Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/6/2010 - STAFF REPORTS - 5.B.. -,5- - - - If possible, please send your request by Tuesday. If I can assist further, please don't hesitate to contact me - my cell number is 7604090833 Regards David City Manager David On Sep 10, 2010, at 3:52 PM, "Andrew Alder" <andrewvincentalder(c amail.com> wrote: > Dear Mr. Ready: > I have posted you before on this matter at the suggestion of Mayor Pougnet and have not as of yet received any kind of response, thus this second note. > I am a resident of Palm Springs and am very much opposed to Proposition 23, the oil - company sponsored initiative that will appear on this November's ballot. If passed by California voters Prop 23 will effectively eviscerate our state's landmark climate change bill, AB 32. Many communities in California are taking a stance against Prop 23 and I would like to see a resolution placed before the City Council by which our elected representatives would, in a publicly recorded tally, vote up or down as to whether or not this City will stand with those oil companies (Valero and Tesoro), as well as those individuals who are bankrolling the Prop 23 effort (inter alia, the Koch brother of Koch Industries) or with those citizens of California who support the goals and aims of AB 32. 7 > A few weeks ago I made inquiry of our Mayor as to how such a resolution could be timely placed on the agenda for Council action; he referred me to you. > Please respond to this email and inform me of the process necessary to create such a resolution and then have it placed on the Council agenda for a public vote. > I look forward to the courtesy of your prompt reply. > Andrew Vincent Alder > Attorney -At -Law > Senior Fellow, Institute for Environmental Security, The Hague > Director, Institute for Environmental Security - North America > P.O. Box 1427 > Palm Springs, California 92263 > 760 424 9866 0/1 Silm n ANDREW VINCENT ALDER Attorney -At -Law P. O. Box 1427 Palm Springs, California 92263-1427 Office 760-327-0660 Fax 760-406-5969 Mobile: 760 424 9866 Email: andrewvincentalder@gmail.com 13 September, 2010 David Ready City Manager City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Via Email RE: Agenda Item: Resolution Opposing Prop 23 Dear Mr. Ready: You recently sent me an email informing me that in order for the City Council to even consider a resolution by which the City of Palm Springs would go on record as opposing Proposition 23 (which will appear on this November's statewide ballot), a majority of the Council would need to direct City staff to prepare such a resolution. Your email further suggested that I write to you and formally request that such a resolution be placed on the Council's agenda for action. Please, then, consider this letter as the necessary request for the drafting and placement on the Council's agenda of a resolution, which if passed, would clearly state that the City of Palm Springs, by and through its elected officials, oppose Proposition 23. This letter, again per your direction, is being sent to you via email on Monday, 13 September. If you, or any member of the Council, need more information regarding this request or about Proposition 23 itself, please do not hesitate to contact me. At such date as this matter is actually before the City Council for a vote, I would welcome the opportunity to publicly address the panel and articulate the reasons why Proposition 23 is contrary to the interests of this community. Thanking you for your courtesy, I remain, Sincerely, Andrew Vincent Alder Jay Thompson From: Jay Thompson Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 9:30 AM To: 'andrewvincentaIder@gmail.com' Subject: FW: PS Position on Prop 23 Attachments: 10-09-13 Letter to City Manager David Ready re Prop 23.doc; ATT25210.htm Mr. Alder, Thank your for your recent letter. This is notification that your request has been forwarded to the Palm Springs City Council, I will be in contact if they request such an Item be placed on an upcoming meeting agenda. In the interim, you may wish to consider attending the next City Council meeting, and under general public comment portion of the agenda, address the City Council and articulate your position. Additionally, the City has an on-line City Council agenda subscription list, that would automatically send you an email of the upcoming City Council meeting agenda along with City staff reports. To subscribe to any of the City e-notifications, go to the City website htt[)://www.ci.r)alm- sprinas.ca.us/ and click on the e-notification link. Jay James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California TEL (760) 323-8204 From: "Andrew Alder" <andrewvincentalder(tD,s7mail.com> Date: September 13, 2010 2:46:54 PM PDT To: "David Ready"<David.Readvnpalmsprin2s-ca.2ov> Cc: "Ginny Foat" <Ginn.Foatnnalmsprinp-s-ca.2ov>, "Rick Hutcheson" <Rick.I Iutcheson a,r)almsDrinLys-ca,szov>, "Steve Pougnet" <Steve.Pou "net Subject: Re: PS Position on Prop 23 Dear Mr. Ready, It is Monday afternoon, 13 September. Per your email to me of Saturday, 11 September, attached hereto, in Word format, is my letter of request as per your text. If there is any other information you need, or if there is anything other step I can take to facilitate the preparation and presentation to Council of a resolution in opposition to Prop 23, please let me know immediately. Thank you for your courtesy in this important matter. Andrew Vincent Alder On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:47 AM, David Ready <David.Readv0),nalmsminas- ca• og_v> wrote: Mr. Alder On ballot issues, a majority of the City Council are required to give staff direction on preparing a resolution of support. I would suggest that if you could send me a letter of request for such a resolution (you could attach it to an email), I would place the request on the council agenda as correspondence "receive and file " and council would then have an opportunity to give me direction. 