♪ ♪ welcome to beyond the headlines, i'm cheryl jennings. every week we focus on a different topic on people that live and work in the bay area.

election day is fast approaching. millions will head to the polls november 2. today we're going to focus on one of more talked about ballot measures, proposition 32. it would implement the greenhouse law. >> later on from the show we'll hear on 23 campaign and we'll also hear from the opposition.ky lisa amin gulezian filed in september on proposition 23. >> on september 23 the, proposition 23 was on many minds. >> no on prop 23 campaign held 80 get out the vote parties all over the state. this one was in palo alto. >> it's about stopping big oil. >> major oil companies are

backing prop 23 that aims to suspend the greenhouse gas emission law. >> ab-32 was supposed to take into effect in 2012 to bring out greenhouse gasnationwide 1990 levels by 2020. >> its job killer. it needs to be suspended. that is exactly where our campaign is coming from. >> the yes on 23 campaign insists now is not the time to put limitations on companies by adding regulation. the executive director of california's national federation of independent businesses says the unemployment rate will rise above the current 12% with ab-32 because small business owners can't afford the guidelines right now. >> new costs in electricity, now costs in natural gas, new costs in gasoline, all of affect those mom and pops. >> the emissions from large

power sources and trying to find a solution. >> its hot button issue and joining to us talk about the details of proposition 23 and the politics around it, mark matthews. thank you for being here. i know you've been studying this issue. for those of us that don't know it, it's very confusing but one more time, can you just walk us through prop 23. >> to do that you have to know what ab-32 is. it set greenhouse gas emission standards for 2020 and ab-32 sets rules, in spleos of setting those rules now for completing those goals by 2020. prop 23 would suspend, postpone ab-32 until the unemployment level drops to 5.5% and stays there for a year which has not happened. >> we have a huge unemployment

rate right now. >> that is big goal so it would suspend ab-32 for the foreseeable future. >> who is supporting this, who is behind this? >> three main companies, both oust texas and petrochemical company owned and controlled by david and charles coke. they are billionaires and out of kansas. they've been in the oil business since their father started. >> so for them this would mean money for them, they don't have to pay to clean up.... >> it would be money for oil companies, oil refineries for a number of companies that now rely on carbon based energy that will become more expensive when ab-32 rules kick in. people who are in cement big, truckers, anybody who uses a

large amount of energy that is fired by natural gas or coal or other carbon based fuels will be paying more. >> so how about the gubernatorial race. who is for what in this? >> meg whitman has said that she does not support 23 but she would under the rules that suspend ab-32 for a year because of the economic impact. they say be a 32 will have a negative effect in the short term and perhaps in the long term. it depends how fast green tech grows. it's a rapidly expanding portion of the economy, relatively overall economy but a small part. it's growing faster than the rest of the economy but not enough to make up for the jobs and the economy that would bert

hurt by ab 32. >> how about in terms of funding >> it's been pretty even. i saw the latest poll out end of last week or first part of this week showed it dip a little bit. prop 23 had but before then it was pretty even. >> from your, vantage point, if proposition 23 bad or good for california? >> it depends on which side of your fence on. i'm a political reporter so i'm not going take sides. i think that -- >> i put you on the spot. >> i'm not going to give you an opinion it ought to go. you can look at who is funding it and look who is funding the other side. green tech is funding the other side. a lot of environmental groups. they want to push for more green energy and they think that ab-32

will promote the development of green energy and other side is saying that economy is suffering and we can't take any more of a hit. >> mike, thank you so much. i know i put you on the spot. that was a great answer. we do have a take a break. we'll continue our discussion with an advocate of proposition 23. stay with us, we'll be right [ female announcer ] this is a strawberry pop tart. but this is warm, fresh-baked

strawberry toaster strudel. [ music ] see the difference? pillsbury toaster strudel, the one kids want to eat. and these e the ones you'll love on a school night pillsbury ham and cheese crescents with just a few ingredients, you have an easy to make dinner. they're crescents for the other 364. try them tonight.

welcome back to beyond the headlines, we've been talking about an important issue, proposition 23 which if pass left side reverse the greenhouse gas reduction law, ab-32. we want to hear more information from both sides. joining us now in the studio for yes on 23 is john yandel of yandel truck inning oakland. tell me about your business?

