"and may face penalties if they don't accomplish the goal."

Just what we need, government poking its nose into businesses on matters which are peripheral to the actual business of the employer. How hard is government trying to torpedo job growth?

What kind of country do we live in anyway?  This is like communist Russia with the government telling us what we can or should do.  If my fat a@@ wants to drive to work I will (and I live about 1/2 mile from work!) and no meddling by some quasi-scientific espousing, tree huggling liberal politician will enduce me to do otherwise. 

Coercing our employers to make us come to work - come on!  It's bad enough people are worried about losing their jobs and businesses are going under left and right, and some idiot is proposing we add another playground rule to the business game, costing employers more (wasted) money for a program no one will use whose benefits, if any, are suspect at best.  Save that crap for the Bay Area, where those idiots are just begging to be told how to live their lives.

What?  This isn't the "CHANGE" you expected?

Sounds like this is just an underhanded way to try to get more telecommuting or 9-4 schedules (article called it 9/80 schedule, you work one extra hour a day and have every other week be a 4 day work week). Because all the other stuff will not be as effective as these two IMO.

erik~ Welcome back! You know I love that humor of yours.

Shwaine~ I think your right about those two methods getting the most results.

Albeit it''s a good idea to try to spare the air. It shouldn't be imposed on by the county or others  to companies that's not good to say the least. Incentive are nice, but companies shouldn't be forced to  make employees do this.

How about  everyone talk to their local, state and national representative's to get car manufacturers to ONLY build flex fueled cars. Thus crippling OPEC, dropping gas prices and run cleaner burning fuels. THAT would be better than FORCING a company or  their workers to do things they may not want to do.

Even better yet, to bail out the  Big 3 have the government give us  how ever much it will take in cash to buy brand new energy efficient clean burning  multi/flex fueled cars and scrap the old ones. This would help the economy AND put clean burning  cars out there to drive.

Shwaine, the term is correct - 9/80.  However, I don't think this is effective as most people that are off on their alternate Fridays usually drive more than they would if they were working.

Granted, the Gov't shouldn't be forcing peoples behavior (cigarette, helmet, seat belt), but these all add cost to our lives and the masses don't have enough information to make the right choices.  Therefore, I don't mind some form of gov't enforcement on issues that could save my tax dollar (of course, they'll still collect and waste it on some other project like Acorn). 

Flexfuel - now there's an idea.  Let's burn food instead of gas. 

Most of us in the industry believe in sensible alternative energy to supplement our hydrocarbon consumption.  If we can knock off few lawyers, we would be much further ahead in this effort - Nuclear Energy as an example. 

I think this is an excellent idea.  We have reached the technical limits, as far as ability to reduce emissions from industrial plants, yet we still have pollution.  Rule 4401 has tightened fugitive emissions from industrial equipment as much as possible, so there's no more progress to be had there.

Cars are the biggest problem, so we need to cut down on the size, horsepower, and number of cars.  In addition, we need to remove the two remaining sources of uncarburated combustion:  fireplaces and ag burns.

The restrictions they are proposing are common sense.  A different way to approach it would be a cap-and-trade system, which has been very effective in reducing industrial emissions.  If you want to put in a fireplace, you should have to pay to have one bricked up.  If you want a car, you should have to pay to take one off the roads.

I am an engineer with a local oilfield company.

Lisa Denke

This kind of thinking makes me doubly glad I'm no longer a business owner,  At this rate, as a business person, the only rights you'll have will be to invest, and lose your money.

If I had 100 employees.........................at least 2 would be history.

Regulators want  "a new rule that will require companies with more than 100 employees to reduce employee driving to and from work."  I was wondering who determines if these companies have met the goals?  What percentage reduction are they trying to reach? One percent? Ten percent?  Who determines the  starting baseline numbers for each company?  What about those businesses who have already implemented their own incentive programs?  If they have already been successful in getting their employees to carpool then will they be penalized because they cannot increase the percentage of their employees that begin carpooling under the new rules?  I do work with a company that already does the 9/80 and they provide covered parking for carpooling employees (since the 80's) and they have locked indoor bike storage areas plus showers for employees that ride bikes to work.  These perks were in place prior to any government rules. Not everyone has to have a law passed to get them to do the right thing.  I think the rule should have as a goal a percentage of total employees not a percentage of current solo drivers. That way the companies that have already done the right thing will not be penalized if they cannot convince even more carpooling activity then they have already encouraged.    This reminds me of the PG&E usage reduction incentives.  Those of us who had already insulated and upgraded to high efficiency appliances and put in CF lights and ceiling fans before hand are hard pressed to meet the percentage reduction goals to take advantage of the price breaks.

It's a good idea to a point. I drive to Delano each day as do many other teachers at my school. The problem is we don't all finish our day at the same time. I can leave as early as 3pm (rare) or as late as 6pm (not as rare). People are not going to wait around when my schedule changes so often. many of my comrades have a similar situation especialyy with coaching, advising, etc.

Why pick just air pollution? Let's also take on visual pollution! I see too many ugly people wearing tight clothes.. let's start regulating dress too. While we're at it, I hear too many cars with nasty music coming from them, let's regulate what they can hear too....

and the other day I heard some one speaking out against Obama... I think we should control speech too...

All that aside, there has got to be better ways to fix the problem.... why force me to ride with people that I don't know/like, what persentage of the population really do dry cleaning?

yet another dagger into the almost dead business climate here in Ca.  What are our legislators doing?  we can't even cover this years budget, and they continue to run tax paying businesses out of the valley and state of Ca

honestly, i think the one brain cell that all the state legislators were sharing just died

I wonder if this "incentive" will apply to the colleges? Or is it just private businesses?

