California has long been a state that enacted innovative policies that the rest of the country later adopted. For example, in 2002, California set a standard limiting the amount of global warming pollution that cars sold in the state may emit. After several years, the U.S. Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency saw the wisdom of this mandate and incorporated California’s tailpipe rule into new national automobile standards. The new standards will raise the average fuel economy of U.S. cars and light trucks to 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016, and reduce their global warming emissions nearly 30 percent. Consumers around the country will save a total of $32 billion in gasoline by 2020 as a result.

California also has adopted cutting-edge energy-efficiency standards over the last 30 years. Because of these policies, Californians on average use less energy and pay less to light their homes and offices than residents in most other states. These standards give manufacturers in California a competitive edge because they spend a smaller percentage of their operating costs on electricity than manufacturers elsewhere in the country. This fact encourages more businesses to set up shop -- rather than leave or close -- in California.

The state’s energy-efficiency policies have helped Californians cut their spending on fuels, saving them $56 billion on energy over the last 30 years, according to a 2008 study by a University of California-Berkeley researcher David Roland Holst and the Center for Energy, Resources, and Economic Sustainability (CERES). Because state residents didn’t have to spend so much on energy, they had more disposable income to spend on other goods and services, helping to generate 1.5 million jobs over the past 30 years.

In 2006, the California Legislature passed and Gov. Schwarzenegger signed another innovative clean energy policy, the Global Warming Solutions Act, otherwise known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32. The landmark clean energy law was designed to reduce global warming pollution from the state’s largest emitters, including oil refineries, coal- and natural-gas-fired electricity plants, and other large industrial sources, by about 12 percent from current levels over the next decade. If the law is allowed to go forward, it is expected to lower California’s oil and gas costs by $10 billion to $15 billion dollars through 2020, saving consumers even more money and potentially creating even more jobs, according to economists in a new analysis called Shockproofing Society: How AB 32 Reduces the Economic Pain of Energy Price Shocks.

It’s clear that the anticipation of AB 32 implementation already has encouraged new clean tech investment and new green jobs in California. The clean energy economy is one of the few bright spots in the California economy. According to the latest data available, from 2005-2007, while total state employment fell one percent, clean energy and clean technology jobs were growing by five percent. From 1995-2008, total jobs in California expanded only 13 percent, while green jobs expanded 36 percent, and green businesses grew at a rate of 45 percent, according to a 2009 analysis by the research firm Collaborative Economics. More than 40 percent of all clean-tech venture capital funding worldwide went to firms in California last year, according to a study conducted this year by Next 10, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that works to improve California’s future. The study also found that since AB 32 was passed in 2006, the state has attracted nearly $12 billion in clean-tech venture capital funding.

Clean energy jobs are critical because they will be the foundation of a future low-carbon economy. The global market for clean energy technology is expected to grow to $2 trillion over the next 10 years, making it one of the largest industries in the world.

Eliminating AB 32 would benefit the coal and oil industries, which is why Texas oil companies have poured millions of dollars into the Proposition 23 campaign. Their gain would be Californians’ loss. Besides losing prospective clean energy jobs, state residents would lose the opportunity to breathe cleaner air. More than 90 percent of state residents live in areas that don’t meet state air quality standards, and California has the poorest air quality in the nation, costing the state tens of billions of dollars every year in missed work and school days, health care expenses, and shortened lives. Transitioning to cleaner energy sources would not only cut global warming pollution, but other smog-forming and toxic air pollutants as well. That’s why more than 60 public health and medical groups in the state, including the American Lung Association and Kaiser Permanente, are so strongly opposed to Proposition 23.

Not only would Californians suffer if Proposition 23 passed. The entire country would lose. California’s clean energy program is poised to serve as yet another model for the nation. In a very short time, policymakers in other states and members of Congress surely would realize that California’s policies do in fact reduce global warming emissions, improve air quality, and generate clean energy jobs. If history is the best predictor of the future, California would again prove to be a public health and environmental leader – but only if the state’s forward-looking policies are allowed to show what they can do.

(These comments were submitted by Maureen Gorsen, who is a partner in Alston & Bird's Environmental & Land Development Group where she focuses her practice on State law, agencies and regulation.)

In short, if Prop 23 fails and the voters tell Sacramento that they want to address climate change and be a global environmental leader despite their current unemployment rate of 12.5%,, it will be a huge boost to lawmakers and regulators at Cal/EPA and in Sacramento to proceed forthwith with the broad scoping plan under AB 32 that will target each sector contributing to global warming with goals, targets and restrictions on greenhouse (GHG) emissions. As California speeds ahead to lead the nation in achieving climate change regulatory goals, many of the standards and rules it adopts will immediately become models that other states, particularly in the West and Northeast will seek to adopt, and the pressure to adopt similar standards at the federal level will continue to grow.

As we inch closer to Election Day next week, this outcome appears more and more likely.

However, whether Prop 23 passes or fails, both US EPA and Cal/EPA will continue to regulate carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions under numerous other authorities. Since the US Supreme Court decided in 2007 that GHG emissions are a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, the US EPA has been steadily incorporating GHG emissions into its traditional regulatory provisions for criteria pollutants. Next January, new major source permits will be required to consider GHG emissions under the Federal PSD program. Other federal agencies are also incorporating climate change into their traditional regulatory provisions. For instance, the SEC now requires reporting of global climate change risks in certain filings.

California has also passed laws independent of AB 32 to regulate GHG emissions that would continue to be implemented, such as its new vehicle emissions standards, solar roof programs, energy efficiency requirements as well as smart growth laws to require regional planning that reduces car trips, traffic and GHG emissions. As we all know, California jealously guards its position as the national environmental leader, so just as California’s new automobile standards have become the federal standard, so too may other regulatory provisions California develops to limit GHG emissions.

Under executive orders independent of AB 32, California is continuing to implement the low carbon fuel standard to change the fuel mix used to lower its GHG emissions, as well as implementing the rules to require electricity companies to source 33% (increased from 20%) of their power from renewable sources.

In the unlikely event that Prop 23 succeeds in limiting the implementation of AB 32, the march towards increased regulation of GHG emissions will occur, albeit more slowly and in a bit more ad hoc way,. Cap and trade would be on life support, as it would not be implemented in California until the unemployment rate reaches 5.5% for four straight quarters, which is unlikely anytime soon. Any wind left in the sails of a national cap and trade legislation would likely vanish.

As others have pointed out in the discussion of California’s Proposition 23, which would suspend the landmark climate law (AB32), passage would have wide-ranging implications for both the state itself and the national debate on comprehensive climate and energy policy in the U.S. These concerns for both California- and national-level climate action are valid – by creating a policy environment of extreme uncertainty, Prop 23 threatens to freeze the currently expanding investment in clean technology in the state. It is also arguably the new “battleground” on comprehensive climate legislation in the U.S., given the current state of affairs in the U.S. Congress.

But there’s an intermediate level of climate action that also is at stake with passage of Prop 23. Success for the fledgling cap-and-trade portion of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) hinges on California continuing to be a leader in the development and implementation of the program. WCI states account for nearly 15% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and WCI would be the first emissions-trading scheme in the U.S. to cap emissions from economy-wide sources. While it may take some time for all WCI states to adopt cap-and-trade, all environmental programs have to start somewhere. And California’s leadership – not to mention the large quantity of emissions the state will add to the new market – is critical to the most comprehensive (in terms of emissions coverage), ambitious climate action initiative in the U.S. Perhaps this is something the backers of Prop 23 are acutely aware of?

While we’re on the topic of threats to this singularly unique climate law, let’s not forget Prop 23’s much less well-known cousin, Prop 26. This initiative seeks to tighten how the state constitution defines taxes and regulatory fees, and require a two-thirds supermajority vote in the state Legislature to enact new taxes and many fees. Perhaps seemingly harmless, lawyers from UCLA this week argued that Prop 26 is a threat to the state's ability to assess fees on polluters for the external costs they impose on the public and will affect a number of existing laws, including the state’s landmark climate law (as well as a green chemistry initiative, two laws blocking chemical products in landfills, and rules on lead). It’s ironic that Prop 23 could be defeated, while Prop 26, backed with multimillion-dollar contributions from the California Chamber of Commerce, Chevron Corporation, and Philip Morris USA Inc., might slide through and have the same effect on AB32, albeit via different means. Passage of either proposition would be a setback to California’s ability (and thus, the WCI’s ability) to move forward on climate.

Proposition 23 seeks to put some of California’s more egregious energy regulations on hold—at least until the California economy recovers. Current law will force consumers to switch to energy sources that can be four or more times as expensive as conventional energy, driving energy prices up, employers out, and consumers crazy. The current rules make especially little sense in the current economic environment.

In addition to the standard environmental groups, those financing the opposition to Proposition 23 are mainly financiers who stand to gain from restrictions on conventional energy and billionaires who are far removed from worries over monthly energy bills and losing a job. The problem for the other 37 million Californians is that they do worry about how they can pay higher energy bills and about getting and keeping a job.

The notion that restricting access to affordable energy will make us world leaders in the production of alternative technology doesn’t jibe with past experience. We are world leaders in the consumption of televisions, cell phones, and virtually all other consumer electronics, yet we import the overwhelming majority of these goods. Mandating consumption is different from stimulating domestic production.

As Californians contemplate the energy-regulations-create-jobs theory, they might want to talk to workers in a Winchester, Virginia, light-bulb factory. In anticipation of the regulatory phase-out of conventional light bulbs, GE shut down the factory down. Retrofitting the factory to make the new bulbs was too expensive, so the replacements will come mostly from China.

Of course, there may be some alternative sources of energy that will be cost effective in the future. Just as cars replaced horse-drawn carriages and electric lights replaced kerosene lamps (which replaced whale-oil lamps) and jetliners replaced passenger steam ships, it is likely that some new forms of energy will out-compete the old forms. If so, the developers won’t need mandates to get consumers to use them.

Legislation outlawing ships, oil lamps, and buggies wasn’t required to develop the replacements. It certainly wouldn’t have helped to outlaw those goods before their replacements were ready.

It’s been a tough year for national climate and energy policy in the U.S. and unfortunately progress is practically at a standstill. However, not so for states – states have been leading the way on addressing climate change, reducing carbon emissions and accelerating the development of a clean energy economy. But now, Prop. 23 threatens to undo that progress, and move our country backward.

California has a long, proud history of leading the country in passing policies to reduce pollution to protect our air, water, wildlife and open spaces. And because of the state’s economic clout, that leadership often drives the nation towards more sustainable policies and business practices. Prop. 23 in California threatens to undermine one of the most important energy, economic and environmental laws passed in the last decade – AB 32, which sets up a system to drive down emissions and accelerate the demand and development of clean energy technologies.

At some point, we will have to come to terms with the fact that our current energy portfolio cannot sustain us. America’s continued dependence on fossil fuels is simply too dangerous – for the workers sent into coal mines or living on offshore drilling rigs; for the energy security of the country; for our air, water and wildlife; and for the very climate that sustains us. We can’t afford to rely on fossil fuels any longer.

Over the past month, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has approved five of the first six “fast-track” solar power plants ever permitted on public lands in California. His most recent announcement was of a 1,000 megawatt solar farm that has the potential to generate enough clean electricity to power more than 300,000 homes. In addition, the project will create more than 1,000 jobs during construction and some 221 permanent jobs when it becomes fully operational. And while not all of these projects are good for wildlife, their climate benefits are undeniable.

It’s clear that California is at the center of the beginning of a clean energy revolution, and its economy has much to gain from renewable energy development. But Prop. 23 could put the brakes on demand for clean energy at a time when our country needs to accelerate its transition to a clean energy economy. We need more renewable energy development that’s smart from the start, where projects are located in the right places and done in the right ways to protect wildlife, wildlands, water and other important natural resources. Abandoned mines, brownfields and other industrial sites are a few of the places that provide good options for solar development.

The climate and energy debate is not just about California. The battle that is being played out in the Golden State reflects the gridlock paralyzing the whole country. The passage of Prop. 23 would fuel the resistance of big corporate polluters across the country to take responsibility for cleaning up their dirty operations. (Exactly the reason why they are pouring so much money into the state to promote Prop. 23.) Passage of Prop. 23 would make it even more difficult to gain momentum for climate and energy legislation on a national scale. Conversely, should Californians stand strong on the issue of battling climate change, defeat Prop. 23 and uphold AB 32, it will send a clear message to the rest of the country: the dirty, dangerous energy sources of the past will no longer drive our energy agenda and corporate polluters cannot hold us back from a clean, smart energy future.

California - this Election Day, the country looks to you. In which direction will you lead us?

One of the tenets of the Republican Party is that the best government is that which is closest to the people. A.B. 32 is demonstrative of this principle. Instead of waiting for our dysfunctional Congress to act on energy security, California set the example for the rest of the nation. Since passage of A.B. 32, the clean energy sector has led that state’s job growth sector. Contrary to the electoral season mantra of my party’s leadership, good energy policy does translate into economic growth.

It is disheartening to see the fruits of California’s bi-partisanship threatened primarily by major out-of-state fossil fuel companies, which are funding the push for Prop. 23. Indeed, this is a case study in free speech accorded to corporations. If they made similar representations about their own products, as they do about clean energy policy, they would be bankrupted in product liability and fraud lawsuits.

