There were nine measures on the statewide November ballot and NRDC took positions on four of them: we supported Propositions 21 and 25, and opposed Propositions 23 and 26.

Proposition 23 was the largest public referendum in history on climate and clean energy policy, with almost 10 million voters, and is a decisive victory for California’s clean energy future. The measure was rejected by almost a two to one margin, with over 61 percent voting against Proposition 23. NRDC and a broad bipartisan coalition of environmental and public health advocates, businesses, labor unions, the NAACP, Latino organizations, community groups, utilities, consumers — and yes, even some oil companies – fought Proposition 23 together. This coalition represents the new face of the environmental movement and promises a clean energy future for California. We will continue to work together to foster policies that provide multiple benefits, including a prosperous economy and improved public health.

Voters also passed Proposition 25, which will help end budget gridlock by allowing passage of a state budget with a simple majority vote rather than the two-thirds vote currently required. Budget gridlock and the supermajority budget vote requirement was threatening the very foundation of state government; in recent years, a handful of legislators have been able to hold the entire state budget hostage as they pushed to weaken or repeal critical environmental policies in exchange for their budget votes.    

Then voters turned around and voted for Proposition 26, a measure funded by oil, alcohol and tobacco interests that will make the budget harder to balance, again. It will shift the cost of public health and environmental damages caused by companies from those responsible to taxpayers and create another $1 billion hole in the state budget. This was a short sighted measure, but this vote will not stop California’s path breaking climate program. Mary Nichols, Chair of the State Air Resources Board which is responsible for carrying out AB 32 said this morning that “Prop 26 does not impair the scoping plan adopted in 2008 or any regulations developed under that plan. AB 32 is on track, with renewed vigor thanks to the resounding defeat of Prop 23 by the voters.”

Proposition 21, went down to a surprising defeat given the popularity of our state parks. This measure would have helped keep our state parks accessible to all and fund sorely needed maintenance.

The defeat of Proposition 23 is much more far-reaching in its significance and impact than any setbacks on Propositions 21 and 26. This victory on climate and clean energy was particularly significant for the Golden State and the rest of the nation. In an election when the economy trumped all other issues, including two wars, it is no surprise why. Jobs in California’s clean energy sector have grown 10 times faster than the statewide average over the past five years, and the clean tech sector attracted $9 billion cumulative venture capital investment from 2005 through 2009.

We hope that this campaign will inspire the nation in another way. Proposition 23 was defeated because Californians are devoted to pragmatism and compromise rather than inflexible ideology. We’ve done it in the past by passing the nation’s most progressive air and water quality laws – regulations that consequently served as models for other states and the federal government.

As we celebrate a victory for common sense, it’s more clear than ever that working together is what makes us stronger. We need the great technical expertise, brain power and vast capital resources of businesses, the workforce of unions, the reach of diverse community groups and the wide sweep of public and private partners to make an efficient transition to the coming clean energy economy. And sooner or later, we will all work together for the common good. We have no other choice.

Proposition 23, known as the Dirty Energy Proposition for its financial backing from oil companies, has garnered national publicity for its effort to roll back California’s greenhouse gas law.  Virtually all of its funding has come from outside California, beginning with Texas-based Valero Energy Co., Texas-based Tesoro Energy Co., and the Kansas-based Koch brothers.  Californians who care about our state, and who remember Texas-based Enron and Utah-based LDS Church, resent the intrusion of out of state interests meddling in our politics.  

But what of in-state oil companies and businesses who might normally put their money into Proposition 23?  Chevron and the California Chamber of Commerce are staying neutral.  That’s good, right?

I investigated.  Short answer: no, that’s not good.

Proposition 23 is easy to understand — FAQs here.  Propositions 25 and 26, by comparison, are MEGO propositions — “my eyes glaze over” — addressing budget processes.  Proposition 25 will end budget gridlock by requiring a simple majority, rather than a 2/3 vote, to pass a state budget; both the California Democratic Party and the Los Angeles Times recommend a “yes” vote.  Proposition 26, a state constitutional amendment, seeks to require a 2/3 majority on certain business fees by declaring them “taxes”; both the California Democratic Party and Los Angeles Times recommend “no” votes.  

