On Wednesday, Chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA-04) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-01) reintroduced the Bipartisan Background Checks Act (formerly known as H.R. 8).

“Last year, we passed the most significant gun violence prevention legislation in three decades in the wake of the tragedy in Uvalde, Texas. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act will help save lives and is a strong step in the right direction — but we know it’s just the first step,” said Thompson.

“The Bipartisan Background Checks Act is common sense gun violence prevention legislation that will do the most important thing gun violence prevention legislation can do: save lives. By keeping weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals, we can help keep our communities safe and reduce the threat of gun violence. I am incredibly proud to work with Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick who has been a tremendous partner on this legislation, and I look forward to a continued partnership to secure passage of this bill and deliver reforms that the majority of Americans support,” Thompson said.

“Our communities will be safer with the expansion of background checks for firearm sales under this bill,” said Fitzpatrick. “Background checks are a simple preventive measure that are proven to help our law enforcement keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This bipartisan legislation will prevent felons, domestic abusers, and dangerously mentally ill citizens from obtaining a firearm, while protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. I’m proud to support these common-sense reforms.”

“Background checks are the foundation of any common-sense approach to preventing gun violence, which is why more than 90 percent of Americans support them,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “Everytown applauds this bipartisan group of lawmakers for championing a crucial and common-sense step to keep guns out of dangerous hands.”

Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords said, “Universal background checks will save lives and the majority of Americans support this important, foundational legislation. I applaud Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick and Mike Thompson for demonstrating the courage to act by introducing this vital bill. Earlier this month, the CDC released new data showing that more Americans than ever are dying from gun violence: in 2021, nearly 50,000 lives were lost. We urge the House to do the right thing and take up the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2023.”

“The Brady Background Checks system, established over 25 years ago, has prevented over four million prohibited gun purchases and has saved countless lives, but there is still much work to be done. Today, approximately 1 in every 5 gun sales is completed without a background check. The passage of this legislation would expand background checks to virtually all firearm purchases, ensuring that guns are kept out of the dangerous hands of prohibited buyers. We urge the full Congress to pass this lifesaving legislation as quickly as possible and send it to President Biden’s desk for signature. The time is now to take action on gun violence and make our communities safer, and we will continue to fight for common sense solutions to end this epidemic,” said Kris Brown, president of Brady.

The majority of the American public has supported laws requiring background checks on all firearm purchases, with polling data consistently showing that more than 90% of both gun owners and non-gun owners support this provision, including 72% of members of the National Rifle Association.

Chairman Thompson has introduced background check legislation every Congress since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting which killed 20 children and six adult staff members.

The Bipartisan Background Checks Act was first introduced in the 116th Congress by Rep. Thompson and was passed in the House by a vote of 240-190, and again passed in the 117th Congress and passed the House by a vote of 227-203.

The bill languished in the Senate due to the filibuster.

Thompson represents California’s Fourth Congressional District, which includes all or part of Lake, Napa, Solano, Sonoma and Yolo counties. He is a senior member of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Rep. Thompson is Chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. He is also co-chair of the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Wine Caucus and a member of the fiscally-conservative Blue Dog Coalition.

 

When the Federal Reserve convenes at the end of January 2023 to set interest rates, it will be guided by one key bit of data: the U.S. inflation rate. The problem is, that stat ignores a sizable chunk of the country – rural America.

Currently sitting at 6.5%, the rate of inflation is still high, even though it has fallen back slightly from the end of 2022.

The overall inflation rate, along with core inflation – which strips out highly volatile food and energy costs – is seen as key to knowing whether the economy is heating up too fast, and guided the Fed as it imposed several large 0.75 percentage point interest rate increases in 2022. The hope is that raising the benchmark rate, which in turn increases the costs of taking out a bank loan or mortgage, for example, will help reduce inflation back to the Fed target of around 2%.

But the main indicator of inflation, the consumer price index, is compiled by looking at the changes in price specifically urban Americans pay for a set basket of goods. Those living in rural America are not surveyed.

As economists who study rural America, we believe this poses a problem: People living outside America’s cities represent 14% of the U.S. population, or around 46 million people. They are likely to face different financial pressures and have different consumption habits than urbanites.

The fact that the Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys only urban populations for the consumer price index makes assessing rural inflation much more difficult – it may even be masking a rural-urban inflation gap.