Republicans for Environmental Protection fiercely opposes Prop. 23. A.B. 32 is working—creating jobs in a new, sustainable economy—and setting the standard for the rest of the nation to follow.

It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that Governor Arnold Schwarzennegger has made the preservation of AB 32 the swan song of his failed administration. To help make his case, the California Air Resources Board - charged with implementing this law - has recently released a rosy economic analysis of its impacts. CARB's modeling is deeply flawed, as evidence by this recently released paper, California’s Climate Policy: The Present and Future of AB 32. For example:

· There are no world climate benefits from AB 32. California’s greenhouse gas emissions are only 2 percent of global emissions, and its share is falling as those from China and the developing world rapidly rise.

· CARB’s results come from a computer model that is by its own admission unreal. In the model, it is mathematically impossible to have unemployment as high as prevails today, and the model does not allow climate policy to change the rate at which unprofitable businesses close or leave the state.

· To create benefits from costly command-and-control regulations, CARB assumes that Californians do not know best what works for their own lives, but that CARB’s choices are economically superior—a heroic and unsupportable assumption.

· CARB assumes its new automobile fuel economy regulation will help California drivers by artificially limiting automobile choices. This assumes that people do not already consider fuel economy when buying a new car—again, another heroic and unsupportable assumption.

· CARB assumes that its fuel economy regulations will cost “only” $1050 per vehicle in 2016 and $2,000 in 2020. Estimates by others are much higher.

Add to the weak analysis from CARB the lessons learned from other countries who have experimented with the toxic mix of cap-and-trade, draconian regulations and renewable energy mandates being attempted in California, and there are simply no good policy arguments in favor of AB 32.

Europe’s AB 32 type policies have cost jobs and caused energy prices to increase. For example, the Spanish government has committed $750,000 for each “green job” in renewable energy. As a result, it is estimated that 2.2 jobs have been lost as an opportunity cost for each green job created. In Denmark, residents now pay Europe’s more expensive electricity prices to support wind power. Germany has spent $73 billion subsidizing renewable electricity since 2000 even though wind and solar only produces less than 1 percent of Germany’s electricity.

California residents have suffered enough from the failed policy experiments in Sacramento. AB 32, just like its predecessor policies in Germany, Spain, and Denmark, would do much further harm to an already terminated California economy. Fortunately, at least temporarily, Californians have a golden opportunity to say "hasta la vista, baby!" to this deeply flawed law.

(These comments were submitted by Wade Crowfoot, West Coast Political Director of the Environmental Defense Fund.)

National climate legislation is on the shelf for this year, making California’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) the most significant current U.S. effort to cut global warming pollution.

This means polluters—including oil and coal companies that have been fighting clean energy for years—are spending millions on Prop 23 so they can derail California’s clean energy law. Prop 23 is backed by Valero, Tesoro and the billionaire Koch Brothers, a group otherwise known as the Toxic Triplets.

Some have said that this is “one of the most volatile and expensive political battles of the year.” It is certainly the biggest environmental issue being voted on this November.

California is a world-renowned environmental leader that has benefitted economically from its clean energy and clean air leadership. That puts Californians in a unique position. Golden State voters now have a golden opportunity to stand up to the polluters. If polls are any indication, they will. California is now on track to become the first state in the country to effectively defeat Big Oil.

Polls show that polluters are losing because Californians want action on climate change, want to breathe clear air, want to hold polluters accountable, and want the jobs that the clean energy industry is already creating in the state. In fact, if there ever was a public policy that will create jobs, reduce our dependence on oil, save people money on their energy bills, and reduce pollution, it is California’s landmark climate and clean energy law.

Among all the U.S. states that have passed policies to grow their clean energy sectors, California has easily been the most visionary. Since its passage in 2006, AB 32 has delivered to the state the lion’s share of economic rewards in the form of business investment and energy-related financial savings.

Consider:

In the four years since AB 32 passed, California has become the domestic market leader in clean tech, a global industry that is expected to grow from $10 billion this year to $80 billion in 2020. California clean tech companies have reaped 40% of all dollars that went into market categories related to AB 32: renewable energy; energy efficiency; cleaner vehicles and low-carbon transportation fuels. California also has the largest clean energy economy in the country, with more than 10,000 companies and 500,000 green jobs.

A recent report states that, ‘If California’s clean energy policies remain in place, we can assume that leading venture-backed states like California will receive an outsized portion of market share in these large clean energy markets going forward to 2020.’

These facts demonstrate the importance of having market certainty. It is market certainty that gives the private-sector the confidence it needs to invest in the innovative technologies that will help us transition to, and lead, the clean energy future.

By investing in our domestic industries, we can also improve our national security and become more energy independent. We send one billion dollars a day overseas to buy oil, often from countries that are hostile to us. That’s money we could be reinvesting in homegrown energy, here in America.

All these benefits will be at risk if Prop 23 passes. If it does, oil companies will get to continue polluting our air and killing competition (and jobs) from clean tech companies. The public will remain dangerously addicted to dirty fossil fuels.

If the United States is to be a leader in this $8 trillion new global market, we need to support clean energy policies that benefit our economy and our environment.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently that he doesn't just want to defeat Prop 23. He wants voters to trounce it. That will prompt Washington to pursue a new national energy policy. I couldn’t agree more.

California voters must vote ‘no’ on Prop 23 so that our state can continue extending its leadership and providing a higher quality of life for those of us who live and work here. Californians need to send a clear signal to Washington and the rest of the world. We need to once again set an example for everyone to follow.

In the absence of national climate change legislation, state and regional efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions could guide opportunities for future economic growth. As has been noted in the debate on California’s Prop 23, there are two key elements to enabling the innovation necessary for green economic growth – the sustained political will to do so and accessible project funding.

It’s easy to see how these forces are aligned in California. The largest contributors to support the measure to suspend California’s AB 32 are traditional energy firms, while the biggest financial contributors to defeat the measure and maintain the climate laws are the venture capitalists investing in clean energy research and development.

California’s climate laws have not consistently and equally supported renewable technologies that can reduce greenhouse gas intensity. Too often, they’ve allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good. For instance, contemplated regulations for California’s Cap-and-Trade Program fail to recognize the carbon reduction potential of biotechnology innovations being developed right there in the state. California’s biotechnology community is at the forefront of research and development of technology for low carbon biofuels, bioprocessing and biobased production.

Advanced biofuels under development in California – including algae and cellulosic biofuels and renewable hydrocarbons – can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Thirty-five percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions are produced by personal cars and trucks. So, low-carbon biofuels and biomaterials are necessary ingredients of a low-carbon economy that sustains economic growth and creates jobs.

California’s biotech community has been one of the most consistent sources of innovation, creating patentable products, attracting venture capital for new business start ups, and generating jobs. The industry overall attracted $3.2 billion in venture capital funding to California in 2009.

