact remains that his status as a state senator (however briefly) greatly inreased his value to Chevron. His pay will grow by multples. Because there is no law against such a quick trip through the revolving door–from overseeing an industry to lobbying for it–Rubio could be schmoozing his fellow legislators right now, and spreading money to their campaigns. His constituents, meanwhile, are stuck with no representation until a special election that’s perhaps months away.

_________________________________________________________________

Posted by Judy Dugan, former research director for Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and politics. Visit us on Facebook and Twitter.

by RL Miller

The Keystone XL pipeline has birthed a movement, massive rallies, and even the Keystone Principle – “Specifically and categorically, we must cease making large, long-term capital investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure that “locks in” dangerous emission levels for many decades.” Keystone is a carbon bomb.

Very nearly as explosive, yet virtually ignored: California’s oil awaiting fracking. The state’s oil reserves – 400 billion barrels – were long considered dwindling, until fracking the oil has promised to liberate, or something, 15 billion barrels.

The math puts the carbon impacts of California’s oil on par with Keystone. The respected Skeptical Science blog calculates Keystone’s impact over 40 years as adding 7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions. I did the math and found that California’s easily available oil awaiting fracking is 6.45 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

7 billion tons of carbon pollution is more than 6.45 billion tons, but not much more.

The chemistry agrees: California’s oil is as dirty as the Canadian tar sands. State data shows that several California oil fields produce just as much carbon dioxide per barrel of oil as the tar sands do. A handful of fields yield even more.

The ugly physics of handling this dirty oil are reminiscent of the Keystone pipeline’s politics of exporting pollution. California’s landmark global warming law, AB32, institutes a low carbon fuel standard. High-carbon oil won’t be refined here. It will be shipped to  less climate-conscious states or less finicky countries. And transporting dirty oil out of state will create yet more pollution.

The Keystone Principle demands that California’s oil stay underground; the terrifying new math of global warming demands that California’s oil stay underground. Meanwhile, the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity paints it as “black gold”: video here.

One would think that environmentally aware Governor Jerry Brown and the Democrats in the California legislature who passed AB32 would be lining up to oppose fracking this carbon bomb.

One would be wrong.

The people attending Forward on Climate rallies throughout the nation don’t want fracking – the Los Angeles rally that I attended yesterday had prominent anti-fracking signs and speakers. But not a single Democrat in the California legislature will touch a fracking moratorium bill. They’re too busy nibbling around the edges of regulating well casings, as if that somehow makes it all right to frack all this dirty carbon. They’re too busy siding with the Koch brothers, against the people who elected them, and against the climate. They’re going to frack up the Golden State.