Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-26; City Council; 20384; DISCUSSION PROPOSITIONS 19 AND 23CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL AB# 20,384 MTG. 10/26/10 DEPT. CM Council discussion of Propositions 19 and 23 on November 2, 2010 Ballot DEPT. HEAD fy (XL CITY ATTY. d5§>- CITY MGR. tD RECOMMENDED ACTION: To discuss Proposition 19 and 23 that are on the upcoming November 2, 2010 ballot and determine if Council will adopt a resolution in support of or opposition to either of these measures. ITEM EXPLANATION: At the October 2, 2010 city council meeting the City Council requested to have a discussion regarding two propositions that are on the November 2, 2010 ballot. Proposition 19 proposes legalizing marijuana under California law and would permit local governments to regulate and tax commercial production distribution and sale of marijuana. Proposition 23 proposes suspending the implementation of the AB 32 air pollution/greenhouse gas emission legislation until the State's unemployment rate drops below 5.5 percent or less for a full year. If the City Council would like to take action to support or oppose either measure it may do so by adoption of one or both of the attached resolutions. Alternatively, the City Council members may choose to send letters individually expressing their support or opposition. FISCAL IMPACT: None. EXHIBITS: 1. Summary of propositions 19 and 23 with analysis by the State Legislative Analyst 2. Resolution No?Q10'244supporting or opposing Proposition 19 3. Resolution No.2010-245supporting or opposing Proposition 23 DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Rob Houston 760-434-2958 rob.houston@carlsbadca.gov FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONL Y. COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED CONTINUED WITHDRAWN AMENDED * D D D CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN RETURNED TO STAFF OTHER - SEE MINUTES D D D D PROPOSITION LEGALIZES MARIJUANA UNDER CALIFORNIA BUT NOT FEDERAL LAW. 1Q PERMITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE AND TAX COMMERCIAL ^ PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF MARIJUANA. INITIATIVE STATUTE. OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LEGALIZES MARIJUANA UNDER CALIFORNIA BUT NOT FEDERAL LAW. PERMITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE AND TAX COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF MARIJUANA. INITIATIVE STATUTE. • Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. • Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. • Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using in public, or smoking it while minors are present. • Maintains prohibitions against driving while impaired. • Limits employers' ability to address marijuana use to situations where job performance is actually impaired. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: • The fiscal effects of this measure could vary substantially depending on: (1) the extent to which the federal government continues to enforce federal marijuana laws and (2) whether the state and local governments choose to authorize, regulate, and tax various marijuana-related activities. • Savings of potentially several tens of millions of dollars annually to the state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. • Increase in state and local government tax and fee revenues, potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST BACKGROUND that federal authorities could continue to r , ,T ^ , ,, , .r .. prosecute California patients and providersrederai Law. rederai laws classify man uana as r j-i i • • j rMI i L j -j • • i i • engaged in the cultivation and use or man uanaan illegal substance and provide criminal penalties rr-i T^ -i • i • c . ... , . . rp,,/ , tor medical purposes. Despite having thistor various activities relating to its use. i hese laws , . ITTCTA n • f JL rj i • L authority, the U.S. Department of Justiceare enforced by rederai agencies that may act J , . A , , -Tnnri , u. , ji- • • u j announced in March 2009 that the currentindependently or in cooperation with state and .... ,,ill r • administration would not prosecute man] uanalocal law enforcement agencies. . , . , , . '° patients and providers whose actions are consistentState Law and Proposition 215. Under current wkh ^ m&^{ marijuana kws. state law, the possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana generally is illegal in PROPOSAL California. Penalties for marijuana-related „, . , , ,,,. , ,. .... i j. , rr T- 1ms measure changes state law to (1) legalize theactivities vary depending on the offense, ror . . ... r\- • \ ci • r i i r possession and cultivation or limited amounts orexample, possession or less than one ounce or r .. r . .......... -j • i 11 i c man uana ror personal use by individuals age 21man uana is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, /. . ,*, . . J . °. .u M 11- •• • ri j i or older, and (2) authorize various commercialwhile selling man uana is a felony and may result .. , . . . . ,0 man uana-related activities under certainin a prison sentence. /. . „ . . . . T ^T . ,nns , T^ .. conditions. Despite these changes to state law,In November 1996, voters approved Proposition i •• i j • •• u^I1_ ,. , , 1-11 i • • i • these man uana-related activities would continue215, which legalized the cultivation and possession _ L L'L- j j r \ \\ T-L c j i r .. • /^ i-r • r 1-1 to be prohibited under federal law. f hese federalof man uana in California for medical purposes. L-L- • u -11 u c j u c j i„. TT-* _ „ ... ~nr.r , prohibitions could still be enforced by federalf he U.b. Supreme Court ruled in 2005, however, T • ( k uK agencies, ft is not known to what extent the 12 | Title and Summary I Analysis PROP 19 LEGALIZES MARIJUANA UNDER CALIFORNIA BUT NOT FEDERAL LAW. PERMITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE AND TAX COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF MARIJUANA. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST federal government would continue to enforce them. Currently, no other state permits commercial marijuana-related activities for non- medical purposes. State Legalization of Marijuana Possession and Cultivation for Personal Use Under the measure, persons age 21 or older generally may (1) possess, process, share or transport up to one ounce of marijuana; (2) cultivate marijuana on private property in an area up to 25 square feet per private residence or parcel; (3) possess harvested and living marijuana plants cultivated in such an area; and (4) possess any items or equipment associated with the above activities. The possession and cultivation of marijuana must be solely for an individual's personal consumption and not for sale to others, and consumption of marijuana would only be permitted in a residence or other "non-public place." (One exception is that marijuana could be sold and consumed in licensed establishments, as discussed below.) The state and local governments could also authorize the possession and cultivation of larger amounts of marijuana. State and local law enforcement agencies could not seize or destroy marijuana from persons in compliance with the measure. In addition, the measure states that no individual could be punished, fined, or discriminated against for engaging in any conduct permitted by the measure. However, it does specify that employers would retain existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee's job performance. This measure sets forth some limits on marijuana possession and cultivation for personal use. For example, the smoking of marijuana in the presence of minors is not permitted. In addition, the measure would not change existing laws that prohibit driving under the influence of drugs or that prohibit possessing marijuana on the grounds of elementary, middle, and high schools. Moreover, a person age 21 or older who knowingly gave marijuana to a person age 18 through 20 could be sent to county jail for up to six months For text of Proposition 19, see page 92. CONTINUED and fined up to $1,000 per offense. (The measure does not change existing criminal laws which impose