>> my family business was started 65 years ago. we work solely in the state of california. that is why this proposition is important to us because all of our business is focused in the state of california. >> why do you think it should pass? >> we have spent the last four years working with the california inner resources board on many regulations we have. the one that is last in this proposition is called the truck-bus rule that doesn't fall under the auspices of ab-so we have so much expense and coming it is very difficult for us to try and manage these costs. we certainly can't pass them along to anybody. we are trying to spread these costs over a little more extended period of time. >> tell me about this, the bus-truck rule.

i want people to understand what it means. >> the truck-bus rule, tying that what they call the off-road rule, where people look the trucks and look at emissions coming through the stack. it mandates us to have 2007 engine standard and 2010. the technology and work that has been done on that has been dramatic. we're forced to do that, we're going to go through with it and complete that. at the same time, coupled with especially on proposition 22, there is a greenhouse gas regulation, five key elements of that. those are additional costs where we would have to take our trailers and retrofit them with devices, working the business in bay area, there will be no return on investment. >> what is the example of the cost? >> first off, let's go back to

the truck-bus rule, somewhere in the neighborhood of the one truck, probably $125,000. i have 125 trucks. we're being asked to retrofit aerodynamic devices and low resistant tires on the trailers. that is $6,000 per vehicle. i have 350 of those. again, that is going to be mandated for new equipment, i have to go back and retrofit all the equipment that we have. i will say with the economy, it makes it very difficult. >> i know would people would say that are opposed to this that will cut your profits but you shouldn't be polluting anyway? >> what profit is that. >> the profit margin is very slim but that is what the argument might be, how do you come back with that? >> when you say the argument is -- here is mark talked aboutl we're talking about all the big

players. let's get down to the consumers and small business. the expense that we have, you look at the consumer loans, this proposition if it goes through and we're looking at 60-70% increase in electricity and natural gas, if it goes to the low carbon standard which we will in time, we're asking to suspend this a little about it, that will be between gasoline and diesel fuel an increase to the state of california of $3.7 billion per year. i don't know where that is going to come from. i have customers asking for decrease in the rates we're asking to spread this out. >> time is what you're looking at. >> we can't go through the 20th century, industrial revolution and go green overnight. >> what kind of time frame are you talking about and how will it affect jobs? >> one of the issues, when you

look at proposition 23, california jobs initiative, you look at the fact that california has a deficit of $20 billion, leading the nation in lost jobs, foreclosures and debt. i think the timetable probably needs to go twice as long as it does to spread some of these costs. we're anticipating that the economy is going to recover. i haven't seen the light at the end of the tunnel. >> all right, john you make a great case. we're going to hear from the other side of this issue and bring you back in a little while. we'll have to take a quick break. coming up we'll hear from an opponent of the proposititititit

[ female announcer ] this is a strawberry pop tart. but this is warm, fresh-baked strawberry toaster strudel. [ music ] see the difference? pillsbury toaster strudel,

the one kids want to eat. than listening there'to our favorite songs. there's nothing we love more than listening to our favorite songs. but our favorite thing is eating totino's pizza rolls. but our favorite thing is eating totino's pizza rolls. ♪ we're the kids in america ♪ oh, oh, oh welcome back. i'm cheryl jennings. we're talking about proposition 23. with us in the studio is an opponent of prop 23. >> my company designs and installs solar and electric and hot water systems in the bay area. >> you have been listening to the discussion about proposition 23? >> i have been. >> and you are against it? >> i am against it. i think it's actually a jobs killer. i believe that we can't afford

it right now. we green collar jobs are growing and expanding, other jobs in the economy and we're vibrant part of the economy. proposition 23 will put on the brakes and we'll lose jobs as a result of it. >> you're talking about green jobs. and something like this could put his company out of business because of enormous costs? >> one of the things we need to think about is that innovation and fossil fuels, fossil fuels we need to use fewer of them over time. there isr quality is a huge issue. i own a small business. i understand that it's very difficult to run a small

business in this economy. it's very difficult to make payroll and difficult to pass any costs, but the reality is in order for california to stay competitive we need to look forward and we need to prepare for the long haul. the long haul is that we need need to be geared for a more competitive economy using innovation. this proposition was written by and is proposed by texas oils companies, they wrote it. they are the ones that paid to it put it on the ballot. at this think we should be looking at the money. that is texas money and that is not california interests. >> how would a no vote on proposition 23 affect businesses? >> a no vote on proposition 23 will keep the law, ab-32 on the books. it won't -- proposition 23

