Senate Expenditures by Category (pdf * – 4K)
The Senate Budget Display Table includes the amounts provided for Senator salaries, mileage and per diem. Additionally displayed are expenditures for staff salary and benefits, as well as operations.
Assembly Expenditures By Category (pdf * – 4K)
The Assembly Budget Display Table includes the amounts provided for Assemblymember salaries, mileage and per diem. Additionally displayed are expenditures for staff salary and benefits, as well as operations.
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/0010/0100/department.html
***
|
Index of Funds
This page provides an alphabetical index of all funds and identifies the organization responsible for administration of the funds.
By clicking on the Administering Organization name, you will be transferred to the department’s budget web page. This web page provides access to all budget information for this department, including its Fund Condition Statement. By clicking on the administering organization’s FCS link, the organization’s Fund Condition Statement (FCS) in a printable pdf document will be displayed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/index_of_funds.html
***
California Budget Revenue Funds – Sources – (just a few I found interesting and where to find them) – as school education budgets are cut, and colleges and university budgets are cut, programs to poor, elderly, disabled and disadvantage populations are being cut, and the state government is buying whatever expensive goodies they would like to enjoy -
| Department of Finance
STATE OF CALIFORNIA MANUAL OF STATE FUNDS |
Fund: 0035
PAGE 1 Renumbered From: |
|||
| Legal Title
Surface Mining and Reclamation Account |
||||
| Legal Citation/Authority
Public Resources Code, Section 2795 Chapter 800, Statutes of 1980 |
||||
| Fund Classification
GAAP Basis Fiduciary/Trust and Agency-Other |
Fund Classification
Legal Basis Governmental/Special Accounts (S) |
|||
| Purpose
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Account in the General Fund was created as a depository for the first $2,000,000 from mining activities on federal lands disbursed by the federal government each fiscal year. These moneys are used for expenditures as designated and upon appropriation by the Legislature. |
||||
| Administering Agency/Org Code
(3480) Department of Conservation. |
||||
| Major Sources of Revenue
The first $2,000,000 received from the federal government representing money from mining activities on federal lands. |
||||
| Disposition
Pursuant to Government Code Section 16346, absent any language that provides for a successor fund, any balance remaining in this fund upon abolishment, shall be transferred to the General Fund. |
||||
| Appropriation Authority
Funds in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Account may be expended upon appropriation by the Legislature. Any portion of the fund for a fiscal year, which is not appropriated by June 30 of that year, is transferred to the unappropriated surplus of the General Fund. |
||||
| State Appropriations Limit
Always Excluded – Revenues in this fund are not proceeds of taxes and even after transfer, will never become proceeds of taxes because the major revenue source is derived from property leases. |
||||
| Historical Comments
If, in any fiscal year, the amount of money disbursed to the State pursuant to the Mineral Lands Leasing Act is less than $20 million, then only the first $1,100,000 shall be deposited into this fund. |
||||
(from)
http://www.dof.ca.gov/accounting/manual_of_state_funds/index/
- 0035 (.doc, 16k)
***
My Note – this makes it looks like it indicates a law that I need to look up about revenue sources derived from property leases on state and federal lands for mining and profitable exploitation - (indicated by this statement near the end of the above entry, “Revenues in this fund are not proceeds of taxes and even after transfer, will never become proceeds of taxes because the major revenue source is derived from property leases.)
Could they be excluding from general revenue funds available to cover the budget deficit shortfall, any number of revenues and funds that have been generated from oil drilling, offshore drilling, mining and other leases of public, federal and state lands? Hmmm.
- cricketdiane
***
(and this one – )
| Department of Finance
STATE OF CALIFORNIA MANUAL OF STATE FUNDS |
Fund: 0036
PAGE 1 Renumbered From: |
|||
| Legal Title
Special Account for Capital Outlay |
||||
| Legal Citation
Government Code Sections 16368-16368.1 Public Resources Code, Section 6217 |
||||
| Fund Classification
GAAP Basis Governmental/Capital Projects |
Fund Classification
Legal Basis Governmental/General Fund Special Accounts |
|||
| Authority and Purpose
Chapter 899/80 created the Special Account for Capital Outlay within the General Fund. Money in the account may be transferred to funds specified in Government Code Section 16368.1(a), used for capital outlay for publicly owned structures or maintenance of existing publicly funded structures, or any other purpose approved by the Legislature. |
||||
| Administering Agency
(1830) State Allocation Board. |
||||
| Major Sources
Excess revenue received by State Lands Commission after satisfying the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 6217. |
||||
| Disposition
Transfers to Capital Outlay Fund for Public Higher Education; State School Building Lease Purchase Fund; State Parks and Recreation Fund; Transportation Planning and Development Account in the State Transportation Fund. Capital outlay for publicly owned structures. Maintenance of existing public structures. Other purposes approved by the Legislature. |
||||
| Appropriation Authority
Government Code Section 16368.1 provides that the money in the Special Account for Capital Outlay can be appropriated by the Legislature for the purposes listed in that section. |
||||
| State Appropriations Limit
Always Excluded- The major revenue source is transferred from another fund which has already been counted in an included fund, the General Fund (0001), and should not be double counted. |
||||
| Historical Comments | ||||
(from)
http://www.dof.ca.gov/accounting/manual_of_state_funds/index/
- 0036 (.doc, 44k)
***
Judicial review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about court power over non-judicial branches. For court power over lower courts, see Appellate review.