penalties for adults who furnish marijuana to minors under the age of 18.) Authorization of Commercial Marijuana Activities The measure allows local governments to authorize, regulate, and tax various commercial marijuana-related activities. As discussed below, the state also could authorize, regulate, and tax such activities. Regulation. The measure allows local governments to adopt ordinances and regulations regarding commercial marijuana-related activities—including marijuana cultivation, processing, distribution, transportation, and retail sales. For example, local governments could license establishments that could sell marijuana to persons 21 and older. Local governments could regulate the location, size, hours of operation, and signs and displays of such establishments. Individuals could transport marijuana from a licensed marijuana establishment in one locality to a licensed establishment in another locality, regardless of whether any localities in between permitted the commercial production and sale of marijuana. However, the measure does not permit the transportation of marijuana between California and another state or country. An individual who was licensed to sell marijuana to others in a commercial establishment and who negligently provided marijuana to a person under 21 would be banned from owning, operating, being employed by, assisting, or entering a licensed marijuana establishment for one year. Local governments could also impose additional penalties or civil fines on certain marijuana-related activities, such as for violation of a local ordinance limiting the hours of operation of a licensed marijuana establishment. Whether or not local governments engaged in this regulation, the state could, on a statewide basis, regulate the commercial production of marijuana. The state could also authorize the production of hemp, a type of marijuana plant Analysis 13 PROP 19 LEGALIZES MARIJUANA UNDER CALIFORNIA BUT NOT FEDERAL LAW. PERMITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE AND TAX COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF MARIJUANA. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST that can be used to make products such as fabric and paper. Taxation. The measure requires that licensed marijuana establishments pay all applicable federal, state, and local taxes and fees currently imposed on other similar businesses. In addition, the measure permits local governments to impose new general, excise, or transfer taxes, as well as benefit assessments and fees, on authorized marijuana-related activities. The purpose of such charges would be to raise revenue for local governments and/or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation. In addition, the state could impose similar charges. FISCAL EFFECTS Many of the provisions in this measure permit, but do not require, the state and local governments to take certain actions related to the regulation and taxation of marijuana. Thus, it is uncertain to what extent the state and local governments would in fact undertake such actions. For example, it is unknown how many local governments would choose to license establishments that would grow or sell marijuana or impose an excise tax on such sales. In addition, although the federal government announced in March 2009 that it would no longer prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with Proposition 215, it has continued to enforce its prohibitions on non-medical marijuana-related activities. This means that the federal government could prosecute individuals for activities that would be permitted under this measure. To the extent that the federal government continued to enforce its prohibitions on marijuana, it would have the effect of impeding the activities permitted by this measure under state law. Thus, the revenue and expenditure impacts of this measure are subject to significant uncertainty. Impacts on State and Local Expenditures Reduction in State and Local Correctional Costs. The measure could result in savings to the 14 \ Analysis CONTINUED state and local governments by reducing the number of marijuana offenders incarcerated in state prisons and county jails, as well as the number placed under county probation or state parole supervision. These savings could reach several tens of millions of dollars annually. The county jail savings would be offset to the extent that jail beds no longer needed for marijuana offenders were used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space. Reduction in Court and Law Enforcement Costs. The measure would result in a reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana- related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system. However, it is likely that the state and local governments would redirect their resources to other law enforcement and court activities. Other Fiscal Effects on State and Local Programs. The measure could also have fiscal effects on various other state and local programs. For example, the measure could result in an increase in the consumption of marijuana, potentially resulting in an unknown increase in the number of individuals seeking publicly funded substance abuse treatment and other medical services. This measure could also have fiscal effects on state- and locally funded drug treatment programs for criminal offenders, such as drug courts. Moreover, the measure could potentially reduce both the costs and offsetting revenues of the state's Medical Marijuana Program, a patient registry that identifies those individuals eligible under state law to legally purchase and consume marijuana for medical purposes. Impacts on State and Local Revenues The state and local governments could receive additional revenues from taxes, assessments, and fees from marijuana-related activities allowed under this measure. If the commercial production and sale of marijuana occurred in California, the state and local governments could receive revenues from a variety of sources in the ways described below. PROP LEGALIZES MARIJUANA UNDER CALIFORNIA BUT NOT FEDERAL LAW. "I Q PERMITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE AND TAX COMMERCIAL J. 27 PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF MARIJUANA. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST CONTINUED • Existing Taxes. Businesses producing and be offset by increased regulatory and selling marijuana would be subject to the enforcement costs related to the licensing same taxes as other businesses. For instance, and taxation of marijuana-related activities.) the state and local governments would As described earlier, both the enforcement receive sales tax revenues from the sale of decisions of the federal government and whether marijuana. Similarly, marijuana-related the state and local governments choose to regulate businesses with net income would pay and tax marijuana would affect the impact of this income taxes to the state. To the extent that measure. It is also unclear how the legalization of this business activity pulled in spending from some marijuana-related activities would affect its persons in other states, the measure would overall level of usage and price, which in turn result in a net increase in taxable economic could affect the level of state or local revenues activity in the state. from these activities. Consequently, the magnitude • New Taxes and Fees on Marijuana. As of additional revenues is difficult to estimate. To described above, local governments are the extent that a commercial marijuana industry allowed to impose taxes, fees, and developed in the state, however, we estimate that assessments on marijuana-related activities. the state and local governments could eventually Similarly, the state could impose taxes and collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in fees on these types of activities. (A portion of additional revenues. any new revenues from these sources would For text of Proposition 19, see page 92. Analysis \ 15 PROPOSITION 23 SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. • Suspends State law that requires greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, until California's unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. • Suspends comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emissions reporting and fee requirements for major emissions sources such as power plants and oil refineries. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: • The suspension of AB 32 could result in a modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state. In this event, there would be an unknown but potentially significant net increase in state and local government revenues. • Potential loss of a new source of state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government to certain businesses that would pay for these allowances, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations. • Lower energy costs for state and local governments than otherwise. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST BACKGROUND Global Wanning and Greenhouse Gases. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that trap heat from the sun within the earth's atmosphere, thereby warming the earth's temperature. Both natural phenomena (mainly the evaporation of water) and human activities (principally burning fossil fuels) produce GHGs. Scientific experts have voiced concerns that higher concentrations of GHGs resulting from human activities are increasing global temperatures, and that such global temperature rises could eventually cause significant problems. Such global temperature increases are commonly referred to as global warming, or climate change. As a populous state with a large industrial economy, California is the second largest emitter of GHGs in the United States and one of the largest emitters of GHGs in the world. Climate change is a global issue necessitating an international approach. Actions in California regarding GHGs have been advocated on the basis that they will contribute to a solution and may act as a catalyst to the undertaking of GHG mitigation policies elsewhere in our nation and in other countries. Assembly Bill 32 Enacted to Limit GHGs. In 2006, the state enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly referred to as Assembly Bill 32 or "AB 32." This legislation established the target of reducing the state's emissions of GHGs by 2020 to the level that emissions were at in 1990. It is estimated that achieving this target would result in about a 30 percent reduction in GHGs in 2020 from where their level would otherwise be in the absence of AB 32. Assembly Bill 32 requires the state Air Resources Board (ARE) to adopt rules and regulations to achieve this reduction. The law also directs ARB, in developing these rules and regulations, to take advantage of opportunities to improve air quality, thereby creating public health benefits from the state's GHG emission reduction activities. 38 \ Title and Summary I Analysis PROP SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST CONTINUED Other Laws Would Reduce GHG Emissions. emission reduction measures be adopted by In addition to AB 32, a number of other state laws January 1, 2011, and in effect by January 1, 2012. have been enacted by the Legislature that would pee Assessed to Cover State's Administrative reduce GHG emissions. In some cases, the main Costs. As allowed under AB 32, the ARE has purpose of these other laws is specifically to reduce adopted a regulation to recover the state's costs of GHG emissions. For example, a 2002 law requires administering the GHG emission reduction the ARB to adopt regulations to reduce GHG programs. Beginning in fall 2010, entities that emissions from cars and smaller trucks. Other laws emit a high amount of GHGs, such as power have authorized various energy efficiency programs plants and refineries, must pay annual fees that that could have the effect of reducing GHG will be used to offset these administrative costs, emissions, although this may not have been their Fee revenues will also be used to repay various principal purpose. state special funds that have made loans totaling "Scoping Plan" to Reach GHG Emission $83 million to the AB 32 program. These loans Reduction Target. As required by AB 32, the have staggered repayment dates that run through ARB in December 2008 released its plan on how 2014. AB 32's GHG emission reduction target for 2020 The Economic Impact of Implementing the would be met. The plan—referred to as the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The implementation of the AB 32 Scoping Plan—encompasses a number of different Scoping Plan will reduce levels of GHG emissions types of measures to reduce GHG emissions. and related air pollutants by imposing various new Some are measures authorized by AB 32, while requirements and costs on certain businesses and others are authorized by separately enacted laws. individuals. The reduced emissions and the new Some of these measures have as their primary costs will both affect the California economy, objective something other than reducing GHGs, There is currently a significant ongoing debate such as reducing the state's dependency on fossil about the impacts to the California economy from fuels. implementing the Scoping Plan. Economists, The plan includes a mix of traditional regulatory environmentalists, and policy makers have voiced measures and market-based measures. Traditional differing views about how the Scoping Plan will regulations, such as energy efficiency standards for affect the gross state product, personal income, buildings, would require individuals and prices, and jobs. The considerable uncertainty businesses to take specific actions to reduce about the Scoping Plan's "bottom-line" or net emissions. Market-based measures provide those impact on the economy is due to a number of subject to them greater flexibility in how to achieve reasons. First, because a number of the Scoping GHG emission reductions. The major market- Plan measures have yet to be fully developed, the based measure included in the Scoping Plan is a economic impacts will depend heavily on how the "cap-and-trade" program. Under such a program, measures are designed in the public regulatory the ARB would set a limit, or cap, on GHG process. Second, because a number of the Scoping emissions; issue a limited number of emission Plan measures are phased in over time, the full allowances to emitters related to the amount of economic impacts of some measures would not be GHGs they emit; and allow emitters covered by felt for several years. Third, the implementation of the program to buy, sell, or trade those emission the Scoping Plan has the potential to create both allowances. positive and negative impacts on the economy. Some measures in the Scoping Plan have already This includes the fact that there will be both been adopted in the form of regulations. Other "winners" and "losers" under the implementation regulations are either currently under development of the Scoping Plan for particular economic or will be developed in the near future. Assembly sectors, businesses, and individuals. Bill 32 requires that all regulations for GHG For text of Proposition 23, see page 106. Analysis \ 39 I PROP 23 SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST A number of studies have considered the economic impacts of the Scoping Plan implementation in 2020—the year when AB 32's GHG emission reduction target is to be met. Those studies that have looked at the economic impacts from a relatively broad perspective have, for the most part, found that there will be some modest reduction in California's gross state product, a comprehensive measure of economic activity for the state. These findings reflect how such things as more expensive energy, new investment requirements, and costs of regulatory compliance combine to increase the costs of producing materials, goods, and services that consumers and businesses buy. Given all of the uncertainties involved, however, the net economic impact of the Scoping Plan remains a matter of debate. CONTINUED PROPOSAL This proposition suspends the implementation of AB 32 until the unemployment rate in California is 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. During the suspension period, state agencies are prohibited from proposing or