California Proposition 23, Suspension of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Law Initiative (2010)

California Proposition 23

Election date
November 2, 2010
Topic
Environment
Status
d Defeated
Type
State statute| Origin
Citizens

* * *

California Proposition 23 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 2, 2010. It was defeated.[1]

A "yes" vote supported suspending Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), which required greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, until California's unemployment rate decreases to 5.5% or less for four consecutive quarters.

A "no" vote opposed suspending Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), which required greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Overview
* 2.1 Fiscal impact
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.2 Arguments
* 3.2.1 Official arguments
* 3.3 Donors
* 3.3.1 Campaign advertisements
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Opponents
* 4.2 Arguments
* 4.2.1 Official arguments
* 4.3 Campaign finance
* 4.3.1 Donors
* 4.3.2 Campaign advertisements
* 5 Media editorials
* 5.1 Support
* 5.2 Opposition
* 6 Polls
* 7 Background
* 7.1 About AB 32
* 7.2 Unemployment in California
* 7.3 Jobs in California's clean energy sector
* 8 Path to the ballot
* 8.1 Lawsuit
* 9 Reports and analyses
* 9.1 Air Resources Board
* 9.2 CSU-Sacramento Studies
* 10 External links
* 10.1 Basic information
* 10.2 Supporters
* 10.3 Opponents
* 11 Additional reading
* 12 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

California Proposition 23

Result | Votes | Percentage
Yes | 3,733,883 | 38.46%

| 5,974,564 | 61.54%

Results are officially certified.
Source

## Overview[edit]

AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006," was passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger.[2][3] Proposition 23, if enacted by voters, would have suspended AB 32 until California's unemployment rate dropped to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. At the time of the election, California's unemployment rate was about 12% and had been at 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters just three times since 1980.[4]

AB 32 required that greenhouse gas emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020. The process of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the state was slated under AB 32 to begin in 2012.

Supporters referred to Proposition 23 as the California Jobs Initiative, and opponents referred to it as the Dirty Energy Proposition.[5][6] Supporters of the measure filed a lawsuit that resulted in a change to the measure's title and summary.[7]

## Text of measure

### Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 23 was as follows:

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.

| ”

|
|

### Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

• 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.| ”

|
|

### Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

### Fiscal impact[edit]

This is a summary of the initiative's estimated fiscal impact on state and local government prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office:[8]

“  |

* 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.[9]

|  ”

|
|

## Support[edit]

"Yes on 23" campaign logo

Yes on 23 led the campaign in support of Proposition 23.

### Supporters[edit]

* California State Assemblymember Dan Logue (R)[10]
* U.S. Congressman Tom McClintock (R-4).
* Steve Poizner.[6]
* The California Republican Party.[11]
* Jim Kellogg, secretary-treasurer of the State Building & Construction Trades Council[11]
* The California Manufacturers & Technology Association[12]
* Americans for Prosperity of California[13]

### Arguments[edit]

* California State Assemblymember Dan Logue (R) said, "This has been the blind leading the blind, political correctness that has collapsed the economy in California. California already has the fifth-cleanest air in the country, so why are we doing this when no one else is?"[10]
* Jim Kellogg, secretary-treasurer of the State Building & Construction Trades Council, said, "I don't doubt that there will be more green jobs in California, perhaps even thousands of them; however, we don't want to put at risk the millions of well-paying, blue-collar jobs that put bread on the table right now. We need to make sure we do our homework, ask the tough questions and make adjustments as necessary to implement AB 32 in a way that reduces greenhouse gases without hurting millions of families in this state."[11]

#### Official arguments[edit]

Arguments were submitted to the official California Voter Guide on behalf of a "yes" vote on Proposition 23 by Kevin Nida, president of the California State Firefighters’ Association; John Kabateck, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business/California; and Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association:[8]

“  |

THE PROBLEM: CALIFORNIA’S GLOBAL WARMING MANDATES ARE ON THE WRONG TRACK

Climate change is a serious issue that should be addressed thoughtfully and responsibly. However, now is not the time to implement AB32, California’s costly global warming law, especially since the California Air Resources Board (CARB) acknowledges AB32 cannot 'change the course of climate change.'

California already has a $20 billion deficit and leads the nation in lost jobs, home foreclosures and debt. Implementing AB32 will cost taxpayers and consumers billions and destroy over a million jobs. Voters must stop these self-imposed energy cost increases that will further damage our economy and families.

THE SOLUTION: PROPOSITION 23

Proposition 23 suspends AB32 until the economy improves. It preserves California’s strict environmental laws but protects us from dramatically higher energy costs. Proposition 23 saves jobs, prevents a tax increase, maintains environmental protections and helps families during these tough economic times.

