Comment Log Display

The Word document pasted below is also attached as a Word file. 
The Word file retains footnotes and footnotes links not possible to
include in this dialog box.

June 28, 2015		                      Mark  R. Powell
						      27840 Mount Triumph Way
						      Yorba Linda, CA 92887		
California Air Resources Board
Sacramento, California

Regarding:  Comments on Draft of Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds -
Funding Guidelines for Agencies that Administer California Climate
Investments

To Whom it May Concern:

Comment:
In finalizing its Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds - Funding
Guidelines for Agencies that Administer California Climate
Investments the ARB should incorporate a requirement that the
California High-Speed Rail Authority issue a Supplemental Program
EIR for the Statewide High-Speed Train System that in an open and
transparent way addresses the issues raised in this letter and
assures the ARB and all Californians that Cap-and-Trade Auction
Proceeds actually go towards reducing GHG emissions in meaningful
and substantial way before receiving Cap-and-Trade Auction
Proceeds.

Discussion:
Following the passage of AB32, California’s Global Warming
Initiative, the Air Resources Board was directed to “determine the
statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990. The act also
requires that the Board approve a statewide greenhouse gas
emissions limit, equal to the 1990 level, as a limit to be achieved
by 2020.”   The initial equivalent greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e)
limit for 2020 (set at actual 1990 emissions) was established to be
427 million metric tonnes (MMT) annually.  Subsequent revisions to
the calculation resulted in raising this limit to 431 MMT CO2e.

The most recent year for which data is available on the ARB website
is 2012 and shows  California’s annual greenhouse gas emissions
standing at 459 MMT CO2e.   A reduction of 28 MMT CO2e is required
to meet the state’s goal for 2020.  In seeking to gain access to
California’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) the California
High-Speed Rail Authority (the Authority) claims in its June 2013
report, Contribution of the High-Speed Rail Program to Reducing
California’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Levels, that by the year 2022
when it is scheduled to begin service on its Initial Operating
Section the operation of its train will reduce the state’s GHG
emissions annually by between .16 and .33 MMT CO2e .  The midpoint
of these projections, .245 MMT CO2e, represents less than 1% of the
reduction needed to achieve the state’s 2020 goal.  Yet, the
Authority with the backing of the governor seeks to access 25% of
all available GGRFs.  As late as 2050, as Phase 1 linking San
Francisco and Los Angeles is completed and ridership projections
increase the midpoint of the Authority’s projected reduction in
annual GHG emissions increases to only 1.6 MMT CO2e.  This still
represents less than 6% of a reduction mandated to occur 30 years
earlier.  And these claims of the Authority, distressing even taken
at face value, are skewed in the Authority’s favor.  

The Authority bases its claims on the assumption that “the
Authority has purchased a renewable power mix of 20 percent solar,
40 percent wind, 35 percent geothermal, and 5 percent biogas
converted to electricity” .  In other words, power for their train
will be free of GHG emissions.  However, this is a physical
impossibility in the real world.  In the real world all the power
sources cited run independently of the train.  Solar and wind power
flow into California’s power grid whenever the sun is shining and
the wind is blowing.  Geothermal and biogas power is generated on a
nearly continuous basis and again flows into the power grid for all
to use.  This is the physical reality whether the train is running
or not.  All electrical power, except that stored in batteries, is
used at the moment it is produced.  That being the real situation,
when a train starts its engine additional power must flow into the
electrical grid.  That additional power cannot come from renewable
sources as those sources are already sending power to a balanced
electrical grid.  Therefore, when a train starts consuming
electrical energy a new source of electrical power must flow into
the grid.  And that power will have to come from a variable source
of power generation.  Aside from nuclear power, which generally
runs at maximum rates due to low variable operating costs, this
leaves only fossil fuel power plants.  When this reality is taken
into account one wonders whether the train will even emit less GHGs
than passenger automobiles and airplanes on a per passenger mile
basis.