Green job growth has been strongest in biotech-enabled applications for advanced materials (such as bioplastics) and transportation (including biofuels) – with strong growth in research and development, indicating continuing job growth – according to the California Green Innovation Index. In fact, the advanced materials sector achieved an annual job growth rate of 455 percent between 1995 and 2008, according to Next 10. By comparison, green jobs as a whole grew by 36 percent in California over the same time period.

However, the costs of complying with California’s AB 32 fall most heavily on transportation, chemical, plastics and rubber manufacturing, according to an analysis by the Brattle Group. These industries are least able to pass increased costs on to customers, according to the same study, because of competition from businesses outside the state.

Because California’s Cap-and-Trade Program has very real potential to be a model for other state and regional programs, it is imperative that it be done right, or innovation and job growth can be lost to other states.

The same is true on the national level. The United States has the technology and the resources to lead future economic growth in production of materials, fuels, and chemicals from renewable resources. These can significantly reduce both dependence on foreign oil and associated climate changing emissions. If the United States does not have the political will to take the lead in renewables, the opportunity could be seized by other countries.

With federal legislation indefinitely stalled in Congress, California’s Proposition 23 has become an important second national front in the battle to develop comprehensive energy and climate policies in the United States. Prop 23 is nothing more than a cynical attempt by legacy industries to eliminate competition from innovative new clean economy businesses and thereby locking in higher consumer energy prices for years to come.

By calling it “The California Jobs Initiative” the backers of Prop 23 have brilliantly crafted language that plays to people’s fears. While appearing to be a moderate approach to temporarily delay policies until the economy improves, this “wolf in sheep’s clothing” would indefinitely suspend California’s landmark carbon pricing system, renewable portfolio standard, vehicle emission standards, energy efficiency standards, and put at risk almost 70 other vital policies.

If passed, its impacts would be horrific. Overnight it could destroy billions of dollars of investments by thousands of clean economy companies across the country and threaten hundreds of thousands of existing jobs. These effects would be felt across the United States as future investment dollars would go overseas where they would be used to create jobs abroad rather than here at home. Beyond this, the backers of Prop 23 would use its passage to send a clear and simple message to policymakers across the country and in Washington DC: “Supporters of clean technology could not even defend California. So, don’t dare think about voting against our interests going forward.”

However, the beauty of a “second front” is that a win by either side can tip the balance. So it goes with Prop 23. In California, there are already over 500,000 jobs and 12,000 companies in the clean economy sector. Over $9 billion in venture capital has been invested in the state since the passage of AB32, California’s landmark energy and climate law that included an economy-wide carbon pricing system. In fact, the clean economy sector has been one of the few areas to actually add jobs in the state in an otherwise down economy.

In the business world, it is not uncommon for an established industry to try to freeze out the newcomer, oftentimes using policy as their weapon. Fear is the most common tactic, in which the established companies paint the very same doom and gloom scenarios we are fighting now. The truth is, and always has been, that innovation brings jobs, economic growth and a stronger economy. Californians know this to be true about the clean economy sector in particular because they have witnessed this industry grow and thrive. They know a family member, friend, or neighbor already employed in this dynamic new sector whose jobs would be at risk if Prop 23 were to pass.

Defeating Prop 23 in California will demonstrate that thousands of businesses and millions of hard-working Americans reject the tired narrative that innovation spells economic doom. Moreover, a defeat of Prop 23 will demand that we move forward with policies that level the playing field and help build a new economy based on innovation and clean technologies.

Big oil companies want to block California from implementing its law to reduce pollution. Valero, Tesoro, Koch Industries and other out of state companies have spent millions of dollars to undo California’s landmark “Global Warming Solutions Act,” A.B. 32. These polluters took advantage of California’s quirky initiative system to place Proposition 23 on the ballot. It would “Suspend State laws requiring reduced greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters.” California only had this unemployment level three times since the 1970’s, so Prop. 23 would effectively suspend the law indefinitely. Other oil companies are promoting Prop. 26, which would make it difficult to implement A.B. 32. The outcomes of these propositions have national implications because of California’s leadership in efforts to reduce air and global warming pollution.

Blocking A.B. 32 would harm Californians’ health. It would stop measures to reduce air pollution. The American Lung Association found that air pollution contributes to 19,000 premature deaths and nearly 10,000 hospitalizations annually. If Prop. 23 passes, more air pollution will cause even more premature deaths, hospitalizations, and respiratory ailments.

Prop. 23 proponents claim that “protecting jobs and the economy should be our first priority.” Yet its passage would deal a severe blow to California’s vibrant clean tech sector. Clean energy jobs are one of the few bright spots in California’s troubled economy. Since 2005, jobs in the clean tech sector grew 10 times faster than other jobs. Venture capitalists have invested $9 billion in California clean tech over the past five years.

The California legislature’s nonpartisan State Legislative Analyst determined that the suspension of AB 32 could “dampen additional investments in clean energy technologies or in so-called ‘green jobs' by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity than would otherwise be the case.” Passage of Prop. 23 would snuff out the embers of economic growth before they could reignite the California economy.

With so much at risk, its little surprise that there is a broad coalition of opposition to Prop. 23. California religious leaders from many faiths have publicly opposed it. They were joined by nearly 70 major investors with more than $400 billion in assets. Major utilities, including PG&E and SDG&E, oppose Prop. 23 along with dozens of other major companies.

The California Labor Federation and many other unions oppose Prop. 23 because it would harm jobs and economic growth. Local Chambers of Commerce oppose it because it would damage small businesses. Civil rights organizations actively oppose Prop. 23. The governor, both Senators, and many other officials urge a “no” vote.

With all this opposition, how could Prop. 23 pass? Out of state oil companies are doing their damndest to convince voters that blocking A.B. 32 would solve their economic woes. They are spending millions of dollars to pass it, including $1.5 million just donated by Valero and Tesoro on October 23^rd.

Despite big oil money, the public does not believe their misleading claims. A Los Angeles Times/USC poll released October 24 found that voters opposed Prop. 23 by 32 percent “yes” to 48 percent “no.”

Many special interests are uncommitted on Prop. 23, but are pouring money to pass Prop. 26. According to Energy & Environment Daily,

Prop 26 would require a two-thirds vote in the California Legislature to impose local fees, including environmental fees, on companies large and small. That means even fees to be assessed under A.B. 32 to enforce GHG cuts could have to gain a two-thirds majority, a vote count that is increasingly difficult to attain in Sacramento.

The L.A. Times explains that the “Rules under the global warming law, which would require companies to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, take effect in January and could be vulnerable to legislative gridlock over fees” if Prop 26 passes.

