NEW ENERGY ADVOCATES DEFEAT PHONY NEW ENERGY BILLS

The defeat of 2 ballot measures masquerading as good for the state and good for New Energy was another of the big successes in the 2008 California election.

The defeat of Propositions 7 and 10 was engineered by pro-New Energy, pro-environment groups in a benign if bizarre partnership with voters unwilling to spend for the measures regardless of their potential benefits for New Energy and for the environment.

Proposition 7 purported to boost the use of New Energy but the way it was written was confusing, leaving many with the impression it was a ruse of the nuclear energy industry or would disadvantage small and distributed New Energy systems. Groups like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council said 7’s requirement that utilities obtain 50% of their power from New Energy sources by 2025 was too severe.

Jim Metropulos, senior advocate, the Sierra Club: "People do want more clean, renewable power in California…I think people in California were able to see that Prop. 7, the way it was written, was not going to work."

10 asked Californians to fund bonds ($5 million) for New Energy vehicle infrastructure. New Energy proponents and environmentalists against the measure were counting on California voters' notorious reluctance to approve spending measures. In addition, the anti-10 side made it widely known that the measure would particularly benefit one of its major sponsors, Texas energy entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens.

7’s funding came largely from billionaire Arizona heir Peter Sperling ($9 million). It has been suggested Sperling’s motivation was primarily to create a greater imperative for California utilities to buy electricity from Arizona solar power plants.

Richard Holober, executive director, Consumer Federation of California: "This has proved that one special interest, no matter how rich it is, can't hoodwink Californians into passing a measure that just lines that interest's pockets…"

7 & 10 advocates argued the propositions were bold steps on behalf of New Energy and pointed out that powerful utilities were the biggest spenders against 7, especially Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E).

PG&E was one of the biggest contributors ($13.9 million) to the anti-7 campaign but is well known to be a New Eenrgy booster. Implication: The “no” position was the right side of the issue to be on.

In an election season that saw history made, the California propositions were once again cutting edge, controversial, complicated and - in the case of 8 - heartbreaking.

The good news: This is just the end of the beginning.

PG&E is one of the most pro-New Energy utilities in the country. (click to enlarge)

Renewable power, alternative fuel measures fail
David R. Baker, November 5, 2008 (SF Chronicle)
and
Calif. rejects clean power initiative
Samantha Young, November 5, 2008 (AP via San Diego Union-Tribune)

WHO
Jim Metropulos, senior advocate, the Sierra Club; Clean Energy Fuels (T. Boone Pickens, principal); Richard Holober, executive director, Consumer Federation of California; David Pettit, senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council; California League of Conservation Voters; California utilities (Pacific Gas & Electric Corp., Edison International, Sempra Energy); Peter Sperling, billionaire heir to the founder of the University of Phoenix

WHAT
California Propositions 7 and 10, bad for New Energy and bad for the environment though masquerading as good for both, were successfully defeated.

click to enlarge

WHEN
- The propositions were defeated in the November 4 national election that swept Barack Obama into the presidency but took the right to marry away from California’s same-sex couples.
- California’s current Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) requiring the state’s utilities to obtain 20% of their power from New Energy sources by 2010 is widely regarded as adequate to drive growth and the requirement of 50% by 2025 is considered unnecessary at present.

WHERE
- The propositions were on the California ballot.
- Sperling, funder for 7, is based in Arizona.
- Pickens, funder for 10, is based in Texas.

WHY
- 7 & 10 appeared to address popular California causes (energy, the environment and global climate change) but were met with resistance from New Energy advocates and environmental groups.
- California utilities, which would have had to bear the burden of 7’s requirements, also opposed it although they are among the biggest investors in New Energy in the U.S.
- 7’s funding came largely from billionaire Peter Sperling ($9 million).
- 10’s bonds would have funded the development of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles and Pickens has extensive holdings in natural gas and CNG vehicle technology.
- Clean Energy Fuels, Pickens’ company, was a primary 10 financial backer.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- David Pettit, senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council: “I think the voters were able to see through the feel good advertisements the proponents of both measures were putting out in the media and figure out what was really going on…”
- Amy Thoma, spokeswoman, pro-10 campaign: “We think Californians are supportive of moving toward to renewable technology but maybe the timing, at this time, wasn't amazing…”