July 25, 2014

AB 2145, renewable energy wrecking ball: down but not out

AB 2145 Rally

Sierra Club intern Vanessa Gerber at a June rally outside PG&E’s Oakland service center

Community Choice energy is under attack—again. Pending legislation, Assembly Bill (AB) 2145, was introduced earlier this year with the aim of destroying Community Choice in California. If it had succeeded, it would have been a significant loss to our clean energy future.

Sierra Club California, including many Bay Chapter members, helped remove the most egregious element of the bill as part of a new coalition, Californians for Energy Choice. AB 2145 would have made the monopoly utility the default service provider, forcing Community Choice programs to sign up customers one-by-one. The Senate Energy Committee in June removed this poison provision. However, two other elements in the bill, and a newly added geographical limitation that only applies to Community Choice programs, are still cause for concern.

One untenable remaining element of AB 2145 requires Community Choice programs to set rates five years into the future, while the corporate monopolies are merely required to provide rate projections. This provision is nonsensical on its face, and tantamount to requiring Community Choice programs to possess a working crystal ball.

Another problematic element requires not-for-profit Community Choice programs to be subjected to the same complaint process that exists for the for-profit monopoly utilities. One of the many benefits of Community Choice is that it establishes local control and accountability by virtue of its being run by local elected officials and members of the community. This proposed element imposes an unnecessary bureaucratic layer and expense to the state, and sets up Community Choice programs to be burdened by frivolous complaints that must be addressed at the distant and arcane California Public Utilities Commission.

Shawn Marshall of the Local Energy Aggregation Network (LEAN), a national Community Choice advocacy organization, stated, “While we would’ve preferred the bill to die in Committee, AB 2145 has yielded some upsides for Community Choice in California. The bill has galvanized statewide attention and support for Community Choice that we’ve not seen before. Just a few years ago, Community Choice was a little-known, fringe program that the legislature largely ignored or openly dismissed. Our success against the huge monopoly utility establishment in removing the ‘poison-pill’ provision absolutely changed that.”

What is Community Choice?

Community Choice, enabled by 2002 legislation, empowers local governments to buy and generate electricity for businesses and residents. Marin and Sonoma Counties, the only two California communities that currently offer Community Choice programs, provide their customers cleaner power at lower rates. Community Choice is the most powerful tool under local control to rapidly and cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a variety of analyses.

WhatYouCanDo

The fight for Community Choice continues: AB 2145 will be considered in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday, August 4. Please attend the hearing and speak up for Community Choice!

For up-to-date information and other ways you can take action, visit www.no2145.org. If you are interested in doing more to help advance Community Choice in the Bay Area, consider joining the Club’s Community Choice Team. To get involved email Chapter conservation organizer Jess Dervin-Ackerman at jess.dervin-ackerman at sierraclub.org

—Woody Hastings, Renewable Energy Implementation Manager, Climate Protection Campaign; volunteer coordinator, statewide Community Choice Team

New alliance calls for Alameda County fracking ban

Anti-fracking protest.

Anti-fracking protest.

In the wake of the defeat of Senate Bill 1132 (the Fracking Moratorium Bill) and of Governor Jerry Brown’s continued support for the extreme oil extraction methods and acidization, fracking continues in California with minimal, weak regulation. Given the dearth of state-level leadership, communities are stepping up to stop fracking locally. In San Benito, Santa Barbara, Mendocino, and Butte Counties, activists are working on local ballot initiatives to ban fracking. Now, Alameda County has joined the fight.

On July 9, fifty fractivists gathered for a kick-off meeting of Alameda County Against Fracking (ACAF). Elizabeth Echols and Tony Thurmond, both running for State Assembly, took part in the launch event to show their support for a fracking ban. ACAF is actively signing on new partners; so far eleven groups have joined the campaign.

Alameda County is home to six producing oil wells, and while not currently being fracked, the Bay Chapter’s Don’t Frack CA Team, as a founding member of ACAF, is urging the County Board of Supervisors to pass legislation ensuring that the county stays frack-free. To date, a majority of Supervisors have expressed support for fracking-ban legislation in unincorporated Alameda County, but they have conveyed that they want to hear broad-based community support before moving forward.

