Prop 23 Update: RCRC Staff Supports Prop 23

Russ Steele

The Regional Council of Rural Counties will meet in the 18th of August in Sacramento. One of the Agenda items is a discussion of the Measures to Appear on the November 2010 Ballot. Prop 23 is one of those measures.  According to the material provided to the Board of Director for action, the Staff Recommends support for Prop 23.  Full Agenda is here.

We will have to wait for the meeting minutes to find out the results of the discussion and the final vote. The options are:

• Support:    A “Support” position means that RCRC endorses the measure, and agrees that the organization’s name can be used by those supporting that Proposition.
• Oppose:    An “Oppose” position means that RCRC is in active opposition to the Proposition, and agrees that the organization’s name can be used by those opposing the Proposition.
• Neutral:    A “Neutral” position means that RCRC recognizes that although there may be a potential rural county impact to the Proposition, there are issues within the measure that effectively balance out or negate one another. This results in a formal position of “Neutral”.
• No Position: A “No Position” position means that the organization has discussed, but has decided not to take a formal position on the measure/Proposition.

In material the RCRC Staff provided to the Board discussion they list the impacts Prop 23 will have and will not have. This is a good summary for checking some of the bad information the Prop 23 opponents are sending to voters.

While Proposition 23 would suspend many regulations contained in the AB 32 Scoping Plan, many of the measures that most affect local governments would be implemented as scheduled (including SB 375) because they are implemented under other statutes.

If passed by voters, the Proposition 23 would suspend the development or implementation measures including the following:

• The proposed cap-and-trade program currently under development by ARB.
• The low carbon fuel standard already adopted by ARB.
• The already-adopted ARB regulation that enables the state to collect fees from high GHG emitters.
• The 33 percent renewable electricity standard currently under development by ARB and the California Energy Commission (CEC).
• The landfill methane control measure regulation already adopted by ARB.
• The heavy-duty GHG emission reduction measure (aerodynamic efficiency)already adopted by ARB.
• The green building standards already adopted by the Building Standards Commission.
• The mandatory commercial recycling requirements currently under development
• by ARB.

The following measures and policies would not be suspended by Proposition 23 because they are not implemented under AB 32:

• Land use policies to promote reductions in vehicle miles traveled enacted by SB 375.
• Emission standards on new vehicles, enacted by AB 1493 (Pavley).
• Requirements to address GHG emissions in environmental documents and
• general plans as a result of a federal ruling labeling GHGs as air pollutants.
• Energy efficiency standards on buildings and appliances.
•  Diesel retrofit regulations adopted as part of ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. 

Exit Question:  How do you think the RCRC Board of Directors will vote on Prop 23 Support?