Text By JEFFREY BALL
In a last-ditch effort to sway California voters, major oil refiners are writing big checks to support a ballot measure that would postpone a state plan to cap greenhouse-gas emissions.
But financiers who invest in alternative energy, as well as environmental groups, are spending about three times as much to try to defeat the measure. And recent polls suggest they may be gaining the upper hand in the battle, which so far has cost more than $42 million.
California's law forcing greenhouse-gas cuts is set to take effect in 2012, and analysts said it already has spurred investment in renewable-energy projects, such as solar farms, in the state. The ballot initiative would delay the law until the state's jobless rate, now 12.4%, remains at or below 5.5% for a year. Unemployment hasn't been that low since September 2007.
In a mid-October poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan research organization, 48% of likely voters said they would vote against the measure and 37% said they would vote for it. The margin of error was 3.5%.
In September, when the institute asked the same question, voters were almost evenly split.
In the last two weeks, those fighting the ballot measure have collected several million dollars, bringing their total donations to $31.9 million, according to the California Voter Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit election-research group.
Supporters of the initiative reported collecting $10.7 million, including $1 million on Oct. 22 from Valero Energy Corp., one of the country's largest refiners. The company has donated $5 million so far towards efforts to defeat the measure, making it the campaign's biggest backer. A spokesman for San Antonio-based Valero said capping emissions would raise production costs for U.S. oil refiners.
California's Legislative Analyst's Office, which assesses public policy, concluded in a July study that "economic activity in the state would likely be modestly higher" if voters approved the ballot measure than if they rejected it. The greenhouse-gas law would raise energy prices, though it's unclear by how much, the report said. However, the report said, postponing the greenhouse-gas law "could delay investments in clean technologies that might result in some cost savings to businesses and consumers."
For the alternative-energy industry, the greenhouse-gas law means a big new market. Part of California's plan to cut emissions would push producers of electricity and motor fuel to use more renewable energy, from solar to wind to biofuels.
Contributors to the campaign against the ballot measure include solar-panel makers, wind-power developers and electric-car makers. The big checks, though, have come from the investors and national environmental groups.
That side's biggest donor is Thomas Steyer, a San Francisco-based hedge-fund manager. He has given $5 million to the campaign, about as much as Valero gave to the other side, according to state records.
A spokesman for Mr. Steyer said his clean-energy holdings represent only a small percentage of his investments, and that he is working to defeat the ballot measure "for the very simple reason that he cares about California."
The National Wildlife Federation has given $3 million to the campaign to defeat the ballot measure.
Among other prominent donors against Proposition 23: Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who has given $1 million, and Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates, who has given $700,000.
A spokesman for Mr. Gates said that his donation "is consistent with his advocacy for continued progress toward low-carbon energy."
Mr. Khosla, asked whether he will give more before Tuesday's vote, said: "The more the oil companies [spend], the more the no-on-23 people will."
It's not unusual for prominent California ballot initiatives to draw tens of millions of dollars in contributions, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. But among the nine initiatives on Tuesday's California ballot, Proposition 23 had attracted the most money as of Oct. 17, when the foundation last analyzed the numbers.
One important factor in the measure's fate may be a sentiment among many Californians that efforts to curb climate change help the economy more than they hurt it, said Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California. In a September poll by the institute, 41% of likely voters said that "California doing things to reduce global warming" would result in more jobs, and 26% said it would result in fewer jobs. The margin of error was 3.6%.
That sentiment helps explain why drumming up voter support for the ballot measure has "turned out to be more complicated messaging than maybe the yes side had envisioned," Mr. Baldessare said.
Write to Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com