PROPOSITION 23 SAVES BILLIONS IN HIGHER ENERGY TAXES AND COSTS

California’s poor, working and middle class families are dealing with lost jobs, fewer hours and furloughs. California households cannot afford $3800 a year in higher AB32 costs. 'AB 32 will cause California households to face higher prices both directly for electricity, natural gas, and gasoline, and indirectly as businesses pass costs for GHG reduction on to consumers.'—CARB’s Economic Allocation and Advisory Committee

PROPOSITION 23 SAVES OVER ONE MILLION CALIFORNIA JOBS Other countries and states prudently postponed implementing their global warming laws until economic conditions improve. Without Proposition 23 higher energy prices will hit small businesses and employers, forcing more lay-offs and business closures. Other countries that passed global warming laws experienced a loss of two blue collar jobs for every one green job created.

Proposition 23 saves over a million at-risk jobs, including highpaying blue collar and union jobs, and doesn’t limit green job creation.

PROPOSITION 23 PRESERVES CALIFORNIA’S STRICT PUBLIC HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS California has the toughest environmental laws in the country. Proposition 23 doesn’t weaken or repeal the hundreds of laws that protect the environment, reduce air pollution, keep our water clean and protect public health. Proposition 23 applies to greenhouse gas emissions, which CARB concedes 'have no direct public health impacts.'

PROPOSITION 23 PROTECTS ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES By stopping higher energy costs, Proposition 23 helps protect funding when community budgets are dangerously stretched—keeping teachers in our classrooms and firefighters on the street. 'Public safety is our top priority. Proposition 23 is essential to help protect funding for firefighters, law enforcement and emergency medical services. —Kevin Nida, President, California State Firefighters’ Association

PROPOSITION 23 EMPOWERS VOTERS NOT BUREAUCRATS CARB’s unelected political appointees want to impose hidden taxes without voter approval. Proposition 23 lets voters, not bureaucrats, decide when we implement California’s costly global warming law.

Proposition 23’s common-sense, fiscally responsible approach is a win-win for California’s families, economy and environment.

JOIN TAXPAYERS, FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL OFFICIALS, ENERGY COMPANIES, FARMERS AND BUSINESSES TO SAVE JOBS AND PROTECT CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY.

YES ON PROPOSITION 23

Yeson23.com[9]

|  ”

|
|

### Donors[edit]

Main article: Donations to California's 2010 ballot propositions

Supporters of Proposition 23 raised about $10.6 million for their campaign.[14]

Two Texas-based oil companies, Valero Energy Corporation and Tesoro Corporation, provided the campaign with initial funding to launch its petition drive to qualify for the November 2 ballot.[15]

Valero Energy Corporation and Tesoro Corporation, along with Flint Hills Resources, altogether donated over $6.5 million to the "California Jobs Initiative Committee."[16] At the time, Flint Hills Resources had oil operations in several states outside of California, and was a division of Koch Industries.[17][18][19]

According to Cal-Access, these donations of $25,000 or more were made to the "California Jobs Initiative Committee":[20]

Donor  |  Amount

|

Valero  |  $4,065,636
Tesoro Companies  |  $1,540,636
Flint Hills Resources  |  $1,000,000
Marathon Petroleum Company LLC  |  $500,000
Adam Smith Foundation  |  $498,000
Occidental Petroleum  |  $300,000
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association  |  $100,000
Tower Energy Group  |  $200,000
World Oil Corp  |  $100,000
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |  $100,000
Southern Counties Oil (Total Energy Products)  |  $50,000
California Trucking Association  |  $50,000
Frontier Oil  |  $50,000
Murray Energy  |  $30,000
Berry Petrochemical  |  $25,000
Boyett Petroleum (Stan Boylett & Son)  |  $25,000
California State Pipes Trade Association  |  $25,000
Caminol Management  |  $25,000
Holly Corporation  |  $25,000
Robinson Oil  |  $25,000
J.G. Boswell Company  |  $25,000

#### Campaign advertisements[edit]

The "Yes on 23" campaign released the following videos and commercials:

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

"No on 23" campaign logo

Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs led the No on 23 campaign in opposition to Proposition 23.

### Opponents[edit]

* American Lung Association- California[21]
* American Association of Pediatrics in California[21]
* Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality District[21]
* California Professional Firefighters[21]
* League of Women Voters of California[21]
* Consumers Union[21]
* AARP[21]
* VoteVets.org[21]
* California Climate & Agriculture Network[21]
* Small Business California[21]
* Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers[21]
* California Conference of Carpenters[21]
* California Infill Builders Association Council[21]
* Antelope Valley Black Chamber of Commerce[21]
* California Black Chamber of Commerce[21]
* Culver City Chamber of Commerce[21]
* German American Chamber of Commerce[21]
* Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce[21]
* Green Chamber of Commerce[21]
* Mountain View Chamber of Commerce[21]
* Los Altos Chamber of Commerce[21]
* Latin Business Association[21]
* Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce[21]
* Pasadena Chamber of Commerce[21]
* San Francisco Chamber of Commerce[21]
* Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce[21]
* Silicon Valley Leadership Group[21]
* Solano County Black Chamber of Commerce[21]
* Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)[21]
* California Teachers Association[21]
* California Wind Energy Association[21]
* California Solar Energy Industries Association[21]
* Oak Creek Energy Systems, Inc.[21]
* Solaria[21]
* TechNet[21]
* Virgin America[21]
* Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.[21]
* Abel Maldonado, Lieutenant Governor of California at the time[21]
* Kamala Harris, a candidate for Attorney General of California.[11]
* California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)[22]
* The California Teamsters[23]
* California Institute of Architects, California Council[21]
* California Statewide Law Enforcement Association[21]