Meet other fractivists, share your ideas, and learn what you can do to help ban fracking in Alameda County at the Don’t Frack CA Team’s next monthly meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 16, at 6:30 pm at the Chapter office in Berkeley.  Also, look for us at the Chapter Picnic on Friday, August 1.

For more information, to join the Google Group announcing upcoming events and news articles of interest, or to volunteer, contact Aria Cahir, Chair of the Bay Chapter Don’t Frack CA Team, at dontfrackcal at gmail.com. If you are active in a group that would support a ban on fracking, please get in touch about bringing that group on board—we are aiming for one-hundred and fifty organizations to support the ban on fracking in Alameda County.

Canvassing for cleaner air in Oakland

Canvassing in the Prescott neighborhood of West Oakland. Photos courtesy of Ethan Buckner of Forest Ethics.

Walter Pope and Kenneth Gibson canvassing in the Prescott neighborhood of West Oakland. Photo by Ethan Buckner of ForestEthics.

Volunteers from the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project and the Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter joined forces this past Sunday, July 6, to spread the word about stopping pollution from fossil fuel exports in West Oakland. Proposed exports of coal and petroleum coke (a byproduct of refining crude oil) from the Port of Oakland and the Oakland Army Base redevelopment project would bring open-top rail cars carrying the fuels through West Oakland, releasing coal dust and other debris into air already hard-hit by pollution from the surrounding freeways and truck traffic.

The volunteers on Sunday knocked on 400 doors and collected over 80 signatures from residents saying “no” to coal and petroleum coke exports from the Port and Army Base. And this is only the beginning of a larger campaign. The West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project and the Sierra Club will be hosting additional educational canvases in the near future, as well as a community forum in September to build a strong base of community opposition to new fossil fuel exports that would increase air pollution in West Oakland.

To sign up for the next community outreach event, email Jess Dervin-Ackerman at jess.dervin-ackerman at sierraclub.org.

For more information about the campaign visit http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/coal.

Prevent coal-dust pollution in West Oakland: campaign launch and community outreach event

Corrine L. Van Hook at a rally in downtown Oakland. Photo by Alonzo Young.

Corrine L. Van Hook at a rally in downtown Oakland. Photo by Alonzo Young.

On the one-year anniversary of the tragic crude-by-rail accident in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, that claimed the lives of 47 innocent people, a coalition of local environmental organizations will launch a grassroots campaign to build a strong base of community opposition to coal and oil trains running through the city of Oakland.

West Oakland residents are already twice as likely to visit the emergency room for asthma as the average Alameda County resident, and are also more likely to die of cancer and heart and lung disease. The future Oakland Army Base Port could begin to export coal and petroleum coke as soon as 2020. The increased freight traffic carrying coal would intensify the air pollution already plaguing West Oakland, threatening local public health and safety. Coal is transported on open-top rail cars that lose up to 600 pounds of coal dust per car; this translates to 60,000 pounds of toxic fine particulate matter entering our air and water for every trip made by a coal train.

West Oakland residents—the people most profoundly and intimately affected by the air pollution coal exports will cause—need to know about the threat of coal transport in their neighborhood. West Oakland communities must be given the opportunity to make their voices heard.

Join us on Sunday, July 6, to canvass the Prescott neighborhood of West Oakland. We will be spreading the word about these serious threats to health and safety; engaging community members in the campaign to protect and improve Oakland’s air quality; and inviting our neighbors to a town hall in August to learn more about these issues.

RSVP now!

This event is sponsored by West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, Communities for a Better Environment, the Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter, Earthjustice, San Francisco Baykeeper, 350 East Bay, and the Sunflower Alliance.

Contact Jess Dervin-Ackerman at jess.dervin-ackerman at sierraclub.org or (510) 848-0800 x 304 for more information.

Help keep the Bay Area frack-free—attend the Kick-off meeting for Alameda County Against Fracking

Fractivists in Sacramento

Photo by Aria Cahir.

Local fractivists are needed to protect Alameda County against fracking!

As Governor Brown continues to allow fracking to spread across the state, communities are stepping up to stop fracking locally. Now Alameda County is joining the fight. The county is home to six oil wells, and while not currently targeted for fracking, the San Francisco Bay Chapter and Don’t Frack California are urging the Board of Supervisors to pass an ordinance to ensure that Alameda County stays frack-free. Help launch Alameda County Against Fracking; RSVP today for a kick-off meeting co-hosted by Food and Water Watch, 350 Bay Area, and Moveon.org.