9/15/2010 PROPOSITION SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING 23 MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. • Suspends State law that requires greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, until California's unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. • Suspends comprehensive greenhouse -gas -reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emissions reporting and fee requirements for major emissions sources such as power plants and nil refineries. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact. The suspension of AB 32 could result in a modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state. In this event, there would be an unknown but potentially significant net increase in state and local government revenues. Potential loss of a new source of state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government to certain businesses that would pay for these allowances, by suspending the future implementation of cap -and -trade regulations. Lower energy costs for state and local governments than otherwise. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST BACKGROUND Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) arc gases that trap heat from the sun within the earth's atmosphcre, thereby warming the cartlA temperature. Both natural phenomena (mainly the evaporation of water) and human activities (principally burning fossil fuels) produce GHGs. Scientific experts have voiced concerns that higher concentrations of GHGs resulting from human activities arc increasing global temperatures, and that such global temperature rises could eventually cause significant problems. Such global temperature increases are commonly referred to as global warming, or climate change. As a populous state with a large industrial economy, California is the second largest emitter of GHGs in the United States and one of the largest emitters of GHGs in the world. Climate change is a global issue necessitating an international approach. Actions in California regarding GHGs have been advocated on the basis that they will contribute to a solution and may act as a catalyst to the undertaking of GHG mitigation policies elsewhere in our nation and in other countries. Assembly Bill 32 Enacted to Limit GHGs. In 2006, the state enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly referred to as Assembly Bill 32 or "AB 32." This legislation established the target of reducing the state's emissions of GHGs by 2020 to the level that emissions were at in 1990. It is estimated that achieving this target would result in about a 30 percent reduction in GHGs in 2020 from where their level would otherwise be in the absence of AB 32. Assembly Bill 32 requires the state Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt rules and regulations to achieve this reduction. The law also directs ARB, in developing these rules and regulations, to take advantage of opportunities to improve air quality, thereby creating public health benefits from the state's GHG emission reduction activities. 38 1 Title and Suneniary / Analysis ITEM N10. --� • �. PROP SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING 23 MAIOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST Other Laws Would Reduce GHG Emissions. In addition to AB 32, a number of other state laws have been enacted by the Legislature that would reduce GHG emissions. In some cases, the main purpose of these other laws is specifically to reduce GHG emissions. For example, a 2002 law requires the ARB to adopt regulations to reduce GHG emissions from cars and smaller trucks. Other laws have authorized various energy efficiency programs that could have the effect of reducing GHG emissions, although this may not have been their principal purpose. "Scoping Plan" to Reach GHG Emission Reduction Target. As required by AB 32, the ARB in December 2008 released its plan on how AB 32's GHG emission reduction target for 2020 would be met. The plan —referred to as the AB 32 Scoping Plan —encompasses a number of different types of measures to reduce GHG emissions. Some are measures authorized by AB 32, while others are authorized by separately enacted laws. Some of these measures have as their primary objective something other than reducing GHGs, such as reducing the state's dependency on fossil fuels. The plan includes a mix of traditional regulatory measures and market -based measures. Traditional regulations, such as energy efficiency standards for buildings, would require individuals and businesses to take specific actions to reduce emissions. Market -based measures provide those subject to them greater flexibility in how to achieve GHG emission reductions. The major market - based measure included in the Scoping Plan is a "cap -and -trade" program. Under such a program, the ARB would set a limit, or cap, on GHG emissions; issue a limited number of emission allowances to emitters related to the amount of GHGs they emit; and allow emitters covered by the program to buy, sell, or trade those emission allowances. Some measures in the Scoping Plan have already been adopted in the form of regulations. Other regulations are either currently under development or will be developed in the near future. Assembly Bill 32 requires that all regulations for GHG For text of Proposition 23, seepage 106. CONTINUED emission reduction measures be adopted by January 1, 2011, and in effect by January 1, 2012, Fee Assessed to Cover States Administrative Costs. As allowed under AB 32, the ARB has adopted a regulation to recover the state's costs of administering the GHG emission reduction programs. Beginning in fall 2010, entities that emit a high amount of GHGs, such as power plants and refineries, must pay annual fees that will be used to offset these administrative costs. Fee revenues will also be used to repay various state special funds that have made loans totaling $83 million to the AB 32 program. These loans have staggered repayment