Panelists:

• Senator Denise Ducheny, California
  
• Board Member Bill Leonard, California Board of  Equalization
  
• Fred Keeley, California Forward
  
• Mayor Curt Pringle, City of Anaheim, California

California, only a few weeks into its most recently (though late) approved budget, is already billions of dollars out of balance and may run out of cash by February of 2009.  The public debate boils down to Democrats being only for tax hikes and Republicans being only for budget cuts, but the budget process is broken in so many ways that neither position is accurate or adequate.  Currently, only a small handful of legislators actually participate in the budget and because of term limits, those who do have only a few years’ experience.  Previously, a “Ways & Means” committee had to consider both the income and outflow of funds, but now there are two separate committees, “Revenue & Taxation” and “Appropriations,” so financial decisions are not made as well as they could be.  Subcommittees used to engage in more effective oversight work, but with members cycling in-and-out so quickly, no one is able to develop expertise in a particular area or hold the bureaucrats’ feet to the fire. Additionally, between court mandates and initiatives, much of the budget is out of the hands of the governor and legislature.

Several ideas for reform were suggested:

• Require all initiatives to identify the direct revenue source that will fund the measure’s program or project
• Loosen the 2/3rds vote requirement for budget approval, particularly in combination with an invigorated Joint Legislative Budget Committee that can work with the Governor to design and present a budget for majority vote unless there is spending in excess of revenue in which case a 4/5 vote would be required
• Empower legislative committees to engage in performance-based budgeting by looking at how departments work and what they are delivering so that the budget process is more than just the Department of Finance submitting last year’s budget plus a percentage for growth.
• Study the Arkansas model of having the legislature set spending priorities based on revenue received, so that adjustments can be made automatically depending on revenue.
• Learn from California’s cities’ budget process where all council members participate and real-time updates allow for adjustments as needed.
• Reinstitute consequences of late budget: no expenditures without approved budget.
  

Budget Presentation (9.3MB Power Point)
California Forward Overview (424KB PDF)

^ back to top

Panelists:

• Ed Manning, KP Public
  
• Curt Johansen Triad Communities

The climate for building in California is undergoing dramatic changes because of several landmark bills: AB32 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and SB375 to bring regional planning for both housing and transportation into compliance with the required GHG reductions.  SB375 is remarkable because in the past the three players in development (homebuilders, environmentalists and local governments) have been unable to reach consensus.  However, SB375 was able to bring all of them to the table by offering CEQA reform, protection for agricultural resources, reform of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and preservation of local land use authority.  SB375 now requires regional plans for meeting GHG reductions through:

• regional planning to reduce targets by creating sustainable communities strategies (SCS);
• regulatory incentives for residential and residential-mixed-used consistent with SCS;
• use of the same demographic assumptions for both transportation and housing planning; and
• syncing the RHNA and Regional Transportation Planning cycles.

Panelists:

• Rick Brausch, Deputy Legislative Director, California Department of Toxic Substances Control
  
• Tim Shestek, American Chemistry Council

While previous bills to regulate chemicals in California have been piecemeal and focused on waste and discharge management, SB509 and AB1879 represent a new approach to dealing with chemicals in products.  The bills were developed through a series of blog discussions and symposia that generated 818 options which when then distilled into a framework:

• Knowledge of  product chemistry
• Online toxics clearinghouse
• Accelerated quest for safer products
• Cradle-to-cradle economy
• Expansion of pollution prevention
• Green chemistry workforce

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)’s online toxics clearinghouse will focus on consumer products rather than pharmaceuticals or those already regulated, and it is web-based rather than a state-managed database.  Rather than mandating which chemicals are listed, criteria are established to identify and prioritize which substances should be included.  It will: feature an evaluation of the availability of alternatives; look at the hazards of those alternatives; and examine exposure pathways.  Based on the information provided the DTSC will have several possible options:

• Take no action
• Provide additional information
• Label the product
• Restrict or prohibit the chemical
• Control access and limit exposure
• Require the manufacturer to handle end-of-life issues
• Fund green chemistry challenge grants

DTSC is required to implement the law by January of 2011, but is aiming to be working with it a year earlier.  That implementation will raise several challenges:

• Can we avoid chemical-by-chemical, product-by-product legislation efforts?
• Will the primary focus be on development of implementing regulations or will additional statutory changes be pursued?
• How till DTSC seek to fund this new program?