Judicial review is the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution. Judicial review is an example of the functioning of separation of powers in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary is one of three branches of government). This principle is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, which also have differing views on the different hierarchy of governmental norms. As a result, the procedure and scope of judicial review differs from country to country and state to state.
Contents |
General
Judicial review of administrative acts
Most modern legal systems allow the courts to review administrative acts; i.e., individual decisions of a public body, such as a decision to grant a subsidy or to withdraw a residence permit. In most systems, this also includes review of secondary legislation; i.e., legally enforceable rules of general applicability adopted by administrative bodies. Some countries, most notably France and Germany, have implemented a system of administrative courts, that are charged exclusively with deciding on disputes between the members of the public and the administration. In other countries, including the United States, United Kingdom and the Netherlands, judicial review is carried out by regular civil courts, although it may be delegated to specialized panels within these courts, such as the Administrative Court within the High Court of England and Wales. The United States employs a mixed system in which some administrative decisions are reviewed by the United States district courts, which are the general trial courts, some are reviewed directly by the United States courts of appeals, and others are reviewed by specialized tribunals such as the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (which, despite its name, is not technically part of the federal judicial branch). It is quite common that before a request for judicial review of an administrative act is filed with a court, certain preliminary conditions, such as a complaint to the authority itself, must be fulfilled.
In most countries, the courts apply special procedures in administrative cases.
Judicial review of primary legislation
There are three broad approaches to judicial review of the constitutionality of primary legislation; that is, laws passed directly by an elected legislature.
Some countries do not permit any review of the validity of primary legislation. In the United Kingdom, statutes cannot be set aside under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Another example is the Netherlands, where the Constitution expressly forbids the courts to rule on the question of constitutionality of primary legislation.[1]
The United States is unique as the sole country in which federal and state courts, at all levels (appellate and trial) are able to review and declare the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of legislation that is relevant to any case properly within their jurisdiction. In American legal language, “judicial review” refers primarily to the adjudication of constitutionality of statutes, especially by the Supreme Court of the United States.
A number of other countries whose constitutions do provide for a review of the compatibility of primary legislation with the constitution have established special constitutional courts that have the exclusive authority to deal with this issue: see List of constitutional courts. In these systems, other courts are not competent to question the constitutionality of primary legislation.
Judicial review in specific jurisdictions
Notes
- ^ Article 120 of the Netherlands Constitution
See also
External Links
- [1] a book on the subject
- [2] a comparison of modern constitutions
- Human rights and judicial review. 1994. http://books.google.com/books?id=N_UjZarvAwYC&pg=PA135&dq=comparative+%22constitutional+review%22&as_brr=3&ei=xI0wSsePE4qsywSNx6GjDg#PPP7,M1. (a comparison of national judicial review doctrines)
- The American doctrine of judicial supremacy. 1914. http://books.google.com/books?id=Kev8w1pfnaUC&pg=PA3&dq=judicial+review&ei=3IkwSqG5IZbozATtxNCvDg#PPR5,M1. (this book traces the doctrine’s history in an international/comparative fashion)
- “Constitutional Review in Comparative Perspective”. The politics of constitutional review in Germany. 2005. http://books.google.com/books?id=bnmvFZouejkC&pg=PA9&dq=comparative+%22constitutional+review%22&ei=pI0wSsf1PIaCywTz2PiKDg#PPA9,M1.
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review“
Categories: Court systems | Constitutional law
***
Calif. Assemblymember Nava Introduces Oil Industry Fair Share Act
Edited by Valerie Gotten
published Wed, 06 Jan 2010 – 01:18:18 -0800 PSTNo Comment
SACRAMENTO /California Newswire/ — On the eve of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s State of the State Address, and the release of his 2010-11 Budget Proposal, Assemblymember Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) introduced today The Oil Industry Fair Share Act. The legislation will establish an oil severance tax of 10% on the gross value of each barrel of crude oil pumped by companies in California. This tax will provide more than $1.5 billion in revenue to the General Fund annually. These desperately needed dollars could be used for public safety, education, health programs for children, human services, and other vital programs.
“California oil companies are getting a free ride. Right now, California is the only major oil producing state that does not charge a severance tax on oil extraction. It is time for California to catch up with Alaska, Texas, Alabama, and Arkansas. We need to collect the people’s share of this revenue source by forcing Big Oil to pay its fair share,” said Nava.
The Governor is advocating for a proposal to allow a single oil company to bypass existing environmental review processes and begin the first new drilling in Santa Barbara in California Coastal Sanctuary waters in more than 40 years, since the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. This will raise less than $100 million annually.
Said Nava,”The Governor is placing at risk coastal recreation and tourism industries by advocating for new offshore oil drilling in the Coastal Sanctuary. This is just plain wrong and wrong headed. New drilling is not the answer and is not worth the risk. My proposal will generate more than 15 times the Governor’s proposal annually without any new drilling or jeopardizing California’s coastal environment and economy.”
(etc.)
“With $18 billion in cuts to education, this could be an important source of revenue to save important services for our students,” said Jai Sookprasert, the tax policy analyst for the California School Employees Association.
