California Proposition 23 (2010)

From WikiFactCheck

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

61% of voters opted against California Proposition 23 on Tuesday, November 2, 2010. [1] Had the initiative passed, it would have suspended implementation of air pollution control law AB 32, the Global Warming Act of 2006, until unemployment dropped to 5.5 percent or less for a full year [1]. The legislation in question, AB 32, requires 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 is slated under AB 32 to begin in 2012 [2]. AB 32 is often referred to as a "landmark" legislation because its greenhouse gas emission goals are unmatched anywhere else in the country [3]. In their campaigns for and against Proposition 23, supporters and opponents each adopted nicknames for the measure that clarify what they think of it. Supporters called Proposition 23 the "California Jobs Initiative" and opponents called it the "Dirty Energy Proposition." [4]

Results

As of 11:45 a.m. (11/3/2010) California - 24607 of 24845 Precincts Reporting - 99%

  • No 4,375,182 61%
  • Yes 2,781,420 39%
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/election/
Breakdown of voting by county: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/23/
  • The Los Angeles Times reported [[2]] that proponents of Proposition 23 were "outspent" and "out-organized."

Main Groups

For

  • Yes on 23—A coalition of taxpayers, small business, firefighters, labor, agriculture, transportation, food producers, energy and forestry companies and air quality officials. Supporters of Proposition 23 call it the California Jobs Initiative.
  • 1215 K Street, Suite 2260 Sacramento, CA 95814
  • (866) 247-0911
  • info@yeson23.com
  • Website
  • Facebook

Against

  • No on 23--Californians to Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition

Tip Line

Add below any tips, news, links or items to fact check

Background check

For Prop 23

  • Organization origins - TK
  • Funding - Valero, Tesoro and the Koch brothers alone have funded more than $6.5 million – 80% of total contributions. [5]
  • Funding also from Valero; Tesoro Companies; Flint Hills Resources; Adam Smith Foundation; Occidental Petroleum; National Petrochemical and Refiners Association; Tower Energy Group; and World Oil Corp For the campaign finance filings
  • Erin Voegele for Biomass Power and Thermal, a trade publication, wrote in an editorial that "[Proposition 23] saves $3.7 billion a year in higher transportation fuel prices, and up to 56 percent increases in natural gas rates." [3]
  • Major personalities - Carly Fiorina, Tea Party
  • Political affiliation: Republican
  • Conflict of interest - Texas-based Valero and Tesoro have spent $4 million and $1.5 million, respectively, in company money on the ballot initiative. “That Valero and the other companies are using company money for such overt political purposes is both inappropriate and reflects poor governance. Beyond stifling California’s fast-growing clean tech economy, rolling back this law will delay the nation’s much needed transition to a clean energy economy and greater energy independence,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, which coordinates shareholder resolutions, and Director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk. Ceres.org

Against Prop 23

  • Organization origins - TK
  • Funding -The majority of donations have come from environmental organizations, clean energy firms, and individuals. Individuals such as Thomas Steyer ($2,500,000), and Robert Fisher ($1,000,000). The largest donation by an environmental organization was from the Natural Resources Defense Council ($1,500,000). The National Wildlife Federation donated $3,000,000. [4]
  • Major personalities - James Cameron, President Obama, Bill Gates, David Arquette, Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Meg Whitman, Lieuten- ant Governor Abel Maldonado, U.S. Congressman Bob Filner, Senate Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, Assembly Speaker John Perez, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Councilmember Ed Reyes, Los Angeles Councilmember Richard Alarcon, Santa Monica Councilmember Kevin McKeown, Santa Monica Councilmember Terry O’Day.
  • Major groups: the Sierra Club, the American Lung Association, Kaiser Permanente, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters of California, AARP, VoteVets.org, California Professional Firefighters, Jack Jones Trucking, Inc.,Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business
  • Political affiliation: Democrat
  • Conflict of interest - The tax would put another burden on California companies that our Chinese and Korean competitors will not have to bear.[5]
  • According to a Sept. 26 Field Poll, 45% of Californians oppose Proposition 23, while 34% support it.[[6]]

Claims

For Prop 23

  • Supporters of Proposition 23 pointed to California's greenhouse emissions, which is 1.4 percent of the world's emissions. [[7]] that California produces 1.4 percent of the world’s greenhouse emissions}}

Against Prop 23

  • Prop 23 would suspend AB 32 until state unemployment remains at 5.5% or lower for 4 consecutive quarters -- this has only happened 3 times in the past 40 years.
    • This has actually happened 7 times since 1980 according to unemployment stats from the bureau of labor statistics [6]
    • Currently, 12.8% of the labor force in California is unemployed, according to an Oct. 1 survey by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. [7]
  • Last time California unemployment was below 5.5 percent was Oct. 2007, according to the California Labor Development Department.

Fiscal Ramifications

Potential Positive Fiscal Impact

  • The Legislative Analyst's Office, California's non-partisan fiscal and policy adviser, has identified the potential positive and negative impacts of voting yes on Proposition 23. According to the Legal Analyst's Office, the impact would likely be a modest net increase in overall economic activity.
  • The Legislative Analyst's Office notes: "Suspending AB 32 would reduce the need for new investments and other actions to comply with new regulations that would be an added cost to businesses. Energy prices—which also affect the state’s economy—would be lower in 2020 than otherwise. This is because the proposed cap-and-trade regulation, as well as the requirement that electric utilities obtain a greater portion of their electricity supplies from renewable energy sources, would otherwise require utilities to make investments that would increase the costs of producing or delivering electricity. Such investments would be needed to comply with these regulations, such as by obtaining electricity from higher-priced sources than would otherwise be the case. The suspension of such measures by this proposition could therefore lower costs to businesses and avoid energy price increases that otherwise would largely be passed on to energy consumers."
  • Suspension of AB 32 would potentially result in somewhat higher economic activity in the state and would augment revenues to the state and local governments.[[8]]
  • Erin Voegele for Biomass Power and Thermal, a trade publication, wrote in an editorial that "[Proposition 23] saves $3.7 billion a year in higher transportation fuel prices, and up to 56 percent increases in natural gas rates." [9]

Potential Negative Fiscal Impact

  • Conversely, the Suspension of AB 32, which will result if Proposition 23 passes, may have some negative fiscal impacts.
    • The Legislative Analyst's Office notes: "....The suspension of some Scoping Plan measures could delay investments in clean technologies that might result in some cost savings to businesses and consumers. Investment in research and development and job creation in the energy efficiency and clean energy sectors that support or profit from the goals of AB 32 might also be discouraged by this proposition, resulting in less economic activity in certain sectors than would otherwise be the case. Suspending some Scoping Plan measures could halt air quality improvements that would have public health benefits, such as reduced respiratory illnesses. These public health benefits translate into economic benefits, such as increased worker productivity and reduced government and business costs for health care."
    • There are currently 500,000 employees who work in clean technology or green jobs in California, according to the Employment Development Department.[[10]] Renewable Energy World, an online publication, argues these jobs can be threatened if AB 32 is overturned. [[11]]

Campaign ads

Supporters cited in ad

  • Yes on 23, California Jobs Initiative, a coalition of taxpayers, employers, food producers, energy, transportation and forestry companies, supported by Valero and Tesoro.
  • California Small Business Assocation
  • California State Firefighers Assocation
  • Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
  • National Federation of Independent Business
  • California State Pipe Trades Council

Statements to check

  • Preventing a 60% increase in electricity rates and higher gas prices. (0:10)
  • "Saves more than a million jobs." (0:14) This is based on a study of AB 32 by Professors S. Varshney and D. Tootelian (V&T) of California State University, Sacramento, who concluded that AB 32 would result in the loss of 1.1 million jobs. The Legislative Analyst's Office, however, reviewed the study and said its flaws rendered it unreliable.
  • Legislative Analyst's Office, March 2010: "The effects of the SP on California jobs are difficult to accurately predict but would be mixed, with gains in some occupations and industries (including so-called “green” jobs) and losses in others (primarily involving fossil fuel-related energy production). On balance, however, we believe that the aggregate net jobs impact in the near term is likely to be negative, even after recognizing that many of the SP’s programs phase in over time." [8]
  • According to Next 10, GSP will lower by over $80 billion and there will be 626,000 fewer jobs if fossil fuel prices increase due to failure to implement greenhouse gas policies.
  • "All Yes on 23 says is let’s wait until people are back to work." (0:17)
  • "Back to work" is four consecutive quarters (a one-year period) of employment rates at 5.5 percent or less. [9]
  • Unemployed is supposed to drop to 7.3 percent by 2015. [10]
  • Last time California unemployment was below 5.5 percent was Oct. 2007, according to the California Labor Development Department. [11]

No on Proposition 23

Key Assertions:

  • Backed by "Two Texas oil companies" - Tesoro and Valero. What is the nature of their support? Are they paying for it? Directly? How are they paying for it?
  • "Three disastrous consequences":
    1. "Pollutes our air." Misleading. Prop 23 does not enact new policies. It suspends AB 32.
    2. "Kills green jobs."
      1. University of California Berkeley study: Renewable energy and increases in energy efficiency in California could lead to 500,000 new jobs. [12] However, this does not project the net effect on California employment.
      2. Green jobs account for 3.8 percent of total employment in California. [13]
    3. "Keeps us addicted to costly oil." Prop 23 does not enact any policies that would reduce dependency on oil. It does suspend AB 32, which is supposed to invest in green technology. The ad offers no specifics on how AB 32 would reduce energy dependence directly. AB 32 would indirectly influence the state's dependence on oil by investing in green technologies.

