Comment Log Display

This is part 3 of Comments due to lack of time (60 min. limit) Part
1 Comment 68 for ceqa-sp11 (NonReg) and Part 2 Comment 73 for
ceqa-sp11 (Non-Reg) were send yesterday Jule 27,2011. A confirming
email was send only for Part 2 Comment 73 and not for Part 1
Comment 68. Another email was send by me/us to you regarding the
need for sending a confirmation email for Part 1 Comment 68 as well
as for this Comments Part 3 to be sent today July 28, 2011, herein.

     In regards to the fee cited in Part 1 Comments 68 this fee
should be used for a rebate fund and solar equity conversion fund.
One third of it 1/3 would be paid each year to low income
people/citizens of California with incomes up to 150%  of
state/federal poverty level, one third of it 1/3 would be paid to
low income peop[le/citizens of California with incomes from 
over 150% to 200% of state/federal poverty income level, adnthe
remaining one third for the first 5 years 1/3 would be spent
on a solar conversion equity dividend to finance local state solar
conversion entitits. This would be called Solar Cal and would
facilitate California conversion to solar renewables as soon as
possible. A  (as cited in part 1 comments herein ) 202or 10 year
solar conversion plan wouold be implemented  with a back up 15 yr. 
and 20 year plan as well as a 30 and 40 for total solar conversion
to as direct solar as possible as soon as possible. The 100% of the
Dividend /Solar Conversion Equity Fund
would also be used for buying up high GWP Global warming Potential
emission units like CFC, PFC etc for from $1-$5 per ton equlivlent
and held for higher fee amounts for the distirbution in increased
value to lowincome consumers  and Solar Cal. This will enable the
states lowincome consumers to benefit as well as the state from any
higher value fees in the future. More work needs to be done on the
details of this proposal.

     Dr. Jane S. Long  2 weeks ago July 15,2011 gave an ARB Chairs
lecture with a panel in Sacremento on Californias Energy Future:
through to 2050 which is the 80% ghg reduction date refered to in
comments 68 part 1 of off 1990 levels by 2050 and the Governors
Executive Order S-3-05. 
She is the Associate Director at Larg and Fellow Center For Global
Security Lawerence Livermore Laboratory. Her conclusion was that
existing  solar  thecnology will get to 60% off 1990  reductions of
ghg by 2050 and that a "solar silver bullet" can take us the rest
of the  way... As Marks Jacobson and Delucci of Standford
University and UC Davis have detailed as cited in Comments 68 Part1
 the solar renewable technology is cost effective now to bring us
to solar conversion by 2030 (see incorparated into this record Nov.
2009 Cover Article Scientific American  and December 30&31 2010
articles in Energy Policy. CARB has an opportuntiy to lead this why
alson with the other state energy related agencies towards
immediate total colar conversion through Solar Cal as an example
for the nation and the world.