Advertisement

May 22, 2013

If Approved by Voters on November 2nd, California Ballot Initiative Would Suspend California's Climate Change Law

If you want to see how policy and elections can either drive or derail renewable energy deployment one should pay attention to the political activity in California.  Since the 1970s, California has been the leader among states as it relates to the development of policies to encourage the use of renewable energy, and this election year will be pivotal for California and the country on that front. On November 2nd Proposition 23 will be on the California’s ballot as an initiated state statute, and if approved it would suspend Assembly Bill 32 otherwise known as the Global Warming Act of 2006 (“the Act”).  The Act, which is California's landmark clean air legislation, was passed by a Democratic Legislature and Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and requires that greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emission levels be cut to 1990 levels by 2020. The Act was scheduled to take effect in 2012 and is an example of state and regional GHG emission regulation developed in the absence of a national Congressional policy on the topic.

Should Proposition 23 be approved by voters it would suspend the Act’s provisions until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. The chances of that occurring any time soon would be extremely difficult given that California's unemployment rate is currently around 12% and it has only been at 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters three times in the past three decades. California’s unemployment track record suggests the advocates favoring Proposition 23 are aiming to bury rather than delay the Act. If approved, Proposition 23 also requires California to abandon implementation of comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension ends.

As you would expect, California voters are eco-friendly and recent polls are showing more than half say the state should not wait for the economy to improve before cutting GHG emissions which scientists argue lead to the creation of Global Warming.  What has made the outcome of Proposition 23 unpredictable is that the opinions of the California business community are split.  Proposition 23 has been bankrolled by oil and gas companies and groups representing manufacturers and small businesses who are opposed to the onerous mandate that they say will cost billions and lead to job loss at a time that the state (and country) can least afford it.  On the flip side, environmental and public health groups, large high-tech business such as eBay, Google and other high-tech executives from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (those heavily invested in the state’s renewable and efficiency industries) are fighting the initiative. As a result of the conflict in California’s business community the state chamber of commerce remains neutral on the repeal question. 

Because the next Governor of California, as required under the Act, has the power to suspend the Act regardless of whether the initiative passes, Proposition 23 has also become a factor in California’s gubernatorial election. Meg Whitman, former eBay President and CEO, is the Republican candidate and has said that she would move to freeze the Act for a year or more.  Jerry Brown, the state’s attorney general and former governor, is the democratic candidate and has said he would support "adjusting" some features of the Act but that he generally supports it and would not suspend it.  Both gubernatorial candidates are against Proposition 23.

Given that the advancement of the renewable energy economy, the environment and public health are all at stake it is not hard to understand why Californians are engaged in the policy and political arenas and eagerly await next month’s vote outcomes on both the global warming ballot initiative and the gubernatorial race. However, if California votes to bury its climate law, be forwarned the outcome could also impact decisions of politicians in other states and push back prospects of national action on climate change for many years to come.  The California issue will be interesting to watch unfold if for no other reason than to better understand how policy can help or hurt renewable energy deployment.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

David A. Crass agribusiness law attorney Michael best Law Firm
Partner

David Crass is chair of the firm's Agribusiness, Food Processing and Distribution Group, a leader in the firm's Renewable Energy practice and a member of the firm’s Management Committee. Mr. Crass has served as the Managing Partner of the firm's Madison Office (2005-2008) and as chair of the firm's Land and Resources Practice Group (2003-2005). He focuses his practice primarily in the areas of environmental and energy law, climate change counseling, agricultural and food industries and renewable energy project development. Mr. Crass has represented clients in a...

608.283.2267

About the Author

Laura L. Riske Michael Best Friedrich Law Firm
Director, Government Affairs

Laura Riske is the Director of Government Affairs for Michael Best & Friedrich. She has an impressive track record in delivering bottom line results in public and private business sectors. Ms. Riske has more than 20 years of experience and proven success with identifying and defining legislative business problems, developing solutions through research and analysis and implementing strategic political plans on behalf of clients.  Ms. Riske’s work has focused on lobbying, coalition building, relationship development, project/issue management, fundraising, acquisition...

608.283.2265

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.