Moreover, in calculating emissions from passenger automobiles the
Authority’s report cites the “ARB’s latest model, EMFAC 2011” . 
“EMFAC 2011 includes the latest data on California’s car and truck
fleets and travel activity.”   However, EMFAC 2011 still reflects
vehicles on the highways mandated to achieve CAFE fuel economy
standards established in the late 1990’s .  New CAFE standards
established in 2012, and that are to be in place by 2025,
essentially double the previous standards to 54.5 mpg .   These are
the cars and light trucks that the train, operating on fossil fuel
powered electricity, should be compared against to determine the
train’s GHG emission reductions, if any.

Other issues that should be of grave concern to the ARB include the
following:

•	The Authority in its report to the ARB has potentially disclosed
only a small fraction of the GHGs to be emitted during construction
because it knowingly has failed to disclose “GHG emissions that
occur outside the project associated with materials used during
construction.”  Given just the massive amounts of concrete planned
for use in constructing the rail’s soaring viaducts, the fact that
concrete production accounts for nearly 2% of all US GHGs emitted
annually  , and the fact that GHG emissions are a global (not a
local) problem, failure to account for these types of construction
emissions is a glaring omission.
•	The Authority, after nearly two decades of searching, has yet to
secure a funding source that might assure that it can even complete
its Initial Operating Segment.  Its 2014 Business Plan skirts the
issue of paying for even this small segment by merely avoiding any
discussion of where the required $28 billion  will come from other
than a previous references to ARRA funds ($3.3 billion) and
Proposition 1A Bonds ($8 billion still held up in court battles)
and a current reference to Cap and Trade Funds .  Paying for the
IOS over the next 7 years may require a minimum of $17 billion in
GGRF proceeds (nearly $2.5 billion annually) which is probably more
than the sum total available.

•	Lastly, the Authority’s calculated savings in CO2e emissions
projected out to the year 2050  make no mention of Phase 2 which
would connect Sacramento and San Diego to the system,  make common
use of the Phase 1 track between Los Angeles and Merced, and
promote greater ridership and further reduce GHG emissions.  This
omission implies that the Authority is no longer seriously planning
to build Phase 2 even though the California High-Speed Train Final
Program EIR/EIS, approved by the Authority in November 2005,
certifies the environmental benefits of only the Statewide System. 
This Program Level EIR never even contemplates a Phase 1 and a
Phase 2.  Furthermore, the passage of Proposition 1A requires the
Authority to construct the system consistent with the authority’s
certified environmental impact report of November 2005. 

By diverting GGRF proceeds to the high-speed train project at this
time the ARB risks using valuable dollars that could be used to
actually reduce GHG emissions and instead (1) fund a project that
in operation might not reduce GHG emissions at all and will perhaps
result in an increase of GHG emissions, or (2) fund a partially
completed and unusable construction project, the partial
construction of which would result in the massive release of an
undetermined amount of GHGs.  Funding a project that might not
meaningfully reduce and could possibly lead to an increase in GHGs
emissions puts at risk all Cap and Trade Revenues flowing into the
GGRF because if Cap and Trade Revenues are not directly tied to
expenditures that reduce GHGs, then revenues flowing from AB32 are
more likely to be viewed as a tax and not a fee.  This should be
viewed as a serious issue by the ARB since AB32 did not pass with
the necessary two-thirds vote required for all tax increases in
California.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
 
Mark  R. Powell



cc:
Mike Brady, Attorney for Plaintiffs in Central Valley suit versus
High-Speed Rail Authority
Harold Johnson, Pacific Legal Foundation
Ted Hart, Tea Party Coordinator Against High-Speed Rail
Rita Wespi, Co-Founder of CARRD (Californians Advocating
Responsible Rail Design)
David DePinto, President of SAFE (Save Angelus Forest for
Everyone)

Footnotes:
See attached Word document.