### Arguments[edit]

* George Shultz, who served as secretary of state during the Reagan administration, was the honorary co-chairman of Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs. He said, "While some companies in California have said they’re worried about the cost of the planned greenhouse gas limits, the new regulations will boost the state’s economy by creating 'clean-tech jobs'."[24]
* California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) said, "The effort to suspend AB 32 is the work of greedy oil companies who want to keep polluting in our state and making profits."[25]
* Vinod Khosla, an investor of clean energy projects, stated, "Prop 23 will kill the market and the single largest source of job growth in California in the last two years."[26]

#### Official arguments[edit]

The arguments submitted to the official California Voter Guide urging a "no" vote on Proposition 23 were signed by Jane Warner, president of the American Lung Association in California; Linda Rosenstock, M.D., dean of UCLA School of Public Health; and David Pacheco, president of AARP California:[8]

“  |

TEXAS OIL COMPANIES DESIGNED PROP. 23 to KILL CALIFORNIA CLEAN ENERGY and AIR POLLUTION STANDARDS.

Big Texas oil companies and state politicians who receive oil company money designed Prop. 23 to repeal clean energy and air pollution standards in California. Those oil companies are spending millions on a DECEPTIVE CAMPAIGN to promote Prop. 23 because 23 would allow them and other polluters to escape accountability and increase their profits.

PROP. 23 is a DIRTY ENERGY PROPOSITION that MEANS MORE AIR POLLUTION and INCREASED HEALTH RISKS—Vote NO.

Prop. 23’s main backers, the Valero and Tesoro oil companies, are among the worst polluters in California. They’re using 23 to repeal portions of the health and safety code that require them to reduce air pollution at their California refineries.

'Prop. 23 would result in more air pollution that would lead to more asthma and lung disease, especially in children and seniors. Vote NO.' —American Lung Association in California

PROP. 23 is a JOB KILLER—THREATENING HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of CALIFORNIA JOBS.

Across California, clean energy companies are sprouting up and building wind and solar power facilities that provide us with clean power, built right here by California workers. By repealing clean energy laws, Prop. 23 would put many of these California companies out of business, kill a homegrown industry that is creating hundreds of thousands of California jobs, and damage our overall economy.

'California is the hub of innovation and investment in clean energy technologies and businesses. But Prop. 23 would reverse the state’s clean energy laws, jeopardizing billions in economic growth and hundreds of thousands of jobs.'—Sue Kateley, Executive Director, California Solar

Energy Industries Association, representing more than 200 solar energy small businesses.

The independent, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office says 23 could 'dampen additional investment in clean energy technologies by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity than otherwise would be the case.'

PROP. 23 WOULD JEOPARDIZE:

* 12,000 California-based clean energy businesses
* Nearly 500,000 existing California clean energy jobs
* More than $10 billion in private investment in California

PROP. 23 WOULD KEEP US ADDICTED to COSTLY OIL— Vote NO.

By killing incentives for clean energy, 23 reduces choices for consumers already facing high gas and electricity costs.

'Prop. 23 would keep consumers stuck on costly oil and subject consumers to spiking energy prices.' Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine

OUR OIL ADDICTION THREATENS NATIONAL SECURITY. PROP. 23 MAKES IT WORSE.

Prop. 23 would harm efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil that comes from countries that support terrorism and are hostile to the United States.

JOIN PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCATES, CLEAN ENERGY COMPANIES and SMALL BUSINESSES: VOTE NO on 23.

Prop. 23 is OPPOSED by:

* American Lung Association in California
* Coalition for Clean Air
* AARP
* League of Women Voters of California
* More than 50 leading environmental organizations
* LA Business Council
* More than 200 solar and wind energy companies
* Hundreds of other businesses across California

STOP the TEXAS OIL COMPANIES’ DIRTY ENERGY PROPOSITION.