“Seniors have borne the brunt of these draconian budget cuts; we have seen a reduction in adult day health care programs that allow seniors to stay in their homes, the elimination of Alzheimer’s research, and aid to low-income seniors has been slashed,” said Gary Passmore of the Congress of California Seniors. “The Fair Share Act will bring much needed revenues to support these essential programs.”
( . . . )
http://californianewswire.com/2010/01/06/CNW6418_011818.php
***
The administration is also considering an increase in the 12.5 percent royalty rate charged for oil and natural gas produced on federal lands, which dates back to 1920 and is far lower than what some states charge. Texas, for instance, collects a royalty rate of 22.5 percent.
Salazar said the proposals were prompted by the need to raise money to pare the deficit in a “tough budget.”
Noting Exxon Mobil Corp.’s record-breaking 2008 $45 billion profit, Salazar said: “I don’t think that frankly any of these fees that we are talking about here are going to put anybody out of business.”
[etc.]
said.
Several oil patch senators said they were concerned that a related administration plan to get rid of tax incentives long used by the oil and gas industry to defray the high capital costs of drilling would curb domestic production.
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., called the budget plan a collection of “draconian taxes on the oil and gas industry.”
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6896141.html
**
· Exxon Mobil
$4.9 billion Federal Contracts: $4,884,179,280
Oil/Gas Leases: 2.3 million acres
Withdrew
United States
Infineum U.K., a joint venture in which ExxonMobil has a 50 percent indirect ownership, sold gasoline additives to Iran, but stopped in 2006, according to Cynthia Bergman White, company spokeswoman. Exxon is a big supplier of fuel to the Department of Defense.
· Dresser-Rand
$215.1 million Federal Contracts: $215,134,753
Active
United States
Dresser-Rand, a Texas-based oil and gas equipment supplier, said in multiple filings with the SEC, including as recently as last month, that “from time to time, certain of our foreign subsidiaries operate in countries that are or have previously been subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the U.S. government and the United Nations, including in Iran, Sudan and Syria.”
· Possible violator of the Iran Sanctions Act
· ConocoPhillips/Lukoil
$1.7 billion Federal Contracts: $1,696,615,833
Federal Grants: $5,043,044
Oil/Gas Leases: 2.1 million acres
Active
United States
ConocoPhillips did business in Iran through its British subsidiary, Conoco LTD, up until 2003, when it left the country. But in 2004 it bought a minority stake in Lukoil, which continues to do business with Iran. A spokesperson said that Lukoil, in addition to its contract with an Iranian oil company to develop an oil project in Uzbekistan, sells gasoline to Iran. Although ConocoPhillips is not directly involved in Lukoil’s Iran-related business, ConocoPhillips spokesperson John McLemore confirmed that the company profits from it due to its 20 percent investment in the company.
· BP
3.5 million acresIn Oil/Gas Leases Oil/Gas Leases: 3.5 million acres
Active
Britain
BP, in a 2009 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, said it had interests in and was the operator of two fields and a pipeline located outside Iran in which the National Iranian Oil company had an interest. The company also said in the filing that it buys small quantities of crude oil from Iran for sale to third parties in Europe and for its own refineries in South Africa and Europe and, through a joint venture, blends small quantities of lubricants for sale there. In addition, BP was one of several companies that provided Iran with gasoline, but Toby Odone, a spokesman for BP in London, said the company decided in 2008 to cease such shipments.
· Flowserve
$71.1 million Federal Contracts: $71,041,144
Federal Grants: $33,850
Active, but no new investment
United States
Flowserve, which makes flow control equipment used in the oil and gas industry and has sold power and hand pumps to the Department of Defense, said in 2009 filings with the SEC that due to ‘growing political uncertainties’ its foreign subsidiaries had in 2006 begun a voluntary phased withdrawal from conducting new business in countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism, including Iran, Syria and Sudan. “The aggregate amount of all business done by our foreign subsidiaries for customers in Iran, Syria and Sudan accounted for less than 1 percent of our consolidated global revenue in 2008,” the company said, adding that while it was voluntarily phasing out new business with those countries, “our foreign subsidiaries may independently continue to honor certain existing contracts, commitments and warranty obligations in compliance with U.S. and other applicable laws and regulations.”
· Foster Wheeler Corporation
$199 million Federal Contracts: $194,212,561
Federal Grants: $4,757,900
Withdrew
Switzerland
Foster Wheeler, an engineering and construction firm that provides services to the oil and gas industry, did business in Iran until 2006, when it told the Securities and Exchange Commission it was withdrawing. It used to be a United States-based company, but moved in 2001 to Bermuda, which allowed it to avoid United States corporate income taxes, and has since moved again to Switzerland.
· Glencore
$20.2 million Federal Contracts: $20,234,590
Withdrew
Switzerland
Glencore, a commodities trader, was a large supplier of gasoline to Iran, but stopped last year in the face of threatened new economic sanctions by the U.S. government. The company, and its predecessor, Marc Rich and Co., had done business with Iran for more than three decades. It also has provided the United States military with transporation services, among other things.
· Halliburton
$27.1 billion Federal Contracts: $27,080,906,722
Withdrew
United States
Halliburton, former Vice President Cheney’s old company, provided oil and gas drilling services to Iran through foreign subsidies. After a political furor erupted over the work, the company announced it would do no new business in Iran, and it exited the country altogether in 2007. While still operating in Iran, Halliburton won huge contacts from the federal government, including a no-bid contract to restore Iraq’s oil sector, as did its subsidiary at the time, Kellogg Brown & Root.
