I'm with you. Just in the process of plowing through the language of Prop. 87 in the voter information booklet (yes I actually read those things, with a magnifying glass because of that 6-pt type).
I haven't made it all the way through and I fell asleep trying to do so but I don't like what I read. For one thing, the governing authority is largely political appointees and exempt from a lot of usual government oversight. For another, it looks like the authority has the power to immediately begin selling bonds based on future income and an upper limit on how much could be bonded ($1B) was scratched. This means that theoretically it would be possible to sell bonds for the entire amount immediately and the unrealistic 10-year goal of 25% cut from 2005 would put a lot of pressure to do just that. What is interesting is that the authority is supposed to stop collecting the levy after $4B is collected (unless the law is renewed) but there is a provision that it can still continue collecting the levy if it has outstanding debts, bonds or otherwise to service. That seems to me to be a rather blank check for it and to encourage bonding. (Perhaps some bonding experts among the freepers can enlighten me on how this works. It's a very specialized--and lucrative--business for lawfirms and bond salesmen.)
The split is also rather interesting. Those percentages are in the plan but they apply only after the "debt servicing account" is first filled from the income. And there seems to be no real limits on what the bonds can cover so while it appears the levy is split among the four interests I think the bond servicing account might well skew that split considerably.
Obviously, the university and community college groups get priority in funds to build facilities, train faculty and give scholarships to "green" teachers and students. Then government and private fleets get to collect money to reimburse them for the extra cost of buying green vehicles.
There are other interesting provisions. It amends the state constitution which makes it harder to change and it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Assembly and the signature of the governor to change the law, which sounds like it might be impossible to change through that means. It also states that no one can challenge the validity of the law after six months from its effective date which would be January 1, 2007 if it passes. It also requires a two-year and ten-year plan to reduce greenhouse gases 25% over the 2005 level be finalized within nine months after the effective date of the bill so it would seem to stifle real public input and consideration. It further seems to indicate that the authority can collect the money from the producer but defines producer very broadly and it also says that if it can't collect from the producer, it can go as far as necessary down to the ultimate user which sounds to me like they could levy on gasoline pumps.
All in all it sets up quite a nice little kingdom for some lucky dictator wannabes. Pretty scary for my money. And, yes, it says that the levy cannot be passed on to the consumer and gives the authority the right to investigate what it considers unfair price hikes but the language is pretty milquetoast and not likely to be enforced if the right palms are greased.
No, no, no for my money too. I am tired of seeing parties use the initiative process to tax unpopular industries by appealing to emotions of voters and not to common sense.
Thank you for posting the recap. I decided to vote against it based on the summary descriptions and the LAO analysis. Your post has enlightened me to yet more reasons to vote NO! The part about no one being able to challenge the validity of the law after six months is the same kind of garbage that we got through the Stem-Cell initiative which has proven troublesome. I hope this thing goes down in flames.
I misspoke (miswrote?) about the 25% reduction over ten years goals. It isn't greenhouses gases but how much petroleum-based products are used that is to be reduced by 25%.