Comment Log Display

I support the efforts of California Air Resources Board (CARB) in
their efforts towards reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the
State of California.  However, there are certain areas within the
Draft Scoping Plan where I have issues or questions.   

As background let me first say that I am a resident of Mira Loma. 
I am also a member of the board of directors for the Jurupa
Community Services District, a retail water district (also in Mira
Loma), and a homeowner with solar electricity.  I am writing as a
private individual and not as a board member.  

Mira Loma as you may know is home to the worst particulate matter
air pollution in the nation.  This has been exasperated by the
goods movement industry.  Mira Loma is in a goods movement
corridor and has over one hundred mega warehouses.  In addition,
Mira Loma has the largest auto distribution center in Southern
California.  These autos are brought into the distribution center
by Union Pacific (UP) trains and leave the center by auto carrier
trucks.  Even though CARB has entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the UP to reduce emissions from these
trains, this community is frustrated that the MOU was not as
stringent as what the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) had wanted.  CARB entered into this MOU without first
consulting the SCAQMD or the communities in the goods movement
corridors.  I believe that CARB should work with the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) to amend the MOU and require more
stringent emission regulations for the railroads.  In addition, I
believe that CARB should work with the UP to increase the number
of grade separations throughout the goods movement corridors to
decrease the number of idling trucks and cars waiting at railroad
crossings.

On page 60 of the Draft Scoping Plan, under item six (Public
Health Analyses), it seems to me that there have been numerous
public health analyses already done that CARB can easily
incorporate into the study.  Among them is the USC Children’s
Health Study which studied children living in goods movement
corridors for over 10 years and the effects of air pollution on
these children.  I don’t see the need to waste more time, money
and effort for more studies.

On page 70 of the Draft Scoping Plan, under D. Enforcement, it
states “ARB also partners with local, State and federal agencies
to carry out inspections and where necessary prosecute violators”.
 In this community, this is almost impossible because Mira Loma is
in unincorporated Riverside County.  That means that the
Sherriff’s department answers crime calls while the California
Highway Patrol (CHP) answers calls dealing with motor vehicles. 
This adds an additional stress to the CHP which is already
understaffed.  Additionally, if CARB is working with federal
authorities, there needs to be more done primarily at interstate
highway borders with other states to regulate out of state truck
emissions as well as emissions from trucks entering the country
from Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA).

On page 28 of the Draft Scoping Plan, under item number 8. Water,
it states “the State will also establish a public goods charge for
funding investments in water efficiency that will lead to
reductions in greenhouse gases” and “a public goods charge on
water can be collected on water bills and then used to fund
end-use water efficiency improvements, system-wide efficiency
projects and water recycling.”  Isn’t this tax a violation of
Proposition 13?  Why is the state trying to impose a tax on end
users who already pay a high cost for water that has to be treated
because in the past the State allowed local industries to pollute
it.  The Mira Loma area used to be the home of one of the largest
dairy preserves in the State.  Now we have a new community called
Eastvale with massive tracks of houses that have been created on
former dairy land.  So is the State making the former dairy
farmers clean the high nitrates and other salts out of our ground
water from their former dairy farms?  Is the state making
developers of homes do this?  There are other toxins that the
State and Federal government have identified that are in local
ground water.  The State Department of Public Health makes local
water companies clean the water to make it safe for consumers. 
Who pays for the infrastructure to clean these chemicals out of
the water?  Not those who dumped it to begin with, but the end use
consumer.   Does this infrastructure use electricity?  Of course it
does, and the end use consumer pays for that too!

The ARB also talks about the energy used to transport water to the
end use consumer.  Didn’t water agencies such as the Metropolitan
Water District build some of the dams along the rivers that
created hydroelectricity?  Edison does have tremendous
infrastructure for hydroelectricity around these dams, but how
much did they contribute financially to the construction of these
dams?  Does Edison profit financially from this electricity?  Can
this profit be redirected to make water conveyance less costly?

Finally, as previously mentioned, my husband and I installed solar
panels on our home.  Each month we get a bill from Edison for less
than $2.00.  This is so a meter reader can come over and check to
see how much electricity we contribute to the grid and a data
processesor can write up a bill.  The cost of solar power is
tremendous.  The rebates and incentives are inadequate to offset
this cost, making solar unfeasible for most homeowners. 

Edison charges us a fee for the months when we use their
electricity.  On most months, when we contribute to the grid,
Edison should pay us just like they do to other 
Industries where they get their fuel for electricity.  The way
this is figured is that 
Edison will charge us for the energy we used during the year at
the end of our solar year if we used more than we contributed to
the grid.  However, if we contribute more into the grid than we
used, Edison will not pay us for what we contributed!  This is
unfair!  Edison should pay us for electricity we put into the grid
just like they pay for fuel for electricity.  This will help make
the cost of solar energy more feesable for homeowners and
businesses alike.

I hope that the concerns and questions that I addressed in this
letter are taken into consideration when formulating the final
Climate Change Plan.

Sincerely,


Betty A. Anderson