IT DIDN'T TAKE LONG. State Sen. Tony Strickland, (R-Moorpark) who listed himself as a "renewable energy businessman" on the ballot in the Senate District 19 race last fall, predictably failed to vote on renewable energy legislation on Tuesday.
The bill, SB 14, would require investor-owned utilities to receive one-third of their power from renewable energy sources by 2020. These utilities are now required to purchase 20 percent of the energy they sell from renewable sources by next year. The current legislation, authored by Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) would revise the requirement to match one ordered by the governor in November.
The 21-16 vote was mostly along party lines. While in the Assembly, Strickland did vote against SB 1078 in 2002, which set the current 20 percent renewable energy requirement for utilities. He also opposed most other environmentally friendly legislation.
The senator, who justified his ballot designation by his partnership in a wave energy company formed around the same time he decided to run in a green-leaning district, apparently received little or no income from GreenWave Energy Solutions last year, according to a Form 700 document filed with the state. The form listed his chief source of income as his wife Audra Strickland's Assembly salary. He also received income from the sale of real estate.
Now, to be fair, Strickland told Ventura County Star reporter Timm Herdt last year that he voted against the 2002 bill because he opposes government mandates. But this year he decided just not to vote at all. Dodging tricky votes and uncomfortable situations seems to run in the family.
Tuesday's walk only serves to underscore the very disingenuous campaign he ran last fall. Voters would expect someone who claims such green credentials to support public policy which promotes renewable energy practices, especially when it has been mandated by our Republican governor.
At least nobody can accuse him of helping out his own "business."
Maybe he had a family emergency?
Strickland: Classic right wing nutjob.
Strickland: Classic right wing nutjob.
The only thing that seems particularly green about TS is his photo on this blog and his love of money. Sad.
So, if he votes for the bill, he hurts his business constituents who count on him to keep the government from mandating "green energy" usage, raising cost, and eventually bringing us into a social/welfare/communist state.
If he votes against the bill, you call him a liar. He like renewable energy, but not renewable energy mandates. If private industry could afford to use that much renewable energy sources they would use them already. The problem is right now, without government subsidies (WHICH ARE OUR TAX DOLLARS, and PART OF THE REASON OUR BUDGET HAS NO MONEY), the cost of renewable energy is 4 to 5 times the cost of conventional energy. Unless you guys would let us build some nuke plants, but again, you would hate him for that.
A catch 22 squared. And you're the ones who made it that way. That was you not voting, just as much as him, because you are his constituents. You want renewable energy? Put down the computer and go work on physics and figure out a way to make it less expensive to use. Then Private Industry will jump on it faster than you guys on the Stricklands.
Let's outlaw black cars next. Oh yeah, they are already trying that. Socialism.
If he wasn't interested in any public policy that promotes the green economy and moving us away from our dependence on foreign oil, then he should've just said so instead of falsely promoting this environmental image.
Some people are just interested in maintaining the status quo and not looking forward. That is why the U.S. will decline as a economic power in the years to come.
This is April 1st right? - TS was one of the co-authors
He has stated repeatedly that they need to speed up the permitting process that will allow private industry to expand and innovate new renewable energy resources.
Haha,
I bet he believes we need to do that for all industry. Not much of an environmental stand there.
Do you know if Tony Strickland has said he believes global warming is real and human caused?
Yes, bilbo, he was listed as a co-author in a later amended version of the bill. So why didn't he vote on it? Only Tony knows.
He also authored legislation to make illegal what he and Audra did for years: funnel campaign money through a spouse into personal accounts. It takes a 2/3 vote, so he knows it won't pass. Gallegly put in earmarks for our district in a bill he voted against. Irony for everyone.
My point is he ran a misleading campaign and is now forced to duck the issue when it comes up.
Bad Karma.
I don't think The senator is an evironmentalist, but he certainly believes in the viability of renewable energy. I'll ask why he didn't vote, and find out what he says.
I also have never asked him about Global Cooling, but that's kind of a dumb thing to bring up, because I would just move north anyway, and in the fiscal crisis we are in, we can't afford to pay billions to mandate a change in human industry so we can "fix" the earth. Who are we to say what the "best" temperature for the Earth is? How do you know it wouldn't be better 2 degrees either way?
Marie,
If they guy helped write it, or at least has his name on it, why did you fail to mention that in your blog. A little bit of selective memory?
