How low will California fall?

[Eastoff]

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN0129249720110202

woot!

Just to be clear, you are happy there will be more incentives to pollute?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

There are no "incentives" to pollute.

I am in favor of not regulating and trading a "carbon footprint" as it will destroy California's economy even further. California is already one of the worst states to do business in, chasing more manufacturing and industrial jobs while increasing the prices of all goods and services will do more harm than whatever the "cap and trade" program aims to do.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

..only the beginning.....

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bp-arco-sale-20110202,0,3820499.story

Oil giant BP will unload its Southern California gasoline business, including the huge Carson refinery and its local Arco gasoline operations, as part of a broad overhaul following last year's Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

BP said Tuesday that it also would sell its Texas City, Texas, refinery, where a 2005 explosion and fire killed 15 people and injured more than 170 others. The sale of the California and Texas facilities will cut BP's refining capacity in half as it moves to divest $30 billion in assets to pay gulf disaster costs.

In the process, BP will reshape California's energy landscape, where Arco for decades has vied with Chevron Corp. for the top spot in fuel retailing and refining.
"They are selling their 800-pound gorilla," said Charles Langley, senior gasoline analyst at the Utility Consumers Action Network in San Diego. "It will be interesting to see who regulators will allow to buy it because there are almost no current players in the California refining market who could buy it without dominating the market completely."

At the 630-acre Carson refinery, about 1,200 employees and 500 contractors process 265,000 barrels of oil a day into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and petroleum coke, supplying about 25% of Los Angeles' gasoline demand, said BP, which bought Arco in 2000. The refinery also supplies Arizona and Nevada.

BP said it expected to get at least $4.4 billion for the refineries, which represent about 28% of its global refining capacity, and the Los Angeles marketing operations. Sales are anticipated to be wrapped up by the end of 2012, the company said.

Langley expressed concern about what the planned sale would mean for motorists.

"Only if we get a new player buying this refinery could it be good for consumers," he said. "We used to have 21 refineries. Now we have 10 refineries owned by seven companies, and we've already seen consolidation that is anticompetitive."

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

THIS IS ALL UNRELATED TO ANYTHING AT ALL!
\

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

they want to require 1/3 of energy from renewable sources?

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/03/3373329/democrats-launch-green-energy.html

Flanked by solar energy business people and investors, legislative Democrats announced Wednesday that they're resurrecting a bill to require utilities to buy at least 33 percent of California's electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

Legislators presented the proposal along with related measures as a pro-business effort to help create jobs.

"The budget is and remains our top priority," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento.

But, Steinberg added, "we must also continue to provide state and national leadership in our ongoing efforts to strengthen California's economy by supporting emerging industries, improving public education and creating jobs for Californians."

Two other measures described at the Capitol press conference would expedite permits for renewable energy projects, and create a curriculum for "green partnership academies" that use grants to provide students with skills to enter renewable-energy jobs.

Another bill would dedicate a portion of state ratepayer funds to loan guarantees to help homeowners and business owners install energy-efficient technology.

"Every person in the state recognizes that the natural home for those promising industries needs to be California," Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, D-Los Angeles, said.

Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, author of the utilities bill, said the 33 percent requirement is needed to keep investor dollars flowing into California projects.

The bill is designed to complement Assembly Bill 32, the greenhouse gas reduction law. Voters last November rejected Proposition 23, which would have suspended AB 32.

"The kinds of policies that these legislators are trying to pass are critical for us to be able to get the private sector dollars, create businesses and jobs and show the country and the world that this can be done," said hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, co-chairman of the No on Proposition 23 campaign.

Jack M. Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, said California needs a comprehensive jobs strategy and that requiring ratepayers to pay for energy projects would discourage green jobs and hurt other manufacturers.

"California shouldn't subsidize one sector of the economy by imposing higher costs on others," Stewart said in a prepared statement.


Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/03/3373329/democrats-launch-green-energy.html#ixzz1CwJuDahD

 

[Denny Crane]

Unbelievable. We're already near bankrupt and the plan is to subsidize a 50% increase in really (I mean REALLY) expensive and money losing ventures like this. That's a 50% increase by 2012 alone, and another 50%+ over 8 years from that point.

No wonder the bankruptcy lawyers tell you to charge their fees on your credit card.

 

[andalusian]

lanked by solar energy business people and investors, legislative Democrats announced Wednesday that they're resurrecting a bill to require utilities to buy at least 33 percent of California's electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

That's pretty stupid.

