So… it’s finally Election Day 2010. There are a couple propositions on the California ballot – Prop 23 and Prop 26 – that have implications for energy and transportation policy. Statewide ballot measures just need a majority to pass.
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons
– – –
Proposition 23
–
Who is funding Prop 23?
According to MapLight.org:
Total Contributions in Support of Prop 23: $10,654,560
Total Contributions in Opposition to Prop 23: $31,245,543
–
Top Contributors in Support of Prop 23:
–
Image credit: MapLight.org
–
Top Contributors in Opposition to Prop 23:
–
Image credit: MapLight.org
–
What is Prop 23?
From the Official Voter Information Guide:
SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
- Suspends State law that requires greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, until California’s unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters.
- Suspends comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emissions reporting and fee requirements for major emissions sources such as power plants and oil refineries.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
- The suspension of AB 32 could result in a modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state. In this event, there would be an unknown but potentially significant net increase in state and local government revenues.
- Potential loss of a new source of state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government to certain businesses that would pay for these allowances, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations.
- Lower energy costs for state and local governments than otherwise.
–
Why does Prop 23 matter?
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council:
Proposition 23 would stop progress on curbing global warming emissions and transitioning to clean energy by “suspending” California’s landmark law, AB 32, until unemployment is below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. This unemployment threshold has only been reached 3 times in the past forty years. Prop 23 would pull the rug out from the one sector of our economy that is actually growing – clean technology and clean energy – and create loads of uncertainty for businesses that have already made investments and are looking to expand.
According to the supporters of Prop 23:
We all want to do our part for global warming, but implementing our current plan is not the way to go. Families and businesses simply cannot afford to pay fifty percent or more in higher electricity and utility costs, and even more at the gas pump. A Yes vote on Proposition 23 temporarily postpones a new, costly program until our economy stabilizes and people are back to work, making it easier for families to make ends meet.New rules, regulations, and fines are about to take effect under California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which will increase energy costs by billions of dollars and destroy more than a million jobs. Proposition 23 would suspend those new rules until the economy improves and unemployment drops.
– – –
Proposition 26
–
Who is funding Prop 26?
According to MapLight.org:
Total Contributions in Support of Prop 26: $18,306,433
Total Contributions in Opposition to Prop 26: $6,547,122
–
Top Contributors in Support of Prop 26:
| California Chamber of Commerce |
— |
$3,937,323 |
| Chevron Corporation |
— |
$3,750,000 |
| American Beverage Association |
— |
$2,450,000 |
| Philip Morris USA Inc. * |
— |
$2,250,000 |
| Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. * |
— |
$925,000 |
| ConocoPhillips |
— |
$525,000 |
| Cypress Management Company, Inc. * |
— |
$500,000 |
| Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |
— |
$432,948 |
| Wine Institute * |
— |
$381,093 |
| Aera Energy LLC |
— |
$350,000 |
* Includes contributions from the Small Business Action Committee
–
Image credit: MapLight.org
–
Top Contributors in Opposition to Prop 26:
| Democratic State Central Committee of California |
— |
$1,326,674 |
| Thomas F. Steyer |
— |
$1,000,000 |
| League of Conservation Voters (Prop. 23 Committee) |
— |
$900,000 |
| California Teachers Association |
— |
$505,050 |
| California State Council of Service Employees |
— |
$500,000 |
| Ella Baker Center |
— |
$350,000 |
| California Public Securities Association |
— |
$150,000 |
| State Building and Construction Trades Council of California |
— |
$150,000 |
–
Image credit: MapLight.org
–
What is Prop 26?
From the Official Voter Information Guide:
REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL FEES BE APPROVED BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE.FEES INCLUDE THOSE THAT ADDRESS ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SOCIETY OR THE ENVIRONMENTCAUSED BY THE FEE-PAYER’S BUSINESS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
- Requires that certain state fees be approved by two-thirds vote of Legislature and certain local fees be approved by two-thirds of voters.
- Increases legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for certain tax measures, including those that do not result in a net increase in revenue, currently subject to majority vote.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
- Decreased state and local government revenues and spending due to the higher approval requirements for new revenues. The amount of the decrease would depend on future decisions by governing bodies and voters, but over time could total up to billions of dollars annually.
- Additional state fiscal effects from repealing recent fee and tax laws: (1) increased transportation program spending and increased General Fund costs of $1 billion annually, and (2) unknown potential decrease in state revenues.
–
Why does Prop 26 matter?
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council:
Proposition 26 is another disastrous measure for California’s environment, public health and local communities. It would eliminate the ability of a majority of the legislature to enact fees on industries that pollute our air and water and endanger our health. Currently, a simple majority vote can enact a fee (used to remedy a specific harm), but a tax (used for general purposes) requires a two-thirds vote. Prop 26 would make it much harder to ensure that polluters are held accountable for the harm caused by their activity. But Prop 26 goes farther – it also dictates what local governments should do by requiring cities and counties to run costly elections and reach a 2/3 majority to enact a fee. Prop 26 would make it nearly impossible for local communities to deal with issues like traffic and public safety for large events and would shift the burden to taxpayers for cleaning up hazardous waste and other pollution. A broad coalition of environmental and health groups, local governments, civic organizations and public safety professionals have come together to defeat this initiative.
According to the supporters of Prop 26:
State and local politicians routinely circumvent the state Constitution’s requirements by disguising taxes as fees because fees are easier to pass than tax increases. At the state level, the Legislature calls many taxes “fees” so they can pass or increase the tax with a bare majority vote – not the two-thirds vote required for taxes. At the local level, politicians call taxes “fees” so they can avoid voters and our Constitutional right to vote on most tax increases… Prop. 26 will give voters more control to stop the politicians from using gimmicks to impose hidden taxes on California families just by calling them fees. No longer will the politicians be able to hide new or higher taxes under the name of a “fee” to try to get more taxpayer money with a bare majority vote of the Legislature – or without any public vote at all at the local level.
– – –
Zero Resource 
