California Energy propositions....

Today’s post: Wednesday, 10-8-2008

All or most of the readers of this blog are ardent supporters of renewable energy.

Here in California there are 2 propositions that seem to be favorable to renewable energy.

Proposition 7 says it will boost the installation of renewable energy. And the campaign for it says so and that the utilities that oppose it are doing so because they don’t want renewable energy.

Proposition 10 says it will increase the use of renewable fuels for cars and trucks. And, the radio ad for it makes it out to be a good thing for renewable energy.

So, it would seem as if people who support renewable energy would vote for both of them.

But two of the organizations that most strongly support renewable energy and have the staff to analyze these two propositions BOTH urge a NO vote on each of them.

Here’s the overview from the Union of Concerned Scientists.:


“Based on our thorough analysis of each proposition, the Union of Concerned Scientists urges you to vote:

NO on Proposition 7, which is loophole-ridden and so poorly drafted that it could actually hinder the development of new clean, renewable energy sources in California, like solar and wind power.

NO on Proposition 10, which would throw 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.

Since I have not seen the details of the propositions, I then emailed the Sierra Club for their analysis.:

“No on Prop. 7: So Close, Yet So Far Away

By Jim Metropulos, Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California


Normally, Sierra Club volunteers and staff would eagerly line up behind a measure proposing that half of California’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2025.

But Proposition 7, an initiative on the November ballot, doesn’t do enough to save our state and our planet from fossil fuel dependence. In fact, by cementing loopholes that would hold back the growth of the renewable energy industry, it actually could worsen our current energy situation.

Proposition 7:

1. Contains serious, inherent flaws that could get in the way of achieving its goal of 50% renewable fuels by 2025.
2. Actually works against Sierra Club-backed energy policies that would allow communities to choose the source of their energy.
3. Decreases environmental review of proposed power plants.

The lack of a sound, steady source of funding represents one major flaw that’s sure to get in the way of a 50% renewables goal. Instead of setting up such a funding stream, Prop. 7 would force renewable power generators to depend upon an uncertain system of penalty monies. It also locks in energy rate raises to just 3% annually, even though there are no limits for nonrenewable power sources.

Existing loopholes in enforcement and archaic policies that tie the price of renewable energy to the price of natural gas-generated energy would be locked in place. In fact, Prop. 7 even lowers some penalties.

Prop. 7 also would obstruct Sierra Club’s efforts to establish community choice for energy policy, since it removes local control over energy policy. Community choice promises to increase the energy-buying power of local communities, giving them more authority.

Consider how a neighborhood “co-op” store is able to stock more grocery choices because it has more buying power than a smaller store operated by one family. Similarly, a community that bands together could have more choice over what type of energy it chooses to buy.

Lastly, Prop. 7 would decrease environmental protections, in the guise of “streamlining” the permitting process for renewable power. Local chapters wouldn’t be able to introduce new evidence of environmental harm when appealing a proposed permit.

Sierra Club isn’t standing alone against this potentially harmful law. The Union of Concerned Scientists, California League of Conservation Voters, and Natural Resources Defense Council, among other groups, have taken a stand against Prop. 7. California’s Democratic and Republican parties and major utilities also oppose Prop. 7.

Voters should defeat Prop. 7 and clear the way for real progress on renewable power.”


“Vote No on Proposition 10: The Wrong Road Toward Cleaner Vehicles.

by Jim Metropulos, Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California

Sierra Club opposes Proposition 10, The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act, because it would put California on the wrong road to cleaner vehicles.

Proposition 10 would provide $5 billion in general obligation bonds for four main purposes: 1) alternative fuel vehicles rebates and research ($3.425 billion), 2) renewable energy ($1.25 billion), 3) renewable energy demonstration ($200 million), and 4) "clean tech" education and training ($125 million).

The primary proponent and funder of the initiative is Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which, according to its website, is the largest provider of natural gas for transportation in North America, and also builds and operates natural gas fueling stations.

The initiative’s backer would benefit financially from its passage, because the main thrust of the measure is to provide close to $3 billion dollars in bond funds to be distributed as rebates to buyers of “clean alternative fuel vehicles.”

The measure has several drawbacks. First, the initiative sets a low bar for “clean alternative vehicles,” which it says must produce “no net material increase in air pollution” relative to gasoline or diesel. Vehicles that meet this standard would do little, if anything, to reduce air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions in the state.

Second, the state already provides significant incentives for natural gas and alternative-fuel vehicles, including a $200 million clean fuels program paid for by fees.
Third, we question the use of bond funds for rebates. Traditionally, bond funds pay for large public works projects that would normally be too expensive for the state to afford. Proposition 10 doesn’t set up a system to pay back the state’s big borrowing; instead it relies on future state tax collections.

Last, we worry that Proposition 10 could lead to the creation of environmentally harmful dams, as it includes all classes of hydroelectric power as renewable energy. This conflicts with existing state law that generally limits the “renewable” designation to smaller hydroelectric installations, and to facilities that don’t impound additional water. Defining dams as “renewable” could also create confusion in utilities’ attempts to comply with the California Renewable Portfolio Standard law.

Prop. 10’s promise of more clean alternative vehicles sounds good on its surface. However, the initiative would accomplish little to facilitate real, sound alternative energy or technologies, and its reliance on long-term borrowing for short-term benefits and potentially obsolete technology would put us on the wrong road.

Joining Sierra Club in opposing Proposition 10 are the League of Women Voters, California Nurses Association, California Federation of Teachers, Consumer Federation of California, Consumer Watchdog, the Utility Reform Network, and California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.”

X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X*

These 2 propositions that seem to be favorable to renewable energy each have two major flaws.

They each add narrow and inflexible rules that are not in place now that will prevent the kind of multiple efforts and, in their early stages, experimental, efforts to bring renewable energy online.

That’s devastatingly bad. For that reason alone, please join me in voting no on these two propositions.

The second one is nearly as bad. You cannot get good effects by legislating laws that cause problems if the realities of the situation don’t match the assumptions on which the laws are based. Both of these propositions do that.

Utilities will leave the state or go bankrupt if you make it illegal to increase prices when their costs go up. And, global warming looks very likely to make hydropower in California very unreliable within the next few decades. Further, mandating natural gas as a fuel already looks likely to be undesirable due to the development of renewable biofuels and electric cars and plug-in hybrids that run on solar or wind generated electricity.

So, please vote no on California propositions 7 and 10.