While officially remaining neutral on Proposition 23, California-based oil companies Chevron and Occidental, and the California Chamber of Commerce, have been quietly funnelling their cash into a No on 25/Yes on 26 political action committee.  I’ve reviewed donations made through the end of September 2010, reported 10/5/10.  All data from California Secretary of State.

First, the basic size of the PAC:

TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 1/1/2010 – 09/30/2010 $6,051,060.29

EXPENDITURES FROM THIS PERIOD $6,208,269.55

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1/1/2010 – 09/30/2010 $9,459,904.08

ENDING CASH $819,351.21

By contrast, here’s the same data for the dirty energy “Yes on 23” PAC:

TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 1/1/2010 – 09/30/2010 $8,362,235.39

EXPENDITURES FROM THIS PERIOD $1,774,375.49

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1/1/2010 – 09/30/2010 $5,317,593.35

ENDING CASH $3,122,966.01

In other words, both groups have taken in about the same amount of money; Yes on 23 has more cash in reserve and No on 25/Yes on 26 has spent more.

Here are some contributions to No on 25/Yes on 26:

California Business Political Action Committee, Sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce:

$215,000.00  4/23/2010

$325,000.00  4/30/2010

$100,000.00  5/7/2010

$120,000.00  5/17/2010

$75,000.00  4/1/2010

$235,000.00  8/20/2010

 $2,322.65  7/1/2010 (non-monetary contribution)

$100,000.00  3/4/2010

$50,000.00  3/5/2010

$125,000.00  3/10/2010

$75,000.00  3/18/2010

Subtotal: $1,422.322.65

Chevron Corporation [based in San Ramon, CA]

$250,000.00  4/15/2010

$250,000.00  9/13/2010

$750,000.00  9/24/2010

Occidental Petroleum [based in Los Angeles, CA]

$250,000.00  9/24/2010

Subtotal from California-based oil companies: $1,500,000

Chevron has donated $1.25M to Prop 26, compared to Koch’s donation of $1M to Prop 23.  But why does Chevron care about California’s budget?  Proposition 26’s backers portray the initiative as necessary to stop “hidden taxes.”  Jean Ross of the California Budget Project explains otherwise:

the fees at issue are primarily those that regulate, mitigate and otherwise respond to environmental, health, and other social impacts of products and services. In other words, businesses seeking to avoid financial responsibility for the “externalities” of the products that they sell….

If the state can’t impose the fees on “pollution-causing industries” to recoup the cost of environmental monitoring and remediation, those costs will be shifted to taxpayers as a whole. Or, in an era where budget crises have become the status quo, programs that enforce environmental, food safety and other laws will be scaled back, if not eliminated. Which may be the true goal of the backers of Proposition 26.

Proposition 26 is a Polluters Protection Act.  Its goal is simple: whatever Proposition 23 can’t undo openly, Proposition 26 will undermine sneakily.  Californians are enthusiastically mobilizing against Proposition 23, but they need to be equally energized against Proposition 26 and for Proposition 25.

By Kristin Eberhard

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

Now that Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has announced her opposition on Proposition 23, this dirty energy proposition stands as the main issue that she and the Democratic candidate Jerry Brown agree on.  While Whitman’s stance against Proposition 23 is good news for California, jobs and our strong clean air and health standards, it is troubling that she coupled her technical opposition while simultaneously announcing her intent to suspend AB 32 for at least a year if elected Governor.  Her position sounds like she wants it both ways.  Delaying AB 32 would throw a monkey wrench into the implementation of our clean energy polices, and significantly hamper the transition of the state – indeed, the nation – to a clean energy economy.

Sponsored by out-of-state oil interests, Proposition 23 would wreak havoc with implementation of AB 32, our country’s only economy-wide clean energy law, an initiative that is creating thousands of cleantech sector jobs, stimulating research in clean energy and alternative fuels, and cutting the state’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Proposition 23 would keep us addicted to dirty fuels, kill jobs and derail California’s efforts to lead the global push to a high tech, clean energy economy.