doesn't get to suspend ab-32, it doesn't hit the pause button, it hits the delete button. the unemployment rate that proposition 23 is talking about, to require that for four quarters, that hasn't happened in 30 years. that is not realistic. it doesn't make an argument. >> largest sector of venture capitalists is green energy. where would that money go? >> mass mass. california is the leader in the nation of green collar jobs. we are getting private investment at a phenomenal rate and that is growing innovation and creating new products that are actually helpful for the environment. it's creating the innovation

that will help many people. it's working on innovative fuels. all of that money has been coming in because there has been a supportive environment for innovation and creation of jobs in the state of california. that will go. it will be gone. >> i understand that prop 22 is a dirty energy proposition? >> i do call it that way. we should be voting no. >> you have to explain that for people. >> i understand. the reason that i call it the dirty energy proposition is because it is being funded by dirty energy. looking beyond dirty energy, the clean tech sector is a vibrant growing sector. it's now seen as a threat. i think that california is now the front line for texas oil. what is right for california is for california to continue to

grow our economy, grow our jobs, create opportunities. provide jobs that are long term jobs that have innovation and make it possible for our children to have a good standard of living by having a jobs and vibrant economy that will be here for later. we need to be making those decisions and need to be retooling now, not 30 years from now. >> many more questions to ask you and john. we'll have you both together in just a moment, but we do have to take another break. when we come back we'll have both to wrap things up for us about proposition 22 and beyond the headlines. we'll be right back.

welcome back. today we've been talking about a measure that would stop the state's greenhouse law and that

is proposition 23 and we have both sides represented here today. >> we have the two of you together now. i want to start with you, if proposition 23 does not pass, how is that going to affect california families? >> i think it's going to affect them, we have looked that it's going to be dramatic cost, $3800 per household. if you take a look at the households, it would be the dynamics. the energy, your fuel costs are going up. certainly as far as our business is concerned, it will probably be, in our situation, where we will lay people off. we will probably downsize the business because there would be

the board rules, there is an overcapacity in the marketplace. until we see this economy rebound hopefully at some point in time and the fact that... we see the light at the end of the tunnel we're not excited about that. again, there is no way to basically pass these costs along at this point in time. especially when we have to do them all at one time. now, what will the affect on families if it passes? >> both short term and long term having a vibrant economy an economy that is well poised for the future, it will cost families more over the long haul. all of us have to take the investment, be wise how we use our funds and grow the economy.

right now what we need to do is grow the economy, have innovation and create opportunity by creating new jobs. we should be saying yes to the investment that is coming in to california. we should be saying yes to the investment that helping us retool our economy and create opportunity and new jobs. these are well paying jobs. these are jobs that come across the entire spectrum, from all walks of life. >> we have about a minute each for closing arguments at this point. john, let's start with you. >> i think the closing argument in reference to the comment that was just made, green jobs are approximately 1% of the jobs in california, what are we going to do to put the 2.3 million people back to work that are currently out of jobs. a yes vote on prop 23 will be a

common sense approach to safeguard the existing environmental programs. i think save billions of dollars and more than a million jobs in the state of california going forward. >> i think we should look where the money is coming from to support proposition 23. i think that a vote for no is right for california. over 90% of the money is coming from texas oil. texas oiloney out taken money of california for decades. california needs to promote california. look at the coalition that is against proposition 23. the american lung association, we have the san francisco chamber of commerce. we have small business california, these are not fringe organizations, these are organizations run by people who have an interest in health and safety and long term viability and long term viability of small

business in california and small business like john and you are the largest job creaters in california. we're not going to resolve the debate right here but thank you for your information and making us aware about both sides of this. we appreciate it. >> unfortunately we are out of time but a special thank you to our guests today. that is it for this week's edition of beyond the headlines. information about proposition 23 is available at our website at www.abc7.com. all the information is on our website at www.abc7.com. i'm cheryl jennings. have a great week. bye for now.

[ female announcer ] the sweet moments package is baby blue. calming. tranquil like the sky. but look within and you will find exploding baked chocolate indulgence. coated with sinfulness. oozing with decadence. ooo! observe the dainty birds and tiny curly cues. but look within you will find primal forces of chocolate. instantly satisfying every iota of yearning. new pillsbury sweet moments, brownie bites and bowls. in the refrigerated section.