  • What: Alameda County Against Fracking Kick-Off Meeting
  • When: Wednesday, July 9, 6:30 – 8 pm
  • Where: Food & Water Watch office, 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 1100, Oakland

The campaign needs local fractivists to help with educational outreach, coalition-building, and media engagement. We need all hands on deck to help grow the movement in Alameda County and across the state. Governor Brown has deep roots and connections in this county and we want him to know that his neighbors and community members don’t want fracking here—or anywhere in California.

RSVP for the kick-off event today!

Questions? Email Aria Cahir, chair of the Chapter’s Stop Fracking Team.

To learn more about fracking in California, read “Fracking moratorium blocked in Senate“.

Oakland City Council formally opposes transport of hazardous fossil fuels

Community members rally at City Hall

Community members rally at City Hall

Community members rallied at City Hall this evening, urging the Oakland City Council to support a resolution that opposes transporting coal, petroleum coke, crude oil and other hazardous materials along rail lines in Oakland and the East Bay. A few hours later, the council unanimously passed the resolution, officially raising city concerns about environmental problems, public health hazards, economic pitfalls and public opposition to exports. The resolution marks the first step in addressing the hazards of Bay Area coal and oil exports.

Oakland is the first city in California to pass a resolution that addresses railway transportation of not only oil but also coal and petcoke. The resolution was originally introduced by councilmembers Dan Kalb, Lynette Gibson McElhaney and Rebecca Kaplan.

“This resolution is critical to protect the health, safety and well-being of Oakland and East Bay families and businesses, not to mention the cultural and economic vitality of our communities,” said Councilmember McElhaney. “Oakland is leading the way for Californians who want to tell Big Coal and Big Oil that we cannot bear the risk they impose upon on our town.”

A coalition of local community members and organizations mobilized to support passage of this resolution, including the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, San Francisco Baykeeper, Earthjustice and the Sierra Club.

“From the Gulf Coast to the Pacific Coast, from mine to rail and port to plant, local communities are standing up against dangerous coal and oil exports,” said Jess Dervin-Ackerman, conservation organizer with the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter. “We want our local economy to be bolstered by clean, renewable energy from wind and solar, not carbon-intensive, highly-polluting fossil fuels.”

Due to strong community organizing, coal, petcoke and oil export facilities have been unable to move forward along much of the West Coast. Other communities in California have passed similar resolutions regarding oil transport, including Berkeley and Richmond. In Washington and Oregon, three coal export proposals have been abandoned and the remaining three face fierce opposition from tens of thousands of citizens and hundreds of groups, businesses and elected officials.

“If we allow fossil fuel exports to travel through our communities, it will undo our region’s energy and climate leadership and threaten the health and safety of our local communities,” said Suma Peesapati, staff attorney with Earthjustice. “It makes no sense to move backwards at a time when the EPA and our state leaders are taking real steps to protect Californians from dirty fossil fuels, carbon pollution and the threat of climate disruption.”

Coal dust and diesel particulate matter from the numerous open top mile-long trains to transport these commodities would pose significant air and water quality threats to Bay Area families. On average, each car loses 500 pounds of coal per trip for more than 60,000 pounds lost per train. Coal breaks apart easily to create dust that contains lead, arsenic, uranium, and hundreds of other heavy metal toxins harmful to fish and human health.

The city of Oakland has an asthma hospitalization rate that is two times higher than the rest of Alameda County.

“Ten years of advocacy have cleaned our windowsills of diesel soot,” said Brian Beveridge, co-director at West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. “We don’t want replace it with coal dust.”

“We’ve seen damage from the Cosco Busan oil spill continuing to impair the Bay years later, and yet shipment of crude by rail lacks most of the basic safety protections in place for marine vessels,” said Jason Flanders, Program Director at San Francisco Baykeeper.  ”Oakland is simply playing self-defense, while more state and federal regulations are needed.”

Coal dust can also contribute to train derailments, which is especially troubling in light of the oil train traffic also moving through the densely populated urban area.