Vote NO on 23. www.StopDirtyEnergyProp.com[9]

|  ”

|
|

### Campaign finance[edit]

Main article: Donations to California's 2010 ballot propositions

Eighteen different campaign committees filed with Cal-Access in opposition to Proposition 23.[27]

#### Donors[edit]

According to Cal-Access, these donations of $100,000 or more went to one or more of the "No on Proposition 23" campaign committees:[27]

Donor  |  Amount

|

Thomas Steyer |  $5,049,000
National Wildlife Federation  |  $3,000,000
John and Ann Doerr |  $2,100,000
Natural Resources Defense Council |  $1,860,000
Sierra Club  |  $1,679,188
League of Conservation Voters  |  $1,295,000
Environmental Defense Fund  |  $1,075,000
Vinod Khosla |  $1,037,267
James Cameron  |  $1,000,000
Robert J. Fisher |  $1,000,000
Gordon Miller  |  $1,000,000
Climateworks Foundation  |  $900,000
Nature Conservancy  |  $800,000
Bill Gates  |  $700,000
Clean Energy & Jobs Mobilization Committee  |  $609,632
Green Tech Action Fund  |  $500,000
John Morgridge  |  $500,000
Claire Perry  |  $500,000
Wendy Schmidt  |  $500,000
Julian Robertson  |  $500,000
Pacific Gas & Electric  |  $500,000
Hannelore Grantham  |  $400,000
Susan Mandel  |  $400,000
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center |  $317,000
Rockefeller Family Fund  |  $300,000
SCOPE  |  $300,000
William Patterson  |  $250,000
Anne Earhart |  $250,000
Susan Packard Orr |  $250,000
Nicolas Berggruen |  $250,000
Democratic State Central Committee  |  $217,470
A.L.L.E.R.T  |  $200,000
Shawn and Brook Byers  |  $200,000
Sergey Brin  |  $200,000
California Teachers Association |  $200,000
Lauren Powell Jobs  |  $200,000
SunRun Inc.  |  $200,000
Environment California  |  $126,973
Union of Concerned Scientists  |  $113,005
Julie Packard  |  $101,000
Fahrad Ebrahimi  |  $100,000
John Pritzker  |  $100,000
Nancy Burnett  |  $100,000
Lucy Southworth  |  $100,000
Paul Klingenstein  |  $100,000
Green Tech Capital Advisors  |  $100,000
Audubon Society  |  $100,000
Majestic Realty |  $100,000

#### Campaign advertisements[edit]

The "No on 23" campaign released the following videos and commercials:

|
|
|

## Media editorials[edit]

2010 propositions

June 8
Proposition 13
Proposition 14 • Text
Proposition 15 • Text
Proposition 16 • Text
Proposition 17 • Text
November 2
Proposition 19 • Text
Proposition 20 • Text
Proposition 21 • Text
Proposition 22 • Text
Proposition 23 • Text
Proposition 24 • Text
Proposition 25 • Text
Proposition 26 • Text
Proposition 27 • Text
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements
Local measures

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2010

### Support[edit]

* Orange County Register wrote: "By approving Proposition 23, voters can stall implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and perhaps save more than 1 million jobs until state unemployment falls to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. Unemployment has been above 12 percent for more than a year. We prefer permanent repeal of the 2006 law. For now, we urge at least a delay of its disastrous economic effects and infringements on private-sector freedoms."[28]

* North County Times wrote: "One plain, undeniable fact of economic life is that the government doesn't, and can't, create wealth 
- only private employers can do that. [...] Proposition 23 would suspend (but not end) the expensive "greenhouse" legislation 
- AB 32 and related measures 
- that coerces businesses in California into using more renewable energy sources and sets arbitrary mandates in doing so. [...] We urge a yes vote on Proposition 23."[29]

### Opposition[edit]

* Bakersfield Californian wrote: "The question shouldn't be whether AB 32 should be implemented. Rather, it's how quickly, and to what degree, it should be enacted to maximize results."[30]

* Contra Costa Times wrote: "The long-term impact of AB32 could be huge in making California a leader in a growing renewable energy industry, while much of the rest of the country delays action."[31]

* Fresno Bee wrote: "Proposition 23 is another self-serving measure from special interests."[32]

* The Herald (Monterey County) wrote: "California achieved greatness through innovation and the success of clean industries such as aerospace, high tech, film and education. At the moment, it is poised to lead the nation again through the development of various clean-tech ventures, but that would be wiped out overnight through a ballot measure intended primarily to help the shareholders of Tesoro and Valero and Occidental Petroleum."[33]

* Lompoc Record wrote: "So, the question we need to ask ourselves is, are we really willing to risk our health so oil companies can make a few billion more dollars each year?"[34]

* Long Beach Press-Telegram wrote: "That doesn't make the measure more appealing to voters. Neither does the idea of encouraging more greenhouse gases, even if they are a small part of the worldwide issue. Also, some of us feel that apart from the issue of global warming, it will be healthier and eventually more efficient to get our energy from the sun, the winds or the tides."[35]

* Los Angeles Daily News wrote: "Proposition 23 proponents ignore the competitive advantage California as a whole has in AB 32. There is an emerging global market for green technology, and with market-changing regulations in place, California is likely to be ground zero in the U.S. for clean technology industries."[36]

* Los Angeles Times wrote: "Suspending California's global warming law would take the state, and the country, in the wrong direction."[37]

* Oakland Tribune wrote: "More than 500,000 people work in the cleantech industry, including 93,000 in manufacturing and 68,000 in construction. These are the kind of well-paying jobs California needs and which will increase under AB32."[38]