· Honeywell
$12.9 billion Federal Contracts: $12,841,485,738
Federal Grants: $77,743,166
Active, but no new investment
United States
Honeywell acquired 100 percent ownership of Universal Oil Products (UOP), based in Des Plaines, Ill., in 2005. UOP has a British subsidiary that conducts business in Iran; it is part of a consortium with Axens, Technip, Sinopec Engineering Inc. and several Iranian firms that is expanding and upgrading the Arak Refinery in Iran. The project, budgeted to cost $3.7 billion, could nearly triple gasoline production, from 34,000 to 100,000 barrels per day, according to various news reports and FACTS Global Energy, an expert in the industry. Honeywell is a top federal contractor, and UOP recently won a $25 million grant to help develop renewable energy sources. In a statement, the company said that in early 2009 it committed to the State Department that it would not undertake any new projects in Iran, but that it is fulfilling its contractual obligations relating to the Arak refinery. ‘Should the U.S. Congress pass a law that prohibits subsidiaries of U.S. companies from doing business in Iran, Honeywell will comply fully,’ the statement said.
(and many others listed on this article – link below. But, this one is the most interesting for other reasons – )
· KPMG
$1.2 billion Federal Contracts: $1,165,410,540
Federal Grants: $12,496,357
Active
Netherlands
Bayat Rayan, a subsidiary of KMPG, has been operating in Iran since 1955. They are the number one international accounting firm in Iran, according to the company. KPMG also provides accounting and auditing services to the United States federal government.
(from)
The New York Times identified 74 corporations that have done business in Iran over the last decade, using corporate records filed with the Securities Exchange Commission, company websites, news accounts confirmed by interviews with company officials, and Congressional reports. The Times also used divestiture records compiled by Florida, New York and other states that have forbidden their pensions funds from investing in companies that do certain types of business in Iran, and a list of corporations that the State Department is investigating for possible violations of the Iran Sanctions Act.
The companies, along with their subsidiaries, were then matched against federal contracting and grants databases, Export Import Bank annual reports, Department of Interior oil and gas leasing records and other government documents.
The Times analysis, which covered the years 2000 through the end of 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/06/world/iran-sanctions.html
***
Pierson: Pass the leasing reform bill
Indian Country Today - Brian Pierson – 20 hours ago
United States, the Court of Federal Claims held the government liable for failing to monitor and enforce an oil lease it had negotiated on behalf of …
Pierson: Pass the leasing reform bill
***
Econ Harm From US Oil Ban
(Updates with lawmakers additional background and details)
By Ian Talley Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–The U.S. economy could lose trillions of dollars in income and see oil imports increase if the Obama administration maintains a moratorium on domestic petroleum development in closed areas, a new report warns.
The study was co-commissioned by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, or NARUC, and the oil and natural gas industry.
It comes as the Department of the Interior is re-writing the administration’s plans on where, when and if it will allow new exploration around the country, particularly in the Outer Continental Shelf.
It also follows an email last fall from a top Interior Department official indicating that public comments ran two-to-one in favor of a Bush administration plan to expand offshore drilling.
Although Congress lifted the official 30-year moratorium for drilling on many new areas off the U.S. coast, the administration has in principle maintained the moratorium by not opening new, unscheduled areas for development. The Interior Department under the Obama Administration has held several previously-scheduled lease sales and approved two Arctic exploration licenses for blocks the industry says may have great potential.
“Our research allows policy makers to know the extent of the resource base and the effects that maintaining the restrictions would have on the country,” said O’Neal Hamilton, chairman of the NARUC study group that ordered the review.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has repeatedly said that oil and natural gas will remain critical components of the domestic energy portfolio for years. Last year, the department offered more than 56 million acres for development on and offshore as part of long-planned lease sales.
Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff noted in an email that despite downward pressure on oil and gas prices due to global economic conditions, federal onshore and offshore oil production actually increased 14% over the last year, and federal natural gas production rose 33%.
“And while Secretary Salazar believes we must responsibly develop both conventional and renewable resources here at home, we must also ensure that energy development occurs in the right ways and the right places, and with a fair return to taxpayers,” Barkoff said.
The study, based on updated oil and natural gas resource figures, said maintaining a de facto moratorium would not only cut domestic production and increase imports, but that over a 20-year period gross domestic product decreases by $2.36 trillion, an average of half-percent a year. Cumulative national real disposable increase decreases by $1.2 trillion over the period, about $4,500 per person.
The study will likely give added political ammunition to proponents of new exploration, particularly as the Obama administration is touting its desire to boost the economy with a jobs bill.
While the study was sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, the American Gas Association and a raft of oil and natural gas companies, its reviewers included administration officials in the Department of Energy, the Energy Information Administration and the Bureau of Land Management.
According to the report, the updated natural gas resource base is equal to up to 90 years of U.S. consumption, while oil resources are the equivalent of almost 50 years, based on 2009 demand. If the Administration allowed access to the closed areas, domestic crude production could rise by 10 billion barrels and natural gas production by 46 trillion cubic feet over the next 20 years.
