This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Texas oil companies tap the well again in Prop 23 fight

Todd Woody's picture
  • Member since 2018
  • 152 items added with 30,969 views
  • Oct 25, 2010

I wrote this story for Grist, where it first appeared.

With a week to go until Election Day, a gusher of Texas oil money has begun to flow once more into California to support Proposition 23, the ballot measure that would suspend the state’s global warming law.

On Friday, Tesoro and Valero, the Texas oil companies that are largely funding Prop 23, contributed $1.5 million to the campaign in the first seven-figure donation since Sept. 2, when the billionaire Koch brothers dropped $1 million into campaign coffers, according to California Secretary of State records.

But in the intervening months, when contributions from the petrochemical industry dwindled mostly to a few five-figure donations, the No on 23 campaign revved up its fundraising efforts and now has taken in more than $30 million to the Yes forces’ $10.6 million.

Just in the last few days, San Francisco-based utility Pacific Gas & Electric has given another $250,000 to the No campaign while teachers and public employees unions donated a combined $300,000. (Tellingly, even an East Coast power company with coal-fired power plants in its portfolio, AES Corp., donated $25,000 to the No campaign on Friday.)

Also in the last couple of days, $500,000 has been given to No campaign committees targeting low-income and minority voters, which some strategists consider crucial to defeating Prop 23.

California’s climate change law, known as AB 32, requires the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Prop 23 would suspend AB 32 until the state unemployment rate – currently at 12.4 percent – drops to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. That has happened only three times in the past 40 years.

A new player in the No campaign is the California League of Conservation Voters and its parent organization, the League of Conservation Voters. The groups’ campaign committee has raised $4.2 million, including a $200,000 donation from a managing director at Goldman Sachs in New York.  The main No on 23 campaign has transferred $1.9 million to the committee in recent days, according to finance records.

“CLCV and LCV are contacting several hundred thousand California voters who are likely to support environmental values, explaining Prop 23 and asking them to vote no (either through absentee ballot or on Nov. 2), and turning out the vote on election day,” Jenesse Miller, a spokesperson for the California League of Conservation Voters, said in an e-mail. “Our campaign is a combination of phone calls, slate cards and other mail pieces.”

In a sign that the No forces may be feeling increasingly confident – a poll last week found Prop 23 losing – the League of Conservation Voters committee has been funneling money to other ballot initiatives important to environmentalists and green technology investors and entrepreneurs.

For instance, the committee has given more than $600,000 to defeat Proposition 26, a ballot measure supported by the oil, tobacco and alcohol industries that would reclassify environmental impact fees as taxes and require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to impose them rather than a simple majority.

Green groups and AB 32 supporters fear Prop 26 could cripple efforts to levy fees to implement the global warming law

Todd Woody's picture
Thank Todd for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Geoffrey Styles's picture
Geoffrey Styles on Oct 25, 2010


In your reporting on this issue, you have consistently ignored the fact that most of the companies and many of the high-net-worth individuals donating money in opposition to Prop. 23 have as much of a vested financial interest in its defeat as the companies spending money in support of Prop. 23 have in its passage.  Who is for or against this proposition, and how much they are spending, is surely secondary to the fundamental question of the affordability of AB 32’s regulations that it raises.  Anyone doubting the severity of the state’s financial condition should take note that California just had to obtain a $6-7 B bridge loan from Chase, in advance of $10 B in “revenue anticipation” notes–the big-league equivalent of a “payday loan”. 

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »