California State 2006 -Proposition 87 Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers. - Constitutional Amendment.

Official Summary, Pros & Cons
Other Resources
Visitor's Comments
Join the Discussion!

Official Summary, Pros and Cons

Establishes $4 billion program to reduce petroleum consumption through incentives for alternative energy, education and training. Funded by tax on California oil producers. Fiscal Impact: State oil tax revenues of $225 million to $485 million annually for alternative energy programs totaling $4 billion. State and local revenue reductions up to low tens of millions of dollars annually.

Proposition 87 Summary
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)

Proposition 87 Analysis
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)

Proposition 87 Arguments & Rebuttals
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)

A YES vote on this measure means: The state would impose a tax on oil production to support $4 billion in expenditures to develop and promote alternative energy technologies and promote the reduction of petroleum use.

A NO vote on this measure means: The state would not impose a tax on oil production to fund these activities.

Top of the page.

Other Resources

Follow the Money (for and against this proposition)
To find the information, first click on a "Committee Name" link,
and then select the radio button "Late and $5000+ Contributions Received."

Organizations & individuals FOR Proposition 87

Stephen L. Bing - (environmental philanthropist) contributed over $43.5 to the campaign

Yes on 87

87 Endorsements

Organizations & Individuals AGAINST Proposition 87

Chevron - contributed over $33 million dollars to the campaign

AERA (owned by ExxonMobil & Shell) - contributed $27 million dollars to the campaign

Occidental Oil and Gas - contributed $9 million dollars to the campaign

No Oil Tax

Selected Articles, Editorials, Opinions, Reports

Big money at stake with Prop. 87
Tax on state oil companies
Ventura Star, by Stephanie Hoops
October 21, 2006

Economists weigh Prop. 87 arguments
San Francisco Chronicle, by David R. Baker
Sunday, October 15, 2006

Why 61% of Californians Support Prop 87 on Alternative Energy
California Progress Report, by Shelley Luce, Ph.D.
July 31, 2006

Top of the page.

Visitor's Comment List

Visitor Name: Ben Hammett
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto - Palo Alto

Here is a question from a member of our congregation and my reply. I would love to hear what others would have replied.

Ben Hammett

QUESTION:

Hi, Ben,

I attend UUCPA.

I’m hoping you can tell me whether the criticisms of Prop 87 are bogus oil company hype, or there are real problems with the bill. Any info you can give me would be very helpful!

Thanks!
Joel Sarch

MY REPLY:

A very important question, Joel.

I am cc'ing your question to the UUCPA "Ask Flo" service on our website and to others on the UUCPA Green Sanctuary Committee.

Here is what my research shows:
The basic concern of the oil producers seems to be a bottom line issue, that the tax will make them pay for research on green alternative energy, $4 billion in alternative energy programs over time. Some consumers who agree with them are afraid that the fuel companies will raise the prices at the fuel pumps as a result, i.e.: pass on the cost to the consumers.

Other consumers are willing to pay more for alternative energy if they buy gasoline, sort of like buying green tags to offset their contribution to carbon dioxide emissions. They realize that paying a higher gas price now is a relatively small price to pay for reducing the far greater billions that later it will cost the world to come to the aid of those populations that will suffer as the result of global warming.

Other issues raised by the producers are that the tax will increase our dependence on foreign oil, impact the California General Fund revenue and also impact State education funding. I do not yet have enough factual information on those arguments, only the websites cited by the opponents: www.nooiltax.com . Also, I am not completely clear why the Act is proposed as a constitutional amendment, unless it is to make the act harder to repeal through lobbying by special interests.

The California Legislative Analyst's Report summary can be seen at http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot_source/BalDetails.aspx?id=576 , the text at http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2006/87_11_2006.htm or you can download a PDF at http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2006/87_11_2006.pdf .

The California UU legislative Ministry Action Network is still discussing this one, with decision pending. You can get the up-to-date status of this discussion at: http://www.uulmca.org/virtual_meeting/prop_2006/prop_87.php
The Friends Committee on Legislation (Quakers) are in favor, the California Council of Churches is in favor, the California Labor Federation is for it, the Sierra Club is in favor, the California League of Conservation Voters is for it, the California League of Women Voters is neutral and the California Chamber of Commerce is against it.

I hope that Ask Flo http://www.uucpa.org/AskFlo/about_askflo.html can direct you to sources of a more complete analysis and of factually based discussions of the bill.

I and the Green Sanctuary Committee of UUCPA would certainly appreciate any further information that you can obtain.

Best wishes,
Ben Hammett
Co-Chair
greencom@uucpa.org

---

Visitor Name: Rachel Morris
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Church of Ventura - Ventura

Dear Friends,

I think the arguments against proposition 87 are just transparent.

1.) Why would the big oil companies spend over $60 million dollars against proposition 87? There is only one reason, and that is because it hurts their bottom line. They are obviously not doing it to protect consumers from higher prices at the pump, or they could just lower their extreme profit margins. They are doing it for their shareholders financial profits.

2.) Speaking of wealth, have you noticed that the price of oil is independent of the market? The profits of the oil companies are going off the charts. The rest of us watch oil prices skyrocket with Bush in office, dip a little right before election, go back up after election, and so on. It's predictable that the oil companies will raise the price of gas to what ever the market will bare, tax or no tax. So the argument that this tax will make our gas prices higher is not related to the reality of uncontrolled price gouging and the history of these companies activities.

"Topped off by the results released Friday by Chevron, five of the world's largest oil companies produced a combined net income of $31.6 billion in the three months ended in September." - Mercury News, Sept 28, 2006

So let's get on it, quit listening to $60 worth of oil adds, and vote for prop 87 so we can cut our addiction to oil.

---

Top of the page.