“I’m thrilled that Oakland City Council took a strong stand to protect our communities by opposing transport of dangerous Fossil Fuels by rail through the heart of Oakland,” said councilmember Kalb. “Let’s protect the health and safety of our communities by investing our expertise and resources in choices that keep Oakland on the leading edge of the country’s clean energy economy.”

For more information about the hazards of shipping fuels by rail, see “Oakland City Council to consider opposing transport of hazardous fossil-fuel materials,” “Dangerous and dirty coal exports threaten Bay Area” and “Explosive crude oil may be coming to a train track or a refinery near you”.

Alameda County Board of Supervisors votes to move forward on Community Choice

Support Community Choice EnergyOn June 3, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors received an appreciative response from community members in the audience after their unanimous vote to take the first steps in establishing an East Bay community choice energy program.

The Supervisors, minus Haggerty, listened to a staff report on how a community choice program works and the steps to set one up. Led by Keith Carson, all four of the Supervisors present asked clarifying questions, including where the $1.3 million would come from to fund the first, mostly exploratory phase of establishing a program. This phase consists of conducting a feasibility study and holding outreach meetings with communities throughout Alameda County. Depending on the outcome of the feasibility study the Supervisors could then vote to move forward to begin the process of setting up an agency and designing the program.

The room was packed with supporters, many wearing yellow t-shirts with the slogan “Want a Choice?” and waving color-coordinated signs reading “Support Community Choice Energy!” Many were East Bay CCA advocates organized by the San Francisco Bay Chapter. The comments from the attending public were almost universally supportive. Many pointed out the benefits of a community choice program, including the potential to develop local renewable resources, thereby creating good clean energy jobs and reducing local greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Not one speaker was opposed to the move to develop an East Bay community choice program.

While the crowd was clearly excited by the outcome of the Supervisors’ meeting, the proceedings were overshadowed by the prospect of passage of AB 2145, a bill in the California legislature that would essentially kill California’s community choice energy programs. AB 2145 is going to a vote in the California Senate Energy Committee on June 23. See below to find out what you can do to protect local clean energy programs.

WhatYouCanDo

Rally to defend clean energy jobs and community power!

WHEN: Thursday, June 19, 10:30 AM ­­- 12:00 PM
WHERE: PG&E Service Center, 1919 Webster Street, Oakland (2 blocks from 19th Street BART)

Call East Bay Senators Ellen Corbett (916-651-4010) and Mark DeSaulnier (916-651-4007) and urge them to oppose AB 2145. Find a sample script and log a call.

Learn more at www.no2145.org/take-action.

—Barbara Stebbins

 

Oakland City Council to consider opposing transport of hazardous fossil-fuel materials–community leaders, groups applaud decision to protect Bay Area communities

Oakland fuels (2) 300x225

On Tue., June 10, the Oakland Public Works Committee voted unanimously to move forward to the full council a resolution that opposes transporting coal, petroleum coke, crude oil and other hazardous materials along rail lines in Oakland and the East Bay. Citing environmental problems, public health hazards, economic pitfalls, and public opposition to exports, the committee voted unanimously to advance the resolution. This is the first opposition statement to be considered by California City Councils that includes coal and petcoke, in addition to oil. The resolution was introduced by Councilmembers Dan Kalb, Lynette Gibson McElhaney, and Rebecca Kaplan.

“Today’s resolution before the Public Works Committee calls on our leaders to ensure that we are protecting our City’s greatest assets–our culturally rich neighborhoods, our dynamic waterfront, and our economic engine of the Port,” said Councilmember McElhaney. “There have been too many accidents that have caused irreparable harm to communities in Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and Quebec. It is my responsibility as an elected leader to protect our Oakland community and this is why I strongly support this resolution.”

“From California to Oregon to Washington, local communities are holding the line in the fight against dirty coal exports. We still have more work to do here in the Bay Area, but today’s decision shows that Oakland’s leadership is committed to safeguarding clean air, clean water, and public health for our communities,” said Michelle Myers, director of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter.

Due to strong community organizing, coal, petcoke and oil export facilities have been unable to move forward along much of the West Coast. Other communities in California have passed similar resolutions regarding oil transport, including Berkeley and Richmond. The San Francisco Environment Commission also unanimously passed a resolution to work with the City and Port on crafting a policy to ban the exports of coal, oil and petcoke. In Washington and Oregon, three active coal export proposals have met fierce opposition from tens of thousands of citizens and hundreds of groups, businesses and elected officials.