adopting new regulations, or enforcing previously adopted regulations, that would implement AB 32. (Once AB 32 went back into effect, this measure could not suspend it again.) IMPACTS OF THIS PROPOSITION ON CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATION AB 32 Would Be Suspended, Likely for Many Years. Under this proposition, AB 32 would be suspended immediately. It would remain suspended until the state's unemployment rate was Figure 1 Historical Unemployment Rate in California 14% 12 10 - 8 - 4 - 2 - Unemployment below 5.5% 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics; seasonally adjusted data. 2000 2005 2010 40 Analysis PROP 23 SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters (a one-year period). We cannot estimate when the suspension of AB 32 might end. Figure 1 provides historical perspective on the state's unemployment rate. It shows that, since 1970, the state has had three periods (each about ten quarters long) when the unemployment rate was at or below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters or more. The unemployment rate in California for the first two quarters of 2010 was above 12 percent. Economic forecasts for the next five years have the states unemployment rate remaining above 8 percent. Given these factors, it appears likely that AB 32 would remain suspended for many years. Various Climate Change Regulatory Activities Would Be Suspended. This proposition would result in the suspension of a number of measures in the Scoping Plan for which regulations either have been adopted or are proposed for adoption. Specifically, this proposition would likely suspend: • The proposed cap-and-trade regulation discussed above. • The "low carbon fuel standard" regulation that requires providers of transportation fuel in California (such as refiners and importers) to change the mix of fuels to lower GHG emissions. • The proposed ARE regulation that is intended to require privately and publicly owned utilities and others who sell electricity to obtain at least 33 percent of their supply from "renewable" sources, such as solar or wind power, by 2020. (The current requirement that 20 percent of the electricity obtained by privately owned utilities come from renewable sources by 2010 would not be suspended by this proposition.) • The fee to recover state agency costs of administering AB 32. Much Regulation in the Scoping Plan Would Likely Continue. Many current activities related to addressing climate change and reducing GHG emissions would probably not be suspended by this proposition. That is because certain Scoping CONTINUED Plan regulations implement laws other than AB 32. The regulations that would likely move forward, for example, include: • New vehicle emission standards for cars and smaller trucks. • A program to encourage homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs. • Land-use policies to promote less reliance on vehicle use. • Building and appliance energy efficiency requirements. We estimate that more than one-half of the emission reductions from implementing the Scoping Plan would come because of laws enacted separately from AB 32. FISCAL EFFECTS Potential Impacts on California Economy and State and Local Revenues There would likely be both positive and negative impacts on the California economy if AB 32 were suspended. These economic impacts, in turn, would affect state and local government revenues. We discuss these effects below. Potential Positive Economic Impacts. The suspension of AB 32 would likely have several positive impacts on the California economy. Suspending AB 32 would reduce the need for new investments and other actions to comply with new regulations that would be an added cost to businesses. Energy prices—which also affect the state's economy—would be lower in 2020 than otherwise. This is because the proposed cap-and- trade regulation, as well as the requirement that electric utilities obtain a greater portion of their electricity supplies from renewable energy sources, would otherwise require utilities to make investments that would increase the costs of producing or delivering electricity. Such investments would be needed to comply with these regulations, such as by obtaining electricity from higher-priced sources than would otherwise be the case. The suspension of such measures by For text of Proposition 23, see page 106.Analysis 41 PROP 23 SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST this proposition could therefore lower costs to businesses and avoid energy price increases that otherwise would largely be passed on to energy consumers. Potential Negative Economic Impacts. The suspension of AB 32 could also have negative impacts on the California economy. For example, the suspension of some Scoping Plan measures could delay investments in clean technologies that might result in some cost savings to businesses and consumers. Investment in research and development and job creation in the energy efficiency and clean energy sectors that support or profit from the goals of AB 32 might also be discouraged by this proposition, resulting in less economic activity in certain sectors than would otherwise be the case. Suspending some Scoping Plan measures could halt air quality improvements that would have public health benefits, such as reduced respiratory illnesses. These public health benefits translate into economic benefits, such as increased worker productivity and reduced government and business costs for health care. Net Economic Impact. As discussed previously, only a portion of the Scoping Plan measures would be suspended by the proposition. Those measures would have probably resulted in increased compliance costs to businesses and/or increased energy prices. On the other hand, those measures probably would have yielded public health-related economic benefits and increased profit opportunities for certain economic sectors. Considering both the potential positive and negative economic impacts of the proposition, we conclude that, on balance, economic activity in the state would likely be modestly higher if this proposition were enacted than otherwise. CONTINUED Economic Changes Would Affect State and Local Revenues. Revenues from taxes on personal and business income and on sales rise and fall because of changes in the level of economic activity in the state. To the extent that the suspension of AB 32 resulted in somewhat higher economic activity in the state, this would translate into an unknown but potentially significant increase in revenues to the state and local governments. Other Fiscal Effects Impacts of Suspension of the Cap-and-Trade Regulation. The suspension of ARB's proposed cap-and-trade regulation could have other fiscal effects depending on how this regulation would otherwise have been designed and implemented. One proposed approach provides for the auctioning of emission allowances by the state to emitters of GHGs. This approach would increase costs to affected firms doing business in the state, as they would have to pay for allowances. Such auctions could result in as much as several billion dollars of new revenues annually to the state that could be used for a variety of purposes. For example, depending on future actions of the Legislature, the auction revenues could be used to reduce other state taxes or to increase state spending for purposes that may or may not be related to efforts to prevent global warming. Thus, the suspension of AB 32 could preclude the collection by the state of potentially billions of dollars in new allowance-related payments from businesses. 