The pro Prop. 26 campaign has millions of dollars from the California Chamber of Commerce, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Occidental Petroleum, and other big companies. They would welcome the gridlock likely under Prop. 26. Defeat of Prop. 23 could be a temporary victory if Prop. 26 passes.

These propositions’ fates have national implications. California has long led the nation in polices that reduce air and global warming pollution, increase investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and spur technology innovations. Blocking or underming the Global Warming Solutions Act would slow such innovations, and harm our international competitiveness.

On November 2^nd, many climate science deniers and oil industry devotees could be elected. These candidates oppose reductions in air and climate pollution. But if Propositions 23 and 26 fail, California will continue to implement A.B.32. This would rebut those ill informed officials who claim that public health protection is too expensive and harms the economy. The defeat of Props. 23 and 26 would demonstrate that clean air and clean energy are really engines of economic growth.

By “We,” I mean those of us seeking a freer economy where private industry can provide more affordable energy for the American people; by “They,” I mean those seeking to impose California-style energy-rationing schemes on the nation.

If Prop 23 passes, suspension of AB 32 will pulverize what remains of California’s alleged “leadership” on energy policy. Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Waxman, and Chairman Boxer often invoked the “California model” to sell cap-and-trade on Capitol Hill. If Prop 23 wins, the Golden State will have repudiated that model, further eroding Pelosi and company’s claim to represent the future.

On the other hand, even if Prop 23 loses, the national elections are expected to increase significantly the number of cap-and-trade opponents in Congress.

Bill O’Keefe provides an excellent overview of the issues in his post today. Here I’d like to engage just one point in the debate.

Proponents claim that AB 32 will strengthen the California economy by creating “green jobs.” But wind farms, biofuels, and electric cars were not economical even in prosperous times. That’s why the associated industries continually lobby for tax breaks, carbon pricing, and regulatory mandates. It makes no sense to base an economic recovery plan on industries unable to “compete” without market rigging rules and subsidies.

Prop 23 foes have outspent supporters by 3 to 1. Nonetheless, California’s soaring unemployment and fiscal crisis are strong inducements to try something new – economic realism. An editorial in yesterday’s San Fernando Sun (”For sake of jobs, delay A.B. 32”) makes me hopeful that common sense will prevail. Like many voters in California, Prop 23 “divided our editorial board more evenly than any other in the Nov. 2 election,” the Sun reports. However, after weighing the pros and cons, “Our board's own close balloting resulted in our decision to support Proposition 23.

That seems to be the way Big Carbon is spinning the increasingly bleak prospects for passing Prop 23 in California. "Well they say, even if it loses badly," (as the polls suggest it will) "we might pass its stealth cousin, Prop 26, and even if we don't, we might elect Meg Whitman Governor of California and she will suspend California's clean climate legislation, and even if California rejects our whole slate, we will elect an increasing number of Senators and Representatives who we can count on to vote with us."

While that last statement is almost certainly true, the reality is that Climate Protection is on the ballot in only one state -- California -- and voters are overwhelmingly embracing vigorous state action to clean up Carbon Pollution.

Faced with their increasing lack of public support, the energy sources of the past, coal and oil, did what industries no longer able to compete always do -- they invested hundreds of millions in trying to rig the political system. The millions of dollars that Texas Refiners Valero and Tesoro (Beacon), and Kansas carbon fixer Koch industries, poured into the state bought them a slot on the ballot -- but couldn't buy the voters. And the looming defeat of Prop 23 won't be the first time this year that California voters have looked a mega-bucks campaign for the energy status quo, and said "No." Earlier this year Pacific Gas and Electric (which opposes 23) tried to block the increasingly popular tactic of having cities buy clean electrons for their residents through a technique called CCA or Community Choice Aggregation. PG&E spent $45 million to pass its own Proposition 16, and went down in flames -- against a poorly funded opposition that only had a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

Valero and Tesoro were motivated because they have made a fortune overcharging West Coast consumers too much for gasoline, because of the relatively small number of refiners serving the market. Valero has just seen its stock rating drastically downgraded because of the prospects that Prop 23 will fail. As a result it had to sell a major share in one of its pipelines, to shore up its cash position. Meanwhile Tesoro is facing $2.4 milliion in fines for an explosion in its refinery north of Seattle -- an explosion which, in the wierd world of oil refining, enabled the two companies and their major oil competitors to increase gas prices on the West Coast even higher, increasing their profits from the shutdown that followed the explosion!

Chevron and the other oil majors had the sense to stay out of Prop 23 -- they understood that if they put carbon pollution on the ballot and lost, the illusion they have created of tremendous public rejection of action on global warming would be undermined -- but instead they went after California's clean air, carbon regulations indirectly, with a Proposition 26 which claims that its purpose is just to prevent disguised taxes -- but whose actual effect would be to let big oil off the hook for its pollution. Prop 26 hasn't gotten as much attention, and so it might pass --

But the main ring was Prop 23, the oil industry called the question "Shall we regulation carbon pollution?" and the voters are about to say, "Hell, Yes."

As stated in my op-ed on Proposition 23 in Capitol Weekly, it’s hard to imagine why Californians would want to proceed with environmental regulation that is certain to exacerbate its staggering unemployment rate of 12.4% and massive state budget deficit of $19 billion. Many economists agree that implementation of AB 32 would have severe consequences on California’s vitality.

In the ACCF study on the Kerry-Lieberman Senate cap and trade bill, we found that California’s gross state product would be reduced by as much as $54 billion per year by 2030. The effects of AB 32 would be far worse since a federal plan would have, to a large extent, spread the pain over multiple states, while a go-it-alone law by California means that all that misery will have no company.

Even a March report of California’s own Air Resources Board (CARB) tested several different scenarios and found that the state would end up losing between 0.2 to 1.4 percent of its GDP in 2020 by implementing the law’s provisions. Meanwhile, job loss estimates generally ranged from 220,000 and 320,000.

Proposition 23 would at least bring some reassurance to Californians, the business community and the markets by freezing all its provisions until state’s unemployment rate drops below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. Its passage would send a strong common sense signal to other states that creating a patchwork approach to curbing greenhouse gas emissions is ill advised, particularly in a down economy.

Prop 23 pits out-of-state oil interests against California's growing clean energy sector and the state’s long-standing tradition of environmental protection and technological innovation. The defeat of Prop 23 would be an unmistakable sign that voters are committed to a clean energy future – despite the millions of dollars oil companies have spent on misleading ads.

The truth is that Prop 23 would shut down jobs, and California voters don’t want to do that in the midst of the economic downturn.

Over the past five years, green jobs in California have grown 10 times faster than the statewide average. There are more than 12,000 clean tech companies in California. The clean tech sector attracted $9 billion cumulative venture capital investment from 2005 through 2009, with $2.1 billion of that arriving in 2009 alone. This level of investment is more than five times higher than the closest competitor, Massachusetts.