“Oakland already faces a disproportionate burden from illnesses associated with air pollution. The rate of asthma hospitalization visits here is more than two times above that of Alameda County and one of the highest in the county,” said Roger Lin, staff attorney with Communities for a Better Environment. “Oakland residents are working together to ensure a healthier, vibrant future. Letting in new dirty coal export and fossil fuel facilities undoes our work and further endangers community health and safety.”

Coal dust and diesel particulate matter from the numerous open top mile-long trains to transport these commodities would pose significant air and water quality threats to Bay Area families. On average, the BNSF estimates that each uncovered rail car can potentially lose up to 500 pounds of coal per trip, or more than 60,000 pounds lost per train. Coal breaks apart easily to create dust that contains lead, arsenic, uranium, and hundreds of other heavy metal toxins harmful to fish and human health. Coal dust also can contribute to train derailments.

“The number of mile-long coal, petcoke and oil trains passing through our community is expected to rise dramatically,” said Brian Beveridge of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. “Those coal and oil trains will pass thousands of homes from San Leandro to Martinez to Berkeley to Oakland. An accident along this route could deliver incredible damage to lives and property. We applaud Oakland’s steps towards opposing the dangerous transport of these fossil fuels.”

“California, and especially the Bay Area, stand at the forefront of clean energy development, green local job generation, and leadership in the broader battle against climate change,” said Suma Peesapati, an Earthjustice staff attorney. “Exporting dirty, out-of-state coal for overseas combustion flies in the face of our local policies, interests, and values.”

The Oakland City Council will consider the resolution during its monthly meeting on July 15 at 5:30 pm.

For more information about the hazards of shipping fuels by rail, see “Dangerous and dirty coal exports threaten Bay Area” and “Explosive crude oil may be coming to a train track or a refinery near you”.

Assembly votes to undermine local clean energy

The tracking equipment for the South San Joaquin Irrigation District solar installation, from which Marin Clean Energy purchases power, is designed to last 100 years.

The tracking equipment for the South San Joaquin Irrigation District solar installation, from which Marin Clean Energy purchases power, is designed to last 100 years.

On May 29 the California Assembly passed AB 2145, the “Utility Monopoly Power Grab of 2014″ (see “Stop bill to protect PG&E’s monopoly“). If this bill is passed by the Senate and signed into law, it would dangerously undermine California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and to create thousands of local clean-energy jobs. In the past few weeks, over one hundred local governments, government agencies, businesses and business associations, public officials, and grassroots and consumer organizations have registered strong opposition to AB 2145.

Authored by Steven Bradford, a former corporate-utility executive, AB 2145 would halt the continued launch of California’s not-for-profit community-based energy programs under California’s Community Choice law (AB 117), enacted in 2002. Over a dozen such programs are in the works, poised to compete with the big utilities by offering cleaner and lower-priced electricity to customers. Two counties, Marin and Sonoma, are already doing so.

Current Community Choice law enables customers in a city or county to group together at the launch of their program to gain the joint buying power needed to offer energy prices that can compete with the big utilities. Bradford’s bill would prohibit such grouped customer start-ups, making Community Choice programs impossible to launch.

Ann Hancock of the Climate Protection Campaign, the non-profit organization that spearheaded the formation of the most recent Community Choice program to launch, Sonoma Clean Power, stated, “The monopoly utilities know that Community Choice offers competition that will give customers a more attractive option which provides local economic benefits and greenhouse-gas reductions. AB 2145 is designed to take this choice away from Californians.”

Lane Sharman, who has spent years working to found a Community Choice energy program in San Diego, said “Current state law allows us to rapidly bring real free-market competition into the electricity market, at a scale large enough to bring better prices, cleaner energy, and badly needed green jobs. But AB 2145 will completely gut our ability to do so. There will be no Community Choice program in San Diego if this bill becomes law.”

Nile Malloy of Communities for a Better Environment said. “There are underserved communities all over California waiting for these programs to begin, and directly reduce pollutants in our neighborhoods while providing vital new jobs. Bradford’s bill will pull the rug right out from under those communities, stealing away crucial new hope for a better future.”