Interior Secretary Salazar’s decision to review development has not only raised the ire of some in the public, but also state officials. Virginia politicians talked of legal action after one Interior official said a planned offshore lease there would likely be delayed years beyond 2011. Alaska officials warned the Department that a decision to keep new Alaska development off limits could prematurely cut crude transport to the lower 48 states because major pipes wouldn’t have the minimum operating capacity to fill it.
Republican lawmakers, including the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee Doc Hastings, (R., Wa.), seized on the report to criticize Democratic policies that aimed to curtail development.
“Unless their policies change, Americans can look forward to a world with millions of fewer jobs, higher gas prices, higher electricity prices, and billions of American dollars being sent to hostile foreign countries,” Hastings said in an emailed statement.
-By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires, 202-862-9285; ian.talley@dowjones.com
(Stephen Power of the Wall Street Journal contributed to this report.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100215-706458.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines
**
- FEBRUARY 11, 2010, 5:31 P.M. ET
MMS Reduces Lease Length In Oil, Gas Gulf Tract Sale
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–The U.S. Minerals Management Service reduced the lease terms for offshore Gulf of Mexico oil and gas tracts in a coming lease sale, saying that advances in sub-sea drilling technology allow companies to explore and develop new reservoirs.
In a statement released Thursday announcing a lease sale 213 in the Central Gulf of Mexico, the Department of Interior agency, which oversees offshore energy production, said that lease periods would be reduced to seven years from 10 years for tracts in water depths ranging from 800 meters to 1,600 meters. The lease period can be extended for three more years if a well is begun during the initial term.
The changes will encourage “diligent development” of the offshore continental shelf, said MMS Director Liz Birnbaum in a statement.
Leases with water depths between 400 and 800 meters will last five years and could be extended for an additional three years if a well is drilled in the initial period. Tracts with water depths greater than 1,600 meters will be leased for 10 years.
The Central Gulf Lease sale will be held March 17 in New Orleans. It encompasses 6,958 blocks covering more than 36.9 million acres in offshore Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The MMS estimates that the lease sale could result in the production of about 0.8 to 1.3 billion barrels of oil and 3.3 to 5.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
-By Angel Gonzalez, Dow Jones Newswires; 713-547-9214; angel.gonzalez@dowjones.com
-0-
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100211-718012.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines
**
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar hosted a meeting with Governors and representatives of Atlantic Coast states to discuss a regional approach to wind energy development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Left to right are state Senator Frank Wagner (Virginia), Governor Jack Markell (Delaware), Governor Martin O’Malley (Maryland), Secretary Salazar, Governor Donald L. Carcieri (Rhode Island), Governor John Baldacci (Maine).
**
|
On December 20, 2006, the President signed into law the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (Pub. Law 109-432) (50.83 KB PDF). The Act significantly enhances OCS oil and gas leasing activities and revenue sharing in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). The Act:
The Act created revenue sharing provisions for the four Gulf oil and gas producing States of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, and their coastal political subdivisions (CPS’s). GOMESA funds are to be used for coastal conservation, restoration and hurricane protection. There are two phases of GOMESA revenue sharing: Phase I: Beginning in Fiscal Year 2007, 37.5 percent of all qualified OCS revenues, including bonus bids, rentals and production royalty, will be shared among the four States and their coastal political subdivisions from those new leases issued in the 181 Area in the Eastern planning area (also known as the 224 Sale Area) and the 181 South Area. Additionally, 12.5 percent of revenues are allocated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The final regulations for Phase I revenue sharing (96.19 KB PDF) were issued on December 23, 2008 and specify that the MMS intends to disburse funds on or before March 31st of the fiscal year following the fiscal year to which the qualified OCS revenues were attributed. GOMESA Revenue-Sharing Allocations
Phase II: The second phase of GOMESA revenue sharing begins in Fiscal Year 2017. It expands the definition of qualified OCS revenues to include receipts from GOM leases issued either after December 20, 2006, in the 181 Call Area, or, in 2002–2007 GOM Planning Areas subject to withdrawal or moratoria restrictions. A revenue sharing cap of $500 million per year for the four Gulf producing States, their CPS’s and the LWCF applies from fiscal years 2016 through 2055. The $500 million cap does not apply to qualified revenues generated in those areas associated with Phase I of the GOMESA program. MMS will address the second phase of GOMESA revenue sharing in a subsequent rulemaking. The Act stipulated that 8.3 million acres be offered for oil and gas leasing shortly after enactment of the statute. This acreage is included in both the Central Gulf Planning Area and the Eastern Gulf Planning Area. It consists of:
The GOMESA Moratorium covers a portion of the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (CPA), and, until 2022, most of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (EPA). The specific locations restricted from leasing activities include that portion of the Eastern Planning Area within 125 miles of Florida, all areas in the Gulf of Mexico east of the Military Mission Line (86o 41’ west longitude), and the area within the Central Planning Area that is within 100 miles of Florida. The Act also allowed for the exchange of existing leases in the moratorium areas for bonus or royalty credit to be used in the Gulf of Mexico. The final regulations for the exchange credits (65.99 KB PDF File) were issued on September 12, 2008. A credit will be provided to lessees who relinquish certain eligible leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Leases are eligible if they lie within 125 miles off the Florida coast in the Eastern Planning Area or within 100 miles off the Florida coast in the Central Planning Area. The lessees must use the credits by in lieu of monetary payment for either a lease bonus bid or royalty due on oil and gas production from most other leases in the Gulf of Mexico or transfer the credits to other Gulf of Mexico lessees for their use. To obtain the bonus or royalty credit, all of the lease record title interest owners must request the credit on or before October 14, 2010. MMS: Securing Ocean Energy & Economic Value for America |
http://www.mms.gov/offshore/GOMESARevenueSharing.htm
**
Welcome to the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region of the Minerals Management Service. The MMS has two major functions. The bureau manages the Nation’s offshore energy and mineral resources, including oil, gas, and alternative energy sources, as well as sand, gravel and other hard minerals on the OCS. The MMS is also responsible for the collection and disbursement of revenues associated with energy and mineral resource production from all onshore and offshore Federal and Indian lands.