I'm certainly glad I'm retired because I would not carpool for the following reasons:

1. I have an elderly family member who might need me at a moments notice; 2. I do not like depending on someone else to get me to work on time or leave when I need/want to; 3. the bus situation in my area is not good. I would have to be at the bus stop at 6:30 am in order to be at work by 7:30 or 8am and in the winter I would have to walk the 5 blocks in the dark; 4. I would not like being in a car with someone (a) I don't really know, (b) wears heavy perfume, (c) is, IMO, possibly a reckless driver. 4. I like going to lunch as opposed to staying at work for lunch. People need to get away from the stresses of the office and going to lunch is one way. 5. I may or may not have to pick up a child/grandchild from school.

I do not think it is the governments place to mandate these things as it is government who has caused the problems in the first place, by not getting in place a better rapid transit (instead of more roads, freeways, highways), by not pushing for better bus service locally, by allowing too much growth in a short time span without planning for more people/cars on the road. By not making the "green" cars more affordable.

Once again the government created the problem and now want John Q Public (taxpayer) to clean up the mess.

To respond to sys_mom and for any business owners who might have concerns about this rule ...

The particulars of the rule -- how much employee driving will have to be reduced, what happens if those goals aren't achieved, etc. -- will be hammered out during the rule development process that's taking place throughout the year. The district will hold scoping meetings to get input from employers and then craft the rule based on that. From talking with air district officials for the story, they seem to want to make this as easy and convenient as possible for businesses, and they're looking for feedback on how to make that happen. There's going to be a meeting in Bakersfield at 1 p.m. on Feb. 10 at the air district office. (They recently moved so if you go, the new location is 34946 Flyover Court.) I know Kern Council of Governments is encouraging employers to get involved. It's really the only way to have a say.

For over three years I commuted 60 miles round trip and although we were provided a car to car pool with, one of the drivers scared the crap out of me, was constantly late, and since we had to gas up, would wait until we were on our way to work to do it.  I listened to talk radio, some wanted music so we listened to nothing which was ok with me.   I drove alone on Saturday but then that meant on my day off, Monday, I had to get up, get dressed, and take the key down to the co workers so they could go to work.  The one person refused to let me take it to her house on the weekend.  Eventually I gave it up because of the hassle.  Like Witbee, my schedule was not an 8-5 every day so I couldn't use it half the time anyway. 

Later on I tried it again.  Same thing.  One was always late so I gave it up again.  One time I got deathly sick and had to stay at work another few hours before the car pool left.    It just doesn't always work.

The rule would apply to schools, governments and businesses -- basically any organization that employs more than 100 people. In the case where a business has 100 employees in multiple locations, the rule may still apply. These are also details to be worked out still.

hmmmm  the air district has nice new offices out west of the airport.....and their phone system offers no way to actually talk to anyone about any of their policies...you have to leave a message

dictatorship???  dictatorship??? 

btw...here is a link where you can write the communists an email and tell them what you think about their "rules"

www.valleyair.org/General_info/feedback.htm

boy, our freedoms have been taking a beating lately, havent they???

You said it.  At least they left the Third Amendment alone.  Kinda.

If you tried to call the air district today they're closed. They work a 9/80 schedule (off/closed every other Friday).

If you have specific questions, I would call the district's spokeswoman in the southern office next week. Her name is Brenda Turner and her direct line is 392-5581. However, I would note, if your goal is to have some say in this rule, I wouldn't just call up someone at the air district and give them a piece of your mind. They'll just be polite, listen to you and leave it at that. If you really want a say, you should either attend the scoping meeting I mentioned above, or submit written comments about the rule. This is the process that most governmental agencies follow when drafting new ordinances, rules, etc.

Written comments must be sent to Nichole Corless, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave., Fresno, CA, 93726, and received by Wednesday, Feb. 25.

TheDirt, thanks for the information. 

Rest, you all have the NIMBYs.  Majority of us Americans are not willing to sacrafice, but expect everyone else to.  Our wasteful ways could / should have been curtailed by us.  However, we all sit back and wait for everyone else to.  Now the gov't wants to step in and you all cray foul.  At the same time, many of us complain about the valley air.  IF we would have changed our behavior, then the enforcement wouldn't be necessary.  So, call it a necessary medicine.  Something has to be done to clean the valley air for our kids and surely wasn't going to be any of you doing it by your selves.  I hate gov't intrusion more than anyone else, but this is one of those necessary medicine. 

a majority of the air problems stem from up the valley and as far away as the bay area......geographically, were a toilet bowl....dont like it?   you can always move.

born and raised in bako, i am almost 40.  my whole family, along with many of my friends as well don't have breathing problems...as a matter of fact, i am not aware of ANYONE i know, born and raised, that has a problem with our air, physically

I hate gov't intrusion more than anyone else, but this is one of those necessary medicine. 

Everybody says that every time a new 'law' is passed that intrudes on our personal lives. Then they gripe and grumble (but do nothing) when the next new law is proposed then when it passes say "oh but it really was necessary". NO it's not necessary. Many people already do the 'right thing' and I, personally, do not feel it is as bad as we are being told. As with learnem, I know of no one in my family or outside my family who has breathing problems who has been born here or came here at an early age. There are people who have breathing problems that have absolutely nothing to do with the air quality.  Again, blame Calif/Bako government for allowing too much growth without planning for the consequences of that growth.

Poor planning on their part does not make it an emergency/give up my personal life, on my part.