(Photo: Craig Miller)

While some oil & gas companies are behind it, none of California’s three major electric utilities appear to support Proposition 23, the ballot measure to upend the state’s comprehensive climate law, known as AB 32.

The growing list is a Who’s Who of the state’s electrical grid:

This week, Sempra Energy made it’s declaration against the measure, completing a sweep of the big-three utilities. Sempra is the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Gas Co., Sempra Generation, Sempra Pipelines & Storage and Sempra LNG. A Sempra spokeswoman told Climate Watch that the energy giant is against 23 because it’s for AB 32.  “AB 32 plays a critical role in helping California develop a low-carbon economy,” she said, and added that Sempra is “heavily invested” in clean technologies, like “smart meters” and the infrastructure designed to support mass adoption of electric vehicles in the next few years.

In July, Pacific Gas and Electric Company came out against Prop 23. In a statement, the company said:

“Since actively supporting the passage of AB 32, PG&E has worked with the California Air Resources Board, California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission and other stakeholders to make AB 32 a success and a model for other jurisdictions to follow…Contrary to this responsible approach, Proposition 23 would suspend the law indefinitely, despite the critical need to combat climate change at the state, national and global level.”

Edison International, parent company of Southern California Edison, is officially neutral, though the company’s statement seems to indicate no affection for AB 32:

“Edison International believes carbon emissions cannot be meaningfully dealt with on a regional or state-by-state basis…The company believes the best solution to the greenhouse gas emission problem is comprehensive national legislation that has the same rules for all carbon emitters, regardless of the state in which they are located. That is why Edison International is actively working with Congress to ensure that greenhouse gas regulation is accomplished in the most practical manner possible and protects consumers to the greatest degree. Edison International supports passage of federal legislation, H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act.”

That legislation stalled in the US Senate earlier this year.

The role of utilities in the political debate over California’s pushed to reduce its carbon emissions came up in my conversation this week with Anita Mangels, spokeswoman for the Yes on 23 campaign. You can hear an excerpt from that using the player, below:

In short, Mangels charges that the utilities’ equanimity regarding 23 is related to their push to pass on the costs of AB 32 to their customers, which they tried with something called Resolution G-3447:

“Resolution G-3447. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) seeks to modify its gas and electric regulatory accounts to recover from its core and noncore gas and electric customers a portion of the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Cost of Implementation Fee (AB 32 Fee) paid to CARB.”

“San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) seeks to revise its regulatory accounts to record the costs associated with the CARB AB 32 Fee and to recover these costs in customer gas transportation and electric commodity rates.”

“Southern California Edison Company (SCE) seeks to modify its regulatory accounts to record and recover AB 32 Fees paid to CARB.”

“Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) seeks to modify its Core Fixed Cost Account (CFCA) and Noncore Fixed Cost Account (NFCA) to record and recover AB 32 Fees paid to CARB.”

Well, yes, they tried.  Staffers at the California Public Utilities Commission, however, recommended denial “without prejudice.” And at the CPUC’s meeting in June, that’s what happened.

Texas - more than a little interested in California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Here’s proof positive conferences put on by the Minnesota Rural Electric Association are can’t-miss events. Mark Schapiro of California Watch attended last month, and got a scoop (and I’m not talking about a scoop of Minnesota’s famed butter.)

Schapiro learned the attorneys general of Alabama, Nebraska, Texas and North Dakota are preparing to sue California if the golden state’s landmark law limiting greenhouse gas emissions survives a challenge at the ballot box this November from Proposition 23.

The grounds? AB 32 interferes with interstate commerce, according to Wayne Stenehjem, attorney general of North Dakota (pop. 642,200), giving new meaning to old phrase “the long arm of the law.”

“We are going to test the limits of how much you can constrain interstate commerce in the name of climate change,” Stenehjem told Schapiro.

Stenehjem has thought about this before. North Dakota supplies 60% of Minnesota’s energy, much of it from a massive lignite coal mine. Shortly after Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed a law mandating a 30% reduction in CO₂ emissions from coal-fired power plants by 2012 and an 80% reduction by 2050, the North Dakota legislature appropriated $500,000 to finance preparation of a legal challenge by Stenehjem.

Now, California draws in 30 percent of its power from across state lines, mostly from states in the Pacific Northwest and Southwest. So would the AGs from Alabama, Nebraska, Texas and North Dakota have standing? Too soon to tell. They haven’t filed a lawsuit yet. They’re waiting to see what happens in November.

Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Carly Fiorina looks on during a debate with U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer on September 1. (Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The e-mail from the Fiorina campaign Friday didn’t exactly sound like a ringing endorsement:

“Proposition 23 is a Band-Aid fix and an imperfect solution to addressing our nation’s climate and energy challenges. The real solution to these challenges lies not with a single state taking action on its own, but rather with global action. That’s why we need a comprehensive, national energy solution that funds energy R&D and takes advantage of every source of domestic energy we have – including nuclear, wind and solar – in an environmentally responsible way. That said, AB 32 is undoubtedly a job killer, and it should be suspended.”

Political reporters are reading that as a “Yes” on Proposition 23, the state ballot measure intended to freeze the state’s greenhouse gas regulations under AB 32.  But you could be forgiven for thinking she’s not really hot for the prop. Coming out against the state’s 2006 climate law isn’t necessarily an endorsement of Prop 23, since the former can be suspended — at least temporarily — without a referendum. Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has vowed to suspend AB 32 by executive order, if she’s elected governor. Whitman has said she is leaning toward voting against Proposition 23 but has not taken an official position (Democratic candidates in both the senate and gubernatorial races oppose the measure).

The problem for a Republican candidate — as the Los Angeles Times puts it — is the split between some party loyalists who like the idea of suspending AB 32, and the hordes of independent voters in this state who support environmental measures. For instance, the Public Policy Institute of California found that two-thirds of Californians polled in July favored AB 32.

Conservative talk-radio hosts John and Ken of KFI 640 in Southern California are putting a lot of public pressure on Fiorina and Whitman for hemming and hawing on climate change. Think of all those voters, cooking in traffic, while listening to this:

That’s John and Ken.

Then there’s David and Charles, brothers, oil magnates, and “Tea Party” backers recently profiled by the New Yorker. They’ve donated $1 million to support Proposition 23. So far, the campaign has raised more than $8 million. 97% of that comes from oil interests; 89% from out of state.

The Economist notes that, in 2008, Carly Fiorina was a supporter of cap-and-trade limits on greenhouse-gas emissions (as were/are a number of Republicans.) The magazine adds:

“It is impossible, in 2010, to retain the votes of much of the Republican base while admitting that humans are causing the world to get warmer by burning fossil fuels.”

The thing is, there are Republicans, notably California’s outgoing governor, who self-identify as environmentalists. Who decided for the California GOP that a candidate’s position on Prop 23 should be a litmus test?