Statements to check:

  • Two Texas oil companies are funding the proposition: True
Valero gave $4,065,636
Telero gave $1,540,636
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_(2010)
  • Higher energy prices: Somewhat true
"Implementing 33 percent renewable energy, combined with 1 percent annual improvement in energy efficiency, on the other hand, shields the economy from higher energy prices and yields a growth dividend, increasing GSP by $20 billion and generating 112,000 jobs." (http://www.next10.org/next10/publications/energy_prices.html)

Also, according to Next 10, "Between now and 2020, without implementation of GHG policies, private electricity costs in California will be up to $100 per person higher in 2020, which would rise $100 above today’s costs in any case, making electricity 33 percent more expensive. Higher energy prices force California enterprises and households to take a dollar away from in-state labor and labor-intensive goods and services and spend that dollar on capital-intensive fuel imports.”

  • Dependence on oil: Somewhat true. A bit of a stretch
"By killing incentives for clean energy, 23 reduces choices for consumers already facing high gas and electricity costs." (http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/23/arguments-rebuttals.htm)

Statements to check:

  • Sponsored by Valero and Tesoro oil companies (see above)
  • Would shut down pollution standards in California: True
"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." (http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/23/title-summary.htm)
  • Threaten 500,000 California clean energy jobs: Somewhat true. A bit of a stretch
"California has over 12,000 clean energy businesses and 500,000 people are employed in clean energy occupations. With over $9 billion in venture capital funds, California's clean energy firms have received 60% of venture capital funds in North America." (Employment Development Department- Labor Market Information Division, California's Green Economy, April, 2010 by way of http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_(2010)#cite_note-19)
  • Increase energy costs by $650 per year


Statements to check:

The ad asserts three things about Proposition 23:

  • It will "terminate our air pollution standards" - False
Prop 23 will not "terminate" air pollution standards. It delays one recently passed law in regards to those standards until unemployment levels reach a set low. California air pollution standards are set by the California Air Resources Board, which still sets them regardless of the passage of Prop 23. http://www.arb.ca.gov/bluebook/bb10/bb10.htm
  • It will "sink our clean energy economy" - wording too obscure to prove or disprove.
  • It will "exploit our environment for profit"

News Coverage

"Editorially, it seems to be that the majority of California papers, and the largest ones, oppose Prop 23, including the Los Angeles Times, the San Jose Mercury News, The San Diego Union-Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Sacramento Bee, the Fresno Bee, the Los Angeles Daily News, and The Bakersfield Californian. The only big papers supporting the measure seem to be The Orange Country Register and The Press-Enterprise in Riverside." - Columbia Journalism Review Article [14]

Overview

Prop-23-revised.jpg:

What's Next?

External links

  • Support
  • Opposition
  • TK - Major fact checking, political trackers

Sources

  1. ↑ http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/23
  2. ↑ http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_(2010)
  3. ↑ http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/4445/
  4. ↑ http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_(2010)
  5. ↑ http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/04/koch-industries-valero-tesoro-proposition-23/
  6. ↑ http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LASST06000003
  7. ↑ http://www.bls.gov/bls/unemployment.htm]]
  8. ↑ http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2010/rsrc/ab32_impact/ab32_impact_030410.aspx
  9. ↑ http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/23
  10. ↑ http://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/bud/fiscal_outlook/fiscal_outlook_111809.aspx
  11. ↑ California Labor Development Department, Quick Statistics Database http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=1006
  12. ↑ http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/california-air-board-to-release-new-ab-32-economic-analysis-88967792.html
  13. ↑ Employment Development Department, "California's Green Economy" http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/contentpub/GreenDigest/CaliforniaGreenEconomy.pdf
  14. ↑ http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/red_white_and_blue_but_not_gre.php
  15. ↑ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/10/prop-23-valero-global-warming-oil-refineries.html
5. http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2356.pdf
6. http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/09/whitman-to-vote-against-propos.html
7. http://www.neontommy.com/news/2010/10/california-propositions-proposition-23
Retrieved from "http://www.wikifactcheck.org/wiki/California_Proposition_23_(2010)"
Personal tools