RE: IMRC policy

Are carpetbaggers: Booz Allen, Carlyle Group, Applus, Meineke Car Care Centers and CARB working a deal to take CA small business “Smog Check”?

—– Original Message —–
From: Rocky_Carlisle@dca.ca.gov
To: cappcharlie@earthlink.net
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:36 PM
Subject: IMRC meeting

Hi Charlie,

You missed the first part of the last IMRC meeting when we announced we will no longer transcribe IMRC meetings since it is an extravagant expense that the state cannot afford. As you know, we are under no statutory requirement to do so. All that is required are meeting minutes. Therefore, when possible, we will record the meeting but when a recording is not possible, we will simply post the minutes of the meeting. Let me know of you have any questions.

Regards,

Rocky Carlisle
Executive Officer
IMRC
(916) 322-8249

Charlie Peters
Cell: (415) 516-9909
Fax: (510) 537-9675
Clean Air Performance Professionals
cappcharlie@earthlink.net

CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie@earthlink.net

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BAOK1087DP.DTL

* Lower price for food, gas, water, beer and cleaner air… and… funds for the budget from oil profit

* Clean Air Performance Professionals

Oct 05, 2007 12:01 ET

Auto Club Asks Governor to Veto New $1 Billion Car Tax Bill

LOS ANGELES, CA–(Marketwire – October 5, 2007) – The Automobile Club of Southern California is urging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto Assembly Bill 118. According to the Auto Club, this legislation would violate the state constitution by unfairly and unlawfully raising taxes on motorists to fund programs unrelated to automobile use, ownership or operation.

AB118, approved by the Legislature in September, would raise vehicle registration fees by $3 and increase smog abatement fees 66% by raising the fee on newer, cleaner cars to $20 annually. AB118 would cost motorists more than $150 million each year and well over $1 billion through the life of the bill.

“If AB118 is enacted, motorists alone would bear the cost of multi-million dollar programs addressing pollution problems that they did not cause,” said Steve Lenzi, the Auto Club’s senior vice president for public affairs. “The bill would provide grants and loans to private enterprise, including venture capitalists, and pay to retrofit or replace engines of heavy duty trucks and lawn mowers. While these programs may be laudable, they are not responsibility of the average motorist.”

According to the Auto Club, this bill directly contradicts the wishes of voters. Many of the programs in AB118 are similar to those contained in Proposition 87, decisively rejected by voters in November 2006. Now, in what the Auto Club believes is a direct slap in the face of those voters, the bill seeks to transfer taxpayer dollars to private enterprise to pay for research and development efforts that these businesses would then benefit from financially.

AB118 does have sections that would benefit motorists, including a vehicle replacement program that the Auto Club believes has the potential to reduce vehicle-related air pollution even further. But according to the Auto Club, this one program does not justify an unwieldy and inappropriate scheme to burden motorists.

“This bill is inequitable and unlawful, and we urge the governor to do the right thing and veto the bill,” Lenzi said.

CONTACT:, Carol Thorp or Jeffrey Spring, (714) 885-2333

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=777946

Clean Air Performance Professionals

Are you suggesting that ethanol fuel is yet another way to impose artificial scarcity in a world of unlimited abundance? Do you really think the Barbie generation is silly enough to starve themselves for the prestige of an SUV? You really should have more respect for the little girls who wear the pants in this nation, Chuck.

After all, they are driving the economic bus. You and I are just along for the ride — voluntarily chained to our seats by the irrational shackles of tradition and the unyielding chains of monopoly capitalism, terrorized and mocked by a bus-load of arrogant children, who don’t know any better than to point and laugh — as we all go merrily rolling over the cliff, into the rocky abyss below…

“Hi honey! I’m home!”

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/14/18440750.php

By State Senator Tom McClintock, Free Republic, 06/28/2007

In response to my blog, “Ethanol Economics,” Former Secretary of State Bill Jones (now Chairman of Pacific Ethanol), made five key points in his piece, “The Facts About Ethanol.” Just for fun, let’s run “The Facts About Ethanol” through the old fact-checker:

“Today, ethanol is about 65 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline in the California market.” That’s only after taxpayers and consumers have kicked in a subsidy of $1.50 per gallon – or $7 billion a year paid into the pockets of ethanol producers to hide the staggering price of ethanol production. And even with the subsidy, the California Energy Commission estimates that the new CARB edict will INCREASE the price per gallon by between 4.2 and 6.5 cents – on top of the tax subsidies. Ouch.

“Allowing a 10 percent blend of ethanol into gasoline provides a 4 percent supply increase to the marketplace at a price far below current gasoline prices.” Not only is the price far ABOVE current gasoline prices (see above) but Bill ignores the fact that ethanol produces less energy than gasoline – meaning you’ll have to buy more gallons for the same mileage.

“CARB’s recent vote reduces our reliance on oil from overseas…” Let’s walk through the numbers again. One acre of corn produces 350 gallons of ethanol; the CARB edict will require 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol, in turn requiring 4.3 million acres of corn for ethanol production. Yet California only has 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of any kind. And that, in turn, means an increasing reliance on foreign agricultural produce, shifting our energy dependence from King Abdullah to Hu Jintao.

“Further, it sends a signal to companies like ours to continue to invest in California production to help make this state energy independent.” Yes, you can sell a lot more ethanol with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone. You got me there. But it also sends a signal to the market to raise prices on every product that relies upon corn for both food and grain feed – meaning skyrocketing prices for everything from corn meal to milk. Remember the tortilla riots in Mexico in January?

“Pacific Ethanol uses state-of-the-art production practices that reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 40 percent compared to conventional gasoline.” Unless Pacific Ethanol has re-written the laws of chemistry, ethanol is produced by converting glucose into two parts ethanol and two parts carbon dioxide. The chemical equation is C6H12O6 = 2C2H5OH + 2CO2. (Memo to Bill: If you’re not using this formula, you’re not producing ethanol. And if you are, you’re also producing lots of carbon dioxide. Better check.)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1858095/posts

* NO on “car tax” AB118 (Nunez)

* Clean Air Performance Professionals (CAPP) supports a Smog Check inspection & repair audit, gasoline oxygen cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÉ credit to cut car impact over 50% in 1 year.

* Some folks believe corn ethanol in gasoline increases oil use and oil profit

* Ethanol uses lots of water

* A Smog Check audit would cut toxic car impact in ½ in 1 year. Chief Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never

* A corn ethanol waiver would stop a $1 billion California oil refinery welfare program coming from the federal government @ $0.51 per gallon of ethanol used

* About 60,000 barrels per day of the oil used by cars is allowed by the “renewable fuel” CAFE credit

Ask for a fuel ethanol waiver allowed in the 2005 energy bill

Fuel ethanol uses lots of water

Audit “Smog Check” to fix the fault in more of the failed cars

Chief Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never

Improving Smog Check and fuel policy can cut car impact in half in 1 year and save money

About $20 billion in savings in first year

I’m confused about promoting products from offshore rather than improving our system

Clean Air Performance Professionals

Some folks think so

Clean Air Performance Professionals