Defeating Prop 23 would allow California to continue to this economic growth and generate more jobs.

It would also lay the groundwork for clean energy advances in other regions of the country and eventually at the federal level. It would send the message to polluting industries that it is time to come to the table to develop clean energy solutions rather than expend enormous sums thwarting the public's desire for a cleaner, more efficient, more energy independent future.

The broad, bipartisan coalition that came together to oppose Prop 23 represents the new face of the clean energy economy. From community activists fighting soaring asthma rates to renewable energy entrepreneurs building new companies and even the former Secretary of State George Shultz's pointing out the domestic security concerns, the list of businesses and organizations aimed at defeating Prop 23 is long. It includes the American Lung Association of California, Google, eBay, Shell, Nike, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, City of Los Angeles, and CA League of Conservation Voters, and many, many others (for a complete list, click here).

The widespread support for defeating Prop 23 reveals there is a growing consensus that clean, domestic energy is good for everybody and good for our country.

Prop 23, at its core, is effectively a repeal of California’s landmark AB 32 legislation (the Global Warming Solutions Act), the nation’s first comprehensive law to spur the development of clean energy and reduce greenhouse gases. At a time when the U.S. and California need to redouble its leadership in mitigating climate change and its investment in building a low-carbon economy, Prop 23 would be a major step backwards. It would quickly curtail the explosive job growth that AB 32 helped to facilitate. Because of this legislation, more than 500,000 jobs and 12,000 businesses have been created, attracting more than $10 billion in venture capital. Our company, Applied Materials, has built a billion dollar energy and environmental solutions business since AB 32 was enacted four years ago, resulting in the employment of hundreds of people in California—where Applied Materials is headquartered—and around the world.

Prop 23 would not only curb the extensive gains our state has made in terms of job creation, but also stymie the regional and national efforts that are underway to reduce our addiction to fossil fuels. Indeed, it should come as no surprise that 98 percent of the funding for this proposition has come from fossil fuel interests, and that 89 percent has come from outside California’s borders, attesting to this law’s national significance. For all the money these groups are spending to make California policy at the ballot box, why not use it to adapt their businesses to low-carbon standards and creating more jobs in the process?

Prop 23 is not without its detractors. A broad and diverse coalition opposes the proposition, including California’s Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and gubernatorial candidates Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman. They believe, as I do, that Prop 23 will not only harm our state’s economy, but will deal a severe blow to our national efforts to develop renewable energy and address climate change. Passing Prop 23 will only result in more air pollution and higher energy costs for businesses and our families.

For those Californians that will be voting on Nov. 2nd, I urge you to vote NO on Prop 23.

Read more about Applied Materials’ stance on Prop 23 on our corporate blog by clicking here.

(These comments were submitted by Joel Francis, California Student Leader.)

As a Californian college senior, I am deeply concerned that if passed, Proposition 23 would kill job opportunities for students and graduates in the Golden State. This proposition would gut the most promising employment sector for young Californians – the clean technology industry.

Since 2005, California clean economy jobs have grown 10 times faster than the statewide average, and 500,000 Californians work in clean economy jobs. Prop. 23 jeopardizes these jobs and $10 billion of private sector investment in the growth of clean energy industries, such as solar and electric cars. That’s why 100 economists from California and all over the world have declared Prop. 23 an economic danger and have called for voters to reject it.

This anti-clean energy initiative, bankrolled by oil companies and out-of-state interests, would not only hurt job opportunities for graduates like me, but it would also deepen our reliance on fossil fuels.

Californians have a right to know why these out-of-state interests are threatening our job opportunities and trying to ruin the one bright spot in California’s economy. For example, Charles Koch, CEO of the Wichita-base Koch Industries, has donated more than $1 million to the Prop. 23 campaign, making him the third largest donor of the initiative. Last week, I challenged Mr. Koch to publically debate me on Prop. 23, anytime and any place in California between now and Election Day. I haven’t heard from Mr. Koch, so I am travelling to Koch Industries’ headquarters in Wichita, Kansas to present my challenge to debate in person on Tuesday. If Mr. Koch is going to come into my state with his money, I think he should have the courage to show up in person to explain why he is trying to damage our economy’s development.

If out-of-state dirty energy interests can come into California and successfully wreck a growing clean energy economy and kill jobs, there is no reason to think they won’t in other states as well.

The passage of California’s landmark climate law, AB 32, in 2006 sent a major signal to the rest of the world that at least part of the United States was serious about addressing climate change and taking the lead in the global clean energy race. In addition to committing one of the world’s largest economies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, California’s leaders have also empowered the Air Resources Board, a state entity that has seen many of its rules adopted at the national level, to set and implement a statewide 33% renewable electricity standard by 2020.

All of this is at stake on November 2nd, with oil-funded Proposition 23 on the ballot in California. Relying on the backwards logic that clean energy and AB 32’s implementation wouldn’t create jobs, Prop 23, if passed, would block the carbon cutting legislation from going into effect until California’s unemployment rate drops below 5.5%.

Prop 23 threatens California’s status as the US epicenter of clean technology research – and that alone should be enough to defeat the bill. Partly as a result of AB 32, the state has seen thousands of jobs created in clean tech, a sector that has grown faster than the rest of California’s economy over the past decade. AB 32 has sent a strong signal for companies to invest billions of dollars in expanding renewable energy generation – not just in California, but across the West.

While not as strong as California’s AB 32, similar policies in other states have driven the growth of wind, solar, biomass and other forms of renewable generation for the past decade and more. These policies, usually in the form of renewable portfolio standards (RPSs), have largely been overwhelmingly successful, with many states going back to strengthen their original targets. They have helped to show a hesitant America what’s possible at a time when China, Europe and other global competitors are racing ahead of us thanks to their national policies on climate and clean energy.

The fight over Proposition 23 therefore presents a clear choice between two visions for America’s energy and economic future.

On one side, supporting Prop 23, is a cabal of Texas oil companies (most of the major global oil giants have stayed neutral or have even come out in support of AB 32) and some friendly billionaire backers, like the Koch brothers, working to protect the polluting fossil fuel system under which America currently operates.

On the other side are the forces of American innovation – the strongest economic force on the planet. They are the country’s leading entrepreneurs and their investors, many of them the people and companies that brought us the IT revolution, and with it incredible prosperity and power. They, along with other anti-Prop 23 companies and leaders, know we need to move to a low-carbon economy if America is to stay competitive in the 21st century. They want to level the playing field against dirty energy and unleash the power of American innovation.

