California Will Vote on Misleading Renewable Energy Initiatives

California Propositions 7 and 10 mislead voters with words like “renewable energy” and “alternative fuel”.

I like to think of myself as an informed voter. I always read the California General Election Official Voter Information Guide, but I am a sucker for anything with “renewable energy” or “alternative fuel” in the title (or childrens’ hospitals and farm animals).  When I first read about Propositions 7 and 10, I thought they sounded like good ballot initiatives.  Who wouldn’t want all utilities to be required to provide 50% renewable energy by 2025? It was only after I discovered leading environmental groups opposed these propositions that I began to question these statutes.

Proposition 7:  Renewable Energy Generation Initiative Statute

Requires utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations.

Raises requirement for utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025.

Imposes penalties, subject to waiver, for noncompliance.

Transfers some jurisdiction of regulatory matters from Public Utilities Commission to Energy Commission.

Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants.

Requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 year minimum) to procure renewable energy.

Creates account to purchase rights-of-way and facilities for the transmission of renewable energy.

The California Public Utilities Commission, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists are amongst many groups that have come out against Proposition 7.  The Sierra Club calls this ballot initiative:

A poorly drafted, poorly vetted measure that actually weakens California’s existing renewable power laws and could stall the growth of renewable power in our state. The goals contained within this measure are ambitious, but the proposition lacks the necessary provisions to achieve its target.

The Union of Concerned Scientists warns, “that it could actually hinder the development of new clean, renewable energy sources in California, like solar and wind power.” This proposition actually decreases the environmental review of proposed power plants. What will voters actually do when reading the summary of this ballot initiative on renewable energy?  Will they know it will force consumers to pay 10% above the market rate of power, or that it was put on the ballot by an out-of-state billionaire?  I fear the title and summary will sway voters into thinking this is a good proposition for our environment.

Proposition 10:  Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy Initative Statute

Provides $3.425 billion to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.

Provides $1.25 billion for research, development and production of renewable energy technology, primarily solar energy with additional funding for other forms of renewable energy; incentives for purchasing solar and renewable energy technology.

Provides grants to cities for renewable energy projects and to colleges for training in renewable and energy efficiency technologies.

Total funding provided is $5 billion from general obligation bonds.

This is another California ballot initiative that looks good on paper; we do need to develop alternative fuel vehicles.  The truth behind this proposition is that it is special interest legislation.  According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Prop 10 would give “nearly ten billion taxpayer dollars into a program promoting natural gas and other transportation fuels that could achieve little or no reductions in smog or global warming pollution.”  The Sierra Club reveals that, “The primary proponent and funder of the initiative is Clean Energy Fuels Corp“, the largest provider of natural gas for transportation in North America. This proposition does not require any clean air improvement.  Even State Treasurer Bill Lockyer and State Controller John Chiang oppose this ballot initiative:

In our judgment as California’s chief financial officers, Proposition 10 is harmful to California’s financial health. Every major conservation group agrees that Proposition 10 is misguided environmental policy.  But Proposition 10 is worse than that. Proposition 10 is an unwise effort to put our state government five billion dollars further in debt.

Prop 10 is an attempt to make a market for natural gas vehicles in the state of California, while leaving truly green car technologies behind.

With so many misleading ballot initiatives, voters must rely on organizations they trust to help them decipher the rhetoric.  When groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV), Environment California, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Sierra Club oppose propositions using the words “renewable energy” in their titles, it makes me think someone is trying to pull the wool over voters’ eyes. These propoitions appear to promise good things, but in actuality they would “accomplish little to facilitate real, sound alternative energy or technologies“.

Tweet This Post