42 Analysis PROP 23 SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST Potential Impacts on State and Local Government Energy Costs. As noted above, the suspension of certain AB 32 regulations would likely result in lower energy prices in California than would otherwise occur. Because state and local government agencies are large consumers of energy, the suspension of some AB 32-related regulations would reduce somewhat state and local government energy costs. Impacts on State Administrative Costs and Fees. During the suspension of AB 32, state administrative costs to develop and enforce regulations pursuant to AB 32 would be reduced significantly, potentially by the low tens of millions of dollars annually. However, during a suspension, the state would not be able to collect the fee authorized under AB 32 to pay these administrative costs. As a result, there would no CONTINUED longer be a dedicated funding source to repay loans that have been made from certain state special funds to support the operation of the AB 32 program. This would mean that other sources of state funds, potentially including the General Fund, might have to be used instead to repay the loans. These potential one-time state costs could amount to tens of millions of dollars. Once AB 32 went back into effect, revenues from the AB 32 administrative fee could be used to pay back the General Fund or other state funding sources that were used to repay the loans. In addition, once any suspension of AB 32 regulations ended, the state might incur some additional costs to reevaluate and update work to implement these measures that was under way prior to the suspension. For text of Proposition 23, see page 106.Analysis \ 43 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-244 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, 4 WHEREAS, Proposition 19, also known as the "Regulate, Control and Tax 5 Cannabis Act of 2010", was certified for the November statewide ballot on March 24, 6 2010. 7 WHEREAS, Proposition 19, if approved by voters, will legalize various marijuana-8 related activities, allow local governments to regulate these activities, permit local 10 governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorize 1 1 various criminal and civil penalties. 12 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 14 Carlsbad, California, as follows: 15 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct. 16 2. That the City Council opposes Proposition 19 on the November 2, 2010, California state ballot. 19 20 // 21 // 22 // 24 25 26 27 28 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 26th day of October, 2010, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, Packard and Blackburn. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 'A1. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOQ,Q,,Qity Clerk (SEAL^ 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-245 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, 4 WHEREAS, Proposition 23, titled the "Suspends Implementation of Air Pollution 5 Control Law (AB 32) Requiring Major Sources of Emissions to 6 Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions that Cause Global Warming 7 Until Unemployment Drops to 5.5 Percent or Less for Full Year" measure, o was certified for the November statewide ballot on June 22, 2010. WHEREAS, Proposition 23, if approved by voters, suspends State laws requiring 11 reduced greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until California's 12 unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. And also 13 requires the State to abandon implementation of the comprehensive greenhouse-gas- 14 reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major 16 polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension is lifted. 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 1 o Carlsbad, California, as follows: 20 1 • That the above recitations are true and correct. 21 2. That the City Council opposes Proposition 23 on the November 2, 2010, 22 California state ballot. 23 24 25 26 27 28 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 26th day of October, 2010, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall and Blackburn. NOES: Packard. ABSENT: None. sTMayor ATTEST: \ /LORRAINE M. WOOD, City -^ <SEAL> "The future is literally in our hands to mold, but we can't wait until tomorrow. Tomorrow is now." Eleanor Roosevelt EQUINOX GENTER • Compile and synthesize existing research • Conduct or commission missing research • Analyze specific policy options • Promote intelligent dialogue • Advance balanced, reasonable solutions www.EquinoxCenter.org - Aaron Contorer - Carlsbad 10/26/2010 EQUINOX ^GENTER researches and advances innovative solutions to balance San Diego's regional growth with our finite natural resources. • Healthy Environment • Strong Economy • Vibrant Communities Global Warming Solutions Act • Reduce danger to our quality of life • Reduce potential economic damage • Create massive high-tech employment and business growth •How? • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Let's Cut Pollution by 1/3 Average GHG Emissions Per Capita Per Day (Ibs CO2) 90 ."y^r/"-..i» x^ ^~J "••-.. M> 50 40 State 2020 Target •00*00 § g § § « CeflW, 2009, Cslilsma A* Re«surces 8«»rd, S009; EPIC, 2009 ECONOMIC DAMAGE 1 Multiple studies: cost of inaction is much greater than cost of action today 1 UC Berkeley/Next 10 report • California has $4 trillion in real estate assets, $2.5 trillion at risk from extreme weather, sea level rise, wildfires. • Annual price tag $300 million to $3.9 billion over this century • Water, energy, transportation, tourism and recreation, agriculture, and public health, would incur tens of billions per year in direct costs, even higher indirect costs, and expose trillions of dollars of assets to risk. In San Diego, Sio.g billion/year spent on tourism and recreation. Our beaches would suffer the greatest loss from inundation and erosion. Climate change is inevitable. We can't afford to worsen it. www.EquinoxCenter.org - Aaron Contorer - Carlsbad 10/26/2010 WHO CARES • Scripps and looo's of scientists: human activities significantly increasing the natural greenhouse effect • Already occurred: sea level rise, crop production decrease, new insect-borne diseases from climate change • San Diego Foundation: climate change threatens our quality of life > Droughts-Water Supply > Wildfires - Property Loss > Heat Waves - Illness and Early Death > Ocean Rise - Beach Erosion, Flooding ECONOMIC GROWTH • California: one of the lowest levels per capita of greenhouse gas and highest gross domestic products in the nation • Our economic growth less dependent on GHG emissions • Energy efficiency, cleantech innovation = economic gain • After signing of AB 32, investment in cleantech companies rose dramatically in California • Promise of widespread adoption of renewable energy • Regulatory certainty WHEN A CLEAR MARKET EXISTS N»w Environmental Technology Busm»8s«s N«w sunup Transportation •Over 60 million miles traveled each day in our region •46%ofourGHG . emissions are from on- , I road transportation •Traffic delays have [_ doubled in the last 20 years and will get worse if we do nothing II www.EquinoxCenter.org - Aaron Contorer - Carlsbad 10/26/2010 Implementing AB 32 can improve our quality of life CONGESTION: SAN DIEGO BEATS NEW YORK CITY! We all spend an EXTRA 52 hours every year stuck in traffic CONSERVATION = MONEY & JOBS 36% of GHG emissions from electricity in San Diego County come from homes Efficiency and conservation help meet energy needs without new expensive power plants. Consumers save money Local jobs grow Who will suffer? High-emissions industries (cement, chemicals)Chula Vista Power Plant EQUINOX -CENTER SHOULD WE ENFORCE AB 32? • Protect our quality of life? • Improve traffic & transportation? • Reduce air pollution, protect health? • Create high-tech employment & business growth? • Prevent an unlimited delay? YES. www.EquinoxCenter.org - Aaron Contorer - Carlsbad 10/26/2010 SEVERAL CONCERNS ARE VALID AB 32 compliance & reporting complex High-emissions jobs likely hurt AB 32 helps clean industries but does little for others Serious re-think of capital plans will be needed Future national/global standard could be different Global warming, target of AB 32, is in doubt We'd be better off with global warming AB 32 is anti-jobs AB 32 is counter to business direction Only a moderate delay is proposed by Prop 23 "We are living on this planet as if we have another one to go." - Terri Swearingen In Carlsbad, let's chart another course together and support AB32 3 Sempra Energy" NEWS RELEASE Media Contact: Doug Kline/Sabra Lattos Sempra Energy (877) 340-8875 www.sempra.com SEMPRA ENERGY JOINS OPPOSITION TO CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 23 SAN DIEGO, Sept. 14,2010 - Sempra Energy (NYSE: SRE) today announced that it has joined opposition to Proposition 23, the November California ballot initiative seeking to suspend AB32, the state's landmark global warming law. AB32 requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020. "We support California's pioneering effort to transition to a low-carbon economy and AB32 provides the critical path for getting there," said Donald E. Felsinger, chairman and chief executive officer of Sempra Energy. "Applied properly, AB32 will promote clean technology, create new 'green' jobs and reduce air pollution. At Sempra Energy, we are implementing California's aggressive public policy agenda by investing in clean-burning natural gas and renewable energy resources." Sempra Energy — the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Gas Co., Sempra Generation, Sempra Pipelines & Storage and Sempra LNG - has among the lowest carbon-emission rates in U.S. utility sector. Through its subsidiaries, Sempra Energy is an industry leader in energy efficiency, renewable energy, alternative-fuel vehicles and smart grid development. Sempra Energy, based in San Diego, is a Fortune 500 energy services holding company with 2009 revenues of more than $8 billion. The Sempra Energy companies' 13,800 employees serve about 29 million consumers worldwide. Sempra Pipelines & Storage, Sempra Generation, Sempra LNG and RES Sempra Commodities dba Sempra Energy Solutions and Sempra Energy Trading are not the same companies as the utility, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) or Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), and Sempra Pipelines & Storage, Sempra Generation, Sempra LNG and RES Sempra Commodities dba Sempra Energy Solutions and Sempra Energy Trading are not regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. ### 3 SAN DIEGO MAYOR JERRY SANDER'S PROPOSITION 23 October 22, 2010 Here is an overview of the Mayor's thoughts regarding Proposition 23 JOBS v. City Clerk Asst. City Clerk Deputy Clerk Book • San Diego (City and Region) has a robust Cleantech business community. Many of the leaders of these companies have expressed to the Mayor that they came to San Diego or made plans to grow their businesses in San Diego based on the demand for renewable energy and energy efficiency products AB 32 is anticipated to generate. • Cleantech is one of the fast growing and one of the few growing segments of our economy • Regardless of your opinions on climate change or cap and trade cleantech companies are here and they are hiring not because California is a great place to do business but because of the anticipated demand from AB 32. Regulatory Stability • Companies have made huge investments into green technology already based on the belief they needed to comply with AB 32. Changing the rules every time there is an election creates regulatory uncertainty that could drive away business in general. Erik W. Caldwell Policy Advisor Mayor Jerry Sanders City of San Diego / request that this information be distributed to the following for the October 26, 2010 Carlsbad City Council meeting: Mayor Lewis and Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk. § -ft Thank you! Don Christiansen October 25, 2010 Letter from County Planning Commissioner and Carlsbad resident Peder Norby October 22,2010 Hi Don, As I mentioned, I am opposed to Prop 23. Feel free to add me to a list, use my name or any of my writings at http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=226&blogid=860&archive=l I will not be able to attend the council meeting and as a staff member of a neighboring city I will not be speaking on the issue. However, I am advising friends and candidates on my position. San Diego County is the leading county in the nation regarding solar energy and installed solar systems and kws installed. Our lead gap is growing every year. San Diego County is also one of the top five electric car deployment areas in the nation as identified by Nissan, Chevy and BMW and the EV charging infrastructure company Ecotality. This positions us at the tip of the spear for the clean energy tech revolution, in a similar manor to the way Silicon Valley, Denver and Austin were positioned for the communications revolution. Carlsbad is uniquely positioned to benefit by this with our industrial park and high quality office space coupled with a high quality of life and work force. Examples of this already in practice are: A Carlsbad based company Steller Solar, http://www.stellarsolar.net 6965 El Camino Real, Ste. 105-444 Carlsbad, CA 92009, This is the company (wanted to keep my tax dollars in Carlsbad) who installed my system and over 500 others in the county. Stellar Solar just inked a contract two weeks ago for a 500kw PV system for the prestigious Salk Institute in La Jolla. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Salk-lnstitute-Going-Solar-prnews- 1241873597.html?x=0&.v=l The county of San Diego Planning Commission just approved the EURUS energy plant (6-0 at planning commission on appeal to the BOS) a 48 megawatt solar PV energy plant covering 350 acres next to the Borrego Airport. This will be the largest plant in the western United States for a brief period of time before other larger ones in the pipe line come on line. This will provide enough power for Borrego, Julian, Pine Valley, Ranchita and several other mountain communities, it's enough power for 20,000 homes. Following this project two other similar scale projects are in the pipeline for Borrego and Ocotillo Wells. These are 1000s of new San Diego County clean jobs and 100's of millions in investments in San Diego County because of clean tech. Over 90% of Americans support solar PV investments. SDG&E and its Parent company Sempra energy are against prop 23. The largest source of man made pollution in Carlsbad is our transportation fleet which accounts for nearly 60% of our man made emissions. Our power plant is also a source of emissions although less than 10% for a typical plant, (this is per the Encinitas Climate Action Plan, Carlsbad will be similar but slightly different) Our freeways are to the west and north of our city, and the power plant is to the west. Our coastal breezes are from the north west blowing these emission over our population. Carlsbad and its citizens would greatly benefit from cleaner air as we have two major freeways and a powerplant in our city. The proponents yes on 23 are oil companies that want to keep the status quo, which is an oil dependent economy relying on 70% imported oil. We are sadly a dependent nation today and our drug of choice is oil. The Opponents No on 23, are a broad based coalition including all the California utilities, The Ameican Planning Association, newspapers including the Union Tribune, League of Women Voters of California and many others http://www.stopdirtvenergvprop.com/our-coalition.php Remember all sources of fuel (Hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, NG, Coal, Biomass, geothermal, and others) for electricity are domestic. Its American jobs and Ameircan wealth instead of exporting our wealth to oil producing nations. Vote No on prop 23 Cheers Peder October 22,2010 SAN DIEGO-(BUSINESS WIRE)-The Green Chamber of San Diego County, along with 30 San Diego CEOs, have joined to write an open letter to advise local voters about Proposition 23. " As a group of CEOs from across the political spectrum representing varied San Diego businesses, we would like to urge San Diegans to vote No on Proposition 23." The letter follows: "As a group of CEOs from across the political spectrum representing varied San Diego businesses, we would like to urge San Diegans to vote No on Proposition 23. Passage of this proposition would effectively repeal the landmark Clean Energy Law, AB32. In anticipation of AB32 being implemented, the group has seen a boom of clean energy technology businesses that has created more than 500,000 new jobs and $9.1 billion in private equity investments to our state. In fact, clean technology jobs are growing at a rate 10 times the average of other industries. The group