dates that run through 2014. The Economic Impact of Implementing the Scoping Plan. The implementation of the AB 32 Scoping Plan will reduce levels of GHG emissions and related air pollutants by imposing various new requirements and costs on certain businesses and individuals. The reduced emissions and the new costs will both affect the California economy. There is currently a significant ongoing debate about the impacts to the California econonny from implementing the Scoping Plan. Economists, environmentalists, and policy makers have voiced differing views about how the Scoping Plan will affect the gross state product, personal income, prices, and jobs. The considerable uncertainty about the Scoping Plan's "bottom -line" or net impact on the economy is due to a number of reasons. First, because a number of the Scoping Plan measures have yet to be fully developed, the economic impacts will depend heavily on how the measures are designed in the public regulatory process. Second, because a number of the Scoping Plan measures are phased in over time, the full economic impacts of some measures would not be felt for several years. Third, the implementation of the Scoping Plan has the potential to create both positive and negative impacts on the economy. This includes the fact that there will be both "winners" and "losers" under the implementation of the Scoping Plan for particular economic sectors, businesses, and individuals. Analysis 1 39 2 PROP SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING 23 MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST A number of studies have considered the economic impacts of the Scoping Plan implementation in 2020—the year when AB 32's GHG emission reduction target is to be met. Those studies that have looked at the economic impacts from a relatively broad perspective have, for the most part, found that there will be some modest reduction in California's gross state product, a comprehensive measure of economic activity for the state. These findings reflect how such things as more expensive energy, new investment requirements, and costs of regulatory compliance combine to increase the costs of producing materials, goods, and services that consumers and businesses buy. Given all of the uncertainties involved, however, the net economic impact of the Scoping Plan remains a matter of debate. [dr1MR11149 PROPOSAL This proposition suspends the implementation of AB 32 until the unemployment rate in California is 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. During the suspension period, state agencies are prohibited from proposing or adopting new regulations, or enforcing previously adopted regulations, that would implement AB 32. (Once AB 32 went back into effect, this measure could not suspend it again.) IMPACTS OF THIS PROPOSITION ON CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATION AB 32 Would Be Suspended, Likely for Many Years. Under this proposition, AB 32 would be suspended immediately. It would remain suspended until the state's unemployment rate was Figure 1 Historical Unemployment Rate in California 14% 12 - 10 ti 8 - 6 -r 4 - r r Unemployment below 5.5% 2 - 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics; seasonally adjusted data. I 1 2010 40 1 Analysis :� PROP SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING 23 MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters (a one-year period). We cannot estimate when the suspension of AB 32 might end. Figure 1 provides historical perspective on the state's unemployment rate. It shows that, since 1970, the state has had three periods (each about ten quarters long) when the unemployment rate was at or below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters or more. The unemployment rate in California for the first two quarters of 2010 was above 12 percent. Economic forecasts for the next five years have the state's unemployment rate remaining above 8 percent. Given these factors, it appears likely that AB 32 would remain suspended for many years. Various Climate Change Regulatory Activities Would Be Suspended. This proposition would result in the suspension of a number of measures in the Scoping Plan for which regulations either have been adopted or are proposed for adoption. Specifically, this proposition would likely suspend: • The proposed cap -and -trade regulation discussed above. • The "low carbon fuel standard" regulation that requires providers of transportation fuel in California (such as refiners and importers) to change the mix of fuels to lower GHG emissions. • The proposed ARB regulation that is intended to require privately and publicly owned utilities and others who sell electricity to obtain at least 33 percent of their supply from "renewable" sources, such as solar or wind power, by 2020. (The current requirement that 20 percent of the electricity obtained by privately owned utilities come from renewable sources by 2010 would not be suspended by this proposition.) • The fee to recover state agency costs of administering AB 32. Much Regulation in the Scoping Plan Would Likely Continue. Many current activities related to addressing climate change and reducing GHG emissions would probably not be suspended by this proposition. That is because certain Scoping CONTINUED Plan regulations implement laws other than AB 32. The regulations that would likely move forward, for example, include: • New vehicle emission standards for cars and smaller trucks. • A program to encourage homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs. • Land -use policies to promote less reliance on vehicle use. Building and appliance energy efficiency requirements. We estimate that more than one-half of the emission reductions from implementing the Scoping Plan would come because of laws enacted separately from AB 32. FISCAL EFFECTS Potential Impacts on California Economy and State and Local Revenues There would likely be both positive and negative impacts on the California