The November 2 midterm elections are over and the returns are in. And while Californians handily defeated Prop. 23, an attempt by non-California based oil companies to delay and effectively repeal California’s landmark climate legislation AB 32, another proposition with a group of oil, tobacco, alcohol and other business backers managed to fly under the radar.
Prop. 26 re-frames the practice of charging regulatory fees for certain harmful or polluting corporate and industrial activities as levying a “tax”, and will now require a 2/3 vote for implementation of such “taxes” rather than the simple majority required to implement a fee.
Prop. 26 directly challenges the ability of the state legislature to hold polluters accountable and instead may create a climate of political gridlock as the high bar of a 2/3 majority can paralyze necessary actions toward the implementation of Prop. 23.
Prop. 26 is also a strong step away from the concept of “extended producer responsibility” that has been gaining support across the country, and will likely result in a loss of revenue for the state.
- – -
See Anna’s post on Prop. 23 and Prop. 26 funders.
See my post on Extended Producer Responsibility.
- – -