* Sacramento Bee wrote: "Three oil companies, Valero, Tesoro and Koch Industries, have so far pumped $8 million into the Proposition 23 campaign. They are the major forces behind a misleading effort to convince voters that AB 32 is harming the state's economy and is a threat to economic recovery."[39]

* San Bernardino Sun wrote: "The green industry is ready to solve our economic problems and have a major impact on our environmental problems."[40]

* San Diego Union-Tribune wrote: "...the solution to one bad law is not to adopt a second bad law. And that is precisely what Proposition 23 on the Nov. 2 ballot is – bad law."[41]

* San Francisco Chronicle wrote: "California's fragile recovery can't afford the chaos that Proposition 23 will bring."[42]

* San Gabriel Valley Tribune wrote: "This disingenuous measure would hurt businesses struggling to innovate and make California's energy future bright."[43]

* San Jose Mercury News wrote: "If Proposition 23 passes, clean-energy investment will come to a halt. That's what seems to be happening nationally: After the collapse of Senate talks on a national climate and energy bill like California's, a Deutsche Bank executive told Reuters that it would pour most of the $7 billion it has to invest in clean energy into China and Western Europe. Said Kevin Parker, global head of asset management: "(Congress is) asleep at the wheel on climate change, asleep at the wheel on job growth, asleep at the wheel on this industrial revolution taking place in the energy industry.""[44]

* Santa Rosa Press-Democrat wrote: "This is no time to go back on California's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and trying to limit the impacts of global climate change."[45]

* Ventura County Star wrote: "Voters need to see Proposition 23 for what it is: A cleverly written measure aimed at eliminating AB 32 and, in the long run, posing harm to all Californians."[46]

## Polls[edit]

|  Legend

* * *

Position is ahead and at or over 50% Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures

Date of Poll  |  Pollster  |  Support  |  Oppose  |  Undecided  |  Number polled

|
|
|
|
|

June 22-July 5, 2010 | Field | 36%  | 48%  | 16%  | 1,005
Sept 15-22, 2010 | GQR and AV | 40%  | 38%  | 22%  | 1,511
September 14-21, 2010 | Field | 34%  | 45%  | 11%  | 599
September 19-26, 2010 | PPIC | 43%  | 42%  | 15%  | 2,004
October 2-4, 2010 | Reuters/lpsos  | 37%  | 49%  | 14%  | 600
October 10-17, 2010 | PPIC | 37%  | 48%  | 15%  | 2,002
October 14-26, 2010 | Field for the Sacramento Bee | 33%  | 48%  | 19%  | 1,501

The question in this poll asked whether poll respondents supported AB 32, the 2006 Global Warming law that would be suspended until the unemployment rate dropped.[47]

Date of Poll  |  Pollster  |  Support AB 32  |  Oppose AB 32  |  Undecided  |  Number polled

|
|
|
|
|

July 6-20, 2010  | PPIC | 67%  | 23%  | 4%  | Unknown

The question in this poll asked whether the state should take action "right away" on its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or wait until the state’s economy and job situation improved.[48]

Date of Poll  |  Pollster  |  "Take action right away"  |  "Wait until economy improves"  |  Undecided  |  Number polled

|
|
|
|
|

July 6-20, 2010  | PPIC | 53%  | 42%  | 5%  | Unknown

## Background[edit]

### About AB 32[edit]

See also: California's AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006", and Text of California Assembly Bill 32 (2006)

AB 32 was enacted in 2006. The goal of AB 32 was to cap state-created greenhouse gases by 2020, based on 1990 emissions. Steps taken under AB 32 included retrofits on diesel engines and new devices on gas pumps.

### Unemployment in California[edit]

Proposition 23 (article about)

* * *

Full text of Prop 23

* * *

AB 32 (article about)

* * *

Full text of AB 32

In January 2010, California's unemployment rate had crept over 12% and 2.25 million Californians were unemployed.[49] In March 2010, it was discovered that, at the time, 8 of California's 58 counties had an unemployment rate exceeding 20%.[50]

At the time of the vote on Prop 23, the last time the unemployment rate in California was below 5.5% was in 2007.[22] According to the California Employment Development Department in 2010, there had been three periods since 1976 when unemployment in the state remained below 5.5% for four or more quarters:

* January 1988 through December 1989
* October 1999 through June 2001
* October 2005 through June 2007[11]

In 2010, California had lost 34% of its manufacturing jobs since 2001.[12]

### Jobs in California's clean energy sector[edit]

The number of clean energy businesses and clean energy jobs increased in California 45% and 36%, respectively, in the period between 1995-2008.[51] This rate of growth is 10 times more than the state's average job growth rate.[51]

At the time of the vote, California had over 12,000 clean energy businesses and 500,000 people were employed in clean energy occupations.[51][52] With over $9 billion in venture capital funds, California's clean energy firms have received 60% of venture capital funds in North America[53].