Though we won’t ultimately know until November 2nd, the forward-looking, pro-innovation side of the debate seems to be winning with voters. As the curtain has been pulled back on the motivations and interests driving Prop 23, the California electorate’s opposition has grown. Californians are realizing that their vote on Prop 23 is a proxy for the fight between oil money and clean energy jobs, the architects of a polluted past and the proponents of a renewable future. Hopefully California stays on course and votes Prop 23 down.

No matter what the outcome, though, this fight is an important precursor to a similar question on the national level. When the Senate returns for the lame duck session in mid-November, it will face a comparable choice between embracing the future and clinging to the past. Before the Senate is a bipartisan national Renewable Electricity Standard, introduced by Senators Bingaman, Brownback, Collins, Dorgan, Ensign and Udall. With more than one-third of the Senate cosponsoring, and almost half the Senate already having expressed public support for an RES, the legislation has what it needs to pass this year.

Just as in California, supporters of the bipartisan national RES come from the ranks of America’s innovators, its risk-takers, its wealth-creators. Just as in California, voters nationwide want more renewable energy, not less – and support strong policies to expand what we have and build even more. Just as in California, the upcoming debate in Washington will shape the economy for years to come.

To attract the 21st century manufacturing jobs we need, and to stay in the global clean energy race, we must have a national clean energy policy. It’s my hope that the Prop 23 debate will help energize the Senate, highlighting what’s at stake if America fails to pass a national RES this year. Like California, the entire nation can either finish 2010 on the road to greater prosperity and a cleaner world, or headed firmly backwards. The direction in which we find ourselves depends on the Senate.

With corporate polluters having successfully blocked comprehensive energy and climate legislation in the U.S. Senate, it is more important than ever that we beat back this deceptive effort funded by Texas oil companies to kill California’s clean energy economy.

We consider Proposition 23 the most important race in the country and have made defeating this dirty energy measure a priority this election cycle. LCV and the California League of Conservation Voters recently announced the unprecedented addition of Prop. 23 to the LCV 2010 Dirty Dozen list. LCV named the oil industry-funded ballot measure to its trademark Dirty Dozen program based on its attempted threat to California’s landmark air pollution standards and leading clean energy industry. LCV and its sister organization LCV Education Fund have contributed $1.2 million so far to defeat this dirty energy measure.

President Obama has also stated his opposition to Prop. 23, noting that "oil companies and the other special interests are spending millions on a campaign to gut clean-air standards and clean-energy standards, jeopardizing the health and prosperity of this state."

The primary funders of Prop. 23 are Texas oil companies Valero and Tesoro whose California oil refineries are among the top ten polluters in the state. Prop. 23 would let these Texas oil companies and other polluters off the hook - drastically increasing air pollution and public health risks. Each year, California's air pollution crisis contributes to thousands of premature deaths, hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, and thousands of trips to the hospital for California families.

Prop. 23 would also kill clean technology jobs, innovation and billions of dollars of investment in California. Since 2005, California clean energy jobs have grown ten times faster than the statewide average, with 500,000 employees currently working in the state’s leading clean energy industries. California's clean technology sector received $9 billion cumulative venture capital investment from 2005-09, including $2.1 billion in 2009 alone.

This is the only election this fall where the issue of global warming is squarely on the ballot. If the voters of California reject this Big Oil attack on their health and their economy, it should give a major boost to the national effort to move us forward towards a clean energy future. That's why LCV is working with California LCV to mobilize our members in California and around the country.

(These comments were submitted by Jonathan Wolfson, CEO and co-founder of Solazyme, Inc., a renewable oil company using algal biotechnology to replace petroleum and vegetable oils for fuels, chemicals and food.)

Californians, like all Americans, are mired in a fiscal crisis. Yet instead of addressing that issue, they are being asked to pass Proposition 23, which postpones and effectively overturns Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), a landmark job-creating law that regulates harmful carbon emissions. Passing Prop 23 would likely turn back the clock by a decade or more on fighting carbon pollution. It would have the further effect of costing California billions in gross state product, and thousands of jobs while continuing to accelerate the harmful emissions filling California’s air. AB32 has been an outstanding catalyst for technology innovation and job growth and since it was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006; California’s clean tech industry has had five-percent job growth while the state overall has suffered a one-percent decline. AB32 provides a realistic path to cut our current CO2 emissions by one-third in the next 10 years. It also drives investment into the local economy, proven by the $3 billion invested in California’s clean technology sector since the enactment of this law.

Proponents of Prop 23, a combination of major fossil fuel producers and rabid ideologues who deny global warming, are spending millions to protect their business interests by keeping California’s carbon emissions high at the expense of the public’s health and the state’s economic livelihood. The fact that this is the debate today is deeply troubling. Americans should be asking how we create a “Manhattan Project” type initiative to tackle our climate problems and take world leadership in the clean technology race over competitors like China, resulting in national wealth and domestic jobs. Instead, we are contemplating whether to roll back one forward thinking state’s modest and rational carbon regulation. We are truly at the wrong place in this discussion.

Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue; it is about domestic job growth and energy security. While AB32 is not perfect — issues such as the delusional measurement of indirect land use in the current version of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard prevent it from achieving that level of distinction — we should be finding ways to refine it, not to overturn it. In 2020, the law will create an additional $33 billion of economic production, thousands of new jobs, and a more secure nation.

AB32 limits carbon emissions and sets an ambitious but realistic goal for use of renewable energy sources (33% by 2020). In business, uncertainty paralyzes investment. AB32’s market-driven mechanisms for reducing carbon and encouraging renewable energy remove that uncertainty. Venture capitalists will continue to increase their investments in renewable energy. Large utilities and oil and gas companies will be incented to deliver a sustainable energy future with Americans reaping the benefits of a growing economy, new jobs, and a nation that is safer than one that relies on fossil fuel from OPEC and unstable foreign regimes.

Solazyme, a producer of algae-based renewable oils and fuels is a testament to this claim. It was no coincidence that within months after the second federally-mandated renewable fuel standard (RFS-2) was announced in 2007, Solazyme signed its first development agreement with a major oil company. Additionally, Solazyme has more than quadrupled its workforce since then. Earlier this year, we completed the largest delivery of military specification microbial biofuel in history, providing 100% algae-derived jet fuel and shipboard diesel to the US Navy and the Department of Defense (DoD), and have since signed a substantially larger DoD contract for testing and certification. The existence of AB32 has helped make this a reality.

While it is Californians who will make this decision, this law is of critical importance to the nation at large. Excess carbon in our atmosphere negatively affects our climate and carries severe consequences, some of which are already evident. California has lead in the past, including its push starting in the 1970s to protect public health by setting the gold standard for automobile emissions. With the world’s 8^th largest economy, a supportive state government and AB32 in the implementation stage, California is in a position to break ground again on behalf of Americans.