The MMS Pacific Region is one of three OCS regional offices. The Region currently manages 49 Federal oil and gas leases offshore southern California, 43 of which are producing about 24 million barrels of oil and 47 billion cubic feet of gas annually from 23 platforms. Furthermore, under authority granted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Region is accepting applications for renewable energy (e.g. wind, wave, hydrogen and solar) projects in Federal waters offshore Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii. The MMS published final regulations regarding the leasing and oversight of renewable energy activities in April 2009.
The Pacific Region places the highest priority on safety and environmental protection while working to ensure effective and efficient energy resource recovery efforts on the OCS.
| Regional Director’s Message |
http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/index.htm
**
Message from the Regional Director
Energy security is on the minds of many Americans. Lately, it seems not a day goes by that we aren’t reminded of the far-reaching impact energy has in our daily lives and on our economy. Through close consultation and coordination with West Coast States, other government agencies, and key stakeholders, the MMS Pacific OCS Region is working to seek possible solutions to our Nation’s complex energy situation.
To date, the MMS Pacific OCS Region continues to diligently pursue its mission of effectively and responsibly managing America’s offshore energy resources on the Pacific OCS. Led by a vision based on collaboration, the Pacific OCS Region carries out its day-to-day operations through a diverse and well-trained staff dedicated to working closely with State and local governments, ocean-users and other key stakeholders. Through these working relationships, the Pacific OCS Region obtains a greater appreciation of regional and local issues; this, in turn, provides the agency with insight to better understand and respond to issues of concern while pursuing the Region’s core principles of safety, science and sustainability.
Safety
The Region is committed to ensuring clean and safe energy and mineral operations on the OCS, and protecting coastal and marine environments potentially affected by the activities we regulate. This commitment is demonstrated by our impressive oil-spill record. Since 1970, a total of only 850 barrels of oil have been lost into the marine environment from Pacific OCS operations. This is less than the amount of oil seeping naturally into the ocean from cracks in the seafloor during any given week offshore California.
Our inspectors are offshore 365 days a year, inspecting the 23 OCS platforms for compliance with MMS regulations and various other conditions of operation. Additionally, the Region’s inspection protocol includes engineers and environmental scientists, many of whom participate in systemic reviews of the facilities as well as in ongoing and regular inspections. The Region continues to improve its regulations and enforcement procedures to further ensure clean and safe management of OCS resources.
Science
Scientific research and advancement are essential to the success of the Region. From an operational perspective, technological improvements within the energy industry have the potential to increase access to resources while reducing associated adverse environmental impacts. Moreover, since 1973, the MMS Regional Environmental Studies Program has cumulatively funded 189 studies addressing Pacific OCS issues at a value of almost $124 million. In many cases, these studies represent pioneering research for the entire California coastline. The scientific information obtained from these studies assists the Region in assessing the impacts of OCS operations on the marine and coastal ecology along California. Information from existing and future studies will become invaluable in understanding the effects of alternative energy development on the OCS.
Sustainability
Since energy consumption continues to increase, satisfying the Nation’s energy needs will require a sustainable approach to production and development of OCS resources. The Pacific OCS Region has been, and will continue to be, an important contributor to the domestic hydrocarbon inventory. Over the past 36 years, the Region has produced over 1.09 billion barrels of oil and 1.38 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. With 43 leases currently producing, it is estimated that almost 400 million barrels of oil and over 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas remain to be recovered.
The Region emphasizes the importance of maximizing the ultimate recovery of those hydrocarbon resources to ensure that reservoirs are developed in a manner that prevents waste. Additionally, access to and uses of resources on the OCS continues to increase. Diversifying the Nation’s energy portfolio with well-planned OCS alternative energy development, such as the harnessing of wind, wave and ocean current resources will provide a greater amount of domestically produced renewable energy. As these projects progress, MMS remains committed to ensuring that multiple uses do not conflict and that development on the OCS is orderly and sustainable.
The Pacific OCS Region is proud of the role it plays in satisfying the energy needs of the American people. However, we recognize that our success relies on maintaining an open dialog with those we serve. I encourage you to use this website as an active means of communicating with the Region. Visit often and offer us feedback. Whether you wish to track a specific project, learn more about ongoing environmental studies or find educational materials for teachers and students, the Pacific OCS Region’s website has something for everyone. I hope you find this site both useful and informative.
The Region will continue to draw on its core principles – safety, science and sustainability – to manage the Nation’s offshore energy and mineral resources in a manner that is responsive to the country’s needs and sensitive to the public’s concerns.