To assess if such a gap exists, one needs to turn to other pricing data and qualitative analyses to build a picture of price growth in nonurban areas. We did this by focusing on four critical goods and services in which rural and urban price effects may be significantly different. What we found was rural areas may indeed be suffering more from inflation than urban areas, creating an underappreciated gap.

1. The cost of running a car in the country

Higher costs related to cars and gas can contribute to a urban-rural inflation gap, severely eating into any discretionary income for families outside urban areas, a 2022 report found.

This is likely related to there being considerable differences in vehicle purchases, ownership and lengths of commutes between urban and rural Americans.

Car ownership is integral to rural life, essential for getting from place to place, whereas urban residents can more easily choose cheaper options like public transit, walking or bicycling. This has several implications for expenses in rural areas.

Rural residents spend more on car purchases out of necessity. They are also more likely to own a used car. During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a huge increase in used car prices as a result of a lack of new vehicles due to supply chain constraints. These price increases likely affected remote areas disproportionately.

Rural Americans tend to drive farther as part of their day-to-day activities. Because of greater levels of isolation, rural workers are often required to make longer commutes and drive farther for child care, with the proportion of those traveling 50 miles (80 kilometers) or more for work having increased over the past few years. In upper Midwest states as of 2018, nearly 25% of workers in the most remote rural counties commute 50 miles (80 kilometers) or more, compared with just over 10% or workers in urban counties.

Longer journeys mean cars and trucks will wear out more quickly. As a result, rural residents have to devote more money to repairing and replacing cars and trucks – so any jump in automotive inflation will hit them harder.

Though fuel costs can be volatile, periods of high energy prices – such as the one the U.S. experienced through much of 2022 – are likely to disproportionately affect rural residents given the necessity and greater distances of driving. Anecdotal evidence also suggests gas prices can be higher in rural communities than in urban areas.

2. Rising cost of eating at home – and traveling for groceries

As eating away from home becomes more expensive, many households may choose to eat in more often to cut costs. But rural residents already spend a larger amount on eating at home – likely due in part to the slimmer choices available for eating out.

This means they have less flexibility as food costs rise, particularly when it comes to essential grocery items for home preparation. And with the annual inflation of the price of groceries outpacing the cost eating out – 11.8% versus 8.3% – dining at home becomes comparably more expensive.

Rural Americans also do more driving to get groceries – the median rural household travels 3.11 miles (5 kilometers) to go to the nearest grocery store, compared with 0.69 miles (1.1 kilometers) for city dwellers. This creates higher costs to feed a rural family and again more vehicle depreciation.

Rural grocery stores are also dwindling in number, with dollar stores taking their place. As a result, fresh food in particular can be scarce and expensive, which leads to a more limited and unhealthy diet. And with food-at-home prices rising faster than prices at restaurants, the tendency of rural residents to eat more at home will see their costs rising faster.

3. The cost of growing old and ill outside cities

Demographically, rural counties trend older – part of the effect of younger residents migrating to cities and college towns for either work or educational reasons. And older people spend more on health insurance and medical services. Medical services overall have been rising in cost too, so those older populations will be spending more for vital doctors visits.

Again with health, any increase in gas prices will disproportionately hit rural communities more because of the extra travel needed to get even primary care. On average, rural Americans travel 5 more miles (8 kilometers) to get to the nearest hospital than those living in cities. And specialists may be hundreds of miles away.

4. Cheaper home costs, but heating and cooling can be expensive

Rural Americans aren’t always the losers when it comes to the inflation gap. One item in rural areas that favors them is housing.

Outside cities, housing costs are generally lower, because of more limited demand. More rural Americans own their homes than city dwellers. Since owning a home is generally cheaper than renting during a time of rising housing costs, this helps insulate homeowners from inflation, especially as housing prices soared in 2021.

But even renters in rural America spend proportionately less. With housing making up around a third of the consumer price index, these cost advantages work in favor of rural residents.

However, poorer-quality housing leaves rural homeowners and renters vulnerable to rising heating and cooling costs, as well as additional maintenance costs.

Inflation – a disproportionate burden

While there is no conclusive official quantitative data that shows an urban-rural inflation gap, a review of rural life and consumption habits suggests that rural Americans suffer more as the cost of living goes up.

Indeed, rural inflation may be more pernicious than urban inflation, with price increases likely lingering longer than in cities.

Stephan Weiler, Professor of Economics, Colorado State University and Tessa Conroy, Economic Development Specialist, University of Wisconsin-Madison

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday ended more than two dozen states of emergency, including several impacting Lake County.

