As described in Delphi’s Climate Change & Sustainability Policy Updates, voters in California will be faced with particularly significant propositions in the November 2nd election. However, until now attention has been focused on Proposition 23 (prop 23), an application to repeal the state’s climate change legislation until unemployment reaches a low not predicted to be seen for the next five years. However, an additional proposition, prop 26, has received less coverage than prop 23 but holds significant implications for environmental initiatives.
Prop. 26 would redefine ‘fees’ as ‘taxes,’ changing requirements for passage of fee-including legislation. Currently, fee bills require a simple majority, while tax bills require two-thirds support to pass. The fee-as-tax redefinition would require a 2/3 majority to pass any regulations which include fees. Prop 26 also includes a condition to repeal any state laws that conflict with it, which cannot be re-passed with a 2/3 majority by both houses of the Legislature.
Prop 26 threatens California’s climate change action. The state’s Legislative Analyst finds that “generally, the types of fees and charges that would become taxes under [prop 26] are ones that government imposes to address health, environmental, or other societal or economic concerns.” Prop 26’s ‘fee’ definition narrowing, and provision to repeal fee laws that cannot be re-passed with a 2/3 majority, pressures existing laws that pay for much of the state’s sustainability efforts. These fee-paid government actions include recycling, investment in clean technology, toxic cleanup and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction. As explained by Warner Chabot, chief executive of the California League of Conservation Voters: “Prop 26 would eviscerate the funding of all air- and water-pollution programs, even oil-spill cleanup.”
Another critical element of prop 26 is its potential effect on implementation of California’s climate change legislation, Assembly Bill 32 (AB32). AB32 includes a GHG cap-and-trade program, with some emission allowances allocated by purchase or auction. Such a program would be held hostage by prop 26, as the purchase of such allowances can be classified as a fee, and AB32 was not approved by 2/3 of the legislature.
Prop 26 has received significantly less attention than its relative, prop 23. However, its implications are dramatic and binding for both existing and future Californian environmental policymaking.
By Cheryl Johnson, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