The independent Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) stated that suspending AB 32 would "dampen additional investments in clean energy technologies or so-called 'green jobs' by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity than would otherwise be the case."[54]

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: California signature requirements
See also: 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs

To qualify the measure for the November 2, 2010 ballot, supporters had to provide qualifying signatures to California's 58 county election clerks no later than the July 5, 2010 deadline. A total of 433,971 valid signatures were required to qualify the measure for the ballot.

Multiple versions of the proposed measure were filed with the Office of the California Attorney General. On November 25, 2009, the group People's Advocate filed a request for an official ballot title on 09-0094, the proposed version that eventually became Prop 23. An official summary was provided on February 3, 2010, with a petition deadline of July 5, 2010. On December 22, 2009, requests for ballot titles were filed on 09-0104 and 09-0105, two other versions. These ballot titles were provided on February 7, 2010, with petition deadlines of July 19, 2010.

The petition drive to land the initiative on the ballot was launched the first week of March 2010.[55] Signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot were collected by National Petition Management at a cost of $2,222,312.[56] Organizers turned in their qualifying signatures on Monday, May 3, claiming they collected over 800,000.[57][22]

### Lawsuit[edit]

See also: 2010 ballot measure litigation

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court on July 29, 2010, asserting that the ballot title prepared by the Office of the Attorney General of California was "false, misleading and unfair" and should therefore be changed.[58] Arguments filed in court said the title and summary should not refer to "air pollution control laws" because Proposition 23 did not apply to multiple laws and should not refer to "major polluters" because power plants and refineries were not the only businesses affected by the law, since emissions from universities, agricultural facilities, municipal buildings, and other private companies and citizens were also affected.[59]

On Tuesday, August 3, 2010, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley issued a ruling that took the side of the plaintiffs and ordered that the state government change the ballot title and summary.[60]

Frawley's ruling said:

* The term "sources of emission" should be used in the ballot language instead of "major polluters."[60]
* The official ballot language should not use the word "abandon" to describe what will happen to AB-32 if Proposition 23 is enacted, but should rather consistently use the word "suspend."[60]
* Ballot language should clarify that Proposition 23 does not apply to state pollution laws on "smog-forming emissions and others related to asthma and other health risks."[60]

## Reports and analyses[edit]

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here.

The impact that AB 32 would have on jobs in California was widely disputed.

#### Air Resources Board[edit]

The California Air Resources Board was the state agency charged with enforcing AB 32. This group said in 2008 that AB 32 would create more than 100,000 jobs in the state. In March 2010, the agency revised its estimate, saying that AB 32 would create 10,000 jobs.[49]

Larry Goulder, a professor at Stanford University, was the lead economist in the CARB report. Goulder came under fire in April 2010 when it became known that he was on the board of directors of the Energy Foundation. The Energy Foundation, in turn, was the sole contributor behind the Green Tech Action Fund. The Green Tech Action Fund gave $500,000 in April to "Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs," which was the campaign committee that was attempting to defeat Proposition 23.

When questioned by the New York Times, Goulder said, "I value my reputation as an economist. I have no direct involvement with the Green Tech Action Fund."[61]

#### CSU-Sacramento Studies[edit]

Two studies of AB 32 were conducted by S. Varshney and D. Tootelian. At the time, Varshney and Tootelian were professors at California State University-Sacramento. Their studies were sometimes referred to as the "Varshney studies" or the "V&T studies."

* June 2009: The name of this study was "Cost of AB 32 on California Small Businesses—Summary Report of Findings (June 2009)." It concluded that AB 32 would cost California’s small businesses $183 billion in lost output each year.[62] Commissioned by the California Small Business Roundtable, this study said that the cost of implementing AB 32 "could easily exceed $100 billion" and that the program would raise the cost of living by $3,857 per household each year by 2020.[49] It also said that the implementation costs of AB 32 were "likely to total $183 billion in reduced GSP and the equivalent of 1.1 million fewer jobs" and estimated the "average annual cost of AB 32 per small business...[at]...approximately $50,000."[62] The California Legislative Analyst's Office in March 2010 said of this study that "it contains a number of serious shortcomings that render its estimates of the economic effects of AB 32’s proposed implementation through the SP highly unreliable."[62]

* March 2010: Varshney and Tootelian's study was reviewed by James L. Sweeney, a professor at Stanford University, and Matthew E. Kahn, a professor at UCLA. Sweeney and Kahn said that Varshney and Tootelian's study was "flawed" and "overestimate[d] the law's [AB 32] cost by a factor of 10."[63] Sweeney and Kahn also say that Varshney and Tootelian do not include in their study the savings and innovation that would result from AB 32.[64]

* September 2009: The name of the second study by Varshney and Tootelian was "Cost of State Regulations on California Small Businesses Study (September 2009)." Mandated by Chapter 232, Statutes of 2006 (AB 2330, Arambula), this study concluded that "California’s regulations of all types resulted in reduction in the gross state product (GSP) of $493 billion annually in lost output and $134,000 annually per small business." The California Legislative Analyst's Office, in a March 2010 letter to Kevin de León, said, "Our review of this study indicates that it contains a number of serious shortcomings that render its estimates of the annual economic costs of state regulations essentially useless."[62]

* March 2010: Business Alliance for a Green Economy issued a round-up of criticisms of the Varshney-Tootelian study.