The California Green Chemistry Alliance offers these guiding principles for DTSC and the legislature to use when considering future action:

• use sound scientific methods with good lab practice and weight of evidence;
• avoid duplicative and conflicting regulatory reporting requirements
• ensure that regulations balance unique applications, intended functions, performance,  and useful life of product
• use systemic approach in which chemicals, their uses, and potential alternatives are first prioritized on hazard and exposure
• minimize compliance costs and administrative burdens and protect California jobs and consumers
• ensure protection of confidential business information
• require all regulations to be cost-effective, sustainable, and technologically and commercially feasible

Green Chemistry Presentation (7.4MB Power Point)

^ back to top

Panelists:

• Lorraine Paskett, First Solar
  
• Joshua Bar-Lev, BrightSource Energy
• Senator Troy Fraser, Texas
• Representative Burt Solomons, Texas

In the last 18 years, less than 10 megawatts (MW) of large-scale solar power has been built in California, and only eight percent of the renewable power source program projects have been built and most of those are wind. BrightSource Energy plans to develop and build large scale solar power generation at prices that compete with fossil fuel plants, using proprietary technology.  BrightSource needs one square mile of land covered with its heliostats to generate 100 MW.  To power all of California would require 20x30 square miles, or less than one percent of the Mojave Desert.  To power all of the United States, would require 100x100 square miles spread across the southwest deserts.  Many companies are hunting for good sites, but land acquisition is a big challenge to alternative energy because of the controversy of eminent domain and the nation’s dysfunctional transmission system.  First Solar overcomes the land development obstacles with wholesale distribution of photovoltaic (PV) panels that can be installed on rooftops or on the ground, as shown in demonstration projects currently in Blythe and Fontana.

While California is struggling to produce alternative energy projects, Texas has made significant progress in recent years.  After studying California’s failed energy deregulation, Texas removed all permitting barriers, promised to build transmission and pledged to buy alternative product when it was created.  It mandates the construction of transmission and spreads the costs of transmission over all Texans.  It set a goal of having 5% of all power come from renewable sources.  In 1998, the state had almost no power from wind; now it has permitted 45000MW in wind power and already has 12000MW already on line.  The state reached its 2012 renewable goal by 2003.

The United States can wean itself off of dependence on oil by using a combination of renewable energy sources.  Different regions of the county offer hospitable environments for solar, PV, wind, biomass, and hydro power.  To accomplish this, we need to:

• Plan regionally;
• Fund it as we did the interstate highway system;
• Reduce the permitting time;
• Have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission deal with pricing and allocation of costs
• Give incentives to individuals and developers to use alternative energy because the cost factors are not enough at this point;
• Be cautious of pre-empting states’ ability to pursue their own philosophies of renewables.
  

Frist Solar Presentation (4.7MB Power Point)


^ back to top

Panelists:

• Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, California
  
• Peter Huessy, National Defense University Foundation
• Col. Randell Larsen, Institute for Homeland Security

While the threats facing the United States are diverse and numerous, our preparation and response to all of them are similar.  Right now there are three groups (the Terror Triad) trying to destroy the United States:

• Terror masters/state sponsors (mostly oil producing nations)
• Drug cartels (80% of cartels work with terror groups)
• Terror groups such as Al Qaeda, Taliban, FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), etc.

The Triad has many tools at their disposal and works constantly to generate more. Since 9/11 we have been able to identify, infiltrate and shut down many terrorist operations, and we have killed 90% of the leadership of many of the terror groups.  We should be concerned about three types of attacks: cyber, nuclear and biological. 

The cyber-attacks have several purposes. They can disrupt our finance systems, our telephones, electrical generation, water storage and distribution, nuclear power plants, gas facilities, etc. and prevent us from responding to either a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.  Combating cyber assaults is challenging because the amount of internet traffic doubles every 100 days. Consider that a few weeks before the recent Russian-Georgia conflict, the Russians were able to shut down the Georgian military command & control system by hiring college students to hack into the system.

The public seems to focus on how we can prevent a nuclear weapon from bring brought into the U.S. by a terrorist, but that is the wrong question.  The biggest threat of nuclear attack is from state-sponsors of terrorism because ¾ of them already have nuclear weapons (e.g., Pakistan, Iran, North Korea) and the others are seeking such weapons (e.g., Venezuela from Russia/Iran).  The U.S. policy must be to pursue the nuclear materials abroad because once it arrives here, we cannot prevent its use.

The possibility of biological attacks grows because of the tremendous bio-tech revolution we have undergone in the last year.  While that revolution holds great promise of health benefits for succeeding generations, it also poses a threat to us now. Back in 1960s it took the resources of a superpower nation to produce a test tube of deadly bio material, but now an individual can do it buying supplies off the internet for less than $50,000 in a few weeks.  Because the material is easy to produce, transport and disguise, we cannot prevent a biological attack.