states that support for Proposition 23 is being provided by large oil refining companies and related out-of-state interests who are primarily concerned about the impact of pollution control on their profits. These entities are using misleading scare tactics to try to convince Californians that Proposition 23 would save jobs in California. What they aren't telling us is that Proposition 23 would halt the clean energy development and clean-tech job creation that have provided the only recent bright spot in our economy and one of the most promising global growth industries of this century. Killing off California's fastest growing industry is a recipe for higher, not lower, unemployment. Political leaders from both parties including the mayors and city councils of San Diego, La Mesa, Del Mar, Imperial Beach, Solana Beach and Chula Vista, along with over 1,000 companies, investors and business leaders across the state are in agreement with us that Prop 23 is bad for California and needs to be defeated. As CEOs running businesses during these difficult economic times, the group firmly believes that passage of this initiative would be harmful at best and devastating at worst for our business community, neighborhoods, and the California economy. A NO vote on Proposition 23 is a vote for more jobs in California." Respectfully, Robert Noble, CEO, Envision Solar, Chair, San Diego CEOs Yeves Perez, CEO, EcoHub, Co-Chair, San Diego CEOs Ronald L. Pitt, CEO, EcoDog, Organizing Committee Member, San Diego CEOs Anne Tolch, Organizing Committee Member San Diego CEOs Thomas Ackerman, CEO, Spirit Graphics and Printing Barry Braden, CEO, Pizza Fusion Hillcrest Barbara Burton, CEO, The Burton Company Mike D'Ascanio, CEO, Earth-List Jeffrey DiToro, CEO, Armor Grafix T. Todd Elvins, CEO, Clean Venture Jessica Finley, CEO, iJourneyGreen Dan Gibbs, CEO, Home Town Farms Robert Hamm, CEO, ECO Re Box Steve Harrington, CEP, Flo Metrics Adam Hiner, CEO, Eco Caters Tyler Jensen, CEO The Startup Garage Mario Larach, CEO, Kai BioEnergy Mark Mandell, CEO, Square One Development Karim Pirani, CEO SafeList Todd M. Pitcher, CEO, Aspire Clean Tech Communications Douglas Poffmbarger, CEO, PE Consulting Robert Reyes, CEO, Startup Circle David Saltman, CEO, Malama Composites Tad Simmons, CEO, Green Source Camille Sobrian, CEO, CONNECT Quentin Sponselee, CEO, TerraMoto David Steel, CEO, Green Chamber of San Diego County Ted Torre-Bueno, CEO, Empowered Energy Solutions Jim Torti, CEO, Noble Environmental Technologies/ECOR Courtland Weisleder, CEO, Greener Dawn Robert Wilder, CEO, WilderShares Contacts Media Contact: On behalf of the Green Chamber of San Diego County Zenzi Sarah Hardwick, 858-523-9020 sarah@zenzi.com E-Mail This SCIENCE | October 05,2010 U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on fossil Fuels By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL With insurgents attacking American fuel supply convoys into Afghanistan, the military is pushing renewable energy sources like solar power. The 150 Marines of Company I, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, (from Camp Pendelton) will be the first to take renewable technology into a battle zone, where the new equipment will replace diesel and kerosene-based fuels that would ordinarily generate power to run their encampment. Solar manufacturers set up shop in San Diego BY ONELL R. SOTO THURSDAY. OCTOBER i,\. -MHO AT fi:i.) l'..M "These are real jobs for a diverse cross-section of San Diego," Bicker said. "You're going to see a wider range of job opportunities in solar manufacturing because of the diversity of solar application we see here." % E-Mail This BUSINESS I July 04, 2010 As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI Oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process. Earlier this year the International Energy Agency said worldwide, fossil fuels receive $550 billion in subsidies a year—12 times what alternatives such as wind and solar get.—Don Christiansen News I Solar Brett Prior: October 8, 2010 BrightSource's Ivanpah Plant Checks the Final Box on the Regulatory Checklist it's an approval free-for-aii at the BLM. Today, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar approved the first large-scale solar energy plants ever built on federal land. As of October 19, 2010 CleanTECH San Diego Cluster Database Search Carlsbadfor: Search Results Found 61 results while searching for Carlsbad "I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that." Thomas Edison, 1931 Community ORIGINAL Thousands of community members have participated in the city-sponsored Envision Carlsbad program to create a community vision for Carlsbad's future. The core values and vision statements emerging from this process serve as a guide for city leaders as they carry out their service to all who live, work :nd pUr in the City of Carlsbad. '; CARLSBAD Small tuwn feel, beach community character and connectedness cnt cu'ic . C.i'''>b;:d'i defining arr.nbutev—its small town feel a-na aeach community character. Build or1! the city's ojir jre :•'' civic enoi'ir.voerit, voiurif.eerism and philanthropy. Open :;pacc~ ami the natural environment Prioriti/_e p.'vHsctior, and enhancement of open space and c'~e natural envao''merit. Support t-,nj protect Carlsbad's unique •,:r.ii" space and agricultural heritage. Acces:j to recreation and active, healthy lifestyles promo1:: active lifsityies and community health by furtherina access to trnili, parks, beaches arid other recreation opDC'":.u"iiric3 The local economy, business diversity and tourism Strs'v.:;^1::;'": it'? -:n:y's strong arid diverse econo-ny and its position as an employment hub in north San Dieqo Ccun cy Pron-o;',-: :jusinc;ss diversity, he-eased specialty retail and dir:ing opportunities, and Carlsbad's tourism. Wcilk'a-ix, biking, public transportation and connectivity inc.reas:: t/uvt.'! options throuqh enhanced walking, bicycling and public irarsportation systems. Enhance mobility tnroucin >;creased connectivitv and intelligent transportation management. Sustainability Suilci o'i >'-•' •'. ;:M:/s Sustainability initiatives to emerge as a (eider in green develoomenf and sustainability. Pursue public/ pri-'.2>:e p-j.-.-.-.-j.-ships, particularly on sustainable water, energy, recycling and tocds f/r'Torv, the arts and cultural resources E'i'oK, .^'c "i(e arcs bv promotiriQ a multitude of events anc productions yea'-roun.i, cjtting-eclge venues ro host v.,/orld clti-v ;y.-ri;or''-.ar!ce;:;;, and celebrate Carlsbad's cultural heritj::je in dedicated f scilir.ies and progr^iTij H(<',••' ii'.!(i'rty education and community1 services ;•'.:;"••.'.';' ' -'.\': .<]:i:/, r.orr-prehensive sducatn^ri and lil'e-long Is,:' 'ning opportuni;;. .;s. provide housincj aocl coi'omunil; .-eryic^ \'j, . :.'\':" ,'•• _| popLiiatioo, and maintain a high: standard fl r city/vide oubh'. Sritety. JVC-"'-;,!|:''()'• ''i.ood revitalizet'.on, community design and Hv'j.biU'ty R: ,• I'.'i'.' ' "-. •; "tec1"'"11'ocis ancl e'"ria":.o ah, wide comrTuri'..- desicin ana iivaciht.. :;i'orr'0re o qr •-•.-! Li' rru,- or use: ;. ••-. w'de, '•-•v;- :'-':•:.•., ,.lopl a the coastline a-".d link oensi'y to p.-it-i1': 'ransp'r'tc-^inr;. "'e',arl;z3 the down! :>vvn ^iiage as i •'''.