Two other measures described at the Capitol press conference would expedite permits for renewable energy projects, and create a curriculum for "green partnership academies" that use grants to provide students with skills to enter renewable-energy jobs.

That's not a bad idea. You help develop these industries without forcing them upon everyone.

Another bill would dedicate a portion of state ratepayer funds to loan guarantees to help homeowners and business owners install energy-efficient technology.

This is actually a pretty decent idea - as it is basically investing in efficiency - which can lead to business advantage.

"Every person in the state recognizes that the natural home for those promising industries needs to be California," Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, D-Los Angeles, said.

There is a difference between helping these industries because they are a promising new area of expertise where you can forge a strategic advantage and forcing them down the throat of people, This is the same as forcing E15 gasoline on everyone because you have a glut of ethanol... stupid.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-miserable-cities,0,3715105.story

If the saying "as goes California, so goes the nation" still rings true, then Americans are facing a depressing future, according to a list of the country's most miserable cities.

Ravaged by falling house prices, high unemployment, a massive budget deficit, rampant crime and high state taxes, California filled four of the top five spots in the Forbes list of unhappy urban areas.

Stockton, in the state's Central Valley, topped the list, followed by Miami, in Florida, Merced, Modesto and Sacramento -- all in California.

"California was hit by the bursting of the housing bubble about as hard as can be imagined," said Kurt Badenhausen, Forbes senior editor.

"Both California and Florida have a history of boom and bust economies. People flooded to these states because of the weather during the boom years but that helped inflate the massive bubble in housing."

Forbes analyzed the 200 largest U.S. cities and ranked them on 10 factors including unemployment, the weather, taxes, commuting times, violent crime and even how its sports teams have performed in recent years.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110216/D9LDNS7G0.html

Calif gov. freezes hiring, drops minimum wage suit

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday ordered a state government hiring freeze amid California's $26.6 billion fiscal crisis, hours after he dropped a lawsuit filed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger over whether the governor has the authority to pay state workers minimum wage.

Brown announced what he said was a comprehensive hiring freeze that applies to vacant, seasonal, full-time and part-time positions. The administration estimates the freeze, along with other cost-cutting efforts like reducing the number of state-issued cell phones, will save $363 million in the fiscal year that begins July 1, about $200 million of which will be in general fund savings.

"We must do everything possible to save money and make government leaner and more efficient," the Democratic governor said in a statement.

 

[maxiep]

Freezing hiring? That's rich. For California to solve its problems, it needs to massively cut the size of its government.

Brown is sticking his head in the sand.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

You're going to love the musical chairs.

Congresswoman Jane Harmon was JUST RE-ELECTED. Now she's leaving to join a "thinktank".

and the newly elected secretary of state wants to take her position.


way to WASTE our time.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/02/15/cap-and-trade-fantasies-in-disneyland/

California, marching to the beat of its own drum, is on the road to another economic minefield of its own making. On September 2, 2010, voters rejected an alternate Proposition 23 route, one that would have avoided the approved Assembly Bill 32 superhighway to disaster. Resulting cap-and-trade booby traps will be triggered in 2012 when the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is implemented. This legislation authorizes unelected officials at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish a program enabling companies that cut greenhouse gas emissions to sell “allowances” to others that need them to meet reduction regulations targeted at 15% by 2020.

It’s not as if the state doesn’t have enough problems already. California has lost 34% of its industrial base since 2001, has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country (12.4%), and has run up unfunded pension liabilities for its state and local public employees that may be as much as $500 billion (roughly 17% of the nation’s $3 trillion total). A recent study conducted by the Pacific Research Institute predicts that AB 32 will produce an additional 150,000 state job losses by 2012, growing to 1.3 million by 2020. A 2009 study commissioned by the California Small Business Roundtable estimates that the new legislation will “result in a higher cost to California households of $3,857 per year”.

Cap-and-trade is typically promoted as an “environmental justice” initiative. This misleading claim is based upon three errant and deceptive premises: (1) that the legislation will help protect our planet from dangerous climate change and pollution; (2) that it is needed to wean California and the rest of the country and world away from excessive energy consumption; and (3) that it will incentivize energy technology and conservation innovations that will lead to independence from fossils and foreign oil.