Ellen G. Aronson
Regional Director
OUR MISSION: We manage Federal offshore energy and mineral resources in a manner that is responsive to the public’s concerns.
OUR VISION: To be recognized by the public as a Federal agency that is composed of knowledgeable and dedicated people who are trusted to manage Federal offshore energy and mineral resources in a responsible manner.
| MMS Accessibility | MMS Quality of Information | MMS Privacy Policy | MMS Freedom of Information | MMS Disclaimer |
http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/public/rdmessage.htm
**
Current Facts & Figures in the Pacific OCS Region
| Acres Under Lease | 241,023 |
| Active Leases | 49 |
| Producing Leases | 43 |
| Barrels of Oil per Day (December 2008) |
65,700 |
| Cubic Feet of Gas per Day (December 2008) |
128 million |
| Total Oil & Gas Wells Drilled (through December 2008) |
1,348 |
| Cumulative Production of Oil (through December 2008) |
1.21 billion barrels |
| Cumulative Production of Gas (through December 2008) |
1.62 trillion cubic feet |
| Total Development Wells Drilled (through December 2008) |
1,020 |
| Total Exploration Wells Drilled (through December 2008) |
328 |
| Oil & Gas Platforms | 23 |
| Miles of Pipeline | 188 |
| Companies Operating Pacific OCS Facilities | 6 |
| Well Activities | |
| Applications for Permit to Drill Wells Approved (CY 2008) | 6 |
| Development Wells Spudded (CY 2008) | 5 |
| Exploration Wells Spudded | 0 |
| MMS Inspections of OCS Facilities | |
| Drilling Inspections | 24 |
| Production Inspections | 169 |
| Workover/completion Inspections | 15 |
| Abandonment Inspections | 0 |
| Environmental Inspections | 306 |
| Safety/Meters Inspections | 92 |
| Other Inspections | 190 |
| Total Number of Inspections | 796 |
| Records in the Pacific Region | ||
| Platform in Deepest Water | Platform Harmony: Lease OCS-P 0190 | 1,198′ |
| Platform in Shallowest Water | Platform Gina: Lease OCS-P 0202 | 95′ |
| Platform with Most Well Slots | Platform Gilda: Lease OCS-P 0216 | 96 |
| Platform Farthest from Land | Platform Grace: Lease OCS-P 0217 | 10 1/2 Miles |
| Exploratory Well in Deepest Water | Lease OCS-P 0353 Well #1 | 1,911′ |
| Exploratory Well in Shallowest Water | Lease OCS-P 0361 Well #4 | 68′ |
| Exploratory Well Deepest Depth | Lease OCS-P 0234 Well #3 | 18,318′ |
| Well with Longest Reach | Lease OCS-P 0193 Well #SA-15 | 5.63 miles |
Free Data Available for Downloading. Leasing, Production and Platform/Rig data available in ASCII Fixed and Delimited format.
| MMS Accessibility | MMS Quality of Information | MMS Privacy Policy | MMS Freedom of Information | MMS Disclaimer |
http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/offshore/currentfacts.htm
**
Pacific OCS Revenue Facts
The Mineral Management Service’s Minerals Revenue Management is responsible for the collection and disbursement of revenue collected from the leasing and development of the Nation’s onshore and offshore mineral resources. You can find data by State for Section 8(g) OCS Lands Act Fund disbursements.
Revenue from the offshore oil and gas program — royalties, rents, and bonuses — is used to the benefit of the country in many different ways. On average, approximately two-thirds of the revenue goes to the general fund of the United States Treasury to help pay for government programs and services. States also receive a portion of the revenue collected from offshore oil and gas activity within a band that is 3 to 6 miles off their shore, as specified in section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act. In California, this activity takes place on the OCS adjacent to the counties of Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles and Orange.
The remaining third of the revenue is provided to one of two funds:
- The Land and Water Conservation Fund helps Federal, State and local governments acquire and develop parklands and recreation projects. Between 70 and 90 percent of the Fund Disbursements provided are from OCS mineral revenues. In 1997, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt identified the basic intent of the Fund as to “devote revenue from one public resource, oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf, to the perpetuation of another public resource, outdoor recreation lands at the federal, state, and local levels.”
- The National Historic Preservation Fund to help protect and preserve the finest examples of America’s cultural heritage. OCS contributions to the National Historic Preservation Fund have totaled over $700 million.
http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/offshore/revenuefacts.htm
**
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1431_cfa_960823_110844_sen_floor.html
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE AB 1431
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
1020 N Street, Suite 524
(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) 327-4478
.
THIRD READING
.
Bill No: AB 1431
Author: Firestone (R), et al
Amended: 8/23/96 in Senate
Vote: 21
.
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WILD. COMMITTEE: 10-1, 6/27/95
AYES: Hayden, Thompson, Johannessen, Johnston, Killea,
Leslie, Monteith, O’Connell, Rogers, Solis
NOES: Mello
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 9-0, 8/21/96
AYES: Johnston, Dills, Kelley, Killea, Leonard, Leslie,
Lewis, Mello, Mountjoy
NOT VOTING: Alquist, Hughes, Peace, Polanco
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 6/2/95
.
SUBJECT: Ocean resources: local government: financial
assistance
SOURCE: Author
.