•". • : '-:', .; "ii ooin,t and a uriqje ar.d m-i'morable re'^v" r~>r visito's, a-:' 'e.it, /e^ate she "is.cric S.a/rio neiqhi;'':1 "iOod. Empty i V*oud partner of AMERICAN SOLAR ENERGY SOCIETY LEADING THE RENEWABLE ENERGY REVOLUTION Homepage > Can Carlsbad Solar Panel Installers Browse Solar Directory I Find A So!ar Installer Ready to get connected? Call us now: 866.485-2757 Carlsbad, California Solar Panel Installers | Find Solar (Carlsbad, CA Solar Information) • Find solar panel installers in Carlsbad, California perfect for your solar power project. Browse the listings and locate the right solar energy expert. Ask for a free quote in seconds, it's simple and easy! Residential Commercial * Stellar Stellar Solar Stellar Solar has installed over 500 solar systems in San Diego and has 10 years of experience. More..Request Bid Solarplus Solar Plus Installing solar electric and hot water systems in Southern California since 2004. More- , GreenLife Solar Electric, IncSpecializing in grid-tied solar electric design and installation offering the latest technology for all customers. More...Request Bid Bell Solar Electric LP NABCEP certified installer with over 30 years of construction and 4 megawatts of completed installations. More...Request Bid maedl. solarThey stand for the most cost effective, quality solar solutions for your home and business. More...Request Bid HelioPower HelioPower Solar power professionals who have designed and installed over 1000 solar energy systems. More...Request Bid Solare Solare Energy, Inc. Solare Energy provides smart energy solutions that integrate solar and energy efficiency systems to maximize savings and reduce installation costs. More...Request Bid Real Goods Solar Leading the sustainable living market through sales, education, and installation of solar and other renewable energy products. More... Heating & Air Technology of CA (Avg 5/5 based on i customer review) Specializing in commercial, residential, public sector, off-grid, and grid-connected solar electric systems. More...Request Bid _ t Home Energy Systems Inc * Working to achieve a greener planet, one roof at a time. More.. Planet Solar Installing grid-tied and off-grid solar systems since 1988 with experienced crews and at the lowest price possible. More... Empty Empty' Request Bid Clary Solar Commitment, experience, and expertise you deserve from a professional firm specializing in photovoltaic systems. More...Request Bid PALOMAR\^_ SQLAR Palomar Solar Providing the best service at the best price with hundreds of completed installations in California. More...Request Bid West Coast Solar Family owned and operated business with a long tradition of quality specializing in grid-tied solar electric design and installation. More...Request Bid Hfc,Heritage Solar Heritage Solar, Inc. One of the largest Sanyo dealers in Southern California working with each client to provide a personalized and custom system. More...Request Bid Todd Solar Engineering Taking great pride in their solar installations specializing in EcoSun Hybrid Solar Systems, Ultra High Efficient Pool Equipment, and High Flow Plumbing. More... groSolar Premier provider of solar energy solutions for residential, commercial, dealer, and contractorcustomers. More...Request Bid SunPower CorporationDesigner and manufacturer of high efficiency solar electric technology based on more than 20 years of innovation. More...Request Bid Other Installers In This Area 411 Green Wave - San Diego AET Solar (Alternative Energy Technologies) - Santee Affordable Solar Solutions - San Diego All American Solar - Oceanside Alternative Energy Group, LLC - San Marcos ASAP Power - Oceanside Aurora Power Systems, Inc. - Oceanside Baker Electric Solar - Escondido Beeson Squared Construction, LLC - Carlsbad Berkley Construction Inc. - San Diego Bill Ross Electric - Escondido Butler Sun Solutions - Solana Beach Clean Power Resources, Inc. - Poway Clean Power Systems, Inc - San Diego Cleardome Solar Thermal - San Diego Cooper Solar Electric - Ramona Cosmic Solar, Inc. - Valley Center David Doyer - Chula Vista Energy Smart Homes - San Marcos Envision Solar International, Inc. - La Jolla Empty Empty ' Geckologic-Usa - Vista Genesis Power Systems - San Diego Green Energy Solutions - Carlsbad Greenline Energy - San Marcos Hardy Diesels And Equipment - Jamul Hi-Tech Solar - Santee Horizon Solar Systems - San Marcos Ideal Electrical Sen-ices - San Diego Tntra-Net Company & Electrical - Carlsbad Jamar Electric San Diego, Inc. - Santee JM Custom Builders - Escondido LJ Silva Restorations - San Diego Mission Solar - San Diego Natural Energy - Escondido North County Solar - Fallbrook Rancho Solar, Inc. - Poway Roger Davenport - Solana Beach San Diego Solargreen Concepts Inc - San Diego Sequoia Solar, Inc - Solana Beach Silverwood Energy, Inc. - San Diego Solaire Energy Systems - Irvine Solar Power Solutions Inc - San Diego Solar Services Of San Diego,Inc - Santee Solar Tex - San Diego Solar West Electric, Inc. - San Diego Solarese - San Diego Solartistry, Inc. - San Diego Son Energy - Escondido Sparks Solar - Escondido Sullivan Solar Electric - San Diego SunFusion Solar - San Diego Tmag Industries - Carlsbad Valley Center Solar - Valley Center Zip Electric - Oceanside Our Partners cooler- About Us Privacy Policy Contact Us © 2001-2010 Find Solar Empty Tomorrow is now.” Eleanor Roosevelt Aaron Contorer, Chairman researches and advances innovative solutions to balance San Diego's regional growth with our finite natural resources. Healthy Environment Strong Economy Vibrant Communities Compile and synthesize existing research Conduct or commission missing research Analyze specific policy options Promote intelligent dialogue Advance balanced, reasonable solutions AB 32: Global Warming Solutions Act Reduce danger to our quality of life Reduce potential economic damage Create massive high-tech employment and business growth How? Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Let’s Cut Pollution by 1/3 WHO CARES Scripps and 1000’s of scientists: human activities significantly increasing the natural greenhouse effect Already occurred: sea level rise, crop production decrease, new insect-borne diseases from climate change San Diego Foundation: climate change threatens our quality of life Droughts –Water Supply Wildfires –Property Loss Heat Waves –Illness and Early Death Ocean Rise –Beach Erosion, Flooding ECONOMIC DAMAGE Multiple studies: cost of inaction is much greater than cost of action today UC Berkeley/Next 10 report California has $4 trillion in real estate assets, $2.5 trillion at risk from extreme weather, sea level rise, wildfires. Annual price tag $300 million to $3.9 billion over this century Water, energy, transportation, tourism and recreation, agriculture, and public health, would incur tens of billions per year in direct costs, even higher indirect costs, and expose trillions of dollars of assets to risk. In San Diego, $10.5 billion/year spent on tourism and recreation. Our beaches would suffer the greatest loss from inundation and erosion. Climate change is inevitable. We can’t afford to worsen it. ECONOMIC GROWTH California: one of the lowest levels per capita of greenhouse gas and highest gross domestic products in the nation Our economic growth less dependent on GHG emissions Energy efficiency, cleantech innovation = economic gain After signing of AB 32, investment in cleantech companies rose dramatically in California Promise of widespread adoption of renewable energy Regulatory certainty BUSINESS GROWS WHEN A CLEAR MARKET EXISTS Transportation •Over 60 million miles traveled each day in our region •46% of our GHG emissions are from on- road transportation •Traffic delays have doubled in the last 20 years and will get worse if we do nothing CONGESTION: SAN DIEGO BEATS NEW YORK CITY! We all spend an EXTRA 52 hours every year stuck in traffic CONSERVATION = MONEY & JOBS 36% of GHG emissions from electricity in San Diego County come from homes Efficiency and conservation help meet energy needs without new expensive power plants. Consumers save money Local jobs grow Who will suffer? High-emissions industries (cement, chemicals)Chula Vista Power Plant SEVERAL CONCERNS ARE VALID AB 32 compliance & reporting complex TRUE High-emissions jobs likely hurt TRUE AB 32 helps clean industries but does little for others TRUE Serious re-think of capital plans will be needed TRUE Future national/global standard could be different TRUE Global warming, target of AB 32, is in doubt FALSE We'd be better off with global warming FALSE AB 32 is anti-jobs FALSE AB 32 is counter to business direction FALSE Only a moderate delay is proposed by Prop 23 FALSE SHOULD WE ENFORCE AB 32? Protect our quality of life? Improve traffic & transportation? Reduce air pollution, protect health? Create high-tech employment & business growth? Prevent an unlimited delay? YES. “We are living on this planet as if we have another one to go.” -Terri Swearingen In Carlsbad, let’s chart another course together and support AB 32 Healthy Environment Strong Economy Vibrant Communities www.EquinoxCenter.org