The initial premise is wrong on two accounts. First, there is absolutely no evidence that any human-caused climate crisis exists. Second, there is no real likelihood that any attempts to reduce atmospheric CO2 emissions can be expected to have any measurable climate influence. Further, simply because the EPA, parroted by green marketers condemns CO2 as a “pollutant,” that claim does not make it so. Such a declaration only misleads people, and confuses this natural and essential molecule with real pollutants that truly should be restricted.

The second premise, that carbon restrictions are necessary for energy consumption control, belies inherent logic of free market economic incentives to advance conservation economies. Further, it empowers government to pick and subsidize winners, restrict choices, and intentionally drive up costs. The burdens of this zero-sum-gain strategy will fall most painfully upon low-income consumers and small-profit-margin businesses who can least afford them.

The third premise, that carbon penalties attached to fossil-fueled utilities will incentivize alternative technology innovations, is misleading in several respects. Heavily funded green marketing promotions fail to inform the public about the limited-capacity potentials afforded by “renewable” energy sources, most particularly in regard to urgent time frames required to substantially offset demands. Unfounded technology promises provide excuses for other agendas: expansion of government control and spending, and unwarranted mandates and subsidies for those who play the system. When bureaucrats are empowered to reward politics and promises over performance, taxpayers and captive consumers are left to cover the costs.

Those costs under AB 32 will be substantial . California refiners will be forced to begin to comply with a low carbon fuel standard this year, reducing the “carbon intensity” of transportation fuels 10% by 2020. This will most likely entail increasing the corn ethanol mix in petroleum, running up food costs, depleting water supplies, and causing environmental land damage while affording no net CO2 emission reduction. It will also impose costly refinery modifications and require and necessitate increased importing of higher quality, non-California crude oil feedstock.

Since most Californians don’t live in dense urban centers, the bulk of those extra expenses will be passed on to truckers, commuters and rural drivers. According to a December 20, 2010 Investor’s Business Daily article authored by Chuck Devore, some analysts are forecasting a resulting gasoline price shock of 30% to 80% within five years.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Typical California mismanagement.

http://www.latimes.com/news....5.story

Larry Eisenberg had a vision. "Amazing," he called it. "Spectacular."

The Los Angeles Community College District would become a paragon of clean energy. By generating solar, wind and geothermal power, the district would supply all its electricity needs. Not only would the nine colleges sever ties to the grid, saving millions of dollars a year, they would make money by selling surplus power. Thanks to state and federal subsidies, construction of the green energy projects would cost nothing upfront.

Billions to Spend: Complete Coverage

As head of a $5.7-billion, taxpayer-funded program to rebuild the college campuses, Eisenberg commanded attention. But his plan for energy independence was seriously flawed.

He overestimated how much power the colleges could generate. He underestimated the cost. And he poured millions of dollars into designs for projects that proved so impractical or unpopular they were never built.

These and other blunders cost nearly $10 million that could have paid for new classrooms, laboratories and other college facilities, a Times investigation found.

The problems with Eisenberg's energy vision were fundamental. For starters, there simply wasn't room on the campuses for all the generating equipment required to become self-sufficient. Some of the colleges wouldn't come close to that goal even if solar panels, wind turbines and other devices were wedged into every available space.

Going off the grid did not make economic sense either. Given the cost of alternative energy technology, it would be more expensive for the district to generate all its own electricity than to continue paying utilities for power.

Weather and geology also refused to cooperate.

Three solar power arrays had to be scrapped because the intended locations were atop seismic faults.

Plans for large-scale wind power collided with the reality that prevailing winds at nearly all the campuses are too weak to generate much electricity. To date, a single wind turbine has been installed, as a demonstration project. It spins too slowly in average winds to power a 60-watt light bulb.

In the end, Eisenberg's grand plan was scaled down to what was actually doable, which was a fraction of the green energy capacity he had envisioned.

By then, the district had committed at least $4 million to designs for solar and wind energy farms that would never get beyond blueprints.

As one project after another was scratched, an elaborate plan to pay for it all with money from private investors fell apart. But the investment banks that put the deals together had to be paid for their work. The cost: $2.8 million.

At Southwest College, the district spent an additional $1.2 million on a parking lot shaded by solar panels, only to abandon the project with the work half done.

At Valley College, one of the solar arrays that was actually built sat idle for 14 months, thanks to a dispute between a contractor and the district over who was supposed to arrange a hookup to the power grid. The delay cost $1.5 million in potential energy savings, according to the college.