Newsom signed a proclamation terminating 26 open states of emergency dating back to 2017.

The emergencies include various fires, prior storms and other incidents including the mpox emergency proclaimed in August of last year, coinciding with the termination of the federal public health emergency on mpox that took place on Tuesday.

In addition, the state’s COVID-19 State of Emergency will end on Feb. 28, as announced by the governor in October.

The emergencies that impacted Lake County that are included in the Tuesday proclamation include the Sulphur fire, which was declared an emergency on Oct. 9, 2017; the Pawnee fire, June 25, 2018; the River and Ranch fires, July 28, 2018; storms that were declared an emergency on Feb. 28, 2017; statewide forest conditions, declared an emergency on March 22, 2019; fire weather conditions, declared an emergency on Oct. 27, 2019; and the mpox emergency, declared Aug. 1, 2022.

The full list of emergencies terminated by Newsom’s Tuesday action, along with their original declaration dates and counties impacted, is below.

Feb. 12, 2017: Spillway at Oroville Dam; Butte, Sutter and Yuba counties.

Oct. 9, 2017: Cherokee, LaPorte, Sulphur, Potter, Cascade, Lobo and Canyon fires; Butte, Lake, Mendocino, Nevada and Orange counties.

Oct. 9, 2017: Tubbs and Atlas fires; Napa, Sonoma and Yuba counties.

Oct. 10, 2017: Atlas fire; Solano County.

Dec. 5, 2017: Thomas fire; Ventura County.

June 25, 2018: Pawnee fire; Lake County.

July 5, 2018: Klamathon fire; Siskiyou County.

July 26, 2018: Ferguson fire; Mariposa County.

July 28, 2018: River, Ranch and Steele fires; Lake, Mendocino and Napa counties.

Aug. 9, 2018: Holy fire; Orange and Riverside counties.

Nov. 29, 2018: Mendocino Complex fires; Colusa County.

Feb. 21, 2019: Storms; Calaveras, El Dorado, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Shasta, Tehama, Trinity, Ventura and Yolo counties.

Feb. 28, 2019: Storms; Amador, Glenn, Lake, Mendocino and Sonoma counties.

March 22, 2019: Forest conditions; statewide.

April 12, 2019: Storms; Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Mariposa, Napa, Santa Cruz, Solano and Tuolumne counties.

July 4, 2019: Earthquake; Kern County.

July 5, 2019: Earthquake; San Bernardino County.

Oct. 11, 2019: Eagle, Reche, Saddleridge, Sandalwood and Wolf fires; Los Angeles and Riverside counties.

Oct. 25, 2019: Tick and Kincade fires; Los Angeles and Sonoma counties.

Oct. 27, 2019: Fire weather conditions; statewide.

July 30, 2021: Energy; statewide.

Oct. 4, 2021: Pipeline spill; Orange County.

July 1, 2022: Colorado Fire; Monterey County.

July 16, 2022: Storms; Plumas and Tehama counties.

Aug. 1, 2022: Monkeypox; statewide.

Nov. 19, 2022: Route fire; Los Angeles County.

CLEARLAKE, Calif. — The five-member Clearlake Planning Commission has a vacancy that the city is now working to fill.

The Clearlake City Council is seeking applications from city residents interested in being a planning commissioner and serving a term that expires in March 2027.

Planning commissioners hear and act upon land use matters and are advisory to the Clearlake City Council on zoning regulations, the general plan and other land use issues.

Commissioners serve at the will of the City Council and are designated filers under the Fair Political Practices Commission and must file periodic statements of economic interest disclosing financial interests within the jurisdiction of the city.

Applications are available at Clearlake City Hall, 14050 Olympic Drive, on the city’s website or send interest via email to Administrative Services Director/City Clerk Melissa Swanson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

The City Council will consider applications and an appointment during the March 2 council meeting.

The deadline for applications to be included in the City Council meeting packet is Feb. 22 at 5 p.m.

Caltrans is recruiting volunteers who reside and travel in rural and tribal communities to participate in the latest testing phase of a “road charge” pilot.

Up to 500 volunteers will participate in a seven-month simulated road charge system, which charges drivers based on the number of miles they travel rather than the amount of gas they use to support the state’s critical transportation infrastructure.

There will be no cost to participate, and upon completion, volunteers will be eligible to receive an incentive of up to $250.

“Rural and tribal communities have unique travel needs and may interact with a road charge system in different ways,” said Caltrans Director Tony Tavares. “It is essential that Caltrans understands their needs as it develops an equitable and convenient alternative to the gas tax.”

