From the DAILY CALLER

Owen Klinsky
Contributor

California regulators have proposed a variety of government intrusions into the petroleum industry in order to combat future energy price surges, according to a report released Thursday by the California Energy Commission (CEC).

As the Golden State continues to pursue its green agenda, the CEC expects some of California’s nine oil refineries to be shuttered due to falling demand, which would give the remaining refineries increased pricing power and raise the possibility of a surge in gas prices, the study concluded. To solve this problem, the commission proposed a variety of government interventions, including expanded regulation on private refineries, the establishment of state-owned refineries and an increase in imports. (RELATED: Chevron Leaving California Behind After Years Of ‘Adversarial’ Dem Policies)

“The deployment of ZEVs [zero-emission vehicles] and a robust mass transit system are critical for achieving the state’s climate goals, reducing local air pollution, and eventually eliminating dependence on the volatile global petroleum markets. As demand for gasoline shrinks, refineries may close or convert to processing clean transportation fuels,” the report states. “This will lead to fewer gasoline refineries, with increased market concentration and associated market problems that often accompany it.”

To address the market concentration issue, the CEC proposed a variety of state interventions, including setting up state-owned refineries.

“The State of California would purchase and own refineries in the State to manage the supply and price of gasoline,” wrote the study’s authors, with the scope of the initiative ranging from “one refinery to all refineries in the state.”

However, the CEC appeared to question whether creating state-owned refineries to replace privately-owned refineries pushed out of business by government energy policy was counter-intuitive, asking, “as demand for fossil fuel declines, will the presence of State-owned refineries inhibit an orderly phase out of refinery capacity?”

The CEC also suggested increasing oil imports, saying, “as the transition unfolds, California may wish to consider developing a relationship with a supplier and refiner or marketer to bring CARBOB [California-specific gasoline] into California via regular ship loads so consumers are assured a reliable import supply.”

Finally, the California Energy Commission proposed new regulations, “requir[ing] refiners and terminals to maintain contingency reserves of gasoline fuel in refineries and terminals,” that they’d be required to release “during price shocks.”

California is set to ban the sale of purely gas-powered vehicles purely gas-powered passenger vehicles after 2035. However, “even under the most aggressive scenario transition to ZEVs [zero-emission vehicles], millions of petroleum fueled vehicles are anticipated to remain on California’s roads and highways beyond 2035,” the CEC study concluded. “These vehicles will need fuel to operate, and many of the vehicles may be owned by lower income individuals and families, making it even more compelling to identify ways to ensure an affordable, reliable, equitable, and safe supply.”

The study noted that “Californians already pay higher than the national average for gasoline… partially due to state and federal mandates for improved air quality.” In 2022, after energy prices surged following the onset of the Russia-Ukraine war, wholesale gasoline prices in California spiked to $6.21 per gallon, “$2.61 higher than the U.S. average.”

The California Energy Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

That hard-working farmers and rural folk reject the ‘opportunity’ to be overrun by giant industrial wind turbines and endless seas of solar panels is no surprise. Why would anyone in their senses welcome the single most destructive force into their communities: subsidised wind and solar.

Peaceful, prosperous and productive farming communities worked out long ago that industrial wind and solar are economic and environmental disasters.

Then there’s the burden born by individuals, as their property rights are destroyed in the bargain. Including the right to live, sleep in and otherwise enjoy their very own homes.

Not to be outdone, wind and solar spruikers flipped the narrative by asserting that it’s the ‘right’ of every landowner to lease their turf so wind power outfits can litter it with wind turbines and solar outfits can carpet it with seas of solar panels.

The pitch ignores the right of their neighbours to live comfortably in their homes and conduct farming operations without interference caused by wind turbines – such as the inability to carry out aerial crop spraying – and the right to avoid a host of other negative consequences, as John Droz outlines below.

Private Property Rights
Substack
John Droz
30 May 2024

At public hearings about industrial wind and solar projects, the issue of private property rights frequently comes up. Almost always it is a claim that a potential leaseholder has the right to lease his property to a wind or solar developer.

Like many aspects of these contentious matters, this is a decoy: intentionally inserted by the wind or solar advocates to confuse things. (Remember that creating confusion is a major strategy used by those who want to control us: see here.)

Put another way, private property rights claims are a purposeful distraction from the real subject at hand: the net consequences to the community from the proposed wind or solar project.

We live in a democratic country with a long history of protecting private property rights, so very few of us are against them. But what are “Private Property Rights”?

In short, they are the property owner’s right to do what they are legally allowed to do with their property — as long as their actions have no material adverse impact on their neighbors, or the rest of the community.

A parallel concept is that you have a right to extend your fist — yet that right ends at the beginning of another person’s nose. In other words, your “right” ends when it infringes on another person’s rights.

This is also the principle behind zoning, which is in effect in many parts of the country. Without zoning, an adult club could operate next to a school, or a gas station could be built in a residential neighborhood. Zoning protects the rights of property owners while also protecting the general welfare of the community.

Further, if the focus is on “rights” what about the fundamental rights that nearby homeowners have regarding wind or solar projects? Who is protecting those? Should a leaseholder who wants to make a quick buck really have the right to undermine their neighbors’ peaceful use and enjoyment of their homes?

So how does this all apply to a person who wants to get paid for industrial wind turbines (or industrial solar panels) being on their property?

The leaseholder’s private property rights are important and should be carefully considered. However, as stated above, their rights have limits. For example, in most cases they do not have an entitled right to be a knowing causal agent:

1. 1. of adverse health effects to their neighbors,
   2. of devaluing proximate homes,
   3. of crop yield reductions to nearby farms,
   4. of causing pollution and other interference with aquifers,
   5. of harm to wildlife and livestock of the community,
   6. of degrading the ecosystem in the area,
   7. of impacting hunting in approximate lands,
   8. of reducing tourism to the area,
   9. of interfering with regional weather and navigation radar, or
   10. of raising electricity rates in the region.

Turbine or solar leaseholders are likely unaware of the magnitude and severity of these issues, because they certainly wouldn’t have been told about them by the wind or solar developer, or by our local legislators, or by state agencies.

However, there are studies that document every one of these ten problems. Further, they were done by independent experts — people who have no dog in the fight.

Now it’s likely that landowners (and their developer partner) will arbitrarily deny that these consequences can happen. If they are so sure, then the solution is easy: for them to provide a written, legal, financially-backed guarantee against all of these matters.

Ideally, this would be incorporated into a well-written wind ordinance (like this) that protects the rights of those who are not in this for personal financial gain.

For example, a wind or solar ordinance should include a Property Value Guarantee to protect the most valuable asset of citizens near these projects: their homes.

It is a statutory obligation that local legislators protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens in their community, so they usually have the authority to pass such a guarantee. If it turns out that the wind developer’s claims are accurate (that there is no devaluation), the cost to them will be trivial. So it’s fair to all.

Without proper wind and solar ordinances what we have is a situation where the profits are privatized (e.g., to select landowners and the developer), but the costs are borne by the community.

That is not fair or reasonable from any perspective.

PS — Often when wind or solar promoters lose the private property rights fight, they then try to play their trump card: the proposed development is really all about saving the planet! Not surprisingly that assertion is bogus as well (e.g., see here or here).
Substack