economy if AB 32 were suspended. These economic impacts, in turn, would affect state and local government revenues. We discuss these effects below. Potential Positive Economic Impacts. The suspension of AB 32 would likely have several positive impacts on the California economy. Suspending AB 32 would reduce the need for new investments and other actions to comply with new regulations that would be an added cost to businesses. Energy prices —which also affect the state's economy —would be lower in 2020 than otherwise. This is because the proposed cap -and - trade regulation, as well as the requirement that electric utilities obtain a greater portion of their electricity supplies from renewable energy sources, would otherwise require utilities to make investments that would increase the costs of producing or delivering electricity. Such investments would be needed to comply with these regulations, such as by obtaining electricity from higher -priced sources than would otherwise be the case. The suspension of such measures by For text of Proposition 23, see page 106. Analysts 1 41 r�, PROP SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING 23 MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST this proposition could therefore lower costs to businesses and avoid energy price increases that otherwise would largely be passed on to energy consumers. Potential Negative Economic Impacts. The suspension of AB 32 could also have negative impacts on the California cconomy. For cxamplc, the suspension of some Scoping Plan measures could delay investments in clean technologies that might result in some cost savings to businesses and consumers. Investment in research and development and job creation in the energy efficiency and clean energy sectors that support or profit from the goals of AB 32 might also be discouraged by this proposition, resulting in less economic activity in certain sectors than would otherwise be the case. Suspending some Scoping Plan measures could halt air quality improvements that would have public health benefits, such as reduced respiratory illnesses. These public health benefits translate into economic benefits, such as increased worker productivity and reduced government and business costs for health care. Net Economic Impact. As discussed previously, only a portion of the Scoping Plan measures would be suspended by the proposition. Those measures would have probably resulted in increased compliance costs to businesses and/or increased energy prices. On the other hand, those measures probably would have yielded public health -related economic bencfits and increased profit opportunities for certain economic sectors. Considering both the potential positive and negative economic impacts of the proposition, we conclude that, on balance, economic activity in the state would likely be modestly higher if this proposition were enacted than otherwise. CONTINUED Economic Changes Would Affect State and Local Revenues. Revenues from taxes on personal and business income and on sales rise and fall because of changes in the level of economic activity in the state. To the extent that the suspension of AB 32 resulted in somewhat higher economic activity in the state, this would translate into an unknown but potentially significant increase in revenues to the state and local governments. Other Fiscal Effects Impacts of Suspension of the Cap -and Trade Regulation. The suspension of ARB's proposed cap -and -trade regulation could have other fiscal effects depending on how this regulation would otherwise have been designed and implemented. One proposed approach provides for the auctioning of emission allowances by the state to emitters of GHGs. This approach would increase costs to affected firms doing business in the state, as they would have to pay for allowances. Such auctions could result in as much as several billion dollars of new revenues annually to the state that could be used for a variety of purposes. For example, depending on future actions of the Legislature, the auction revenues could be used to reduce other state taxes or to increase state spending for purposes that may or may not be related to efforts to prevent global warming. Thus, the suspension of AB 32 could preclude the collection by the state of potentially billions of dollars in new allowance -related payments from businesses. 42 1 Analpi_f PROP SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 31) REQUIRING 23 MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE. mn Potential Impacts on State and Local Government Energy Costs. As noted above, the suspension of certain AB 32 regulations would likely result in lower energy prices in California than would otherwise occur. Because state and local government agencies are large consumers of energy, the suspension of some AB 32-related regulations would reduce somewhat state and local government energy costs. Impacts on State Administrative Costs and Fees. During the suspension of AB 32, state administrative costs to develop and enforce regulations pursuant to AB 32 would be reduced significantly, potentially by the low tens of millions of dollars annually. However, during a suspension, the state would not be able to collect the fee authorized under AB 32 to pay these administrative costs. As a result, there would no CONTINUED longer be a dedicated funding source to repay loans that have been trade from certain state special funds to support the operation of the AB 32 program. This would mean that other sources of state funds, potentially including the General Fund, might have to be used instead to repay the loans. These potential one-time state costs could amount to tens of millions of dollars. Once AB 32 went back into effect, revenues from the AB 32 administrative fee could be used to pay back the General Fund or other state funding sources that were used to repay the loans. In addition, once any suspension of AB 32 regulations ended, the state might incur some additional