## See also

2010 Measures

* 2010 Measures
* Environment on the ballot
* 2010 legislative sessions

California

* California ballot measures
* California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

* Ballot measure lawsuits
* Ballot measure readability
* Ballot measure polls

## External links[edit]

|  Suggest a link

|

### Basic information[edit]

* 2010 General Election Voter Guide
* Letter to Attorney General requesting ballot title (09-0094)
* Letter to Attorney General requesting ballot title (09-0104)
* Letter to Attorney General requesting ballot title (09-0105)
* Implementation of AB 32 - Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a report from the California Legislative Analyst's Office dated April 14, 2010
* California Environmental Protection Agency's FAQ page about AB 32

### Supporters[edit]

See also: 2010 ballot measure campaign websites

* Suspend AB 32, official website of the California Jobs Initiative organization
* Yes on 23 on Facebook
* Yes on 23 on Twitter
* Campaign finance filings for "Yes on 23, California Jobs Initiative, a Coalition of Taxpayers, Employers, Food Producers, Energy, Transportation and Forestry Companies"

### Opponents[edit]

See also: 2010 ballot measure campaign websites

* Stop Dirty Energy Prop
* No on 23 on Facebook
* Stop Prop 23 on Twitter
* Campaign finance reports for No on 23, Californians to Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition
* Campaign finance reports for Credo Victory Fund to Fight Climate Change
* Campaign finance reports for Committee for a Clean Energy Future, No on Prop 23
* Campaign finance reports for Environmental Defense Action Fund Say No to Prop 23 Committee
* Campaign finance reports for Communities Against Proposition 23, sponsored by Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
* Campaign finance reports for No on Prop 23, Committee of the NRDC
* Campaign finance reports for the Clean Economy Network, No on 23 Action Fund
* Campaign finance reports for Green Tech Action Fund California Committee - No on 23
* Campaign finance reports for California Student Public Interest Research Group - Committee to Defeat Proposition 23
* Campaign finance reports for Committee to Defeat Prop 23, sponsored by Environment California

## Additional reading[edit]

* Pavley predicts ballot measure will aim to overturn global warming law
* Update on initiative to suspend California's global warming bill
* On Climate: Congress Restarts, California Threatens
* Millions in political contributions move in late-night transactions
* Proposition 23 Likely To Become Midterm's Most Expensive Ballot Measure

