Battle Over California Climate Law Will Have National Ripple Effect

WASHINGTON—This is not your father’s classic “tree hugger” vs. “big business” fracas.

Instead, a Nov. 2 ballot initiative aimed at derailing California’s landmark global warming legislation pits a coalition of about 400 local business, civic, labor and environmental organizations against a smattering of out-of-state oil refiners and connected groups.

And it has observers plenty nervous about a ripple effect. With an economy that is the eighth largest in the world, and the biggest among all US states, California points the way to the energy future.  

“This is polluters versus the new economy of clean technology,” Steven Maviglio told SolveClimate in a telephone interview from his California office. “It’s a cheap date for oil companies to try and kill this legislation and make political hay.” 

Maviglio is a spokesperson with Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs, the coalition rallying around Assembly Bill 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Signed into law by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it requires the Golden State to slice heat-trapping gases to 1990 levels by 2020.

A group called the California Jobs Initiative ponied up about $3 million to place the initiative—known as Proposition 23—on the ballot. Records show the bulk of its funding comes from Texas oil companies Valero and Tesoro.

Proponents of the far-reaching and unique AB 32 fear that just the threat of Proposition 23 could stymie burgeoning state and federal efforts to propel the country toward a low-carbon economy. 

“Many are viewing this as a bellwether on climate change policy around the country,’ Maviglio noted. “California has always been progressive with clean energy and environmental standards. No doubt this could be a blow to the national movement if the most progressive state takes a step backward.”

Those affiliated with the California Jobs Initiative make it clear that the proposition doesn’t directly kill AB 32. Rather, it suspends the legislation until the state unemployment rate drops from 12.4 percent to 5.5 percent for four successive quarters. The last time that scenario occurred was in a period that ended in June 2007.

“That has happened three times in 30 years,” Maviglio said about California maintaining such a low unemployment rate for four quarters in a row. “It’s a once in a blue moon economic condition.”

California Magnet for Clean Tech

The current jobless rate, hovering near 12 percent, means more than 2 million Californians are unemployed. But AB 32 backers maintain that figure would be even higher if the state hadn’t been so aggressive about attracting businesses focused on clean energy and technology.

“We have a robust clean technology sector that is the fastest growing part of our economy,” Maviglio said, adding that suspending AB 32 could paralyze business growth because of the uncertainty factor it introduces.

About 500,000 Californians work in clean technology or green jobs, according to the California Employment Development Department. Other numbers gathered by the pro AB 32 campaign show green jobs have grown at a pace 10 times faster than the statewide average of job growth since 2005. Plus, the state’s clean technology sector received $2.1 billion in capital investments during 2009. That’s five times as much as the nearest competitor, Massachusetts.

Rolling back AB 32 could dampen investments in clean energy technologies and green jobs, according to a study by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Compliance with AB 32 is scheduled to begin in 2012. Its comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction program includes increased renewable energy, cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries. To satisfy the bill’s requirements, the California Air Resources Board set a greenhouse gas emissions limit of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Out-of-State Dollars Fund Proposition 23