No, I just saw that yesterday on an amended version after I had written this. It was not on the original legislation or mentioned in any of my source material. All the weirder. He abstained in committee, too.
He was damned if he did: his donors would be unhappy. He was damned if he didn't: it would be on his record. So he took a walk.
McClintock was at least honest about where he stood and didn't run a campaign based on being "an independent thinker," playing up pseudo environmental creds and having our DA say in campaign literature that he would work across the aisle. I didn't agree with McClintock on a lot of things but he ran an honest campaign.
Tide is turning and the public is seeing how disingenuous Senator Tony Strickland actually is when only one die-hard supporter tries to explain his actions in Sacramento. It is clear that exposing and telling the truth about TS will help to make sure his political career ends at the 2012 election.
Got an answer for you guys. Just had a chat and:
Apparently, there is some language in the bill that would hurt SD 19, and The Honorable State Senator is trying very hard to have it amended so it can be passed and signed into law.
If you guys hate him so much, can you at least pick a better candidate than HBJ. Maybe a "moderate"?
haha (speaking for phony-tony) says:
"Apparently, there is some language in the bill that would hurt SD 19"
Could you please ask "The Honorable State Senator" exactly what language in the bill would hurt SD 19?
Thanks - we'd like to see if we agree.
I would like to know, too, as those opposed to this bill were mostly energy companies and these Strickland donors were listed in opposition:
BP (gave Tony $1,000)
Edison (gave Tony 2,000)
PG&E (gave Tony $1,250)
RBS Sempra Energy Solutions (gave Tony $1,500)
I would like to call and ask again, but I think he is a bit busy right now. It is my understanding it has to do with timeframes and something about the percentage of satellite offices that would be effected by the mandates. Next time you call him "phony tony" maybe I just won't bother responding.
Marie,
Yes, those were some of the contributors of his campaign. PG&E actually has renewable energy operations adjacent to where the senators Green Wave corp is. They have a stake into getting the permitting process fast tracked and using renewable energy, and we all want to create jobs. BP has no problem with renewable energy because they will always be able to undercut the costs. With a government mandate their lower prices will probably get them the same or even more business for the remaining power. I haven't heard anything about them opposing the bill other than you saying it here.
I haven't heard anything from Sempra, or Edison opposing this bill, but I haven't called any of my lobbyist friends.
You don't make sense.
Just look on the legislative analysis to see who opposes it. Tony donors. BP is listed in opposition.
haha says:
"I would like to call and ask again, but I think he is a bit busy right now. It is my understanding it has to do with timeframes and something about the percentage of satellite offices that would be effected by the mandates. Next time you call him "phony tony" maybe I just won't bother responding."
Ok, hide behind the "he is a bit busy right now" excuse.
Face it. Tony Strickland is looking out for Tony Strickland. No amount of spin by you or any other supporters is going to change the fact that he is hiding from the people.
Claiming that "Apparently, there is some language in the bill that would hurt SD 19" is vague and unresponsive. Yet you speak on his behalf. It is no wonder he earned the nick name "phony-tony". If he had any backbone at all, he would spell out his opposition to this measure.
Go ahead and don't "bother responding". It will just confirm his status as unresponsive to the people.
Haha,
Tony Strickland has said global warming is real. You shouldn't mock his beliefs. Science shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Phony Tony Strickland is about as environmentally friendly as a tire fire.
Right you are HaHa,
Phony tony is busy getting in shape to play B League Basketball. I say go for it Tony, replacing you is one special election I can get behind.
Wow, I try to help, and you guys get mad.
I'm not going to call twice for the Ventura County Star. They don't pay me enough, and neither does the state. If I really wanted mandated usage of green energy, maybe I'd have a little more enthusiasm and had put in the extra effort to find out exactly what he meant. He was brief, and didn't have much time. I should be meeting with him in a week, and hopefully he'll have some free time for lunch or something. I don't speak for the senator, I can only say what I've been told, and use my experience to determine the rest. Why should I have to excuse myself? You want to know specifics , Call him.
huhhuh,
Yes, I've seen the opposition page. Those are lobbying groups, and just so you know everything else I have said about those groups is true to my knowledge. I still haven't been in contact with any of my lobbyist friends. If I find out why they oppose it, while at the same time can see the potential pros vs cons if the legislation is passed, I will let you know their reasoning. All of the opposition lobbying groups mostly oppose the abstract idea of government mandating minimum amounts of anything, including taxes, and EPA standards, and the like. Even if the CEO of PG&E likes the bill, his lobbyists will probably oppose it because of their business rules.