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Fresno Bee, "Climate law to go before voters," June 23, 2010
2. ↑ ChinaDialogue, "Testing time for green California," March 3, 2010
3. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Ballot initiative would curb California efforts," January 25, 2010
4. ↑ NationalJournal.com, "California's New Energy Divide," accessed March 6, 2014
5. ↑ No on 23 campaign website
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Business Week, "California Climate Campaign Spending May Top Record," April 16, 2010
7. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 23 backers sue over ballot language," July 29, 2010
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 University of California Hastings, "2010 General Election Voter Guide," accessed February 17, 2021
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Appeal-Democrat, "Logue wants air rules to face popular vote," December 1, 2009
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Legal Newsline, "Referendum on Calif. greenhouse law appears headed for voters," May 3, 2010
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Legal Newsline, "DiCaro: Shelving Calif. greenhouse law will save jobs," May 5, 2010
13. ↑ Americans for Prosperity/California
14. ↑ Official record of "Yes on 23" campaign contributions
15. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Drive launched to derail state's greenhouse gas law," March 4, 2010
16. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Cal-Access record of donations to support Proposition 23," accessed February 27, 2014
17. ↑ San Jose Mercury News, "Oil company owned by Tea Party's billionaire brothers gives $1 million to fight California's climate change law.," September 4, 2010
18. ↑ Washington Independent, "Koch Brothers Spend Big to Derail Greenhouse Gas Law in California," September 9, 2010
19. ↑ Grist, "No on Prop 23 campaign rakes in cash as enviro justice advocates join the fight," September 28, 2010
20. ↑ Cal-Access record of donations to the California Jobs Initiative Committee
21. ↑ 21.00 21.01 21.02 21.03 21.04 21.05 21.06 21.07 21.08 21.09 21.10 21.11 21.12 21.13 21.14 21.15 21.16 21.17 21.18 21.19 21.20 21.21 21.22 21.23 21.24 21.25 21.26 21.27 21.28 21.29 21.30 21.31 21.32 21.33 21.34 21.35 21.36 21.37 21.38 21.39 No on Prop 23- Californians to Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition, "Our Coalition" (dead link)
22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Reuters, "California may vote to freeze landmark climate law"
23. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Global warming ballot initiative: Teamsters and cities weigh in," April 23, 2010
24. ↑ Business Week, "California Carbon Law Fight Takes a ‘Giant Step’," May 3, 2010
25. ↑ Mercury News, "Opponents of California global warming law turn in signatures for November measure," May 3, 2010
26. ↑ Mercury News, "Cleantech industry coming out against Proposition 23," August 10, 2010
27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Cal-Access record of donations to Californians to Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition
28. ↑ Orange County Register, "Our picks for the propositions," October 5, 2010
29. ↑ North County Times, "EDITORIAL: Yes on Proposition 23--OUR VIEW: Economic recovery is single most important issue facing state," October 27, 2010
30. ↑ Bakersfield Californian, "Keep up momentum, reject Proposition 23," October 6, 2010
31. ↑ Contra Costa Times, "Voters should endorse cleaner energy by rejecting Proposition 23," September 5, 2010
32. ↑ Fresno Bee, "State voters should reject Proposition 23," October 8, 2010
33. ↑ Monterey Herald, "Proposition 23 just a bad ballot measure," October 8, 2010
34. ↑ Lompoc Record, "Want cleaner air? Defeat Proposition 23," October 3, 2010
35. ↑ Long Beach Press-Telegram, "No on Proposition 23," October 6, 2010
36. ↑ Los Angeles Daily News, "No on Proposition 23: Proponents can't make a case for delaying emissions rules," September 19, 2010
37. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "No on 23," September 28, 2010
38. ↑ Oakland Tribune, "Voters should endorse cleaner energy by rejecting Proposition 23," September 5, 2010
39. ↑ Sacramento Bee. "Endorsements: Proposition 23 deserves to go down in disgrace.," September 27, 2010 (dead link)
40. ↑ San Bernardino Sun, "No on Proposition 23," October 9, 2010
41. ↑ San Diego Union Tribune, "No on Proposition 23," October 11, 2010
42. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Vote no on Proposition 23," September 27, 2010
43. ↑ San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "Our View: No on Proposition 23; keep green future," October 4, 2010
44. ↑ San Jose Mercury News. "Vote No on Proposition 23," August 22, 2010
45. ↑ Santa Rosa Press Democrat, "No on 23," September 7, 2010
46. ↑ Ventura County Star, "Reject Proposition 23 to clear the air," September 9, 2010
47. ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "In Big Shift, Californians Oppose Offshore Oil Drilling"
48. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California poll: support for climate law, opposition to oil drilling", July 28, 2010
49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 49.2 Wall Street Journal, "California's Cap-Trade Law Faces Fall Ballot Challenge," April 5, 2010
50. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Unemployment tops 20% in eight California counties," March 11, 2010
51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 Many Shades of Green, "Collaborative Economics and the Next 10," accessed December 2009
52. ↑ Employment Development Department: Labor Market Information Division, "California's Green Economy," April 21, 2010
53. ↑ Clean Tech, "Homepage," accessed February 27, 2014
54. ↑ California Legislative Analyst's Office, "Analysis of AB 32," accessed February 27, 2014
55. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Drive launched to derail state's greenhouse gas law," March 4, 2010
56. ↑ "Yes on Prop 23" campaign expenditures
57. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Drive to suspend AB 32 will submit voter signatures Monday," April 30, 2010
58. ↑ Mercury News, "Judge rules Proposition 23 ballot language must be reworded," August 3, 2010
59. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 23 backers sue over ballot language," July 29, 2010
60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 60.2 60.3 Orange County Register, "Rebuke of Jerry Brown good news for Proposition 23," August 3, 2010
61. ↑ New York Times, "Lead Economist for State Analysis Linked to Pro-Climate Law Campaign," April 21, 2010
62. ↑ 62.0 62.1 62.2 62.3 Legislative Analyst's Office, "Letter of March 9, 2010 to Kevin De León"
63. ↑ http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/24/opinion/la-oe-sweeney24-2010mar24
64. ↑ http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/24/opinion/la-oe-sweeney24-2010mar24

v • e

2010 ballot measures

I&R States|

Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Non I&R States|

Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Louisiana • New Jersey • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Tennessee • Vermont • Virginia

Political topics|

(Certified topics only): Abortion • Administration of government • Affirmative action • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil rights • Constitutional conventions • Earthquakes • Education • Elections • Eminent domain • Energy • English • Firearms • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting • Direct democracy measures • Insurance • Judicial reform • Labor • Law enforcement • Marijuana • Natural resources • Property rights • Redistricting • State budgets • Taxes • Term limits • Tobacco • Transportation • Veterans • Water

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines • Polls • Litigation (Lawsuits) • Potential measures • Tuesday Count • Changes in 2010 to laws governing ballot measures • Official voter guides • Petition signature costs • 2010 ballot measure campaign websites • Certified but removed • Media endorsements • Not on the ballot

Post-election|

2010 analyses • 2010 election results • 2010 amendments to constitutions • Campaign contributions

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy