Propositions 7 and 10 are energy propositions; each of them intends to “do something” about our reliance on fossil fuels. Each of them is too expensive, counterproductive in detail, and overly benefits third parties at the expense of the California consumer – so I’m against them.
Prop 7 mandates that all California utilities purchase 20% of their capacity from renewable energy sources by 2010. In 2000, renewable energy amounted to approximately 11.8% of the electricity production, and in 2006-7, electricity amounted to 25% of the total state energy budget – meaning that renewables amounted to approximately 3% of the state energy budget.
This bill mandates that 20% be from those sources in 2010 – basically in 15 months. So the suggestion is that we will raise the level of renewable energy generated in the state by a fact or of 6x in a little over a year. Even if we say that it’s by the end of 2010, and that it’s a little over two years, it’d ridiculous.
It will lead to a landrush of half-baked energy projects that we’ll pay for in our utility bills for the next 20 years.
I’d firmly support an initiative that did 3 things – set aside funds to restructure the state electricity transmission infrastructure; do environmental clearance and preplanning for two to three nuclear plants; and budgeted funds to bring renewables online subject to certain economic criteria (i.e. seed equity for renewables projects).
This isn’t that initiative.
Prop 10 is the T. Boone Pickens-supported initiative that will provide $5 billion in GO bonds to a) incent consumers to buy NGV and other alt-fuel vehicles; b) provide research grants for energy R & D and education.
Pickens is betting big on natural-gas powered cars. I like NGV’s – they are far greener than my hybrid, for example, and if you’ve ever read Amory Lovins’ “Soft Energy Paths,” they offer a potential roadmap to a hydrogen-based transportation system.
But subsidizing the purchase of NGV’s to help Picken’s investments in the natural-gas business seems like a little much. I do think the state can act in some ways – by subsidizing public natural gas pumping stations as well as the purchase of home devices that compress residential natural gas into CNG. But this seems like a stretch, particularly in a time when the state is having trouble servicing it’s current obligations.
I’m voting yes on prop 7 because it is time we do something major to clean up our electricity generation. It is important that all utility companies be expected to follow the same clean rules because we are running out of time. We only have 10 years before we can’t do anything about global warming!
Uh, wow.
Leaving aside the issue of whether we only have ten years (and with the understanding that ordinarily I would contest this point, or more accurately laugh at its brazen assertion), AL’s point is that just saying “thou shalt buy renewables” is not enough to make it so. Serious power generation projects take time and effort to prepare and implement, and there’s only so much capacity to do so. This is doubly true for a state where new development is likely to run into environmental objections – it doesn’t take many people complaining about wind farm bird killing or the filing of the appropriate environmental impact statements for putting solar collectors out in the desert to slow things down a great deal.
It’s also possible, though one hopes unlikely, that some idiot judge would take the 20% mandate as saying “the utilities are not permitted to generate more than 80% of their power from non-renewables, even if there are no more renewable power sources to be purchased, and thus must cut their total power output.” Would make some environmentalists happy, to be sure, but doubtless would prove more annoying to the millions of people left without air conditioning in the middle of summer.
Possibly a better method would be to set aside a certain amount of budget to encourage the development of cost-effective green power (if you can come up with a CHEAP green power source, you won’t need government mandates to get people to use it). Worse, but still better than the proposed initiative, would be a tax on power that went to fund green power alternatives. Neither are really things that should be the topic of initiatives, however; if you want it that bad, talk to your state representatives. If they won’t pass it, well, maybe they’ve got a good reason!
Lauren,
Current government passed the Patriot act in response to 9/11. A lot of people have said it is horrible legislation passed under the pretense and force of “We MUST do something NOW!”. And look at all of the problems and challenges which have come from it. People complaining of infringement of civil liberties because of it, etc.
In a similar way, the government passed this economic bailout bill. The same mindset “We MUST do this NOW!” or everything was going to come tumbling down. Maybe, maybe not, but there was little interest in looking to whether a better plan existed than this one, which may have cost less.
I hear the same idea in your statement, that a perceived threat to the environment, which this proposal will not even come close to solving, is reason to pass something, because we MUST to SOMETHING. Speaking from another state, I’d rather see your state figure out something that will truly work and can serve as a model to the rest of the country, not as an example of another blind rush to fix the problem, which will be held up as the latest ‘what to not do.’
Unfortunately, I see Avatar’s prediction coming true. That this will be used to cap energy production so that the requirement is met, which will burden many people.
I agree with Lauren we really need to start doing something. I actually just moved so i won’t be voting at all but i still have a affinity for California and for the world. I would vote yes as well! I will admit that some of the global warming scare might be worked up a bit by the liberal illuminati who are trying to feed their propaganda but you can’t really deny that there is an importance in taking care of our planet. Sooner or later is we keep exploiting instead of caring for our planet something crazy is going to happen. I think voting yes for something like this might not fix it all but it’s a step in the right direction. YES!
EW, aka E.W.: Please stick to one nickname here. Thanks.
Also, the “liberal illuminati” expression and its variations are getting a bit overworked by you and some other contributors. I recommend you drop the cant and stick closer to substance. Thanks for that, as well.
–Marshal Nortius “Big Tuna” Maximus, acting in official capacity.