Starting in March 2023, the California Road Charge Public-Private Roads Project will explore the technical aspects of reporting mileage, as well as engage rural and tribal communities in a conversation about their communities’ priorities in a potential road charge system to fund road and highway maintenance.

This pilot will simulate how participants interact with a road charge system by reporting mileage and “paying” mock invoices. The pilot will conduct surveys to gauge participants’ preferences and experience.

As vehicles become more fuel-efficient and the state’s transition to zero-emission vehicles accelerates, Caltrans is researching possible alternatives to the state gas tax, which California has historically relied on to build and maintain the state’s transportation system.

Volatile oil prices and California’s phasing out the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035 add increased urgency to research ways to bring long-term stability to transportation funding. For that reason, Caltrans is testing various methods to collect per-mile rather than per-gallon fees.

This demonstration is funded through a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program and will build on Caltrans’ previous road charge pilots: California’s Road Charge Pilot in 2017, which introduced the road charge concept to Californians, and California’s Four-Phase Demonstration, which tested the road charge concept across several platforms including pay-at-the-pump and electric vehicle charging station systems, usage-based insurance, transportation network company fleets, and automated vehicles.

Volunteers interested in participating in the pilot — and the incentive of up to $250 — may visit http://www.caroadcharge.com/projects/public-private-roads-project/ and complete the participant recruitment survey.

Participants must be California residents over the age of 18. The pilot is employing the highest standards in data protection and safeguarding, ensuring that Caltrans will not receive any sensitive information from participants.

To learn more about the California Road Charge Project and the Road Charge Program, please visit www.caroadcharge.com.

 

California is embarking on an audacious new climate plan that aims to eliminate the state’s greenhouse gas footprint by 2045, and in the process, slash emissions far beyond its borders. The blueprint calls for massive transformations in industry, energy and transportation, as well as changes in institutions and human behaviors.

These transformations won’t be easy. Two years of developing the plan have exposed myriad challenges and tensions, including environmental justice, affordability and local rule.

For example, the San Francisco Fire Commission had prohibited batteries with more than 20 kilowatt-hours of power storage in homes, severely limiting the ability to store solar electricity from rooftop solar panels for all those times when the sun isn’t shining. More broadly, local opposition to new transmission lines, large-scale solar and wind facilities, substations for truck charging, and oil refinery conversions to produce renewable diesel will slow the transition.

I had a front row seat while the plan was prepared and vetted as a longtime board member of the California Air Resources Board, the state agency that oversees air pollution and climate control. And my chief contributor to this article, Rajinder Sahota, is deputy executive officer of the board, responsible for preparing the plan and navigating political land mines.

We believe California has a chance of succeeding, and in the process, showing the way for the rest of the world. In fact, most of the needed policies are already in place.

What happens in California has global reach

What California does matters far beyond state lines.

California is close to being the world’s fourth-largest economy and has a history of adopting environmental requirements that are imitated across the United States and the world. California has the most ambitious zero-emission requirements in the world for cars, trucks and buses; the most ambitious low-carbon fuel requirements; one of the largest carbon cap-and-trade programs; and the most aggressive requirements for renewable electricity.

In the U.S., through peculiarities in national air pollution law, other states have replicated many of California’s regulations and programs so they can race ahead of national policies. States can either follow federal vehicle emissions standards or California’s stricter rules. There is no third option. An increasing number of states now follow California.

So, even though California contributes less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, if it sets a high bar, its many technical, institutional and behavioral innovations will likely spread and be transformative.

What’s in the California blueprint

The new Scoping Plan lays out in considerable detail how California intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 48% below 1990 levels by 2030 and then achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

It calls for a 94% reduction in petroleum use between 2022 and 2045 and an 86% reduction in total fossil fuel use. Overall, it would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2045 relative to 1990 levels. The remaining 15% reduction would come from capturing carbon from the air and fossil fuel plants, and sequestering it below ground or in forests, vegetation and soils.

To achieve these goals, the plan calls for a 37-fold increase in on-road zero-emission vehicles, a sixfold increase in electrical appliances in residences, a fourfold increase in installed wind and solar generation capacity, and doubling total electricity generation to run it all. It also calls for ramping up hydrogen power and altering agriculture and forest management to reduce wildfires, sequester carbon dioxide and reduce fertilizer demand.

This is a massive undertaking, and it implies a massive transformation of many industries and activities.