costs to reevaluate and update work to implement these measures that was under way prior to the suspension. For text of Proposition 23, seepage 106. Analysis 1 43 TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS (PROPOSITION 22 CONTINUED) Section 10. Continuous Appropriations. The provisions of Sections 6, 6.1, 7, 7.1, and 8 of this act that require a continuous appropriation to the Controller without regard to fiscal year are intended to be "appropriations made by law" within the meaning of Section 7 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. Section 11. Liberal Construction. The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes. Section 12. Conflicting Statutes. Any statute passed by the Legislature between October 21, 2009 and the effective date of this measure, that would have been prohibited if this measure were in effect on the date it was enacted, is hereby repealed. Section 13, Conflicting Ballot Measures. In the event that this measure and another measure or measures relating to the direction or redirection of revenues dedicated to funding services provided by local governments or transportation projects or services, or both, appear on the same statewide election ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this measure shall receive a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void. Section 14. Severability. it is the intent of the People that the provisions of this act are severable and that if any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. PROPOSITION 23 This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article Il of the California Constitution. This initiative measure adds a section to the Health and Safety Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW California Jobs Initiative SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS (a) In 2006, the Legislature and Governor enacted a sweeping environmental law, AB 32. While protecting the environment is of utmost importance, we must balance such regulation with the ability to maintain jobs and protect our economy. (b) At the time the bill was signed, the unemployment rate in California was 4.8 percent, California's unemployment rate has since skyrocketed to more than 12 percent. (c) Numerous economic studies predict that complying with AB 32 will cost Californians billions of dollars with massive increases in the price of gasoline, electricity, food and water, further punishing California consumers and households. (d) California businesses cannot drive our economic recovery and create the jobs we need when faced with billions of dollars in new regulations and added costs; and (e) California families being hit with job losses, pay cuts and furloughs cannot afford to pay the increased prices that will be passed onto them as a result of this legislation right now. SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The people desire to temporarily suspend the operation and implementation of AB 32 until the state's unemployment rate returns to the levels that existed at the time of its adoption. SEC. 3. Division 25.6 (commencing with Section 38600) is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: DIVISION 25.6. SUSPENSION OFAH 32 38600. (a) hronr and after the effective elate of this division, Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of'the Health and Safety Code is suspended until such time as the unemplovment rate in California is 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive calendar quarters. (b) While suspended, no state age ncvshall propose, promulgale, or adopt any regulation implementing Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) and anv regulation adopted prior to the effective date of this division shall be void and unenforceable until such time as the suspension is Itfted. PROPOSITION 24 This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. This initiative measure amends and repeals sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code; therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in Strikeout type and new provisions proposedto be added are printed in italic 11 pe to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW SECTION 1. Title This act shall be known as the "Repeal Corporate "I'ax Loopholes Act" SEC. 2. Findings and T)eclarations The people of the State of California find and declare that: 1. The State of California is in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. State revenues have plummeted, millions of Californians have lost their jobs, and hundreds of thousands of California homes have been lost in foreclosure sales. Projections suggest it could be many years before the state and its citizens recover. 2. To cope with the fiscal crisis, in 2008 and 2009 the Legislature and Governor raised taxes paid by the people of this state: the personal income tax, the state sales tax, and vehicle license fees. Yet at the same time they passed three special corporate tax breaks that give large corporations nearly $2 billion a year in state revenues. 3. No public hearings were held and no public notice was given before these corporate tax breaks were passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. 4. Corporations get these tax breaks without any requirements to create new jobs or to stop shipping current jobs overseas. 5. These loopholes benefit the biggest of corporations with gross incomes of over $1 billion. One study estimates that 80 percent of the benefits from the first loophole will go to just 0.1 percent of all California corporations, Similarly, estimates are that 87 percent of the benefits from one tax break will go to just 229 companies, each of which has gross income over $1 billion. 6. At the same time it created these corporate loopholes, the Legislature and Governor enacted $31 billion in cuts to the state budget —decimating funding for public schools and colleges, eliminating health care services to our neediest citizens, closing IOd 1 Text of Proposed laws 7