Eisenberg, the district's executive director of facilities planning and development, conceded some mistakes but voiced no regrets. He cast himself as an environmental visionary and predicted that the college system would eventually achieve energy independence. "Somebody needs to be first," he said. "If the great explorers really had a map and knew where they were going, maybe we wouldn't have the result we have today."

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Time for a water tax! 3.4 billion!

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/03/04/greenwatertax/

Call it the Green Water Tax. It’s a proposal advanced in a White Paper on the Web site of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to impose a $3.4 billion surcharge on the energy-related costs to pump and treat water. The new surcharge — effectively a tax — is “pernicious,” charged David Powell, an expert on California water policy.

The surcharge would be enacted in 2012 to meet the administrative costs of implementing AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Last November, voters had a chance to suspend AB 32′s implementation by passing Proposition 23. The measure lost heavily, keeping AB 32 in place.

But did voters know that they might have been voting for a $3.4 billion tax? And on what would this $3.4 billion be spent?

 

[maxiep]

What's hysterical is that if the State of Oregon had a clue, they'd be exploiting the mass suicide of California. Imagine how many businesses we could attract?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Told y'all gas prices are going to skyrocket. California is higher than Alaska and Hawaii.

just wait until the carbon climate bullshit comes. $6 gas!

Plus with the closing of BP refineries in Cali = mega fucked!

 

[bodyman5001]

There will be a 3-6 month period when the Las Vegas real estate market skyrockets. That period will coincide with the mass exodus of Californians moving out of the state. When the rest of the moronic Californians all lose their jobs and can no longer buy the homes the original group was selling to leave, the bubble will burst again.

I watched a rerun of House Hunters last night and saw a couple of doctors buy a 4000 sq/ft house on a nice lot for 1.8 million. The house was cool and needed upgrading but 1.8 million?????? Holy shit. You should see the mansions you can buy here for that much.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I'd move to Vegas. Gotta find a jobby job there though. I'd love to be a casino host. that would be so pimp.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

[video=youtube;ExuuFNFdd0k]

 

[andalusian]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tec...-google-facebook-and-zynga-lead-the-pack.html

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

social media bubble. there is one. its going to burst too.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_17700906?source=rss&nclick_check=1

Today: Be careful about investing in social networking startups, Warren Buffett says. Plus: Silicon Valley's jobless rate falls in February. And: Apple begins selling the iPad 2 in 25 more countries.
Internet startup bubble?
Is there a bubble in the Internet startup world, with such companies as Facebook, Twitter, Zynga and Groupon valued in the many billions of dollars?
Without naming names, billionaire Warren Buffett today suggested that some Internet upstarts -- but not all -- may be "overpriced," and that investors should be careful.
"It's extremely difficult to value social-networking-site companies," Buffett said in India today, according to a Bloomberg News report. "Some will be huge winners, which will make up for the rest."
Buffett's remarks today came as investors here in Silicon Valley and elsewhere have debated whether valuations of venture-backed social media companies have climbed too far.

 

[andalusian]

social media bubble. there is one. its going to burst too.

Google is not a social media company - but I agree, Facebook and Twitter are overpriced - Does not mean that they do not have a real market with real revenues. I would be careful about investing in Apple stocks as well - but there should be no worries what-so-ever about their viability long term.

FWIW - real-estate prices in SoCal seem to start going up. The social-network/mobile Gaming business is also going to explode and is going to take a lot of the game-console revenues.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

everyone I know is buying homes (or trying to) right now. Prices are about right, now actually. Most of the desirable neighborhoods never really fluctuated though.

Apple is going to get fucked if Jobs dies. They'll still have the product but much of the cult following will go with jobs.

There is a bidding war with Google and Facebook in a rush to hire as many good people as possible and stealing each other. Once facebook falls on its ass it will kind of hurt the entire market again. Google will always make good money with android and their search, I think they're going to really fuck up their Chrome OS launch, personally.

I do think the next boom will be in Artificial Intelligence. we'll see how that goes. I think Google will probably be big players in that.

California is going to be fucked if Brown doesn't keep the high taxes for everything. They are set to expire in June and all signs point to voters probably slamming it down.

 

[andalusian]

everyone I know is buying homes (or trying to) right now. Prices are about right, now actually. Most of the desirable neighborhoods never really fluctuated though.

Everything fell big time - the idea that things did not fluctuated is flat out wrong. What is indicative, imho - is that you see California's real-estate market actually gaining a percent or two in the last 6 months - where most of the country is still falling. Portland, for example, fell around 10% in the last 6 months.

Apple is going to get fucked if Jobs dies. They'll still have the product but much of the cult following will go with jobs.

They are at the point where they are going to, at the worst, still flat-line if not grow - they are the leader in 3 of the biggest consumer tech markets - smart phones, PC replacements and media/app purchase for mobile applications.

There is a bidding war with Google and Facebook in a rush to hire as many good people as possible and stealing each other. Once facebook falls on its ass it will kind of hurt the entire market again. Google will always make good money with android and their search, I think they're going to really fuck up their Chrome OS launch, personally.

I do not think Chrome OS is that important to them - they are just working extra hard to make a commodity of the people they consider as their competitors - Apple and Microsoft, for example. That's why they give Android and will give Chrome OS away, practically.

I do think the next boom will be in Artificial Intelligence. we'll see how that goes. I think Google will probably be big players in that.

I do not see how this is going to be anything other than a small enabling technology for things people really care about. Been around the "next big thing is AI" twice already in my professional career. Not buying it as anything more than a tool that no-one other than the geeks will care about. Where we are just starting to tap into growth is in the mobile and embedded world - you will probably see 5 - 10 more years of growth in that area.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9LVTJ9G0.htm

LOS ANGELES

Home prices in Southern California remained at their year-ago levels in February, as job security worries, tight credit conditions and concerns that prices haven't yet reached bottom kept fearful buyers out of the market, a tracking firm said Tuesday.

February's median home price for the region was $275,000, unchanged from a year ago and up 1.9 percent from $270,000 in January, San Diego-based DataQuick Information Systems said.

The firm said home sales dropped 6.4 percent from 15,359 in February 2010 to 14,369 last month, their lowest level for a February since 2008. Sales fell 0.6 percent from 14,458 in January.

DataQuick President John Walsh said pent-up demand for homes could result in swifter sales in the spring, but only if mortgage rates remain low, credit becomes more widely available and confidence about the economy in general improves.

"Lots of people have been waiting for the right time to buy. But they've got to feel more confident in their jobs, they've got to qualify for a loan and, for some, they need to be convinced prices are at or near bottom," he said.

Foreclosures accounted for 37.1 percent of last month's sales, up from 36.8 percent in January but down from 42.4 percent a year ago, according to DataQuick.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

AI will be there soon. We're in the early stages with "suggestions". Its a simple algorithm that will predict how you will think. It'll evolve more in the future for things like location based adverts, etc.

 

[mook]

Seeing an IBM computer beat some all-time greats at Jeopardy was a real eye-opener to me at how far AI has already come.

It's not that far of a stretch anymore to see how we could be able to submit a list of medical symptoms online using everyday language and get a prognosis that could rival or even surpass the quality of a trained doctor. Computers are already doing the work that thousands of attorneys and legal clerks used to do in data analysis.

People tend to think of computers as something that replaces menial labor. AI is going to rapidly change all that.

The really interesting question will be how AI impacts the overall economy. Say that we right now spend $100 billion/year to pay doctors to diagnose patients in this country. (This number is just my wild guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's close.) If a search engine can do 75% of that work automatically for a few billion dollars, that turns it into a $27 billion/year industry. That's a lot of highly trained people who are used to making serious cash who'll see a huge cut in pay.

This could potentially make a few companies in California very rich, and a lot of individuals across the country much poorer. And not just in medicine. Engineering, legal, accounting, logistics, finance....the list goes on and on.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

so. fucked.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gre...y-rps-california-electricity-jerry-brown.html

Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law Tuesday a mandate that 33% of electricity in California must come from renewable sources by 2020.

Executives at solar, wind and other clean energy companies said the new regulations could help California reclaim its green leadership position after losing ground to states such as Texas and Iowa.

“This is tremendous,” said Mike Hall, chief executive of solar installer Borrego Solar. “A legislative solution provides a lot more clarity and firepower for regulators and proponents.”

Brown, along with U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, signed the bill while helping dedicate a new solar panel manufacturing plant in Milpitas. The facility will produce 75 megawatts a year of panels from SunPower Corp. and is expected to create 100 jobs.

The new law, known as a renewable portfolio standard, is the most aggressive of any state. Several attempts to introduce a federal version have stalled in a divided and preoccupied Congress.

California had previously required investor-owned utilities such as Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric to generate 20% of their electricity from clean sources by 2010, with a three-year grace period.

The law signed Tuesday will also apply to municipal utilities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which manage about a quarter of the state’s electricity load.