January 29, 2018
Judge Charles Wachob of the Placer County Superior Court has approved the settlement negotiated by CCEC with Placer County over the Tahoe Basin Area Plan, addressing long-term growth and development on the West Shore and North Shore of Lake Tahoe.
CCEC objected to the county's conclusion that nothing further could be done to address deteriorating traffic congestion and impacts on the environment and quality of life.
Under the settlement the Placer County Department of Public Works will retain Nelson Nygaard of San Francisco, a highly-regarded transportation planning firm with expertise in sustainable pedestrian, bike and transit-oriented solutions.
The scope of work for Nelson Nygaard is attached. The steps under the Settlement Agreement are--
- DPW to retain Nelson Nygaard
- DPW to provide information needed to Nelson Nygaard
- First public workshop to be held to explain traffic demand management solutions and take community input
- Nelson Nygaard to prepare report discussing the full-range of potentially feasible congestion policies
- Nelson Nygaard to discuss potential cost-savings with more sustainable transportation modes
- County to invite comments by TART and TRPA on draft report
- Second public workshop held to explain options and to take public input
- DPW to submit report and recommendations to Board of Supervisors for approval
- DPW to implement the approved strategies.
Work at the county is expected to kick off mid-February. Public workshop dates have not been scheduled, but the public will be notified.
January 21, 2018
Utility Dive: "The California Public Utilities Commission last week approved new market rules for energy storage aimed at enabling the resources to stack incremental value and revenue streams through the delivery of multiple services to the wholesale market, distribution grid, transmission system and other venues."
January 21, 2018
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: "Increased forest fire activity across the western United States in recent decades has contributed to widespread forest mortality, carbon emissions, periods of degraded air quality, and substantial fire suppression expenditures. Although numerous factors aided the recent rise in fire activity, observed warming and drying have significantly increased fire-season fuel aridity, fostering a more favorable fire environment across forested systems. We demonstrate that human-caused climate change caused over half of the documented increases in fuel aridity since the 1970s and doubled the cumulative forest fire area since 1984."
January 19, 2018
Edhat: "Since train tracks reopened on Thursday, January 11, 2018, following the devastating mudslides near Montecito, the Pacific Surfliner has served as the only viable ground transportation option for thousands of people between Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. In response to the unprecedented demand for train travel in the area, 15 additional railcars were secured from throughout the state to add more than 2,000 seats to the 10 daily Pacific Surfliner trains serving Santa Barbara County."
January 17, 2018
Walker Wilson: The November 1st 2017 hike of the California excise tax on gasoline is a controversial raise in taxation on a nearly universally consumed commodity in the U.S. Although there are many who view it as such, the tax, whether beneficial or harmful, is certainly not controversial in the sense that gas taxes have existed for almost one hundred years in the U.S. In fact, the first state tax on gasoline was enacted in Oregon in February of 1919. That makes the current tax hike only one year short of a hundred year anniversary.
The tax was an overall success because within ten years all of the lower forty eight states also adopted gas taxes of their own. The first gas tax at a federal level occurred under the administration of Herbert Hoover along with the Revenue act of 1932. In 1932, balancing the budget took on an altogether higher significance than previously, with the economy in shambles during the depression, but using revenue from taxing gas to fund highway infrastructure was an idea that was supposed to be effective even in a time of less economic turmoil. The tax was one cent per gallon and was imposed along with the state taxes. During the term of Herbert Hoover, the government looked for any available source of additional funding, but in our modern era, extra infrastructure funding is also greatly needed. Balancing the federal budget has become increasingly difficult with more threats of government shutdown and an increasing budget deficit. This makes it at least worthwhile to explore new sources of funding, or in this case, to re-examine existing ones.
The most recent grade given by the American Society of Civil Engineers to America’s infrastructure was a D+. Roads in particular also scored a D. With a large deficit and urgent repairs needed, many see the gas tax as a convenient way to fund much needed repairs. This can be especially attractive when one doesn’t want to divert funding from other sources. Other reasoning behind raising the gas tax is based on the idea that the tax is meant to compensate for the costs associated with using fuel products, such as air pollution, while those who oppose raising the tax are primarily concerned with the extra costs it will incur to consumers. While the cost to consumers should not be taken lightly, the U.S consumer on average pays less than consumers in other industrialized nations. According to OECD data on consumptive tax trends, out of industrialized nations only Mexico pays a lower gas tax, because it pays none at all. While the overall effect of the current raise in the gas tax has yet to be determined, it is safe to say that the idea of a gas tax is nothing new, and an occasional raise of the rate is something we should become accustomed to hearing proposed for as long as we continue to use these products.
January 17, 2018
California Air Resources Board: "In California, as in the rest of the world, climate change is contributing to an escalation of serious problems, including raging wildfires, coastal erosion, disruption of water supply, threats to agriculture, spread of insect-borne diseases, and continuing health threats from air pollution."
"The drought that plagued California for years devastated the state’s agricultural and rural communities, leaving some of them with no drinking water at all. In 2015 alone, the drought cost agriculture in the Central Valley an estimated $2.7 billion, and more than 20,000 jobs."
"Last winter, the drought was broken by record-breaking rains, which led to flooding that tore through freeways, threatened rural communities, and isolated coastal areas. This year, California experienced the deadliest wildfires in its history. Climate change is making events like these more frequent, more catastrophic and more costly."
December 21, 2017
UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability: “Even more fires could be in store for the future as human activity continues to drive climate change,” MacDonald said in October. “We will have a wet year when fire fuels will grow and accumulate, and then we will be hit by very dry conditions, which will dry out soil surfaces and vegetation … and the fuel from the wet year is going to cause fires during dry periods. That is the worst of all possible worlds, and that is what keeps me awake at night.”
December 15, 2017
Los Angeles Times: "California could be hit with significantly more dangerous and more frequent droughts in the near future as changes in weather patterns triggered by global warming block rainfall from reaching the state, according to new research led by scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory."
"Using complex new modeling, the scientists have found that rapidly melting Arctic sea ice now threatens to diminish precipitation over California by as much as 15% within 20 to 30 years. Such a change would have profound economic impacts in a state where the most recent drought drained several billion dollars out of the economy, severely stressed infrastructure and highlighted how even the state most proactively confronting global warming is not prepared for its fallout."
. . .
“'This is happening very quickly,'” said Noah Diffenbaugh, a climate scientist at Stanford University. “'The change is dramatic, and it is taking place faster than had been projected by climate models.'”