Sierra Club California representative Edward Moreno said, “Sierra Club is shocked that this bill passed through the Assembly. At a moment when it is increasingly clear that California, the nation, and the world, have precious little time to get our collective act together to prevent the worst of the Earth’s looming climate crisis impacts, California assemblymembers must remain in tune with that reality.”

A full list of AB 2145 opponents is available at http://www.no2145.org.

Fracking moratorium blocked in Senate

Don't Frack California Oakland rally (last year).

Don’t Frack California Oakland rally (last year).

On May 29 the fracking moratorium bill, SB 1132 (Mitchell and Leno-see “SB 1132 would halt fracking in California“), failed on the California Senate floor. It had failed yesterday by a vote of 18 – 16, with several key senators abstaining. We had hoped to be able to pick up some of those abstaining senators today, but instead, we lost two votes. Sen. Jerry Hill did not vote and we have learned from another senator that Hill was involved in another legislative matter when the vote came up (it was a very weird and confusing day in the Senate) and totally missed it.

Also, Sen. Marty Block, from San Diego, abstained. I talked to Sen. Block after the vote, and he said that he didn’t vote for the bill this time (he had voted for it yesterday) because the bill didn’t have the votes to get out. He also said that “things change” and didn’t explain what he meant by that. Notably, the California Building Trades Council came out in opposition to the bill late yesterday with no warning to any of the environmental groups working on the bill. Sen. Block is very sensitive to labor issues.

So, ultimate vote: 16 yes votes, 16 no votes, with Sens. Ricardo Lara, Ben Hueso, amd Richard Roth abstaining, along with Block and Hill. The only Democrats voting no were senators Norma Torres (currently running for Congress), Ed Hernandez, Lou Correa (termed out this year) and Cathleen Galgiani. All the Republicans voted against the bill, and three Democratic senators are on suspension and so didn’t have the opportunity to vote (Ron Calderon, Rod Wright, and Leland Yee).

Now here’s the good news: we got this bill farther in the process than we ever predicted six months ago. When we began the effort to do a moratorium bill this year, in conjunction with a lot of environmental and environmental-justice allied groups, we didn’t even know if we’d find an author. But we knew we needed to help the environmental community recapture the fracking debate in the Capitol and prove that the environmental community could be united and work effectively to keep the pressure on to halt harmful and extreme oil-extraction methods in the state.

We have more than succeeded. Our coalition found a great pair of joint authors in Sens. Holly Mitchell and Mark Leno. Sen. Mitchell and her staff took the lead position and did an outstanding job shepherding the bill. Meanwhile, the environmental and environmental-justice communities bound together and helped craft a bill we could all support. Indeed, we were able to craft a bill that brought on support from organized labor, many businesses and business associations, various health and community groups, elected officials around the state, and so on.

The bill drew local, state and national attention. News outlets across the country ran stories mentioning it, and the Los Angeles Times ran two editorials supporting it. The bill certainly wasn’t the only thing that has increased public education about the hazards of fracking and well stimulation in California, but it helped.

It did, ultimately, allow the public interest–not the oil industry interest–to recapture the debate about fracking in the legislature.

Today, we had about 10 environmental lobbyists (three from the Club) and three labor lobbyists (thanks to SEIU and CWA), plus a labor strategist, in the Capitol working the bill. Around the state, we had a lot of staff organizers and volunteer organizers, including two Club organizers, helping get the word to get calls into key offices. Over the last many months, our volunteers and staff all around the state have sent out e-mail blasts, tweeted, posted action alerts on FaceBook, and organized rallies to make sure the legislature knew where the public stood on fracking.

Thank you to every one of you who has helped in some way to elevate the fracking issue at the local and state and national level. Now that the bill is done for this year, Sierra Club California’s work on fracking will focus on helping put a spotlight on the governor’s role and ability to place a moratorium on fracking, supporting local chapters’ engagement in local moratorium and ban initiatives, and increasing our public education and outreach work on fracking and other extreme extraction methods.

So fasten your seat belt and get ready for more fast and exciting rides as we work together to halt extreme oil extraction in California and whittle away at Big Oil’s influence.

Kathryn Phillips, director, Sierra Club California