DIGEST: This bill requires that any local government
financial assistance provided by the state for activities
related to offshore energy development shall be prohibited
from exceeding 90 percent of the cost of carrying out the
project. The bill, commencing in 1997, makes 50 percent of
the amount of funds received pursuant to Section 8 (g) of
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act over the amount
?1
CONTINUED
(from)
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1431_cfa_960823_110844_sen_floor.html
***
(See the initiative for yourself here, or see nooiltax.com’s version annotating the objections big and small.)
Given that Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature just made a huge agreement on greenhouse-gas reduction, I think this is not the time to launch a separate, unaccountable, uncoordinated, inflexible program based solely on a new tax on domestic oil drillers. Besides, the largest multinational oil companies—the “big oil” Prop 87 proponents want us to hate—will respond by importing more oil from their out-of-state fields. (California’s foreign oil comes first (35 percent) from Saudi Arabia and second (25 percent) from the rainforests of Ecuador.) Refiners will buy whatever is cheapest. But the hundreds of smaller California producers will have no recourse but to eat the tax, which means shutting down wells, going closer to bankruptcy or selling out—probably to a cash-rich multinational. This would erode California’s energy independence and resilience.
California oil is expensive for geological reasons (its crude is heavy and sour) and logistical reasons (ports are too shallow for larger tankers, for example), not because “big oil is gouging us.” (The California Energy Commission gives details, and I have the basics of oil formation here.) The campaign for Prop 87 thus has a false basis and an incoherent logic. It would encourage more imported oil and endanger a long-standing domestic industry, and those who actually pollute the air—consumers—are being asked to think and vote like children, hoping not to have to pay for something they want.
http://geology.about.com/b/2006/10/30/the-california-oil-tax-initiative.htm
***
My Note – That article was from an earlier attempt to pass a tax on oil drilling / refiners in California which is now being considered again, but this time the funds are supposedly going to cover the education budget deficits and shortfall in the state colleges and universities – but will it really or just go into the general fund to pay interest on loans and gambling losses?
- cricketdiane
***
INTRODUCTION
This manual is updated periodically as funds are created and/or deleted. In addition, you will note that some of the pages include a ‘Revision Date’. This ‘Revision Date’ was added to the template in April, 1998. Any Fund Manual additions or revisions after that time will reflect the date of addition or revision to the Manual. Write-ups completed prior to April, 1998 will not contain a ‘Revision Date’ as there is no history when the addition or revision was made. If you have any specific update information to be included in the manual you may contact the FSCU Hotline at fscuhotline@dof.ca.gov or by phone at (916) 324-0385.
Preface (Introduction)
Download the whole manual (Caution: This will download a large zipped file (9.8 Mb) of the Manual, including an Index. It is a self-extracting zip file and you will need to tell it where to be saved) – (You Do NOT have to have zip software.) updated 2/19/10
Find a Fund (Use this feature to locate individual fund page(s) of the Manual. You can search by fund number or keyword(s).)
Listing by Numerical Order (webpage version)
Listing by Alphabetical Order
Listing by Structure (Source Classification)
Listing by GAAP Classification
(from)
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/CALSTARS/Fundsman.htm
***
New York Times (blog)The Golden State’s Me Generation – 2 hours ago onmouseout=”shut_ff(event)”1d68489″,event,0)” v:shapes=”_x0000_i1025″>
“We have all become students of color now,” she declared. Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau claimed that protests “exemplified the best of our tradition …
Wall Street Journal – 574 related articles »
College students across the nation protest tuition hikes – WBIR-TV – 936 related articles » onmouseout=”shut_ff(event)”1d68489″,event,1)” v:shapes=”_x0000_i1026″>
MUST-SEE VIDEOS: Colleges Protest Tuition Hikes, Budget Cuts and … – Huffington Post (blog)
***
By Ryan Barnes
| Release Date: | Two Wednesdays before every Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, 8 times per year |
| Release Time: | 2:15pm Eastern Standard Time |
| Coverage: | Anecdotal and discussion-based summaries of regional economic activity |
| Released By: | Federal Reserve Board; National summary authored by rotating Fed district |
| Latest Release: | http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/BeigeBook/2007/ |
Background
Made public in 1983, the Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions by Federal Reserve District, or Beige Book, as it is known, has a different style and tone than many other indicators. Rather than being filled with raw data, the Beige Book takes a more conversational approach. The book has 13 sections in total; 12 regional reports from each of the member Fed district banks, preceded by one national summary drawn from the individual reports that follow it. This is the first chance investors have to see how the Fed draws logical and intuitive conclusions from the raw data presented in other indicator releases.
(and based on this paragraph – it means the damn thing is essentially filled with opinions that are based upon upper crust opinions from a select few who have also based their opinions on opinions – Hmmmm. . . ., my note – cricketdiane)
Filed Under: 401K, Retirement
http://www.investopedia.com/university/releases/beigebook.asp
**
The authors criticize all institutions for either solving the wrong problem unintentionally, or worse, intentionally tackling the right problem in the wrong way. They claim government is particularly prone to doing both. The event is at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/292366-1
(Re-broadcast yesterday on CSPAN BookTV, 03-06-10)
Program ID
292366-1
Category
Format
Location
San Francisco, CA, United States
Date Aired
Mar 7, 2010
// <
