Washington, 28 July (Argus) — Supporters of an effort to suspend California's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction law went to court yesterday to challenge the ballot language written by the office of Attorney General Jerry Brown (D).

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), one of the main backers of Proposition 23, asked a state court to order Brown's office to amend the official summary of the measure that will be given to voters, calling the current version “false, misleading and unfair.” If approved in November, Proposition 23 would suspend implementation of AB 32, which requires the state to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, until California's unemployment rate is 5.5pc or less for four consecutive quarters. The current unemployment rate is 12.3pc, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“Whether intentional or not, it certainly looks as though the attorney general has crafted a description intended to sway voters to vote ‘no'” on Proposition 23, HTJA President Jon Coupal said.

Specifically the group claims the summary language falsely implies that Proposition 23 will: suspend all or many “air pollution control laws;” unfairly singles out and characterizes regulated entities as “major polluters” such as power plants and oil refiners when the law applies to many other sources; and falsely states that Proposition 23 would require the “abandonment” of GHG reduction programs.

Brown's office stood by their wording for the ballot. The title and summary for Proposition 23 is “a true and accurate summary of the initiative's main points and purposes,” spokeswoman Christine Gasparac said.

HJTA is one of the groups spearheading the effort, with major financial backing also coming from refiners Valero and Tesoro, which have contributed more than $1mn to date. Coal producer Murray Energy and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity have also contributed $30,000 and $5,000, respectively.

Opponents of the ballot initiative have stepped up their fund-raising recently. Earlier this week, Tom Steyer, a hedge fund manager and major donor to the Democratic Party, said he will spend $5mn to help defeat the measure. He will co-chair one of the anti-Proposition 23 groups with former Secretary of State George Schultz, who served under President Ronald Reagan. Major environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council have also donated about a $1mn, according to state campaign finance reports. Other opponents include utility Pacific Gas & Electric and Google.

Supporters of the measure say it would temporarily suspend AB 32, but not other laws intended to address climate change, until California's economy recovers. Opponents say it would effectively repeal AB 32, citing past unemployment data.

The non-partisan state Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) put out a report on 15 July saying Proposition 23 would likely suspend AB 32 “for many years” because only during three periods, each about two years long, since 1970 has California's unemployment rate dipped to 5.5pc or lower. The LAO report also said the measure would affect many regulatory activities, such as the state's cap-and-trade program, low carbon fuel standard and 33pc by 2020 renewable electricity standard. But many other state programs, such as automobile emissions standards, residential solar energy incentives and energy efficiency requirements would not be affected. LAO estimates about half of the state's planned GHG reductions would still take effect.

Send comments to feedback@argusmedia.com
mb/as 2.1

If you would like to review other ArgusMedia.com content options, request more information about Argus' energy news, data and analysis services.

Copyright © 2010 Argus Media Ltd - www.ArgusMedia.com - All rights reserved.