While intelligence can play—and has— a great role in stopping some of these attacks before they occur, we cannot rely on our preventative luck or skill forever. We must focus on rapid recognition, response, and recovery.  Not only will such plans help when a terrorist attack occurs, but it will also prepare us for the inevitable natural disasters that strike our nation.  This will involve:

• improving our public health system, which has atrophied in recent decades;
• strengthening our food security network;
• having local governments practice doing a better job of distributing federal assistance, particularly push-pack kits that can be delivered to a regional experiencing an attack or disaster;
• working with the private sector to provide supplies, antibiotics, etc.;
• considering distribution of antibiotics before they are needed.

Panelists:

• Jack Stewart, California Manufacturers Association
  
• Mike Jimenez, California Correctional Police Officers Association

California’s GETREAL (Relevance in Education and Learning) is a 400+ member “coalition of business, labor, agriculture, public safety, health care, child advocates and educators who believe California schools should provide a balanced education that includes challenging academic studies and career technical education for ‘hands on’ learning — so our children are prepared for the 21st Century jobs and have the skills to succeed, whether they choose college or not.”   Some members of the Manufacturers Association have built jobs outside of California because they could not find the skilled workers they need here yet members of the educational establishment look down on career/technical education.

The state’s workforce has changed over the past 40 years: in 1960 the workforce was 20% skilled, 20% professional and 60% unskilled, but in 2000 it was 20% professional, 15% unskilled, and 65% skilled. Yet, our schools are not producing graduates to meet this breakdown.  Indeed, there is a skills gap is in the middle of labor market. We have a supply of 29% with a BA, but demand for workers with a BA is only 10%.  There are 29% with up to 2 years postsecondary, but demand at 44%. There are 41% with less than a high school diploma of less 41% but only 26% demand.  We must find ways to graduate more young people from high school with relevant skills, encourage many to attend community college or additional vocational training, and consider not pushing so many toward traditional college and university. 

In the last decade, our drop-out rate has increased by 25%, at the same time that the amount of career/tech classes has been slashed.  The Gates Foundation found that students drop out because they are not interested in courses available and do not see how the classes are relevant to their future.  Drop-outs are eight time more likely to be incarcerated than a graduate.  Dropouts cost California $46 billion annually in reduced economic output and crime costs.

We can get more students to stay in school and see fewer of them go to prison if we change our education system and get rid of the “one-size-fits-all” approach to education. The UC requirements cannot be imposed on all students, and from elementary school, all students should know they have options.  While we are pinning a lot on the future “green” economy, we cannot forget that we will also need a lot of requires skilled workers: carpenters, electricians, bricklayers.  We should also be teaching our prisons skills (e.g. truck driving and auto mechanics) they can apply when they are released.

Panelists:

• Dr. Martha Bordonaro
  
• Senator Jane Nelson, Texas

Dr. Bordonaro presented research about innovative solutions to obesity and inactivity in children and adolescents from Dr. Kyle McInnis of the University of Massachusetts.  The prevalence of fast food and the sedentary nature of our lifestyles have led to a doubling of the obesity rate for U.S. children since 1980.  Obesity is now being linked to poor academic performance and inactivity is linked to behavioral problems.  Dr. McInnis has found a significant correlation between the fitness levels and academic performance.   Such research was not available even a few years ago when an effort was undertaken to reinstate the physical education requirement that had been left out of the state’s revised education standards in 1995. To develop such information, all children in Texas are evaluated on a six-point physical scale and this date is then linked to other factors by campus.  They are finding links between physical activity and academic achievement, discipline problems, and absenteeism. Schools and families can incorporate more physicality into learning: students can sit on balance balls instead of chairs; rhythm can be used to assist memorization; stimulate the mind while the body is moving; use activities the kids want to do to trick them into exercising.  One challenge is that doctors cannot treat obese kids because there is no diagnosis for obese families unless it can be linked to other diagnosable problems, but we should be able to catch and treat problems before diagnosable health problems occur.

Obesity Power Point (5.8MB)
GoKids (40KB PDF)
Dr. Kyle McInnis Bio (36KB PDF)

^ back to top

Panelists:

• Senator Jane Nelson, Texas
  Senator Larry Taylor, Texas

There is no one cure for cancer, but researchers and physicians note that they are close to better treatments and some cures so that funding for further research is crucial.  The Cancer Prevention and Research Institution legislation created a new research arm with $3 billion in funding of ten years.  Texas estimates that for every dollars spent on medical research, $16 is saved in medical costs.  The Institution was viewed as a job-creation measure in Texas and has attracted research and development dollars and jobs from all over the nation.  There are also many protections to ensure proper use of the funds: any grant is only 50%; no more than 5% of grant money can go to indirect costs, facilities, etc., and the oversight committee includes politicians, scientists, and medical experts.  Sixty-one percent of Texas voters backed the proposal and the first grants will be issued in 2009.

^ back to top