Ben Christopher quotes me in a story at CALmatters on the recent appellate court decision upholding California's cap-and-trade allowance auctions (California Chamber of Commerce v. CARB), what the decision means for Proposition 13 jurisprudence, and the need to get a 2/3 vote to extend the program under Proposition 26:
Many legal analysts, policy advocates, and lawmakers disagree the ruling is quite so earth-shattering. A spokesperson for the Department of Finance says that they are still reviewing the ruling and its implications. And although the offices of both Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León declined to comment, numerous legislative staff members around the Capitol said that they do not expect to see a raft of new tax-hiking legislation emerge on the basis of this ruling, both because the ruling was narrowly focused on cap and trade, and because the case is being appealed to the California Supreme Court.
“I wouldn’t take one appellate court ruling as a landslide,” says Danny Cullenward, a lawyer and energy economist at Stanford University and a research associate with the non-profit Near Zero. “If one is convinced, as the plaintiffs are, that this fundamentally changes the line, I think there’s good reason to believe that the state Supreme Court would at least look into the question.”
Thanks to Ben for taking as much time as he did to explore the nuances of Proposition 13 and 26 in preparing for the story, which is remarkably clear despite its dense subject matter.