The question Californians are being asked is simply backwards. Having Prop 23 on the ballot is indicative of the regressive agenda of a handful of incumbent interests that are on the defensive. Proposition 23 puts our security, health and financial well being as a nation at risk and Californians must stand up for our state and for our nation in rejecting it.

A basic rule of life is that when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging. Now -- despite holding a record-long budget impasse and $19 billion deficit -- California lawmakers won’t put down the shovel. Cap and trade advocates continue to defend the state’s extreme energy rationing scheme contained in AB-32—the Global Warming Solutions Act. It’s the economic and energy equivalent of Thelma and Louise putting the pedal to the metal and driving off the cliff. It is one of the unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s wrong-headed decision that CO2 was a pollutant that could be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Like its national counterpart (the House’s American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009), AB-32 would require that greenhouse gas emissions be returned to their 1990 level in a decade and 80% below that by 2050. Both targets represent energy and technological impossibilities without reverting to a third world economy.

The state’s 12% unemployment reaches far above the national average, its economic growth is more than anemic, and taxes are among the highest in the nation. The economy is so bad that last year, the state could not pay its bills and issued script for a short period of time. In spite of Sacramento’s economic dysfunction, some legislators along with ‘green’ lobbyists are still pushing a complex, bureaucratic scheme to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

Prop 23 offers the state’s voters an opportunity to suspend the deleterious mandate until unemployment drops to 5.5%. Yet even with a much lower unemployment rate, AB-32 would be a fool’s dream. The technology necessary to achieve drastic carbon reduction goals in a cost-effective way does not and will not exist on a sufficient scale for decades to come.

California has the dubious distinction of adopting the most extreme environmental regulations. If the ballot initiative to suspend it fails, the rest of the nation will get a chilling glimpse into the ways federal cap and trade mandates would handicap America in the global market. Given California’s size, what happens to its economically would also ripple throughout the country and make the prospect of our economic recovery much more difficult.

The Pacific Research Institute (PRI) recently released a study of the jobs impact of AB-32. It sends a chilling message. Not suspending the law will trigger a loss of 150,000 jobs next year and 500,000 in 2012. The reason is clear. There is a strong relationship between energy consumption and employment. AB-32 -- like its federal counterparts -- is job killer.

PRI’s analysis is not the only one forecasting severe negative impacts. A study out of California State University Sacramento concludes that AB-32 would be disastrous for family budgets as well as small businesses, which are the engine of job growth. Families would face almost $4,000 annually in higher costs and would be forced to cut their discretionary spending by 26%. The loss from small businesses alone would be almost 10% of total state output.

Currently, California has one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates, there are increasing foreclosures, families are seeking to leave the state, and it has one of the worst business climates in the nation. Since AB-32 would make this picture considerably worse, you have to wonder what Legislators in Sacramento were thinking, if they were. Have they ever heard that you should stop digging when you are in a hole?

AB-32’s objective is to take bold action to forestall global warming -- but even if fully implemented -- its effect on global carbon emissions would be negligible. Like that of the rest of the nation, California’s air quality continues to improve, so the bill’s alleged health benefits are non-existent. On the other hand, the negative health impacts of reduced employment and income are well documented. The bottom line is that the Golden State could be about to inflict up itself enormous economic pain for no benefit. This severe energy rationing approach to managing greenhouse gas emissions -- like its federal counterpart -- should be relegated to the scrap heap of fatally flawed policy proposals.

(The following comments were submitted by Taylor Ferrell, a Truman National Security Fellow and special counsel to the Department of the Navy. The author writes this article in his personal capacity, and his views do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of the Navy. Any errors in facts or judgment are his own.)

California voters will soon vote on a measure that will have a lasting effect on the state’s energy and economic future and on U.S. national security. If passed, the Proposition 23 ballot initiative would suspend AB 32, California’s far-reaching 2006 climate law. As former Secretary of State George Schulz and others have argued, the essential repeal of the law would have negative repercussions for California’s environment, renewable energy industry, and economy at large. Perhaps less evident is the potential negative effect that repeal would have on the US military’s energy security strategy.

There is a direct connection between America’s energy policy and its national security. This connection is seen through challenges arising from reliance on foreign sources of oil, dependence on an aging electric grid that faces increasing threats, and vulnerabilities resulting from climate change. All of the military services, recognizing this nexus between energy security and national security, have taken aggressive measures to curb their use of fossil fuels and to increase the use of alternative energy. For example, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has required the Navy and Marines to derive 50% of their shore and operational energy from alternative sources by 2020.

On shore, this will mean enormous increases in deployment of solar, wind, and other types of renewable power. Because the Navy and Marine Corps have numerous installations in California, and because California has very favorable conditions for renewable energy production, many of the Navy and Marine Corps’ renewable power initiatives have focused on this state. And they are beginning to see some signs of success.

However, continued success depends upon the health of the renewable energy industry. The military generally does not have sufficient funding to independently undertake expensive, long-term energy projects. Therefore, many of the military’s current initiatives are partnerships with private industry, through which companies lease military land, construct renewable power facilities, and sell back the renewable energy. These partnerships are win-win-win scenarios for the military, the renewable energy industry, and California’s clean energy workers.

Yet, scalability and cost remain huge challenges. The AB 32 climate law, in combination with tax breaks for energy providers, has helped to enhance the competitiveness of renewable projects by both increasing renewable energy demand and decreasing renewable energy costs. Perhaps the clearest example is the state’s commitment to procure a large percentage of its energy from renewable sources.

Under its AB 32 authority, the California Air Resources Board has issued regulations to enforce Governor Schwarzenegger’s order that utilities derive 33% of their power from renewable sources. The corresponding state-wide increase in demand for renewable energy, along with tax incentives, breeds increased investment in renewable power generation throughout the state. As economies of scale are achieved, operating costs decrease, ultimately driving down renewable power rates and making them more competitive with traditional power sources. Only when this competitive price is reached do these projects become feasible for our budget-constrained military.

So what happens to the military’s renewable projects in a California without a 33% renewable standard? If AB 32 is suspended, and the renewable standard is scaled back, utilities will decrease their demand for renewable energy. Investment and overall capacity will decrease, efficiencies will be lost, and scalability and price competitiveness will be undermined.

The fewer the companies that can produce and sell renewable energy to DoD at an affordable price, the less renewable energy DoD will consume. Perhaps the Texas oil companies and billionaire Tea Party financiers who have spent millions pushing Proposition 23 will be pleased with that result. But no one else should be.

To date, opponents of Proposition 23 have argued that California voters should reject the fossil fuel interest groups and their myopic policies in favor of a forward-looking vision for a sustainable and dynamic clean energy economy. To that argument, this author would add that a vote for the latter – and against Prop 23 -- is a strong vote in favor of U.S. energy and national security.