Help California help itself

Proposition 23, as you’ve probably read, would temporarily suspend the state’s global warming law, AB 32. The proposal has sparked a cacophony of hysterical end-of-the-world claims coming from the “no” side. They want voters to believe that it would bring a screeching and permanent halt to our clean-energy policies. But don’t be fooled.

In fact, according to the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office, “the suspension of AB 32 would have several positive impacts on California’s economy,” including lower energy costs and increased economic activity. That almost certainly would translate into more jobs. With 2.4 million Californians now out of work and 34% of our manufacturing base lost over the last decade, the state’s working families would benefit from Proposition 23’s passage in November. By our calculations, temporarily suspending AB 32 would prevent billions of dollars in higher energy costs and save more than 1 million jobs.

Moreover, the initiative doesn’t begin to spell the end of a “greener” California. Dozens of major clean-energy laws and utility initiatives that predate the state’s global warming law would continue to be in force even if Proposition 23 is passed. In fact, these laws together account for most of the emission reductions that are claimed in the state’s global warming plan. The initiative wouldn’t have any effect on laws setting tough automobile standards, an aggressive renewable energy standard and a multibillion-dollar budget for utility energy efficiency programs. The California Environmental Quality Act, which controls emissions for new developments, also would remain in place.

And the initiative certainly wouldn’t mean the end of California’s thriving clean technology sector. Long before AB 32 was even introduced, California businesses developing clean technology received public funds for research and development into cleaner transportation fuels and next-generation automobiles, batteries and fuel cells. These efforts are not free. Taxpayers have been paying for these programs through monthly household energy bills and have been charged an extra fee for vehicle license registration, and the programs would continue even if Proposition 23 passes.

So, why is it crucial to pass Proposition 23 during this economic downturn? Because it would prevent additional, more burdensome regulations, such as cap-and-trade, from increasing energy prices and killing jobs until the economy has a chance to recover. Small businesses and families are having a very difficult time in this economy. Proposition 23 could provide some relief.

It’s not like California doesn’t already pay high energy bills. Electricity costs for manufacturers are 53% higher here than the national average, sticking California companies with a huge additional cost that has forced those that stay in the state to adopt measures that make them the most energy efficient in the world.

But don’t worry. If you still want industry to “get the message” and lower emissions, the federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the case making emission rules for the largest sources in the country. And unlike AB 32, those federal rules won’t unfairly punish California companies by singling them out for extra costs the rest of the country doesn’t face.

The bottom line is that AB 32 gets more credit for moving California forward on energy and climate policy than it deserves. Our decades of investment and policy development in this area will preserve and maintain our leadership position. By delaying the measure’s most harmful regulations, Proposition 23 would reduce energy costs, help California manufacturers and businesses compete, and save jobs. That is very good news.

Jack M. Stewart is president of the California Manufacturers & Technology Assn.