While California’s Democrats and Republicans may disagree on many points, they have come together over the years to support state leadership on one issue:  clean energy. Support for strong environmental regulation and an economy founded on clean technologies and sustainable energy sources is broad-based.

The bipartisan opposition to Proposition 23 is not an anomaly.  Clean energy in particular has long been a priority for the state’s electorate and lawmakers.  In 1974, the California Energy Commission was established by the state legislature and then-Governor Ronald Reagan.  Among the Commission’s early accomplishments were setting energy efficiency benchmarks for new buildings and appliances, standards which have kept California’s per capita electricity consumption flat for 30 years, saving residents billions of dollars on their energy bills.

In subsequent decades, California built on this foundation, establishing Renewable Portfolio Standards that have minimized electricity generation from fossil fuels.  Bipartisan efforts also passed bills such as SB 375 in 2008, which sets regional targets to reduce global warming pollution from cars and light trucks and make community resources and energy use more sustainable.  Just this year there was strong bipartisan agreement on SB 77, a bill that funds voluntary energy retrofits to residential and commercial property, providing for a projected 10,500 jobs.

And we shouldn’t forget that bipartisan support for clean energy and environmental protection is part of our national tradition. The Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972, two of the seminal legislative efforts on any subject in the past 30 years, could not have passed without the support of lawmakers from both parties.

AB 32 creates a stable policy environment that attracts billions of dollars in venture capital and cutting-edge businesses to the state and we need a reliable policy roadmap.  We need a commitment to a clean environment and sustainable energy that transcends party lines.  This is an issue that speaks to the American ethos – to the American Dream.  It is about security, innovation, entrepreneurship, and leaving our children a world that is better than the one we inhabit.

Call me shocked, just shocked to find that there’s gambling with California’s future in this election.  

The state legislator responsible for placing Proposition 23, the anti-climate measure, on the ballot is…a climate zombie.  And one of Proposition 23’s out of state dirty energy supporters, Koch Industries, Patient Zero of the climate zombie infection is holding a fundraiser Thursday night for climate zombie Senate wannabe Carly Fiorina.

WWMWD?  Will Meg Whitman endorse Proposition 23 and its oil-soaked supporters, or will she join the forward-thinking California businesses who urge a no vote?  

Proposition 23 seeks to “suspend” AB32, California’s landmark global warming law, until the Twelfth of Never unemployment reaches 5.5% for four quarters.  Proposition 23’s money is coming almost exclusively from out of state oil interests such as Valero Energy, Tesoro Energy, and Koch Industries.  As a proxy for a national climate fight, the initiative is drawing national attention. A Koch-funded astroturf group, Americans for Prosperity, calls Proposition 23 our highest priority.

Officially, Proposition 23 is the product of Dan Logue, a Republican member of the state assembly.  Logue thinks global warming could be a scam.  At a debate last week, he sidestepped questions whether global warming is caused by humans, then noted that he has a book where 31,000 scientists say climate change is not caused by humans.  (This is probably a reference to the infamous Oregon Petition allegedly signed by 31,000 trained monkeys climate scientists who deny science.) He doesn’t know of one person who died of carbon emissions — and who do you believe, him or the American Lung Association?

Stupid went viral and infected Logue.  He’s one of the climate zombies of the new GOP — Republicans who deny climate science.  He’s also a back-bencher who will have very little impact on California politics if Proposition 23 fails.  Far more high-profile is fellow climate zombie Carly Fiorina.

Not sure whether Fiorina is a climate zombie?  Listen:

As a true climate zombie, Fiorina flaunts her corporate ties.  Koch is one of two corporate sponsors of a fundraiser Thursday night.  (The other is a plastic surgeons’ PAC — no misogynistic/ageist jokes, please.)  All it takes to join her at an exclusive sponsor/host VIP reception is $5,000.  A certain amount of avarice-fueled stupid won’t hurt.

All eyes now turn to Meg Whitman, who would have signed AB32 in 2006, but would veto AB32 in 2010 — nothing like a little decisiveness in a chief executive, eh?  Will she join Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Shultz, and San Diego City Mayor Jerry Sanders, or Republicans like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell?  Will she side with Texas oil businesses or the big businesses defending California’s climate regulations?

Governors, Senators, and low-level state legislators may come and go, but the effects of Proposition 23 — whether it passes or fails — will echo in California and the nation for years.  Our choice is stark: build the clean technology future or burn the planet, leaving it fit for habitation only by the undead.

Full disclosure: as an unpaid volunteer, I wrote the No on Prop 23 for the California Democratic Party’s cool new website.  All opinions are my own.

This year, climate activists have been on the defensive.  The climate bill died in the Senate.  Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Baked Alaska) effort to roll back the Clean Air Act came close to passing the Senate.  Politicians both Blue Dog and red complained that jobs were more important than climate.  In this environment, California’s Proposition 23 — an initiative to suspend the state’s global warming law until unemployment reaches 5.5% for a year — seemed like a slam-dunk.

But a funny thing happened.  Californians are more bothered by the ideas that Proposition 23’s funding is 97% from oil companies and 89% out of state, and that it’ll destroy our clean air, than they are by the myth — and it is a myth — of Proposition 23 saving jobs to be killed by the global warming law.

In 2006, California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), making the state a leader in fighting global warming by reducing greenhouse gases and serving as a catalyst to the state’s growing green jobs market.  This election, out of state dirty energy producers are funding Proposition 23 to undo all of that and turn back the clock on our state’s clean energy future.

Proposition 23 is opposed by the obvious groups: environmentalists, California’s wind and solar industries, and the American Lung Association.  It’s also strongly opposed by Silicon Valley: Google executives, San Francisco venture capitalists, and chambers of commerce in Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Francisco.  The San Jose Mercury News urged a “no” vote early.  The Oakland Tribune and Contra Costa Times have recently added their voices, and the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat recommends No: “a misguided attempt, largely backed by big oil companies,” to undermine clean air priorities.

California elections tend to be the blue coast vs the red inland.  Not this time.  Check out the Manteca Bulletin explaining the oil companies’ reasoning: Valero and Tesoro want to shut down their California refineries, the only ones in the country to meet California’s strict emissions standards, and bring in dirty fuel refined out of state by workers paid less.

The Woodland Daily Democrat urges a no vote: “The initiative would devastate efforts to create a vibrant clean-energy sector and have a disastrous impact on the state’s economy.”  For those who’ve never visited, Woodland is a farm town in Yolo County that UC Davis students perenially mock as “stuck in the 1950s.” Ventura County Star urges voters to reject Proposition 23 to clear the air.  Although Ventura County is a coastal county, it’s conservative.  And the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce opposes Proposition 23.  Reagan-era Republican George Shultz isn’t afraid to say that passing Proposition 23 will harm national security.

Fiscally conservative San Diego’s most conservative suburbs are in the East County.  The East County Magazine named five local mayors voicing their opposition, then did the math:

As of August 18, Yes on 23 lists not a single state or federal elected official endorsing their position. No on 23 lists 35 state and federal elected officials. Yes on 23 lists 58 businesses; No on 23 lists over 292 businesses and business organizations, including 182 renewable energy businesses as well as corporations including Google, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., and Blue Shield of California.  Yes on 23 lists 158 total businesses and organizations of all types, including the California Automotive Association and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; No on 23 lists 474 groups in its camp including the American Lung Association and Sierra Club. Yes on 23 lists zero individual business leaders; No on 23 lists 321.

The most curious incident with Proposition 23 may be the California-based big businesses who aren’t barking against it.  Both California-based Chevron and the California Chamber of Commerce are staying neutral.

So who, besides out-of-state oil companies, supports Prop 23?  The Chico Enterprise-Record.  After refusing to take a stand during a nationally televised debate, climate zombie Carly Fiorina.  Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity.  And, most recently, four Republican attorneys general from four faraway states — Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas — are preparing to sue California if Proposition 23 fails.  But, so far, not a lot of Californians.  We’re not going to be manipulated by out-of-state dirty energy interests into voting against our own interests.

Full disclosure: I’m honored to have written, as a volunteer, the “no on Proposition 23” piece at the terrific new website of the California Democratic Party.  Opinions expressed here are my own…but I hope you’ll share them.