John Doe,
How does me not responding have anything to do with his responsiveness to his constituents? Get your facts straight. Yes, he is busy, and I am not going to bother him for your sake. I only called because I was curious myself after I found out who co authored it.
Green,
Thank you for your dramatic sense of irony.
Brian,
He really does believe in renewable energy. He also believes in capitalism. Those things are not mutually exclusive, and the biggest difference between him and a tire fire is that the tire fire might raise your taxes (simi firefighters?).....JK.
Marie,
It seems to me like the senator wants the bill to pass, and knows it doesn't need his vote to do so. Because of that, he didn't want it on his record of mandating industry to adhere to global cooling polices, but he was concerned about local businesses, which obviously can't take an increased hit during economic turmoil.
He wanted the bill to pass but didn't want to have to take a stand? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
He wanted to amend a couple of clauses before it was passed, but Steinberg has control over calling a vote, and he would have had to motion to prevent the vote, then this blog entry by Marie would have read, 'Tony doesn't even support his own green company and keeps important bill from being passed.'
Once again, Haha, there is another house to go through and the Assembly gets another crack at it. It was amended multiple times.
But back to what you said earlier: "he didn't want it on his record of mandating industry to adhere to global cooling [sic] polices."
"the senator wants the bill to pass."
So are you trying to say he would not vote for something that he believed in because his donors would not approve?
I don't claim to know why the senator votes or doesn't vote. I found out why he didn't vote for the bill this one time in the senate. I asked this one time, and I tried to tell you guys what information I could get, while reading in between the lines, and Got my head chewed off.
Yes, it has to also go through the assembly. Like I said, he wanted to make the amendment before he would vote yes on the bill. To be sure, when a finalized version of the bill that includes the wording he finds acceptable, he should vote yes. I'm not sure if you understand that part. Once it has passed the senate, the amendments may not be needed for the bill to be passed into law.
Why is an anomymous blogger making excuses for an elected Senator? This is ridiculous. Either he or his chief of staff should make a statement on why he didn't vote for a bill he co-authored. Jeez!!!!
No, Haha, but his buddies in the Assembly still have time to work on it. Let's face it, he's the minority party, he is not going to get everything he wants. Either he agrees with the bill in spirit or he doesn't.
It's all about mandates.
You people have it all wrong. He doesn't want anything that isn't orthodox Republican ideology to pass, or at least pass with his name on it.
He doesn't explain often that he thinks humans are influencing global warming.
Instead he wants less restrictions and tax cuts for businesses. He says he is supports alternative energy but was it really that brave for him to come out in favor of less regulation and less taxes?
He doesn't talk much of mandates, incentives paid for by taxes on energy, or anything his party doesn't already support.
On policy what's the difference between an oil company and him?
He's Phony Tony and he's living up to his name.
You guys were asking for information, I had access to it, I gave it to you. And you call him names for "using" me to speak for him. I'm not. I'm resourceful and have the ability to get some of the answers you wanted. You guys are alarmingly accusatory. I am just trying to help, and I support renewable energy just like Senator Strickland, and I don't see what the problem is?
Thank you for trying to get answers, Haha.
Haha,
Almost everyone supports alternative energy if it doesn't cost us any money. When you declare you support it, what do you mean?
I am glad you have access to Senator Tony Strickland and his reasons for doing things when the rest of us do not. Too bad there isn't a political system where legislators would be chosen by "voters" and then come back and explain their votes. That system would be really cool!
Joking aside thanks for helping get information out to us. I don't get to hang with legislators often and I am not going to pay to go to their events just to get answers.
I support fast tracking, and government incentives for businesses using renewable energy resources. I think tax incentives work the best, and having a 0 tax rate on businesses that use all renewable energy would be a great idea. I don't support mandating usage, when we have plenty of dinosaurs That can provide the same asset at a much lower cost. I don't want to rely on Saudi Arabia either, so the sooner the better that we actually start helping green companies rather than punishing functioning businesses.
Why didn't this run in the print edition?
You're saving it for a big blowout piece, right?
Right?
I don't know. Ask Timm Herdt. He's our print guy. He did run something on the Form 700 reports of electeds after I reported it here.
I'm just a lowly blogger who likes to look through legislation in her "spare" time. We don't make the big bucks.