Comments on: California PUC Votes Against Passage of Upcoming Renewable Energy Ballot Proposal

By: Kelly

Kelly — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:33:40 +0000

"excessively rigid" and "potentially unworkable". AB32, our current "first in the world" piece of legislation requiring IOU's to meet an RPS of 20% by 2010 has fallen off in terms of regulation. Utilities dropped from about 14% down to the current 10.9% in the past years and don't face much penalty for non-compliance, an under-whopping $25 million maximum fine. These companies already paid that much in their opposition campaign to avoid a more "rigid" penalty in the future that lifts the $25mil. cap. Not excessive, simply fair. These companies can handle that amount easily and it's part of the reason why they haven't utilized more renewables. As to "potentially unworkable"… it's going to work. It simply amends current law so that the law DOES work and CONTINUES to work well. It addresses what hasn't worked in past legislation and provides solutions. This is another reason why there is so much opposition, the fix to the problems is coming from outside of traditional groups that have failed to amend the problems. Big bruise to egos when an outsider comes in and fixes things insiders have gotten wrong – intentionally or not.

By: trotzalot

trotzalot — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:24:59 +0000

I think the best thing to do is to read the initiative and maybe get some unbiased info from ballot pedia: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_…. The juicy info we're really getting from this article is the fact that the utilities are funding the opposition (of course – why would they want to be penalized for not meeting the RPS standards and just producing Cali energy from nuclear plants?). So basically – the utility companies are going to say whatever they want incl. that the bill is poorly written – to defeat Prop 7. Muy interesante. Better to read up on your own!

By: Green Experience

Green Experience — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:15:44 +0000

I'm all for clean energy, but if the bill was unanimously voted against, and it was poorly written, then that's fine. You can't just say you want clean energy, you need to make a workable plan to achieve it.