Transportation: California’s No. 1 emitter

Transportation accounts for about half of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, including upstream oil refinery emissions. This is where the path forward is perhaps most settled.

The state has already adopted regulations requiring almost all new cars, trucks and buses to have zero emissions – new transit buses by 2029 and most truck sales and light-duty vehicle sales by 2035.

In addition, California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires oil companies to steadily reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. This regulation aims to ensure that the liquid fuels needed for legacy cars and trucks still on the road after 2045 will be low-carbon biofuels.

But regulations can be modified and even rescinded if opposition swells. If battery costs do not resume their downward slide, if electric utilities and others lag in providing charging infrastructure, and if local opposition blocks new charging sites and grid upgrades, the state could be forced to slow its zero-emission vehicle requirements.

The plan also relies on changes in human behavior. For example, it calls for a 25% reduction in vehicle miles traveled in 2030 compared with 2019, which has far dimmer prospects. The only strategies likely to significantly reduce vehicle use are steep charges for road use and parking, a move few politicians or voters in the U.S. would support, and a massive increase in shared-ride automated vehicles, which are not likely to scale up for at least another 10 years. Additional charges for driving and parking raise concerns about affordability for low-income commuters.

Electricity and electrifying buildings

The key to cutting emissions in almost every sector is electricity powered by renewable energy.

Electrifying most everything means not just replacing most of the state’s natural gas power plants, but also expanding total electricity production – in this case doubling total generation and quadrupling renewable generation, in just 22 years.

That amount of expansion and investment is mind-boggling – and it is the single most important change for reaching net zero, since electric vehicles and appliances depend on the availability of renewable electricity to count as zero emissions.

Electrification of buildings is in the early stages in California, with requirements in place for new homes to have rooftop solar, and incentives and regulations adopted to replace natural gas use with heat pumps and electric appliances.

The biggest and most important challenge is accelerating renewable electricity generation – mostly wind and utility-scale solar. The state has laws in place requiring electricity to be 100% zero emissions by 2045 – up from 52% in 2021.

The plan to get there includes offshore wind power, which will require new technology – floating wind turbines. The federal government in December 2022 leased the first Pacific sites for offshore wind farms, with plans to power over 1.5 million homes. However, years of technical and regulatory work are still ahead.

For solar power, the plan focuses on large solar farms, which can scale up faster and at less cost than rooftop solar. The same week the new scoping plan was announced, California’s Public Utility Commission voted to significantly scale back how much homeowners are reimbursed for solar power they send to the grid, a policy known as net metering. The Public Utility Commission argues that because of how electricity rates are set, generous rooftop solar reimbursements have primarily benefited wealthier households while imposing higher electricity bills on others. It believes this new policy will be more equitable and create a more sustainable model.

Industry and the carbon capture challenge

Industry plays a smaller role, and the policies and strategies here are less refined.

The state’s carbon cap-and-trade program, designed to ratchet down total emissions while allowing individual companies some flexibility, will tighten its emissions limits.

But while cap-and-trade has been effective to date, in part by generating billions of dollars for programs and incentives to reduce emissions, its role may change as energy efficiency improves and additional rules and regulations are put in place to replace fossil fuels.

One of the greatest controversies throughout the Scoping Plan process is its reliance on carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS. The controversy is rooted in concern that CCS allows fossil fuel facilities to continue releasing pollution while only capturing the carbon dioxide emissions. These facilities are often in or near disadvantaged communities.

California’s chances of success

Will California make it? The state has a track record of exceeding its goals, but getting to net zero by 2045 requires a sharper downward trajectory than even California has seen before, and there are still many hurdles.

Environmental justice concerns about carbon capture and new industrial facilities, coupled with NIMBYism, could block many needed investments. And the possibility of sluggish economic growth could led to spending cuts and might exacerbate concerns about economic disruption and affordability.

There are also questions about prices and geopolitics. Will the upturn in battery costs in 2022 – due to geopolitical flare-ups, a lag in expanding the supply of critical materials, and the war in Ukraine – turn out to be a hiccup or a trend? Will electric utilities move fast enough in building the infrastructure and grid capacity needed to accommodate the projected growth in zero-emission cars and trucks?

It is encouraging that the state has already created just about all the needed policy infrastructure. Additional tightening of emissions limits and targets will be needed, but the framework and policy mechanisms are largely in place.

Rajinder Sahota, deputy executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, contributed to this article.

Daniel Sperling, Distinguished Blue Planet Prize Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Founding Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.