Elections in California |
---|
California Proposition 7, would have required California utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. In order to make that goal, levels of production of solar, wind and other renewable energy resources would more than quadruple from their current[ when?] output of 10.9%. [1] It would also require California utilities to increase their purchase of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2% annually to meet Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements of 40% in 2020 and 50% in 2025. Current law AB32 requires an RPS of 20% by 2010.
The 42 page measure, 7 pages of which is new law, is an initiated state statute that had qualified for the November 2008 ballot in California, [2] and was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.
The California Legislative Analyst's Office, the nonpartisan state agency charged with providing a neutral estimate about the fiscal impact on the state of ballot initiatives and state legislative bills, has arrived at the following summary of Prop. 7's estimated costs:
The official committee supporting Prop 7 is called Californians for Solar and Clean Energy.
For the full list of supporters, see: List of Proposition 7 supporters
The primary financial backer of the initiative is Peter Sperling.
As of September 18, two donors have contributed $5,000 or more to support Prop. 7. They are:
Jim Gonzalez, founding partner of the political consulting firm Jim Gonzalez & Associates in Sacramento, is the initiative's chief spokesperson. [6]
The official committee opposing Prop. 7 is called Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme.
See also: List of Proposition 7 opponents.
As of August 2, three donors are listed as having given $5,000 or more to defeat this initiative. [11] They are:
The opposition coalition as of July 14, 2008 had paid about $175,000 to the campaign consulting firm of Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher. [15]
A poll released on July 22, 2008 by Field Poll showed Proposition 7 with 63% support and 24% opposition. 82% of those surveyed had no initial awareness of Proposition 7. [16]
Month of Poll | In Favor | Opposed | Undecided |
---|---|---|---|
July 2008 | 63 percent | 24 percent | 13 percent |
The petition drive to qualify the measure for the ballot was conducted by Progressive Campaigns, Inc. at a cost of $1.367 million. [24]
Supporters and opponents of Proposition 7 filed lawsuits in Sacramento Superior Court regarding the wording of ballot arguments that voters will see in the official voter's guide. [25]
The lawsuit filed by proponents of Proposition 7 claimed that the opposition’s ballot arguments contained false and misleading statements that should have been deleted. Specifically, proponents sued over the opponents' claim that small renewable providers would be shut out of the market. Noting that there is no language in the measure that states that, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny refused to take sides on the issue. [26]
The lawsuit filed by opponents of Proposition 7 wanted the removal of three statements in the voter's guide:
The opponent's petition was denied in its entirety, with Judge Kenny stating that the opponents had not sufficiently established that those statements were misleading.
The campaign against Proposition 7 has drawn questions about the ties between Pacific Gas & Electric, Sempra, and Southern Cal Edison, and the main environmental groups that have come out against the measure. Articles from the late nineties and 2000-2001 linking the Natural Resources Defense Council to the passage of electricity deregulation, leading to the energy crisis over which Governor Gray Davis was recalled, have resurfaced, leading some to question the veracity of the environmental opposition. [1], [2]. Still more question the independence of groups like the CA League of Conservation Voters (CLVC), the Sierra Club,[ citation needed] and Acterra, which have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from either the utilities funding the No on Prop 7 campaign or other major energy companies, and have overlapping board memberships with the utilities. [3]
Opponents to Proposition 7 deflect the charge of greenwashing by pointing to the California Green Party's opposition. [4]
Choice | Votes | % |
---|---|---|
No | 8,155,181 | 64.43 |
Yes | 4,502,235 | 35.57 |
Valid votes | 12,657,416 | 92.10 |
Invalid or blank votes | 1,085,761 | 7.90 |
Total votes | 13,743,177 | 100.00 |
Elections in California |
---|
California Proposition 7, would have required California utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. In order to make that goal, levels of production of solar, wind and other renewable energy resources would more than quadruple from their current[ when?] output of 10.9%. [1] It would also require California utilities to increase their purchase of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2% annually to meet Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements of 40% in 2020 and 50% in 2025. Current law AB32 requires an RPS of 20% by 2010.
The 42 page measure, 7 pages of which is new law, is an initiated state statute that had qualified for the November 2008 ballot in California, [2] and was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.
The California Legislative Analyst's Office, the nonpartisan state agency charged with providing a neutral estimate about the fiscal impact on the state of ballot initiatives and state legislative bills, has arrived at the following summary of Prop. 7's estimated costs:
The official committee supporting Prop 7 is called Californians for Solar and Clean Energy.
For the full list of supporters, see: List of Proposition 7 supporters
The primary financial backer of the initiative is Peter Sperling.
As of September 18, two donors have contributed $5,000 or more to support Prop. 7. They are:
Jim Gonzalez, founding partner of the political consulting firm Jim Gonzalez & Associates in Sacramento, is the initiative's chief spokesperson. [6]
The official committee opposing Prop. 7 is called Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme.
See also: List of Proposition 7 opponents.
As of August 2, three donors are listed as having given $5,000 or more to defeat this initiative. [11] They are:
The opposition coalition as of July 14, 2008 had paid about $175,000 to the campaign consulting firm of Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher. [15]
A poll released on July 22, 2008 by Field Poll showed Proposition 7 with 63% support and 24% opposition. 82% of those surveyed had no initial awareness of Proposition 7. [16]
Month of Poll | In Favor | Opposed | Undecided |
---|---|---|---|
July 2008 | 63 percent | 24 percent | 13 percent |
The petition drive to qualify the measure for the ballot was conducted by Progressive Campaigns, Inc. at a cost of $1.367 million. [24]
Supporters and opponents of Proposition 7 filed lawsuits in Sacramento Superior Court regarding the wording of ballot arguments that voters will see in the official voter's guide. [25]
The lawsuit filed by proponents of Proposition 7 claimed that the opposition’s ballot arguments contained false and misleading statements that should have been deleted. Specifically, proponents sued over the opponents' claim that small renewable providers would be shut out of the market. Noting that there is no language in the measure that states that, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny refused to take sides on the issue. [26]
The lawsuit filed by opponents of Proposition 7 wanted the removal of three statements in the voter's guide:
The opponent's petition was denied in its entirety, with Judge Kenny stating that the opponents had not sufficiently established that those statements were misleading.
The campaign against Proposition 7 has drawn questions about the ties between Pacific Gas & Electric, Sempra, and Southern Cal Edison, and the main environmental groups that have come out against the measure. Articles from the late nineties and 2000-2001 linking the Natural Resources Defense Council to the passage of electricity deregulation, leading to the energy crisis over which Governor Gray Davis was recalled, have resurfaced, leading some to question the veracity of the environmental opposition. [1], [2]. Still more question the independence of groups like the CA League of Conservation Voters (CLVC), the Sierra Club,[ citation needed] and Acterra, which have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from either the utilities funding the No on Prop 7 campaign or other major energy companies, and have overlapping board memberships with the utilities. [3]
Opponents to Proposition 7 deflect the charge of greenwashing by pointing to the California Green Party's opposition. [4]
Choice | Votes | % |
---|---|---|
No | 8,155,181 | 64.43 |
Yes | 4,502,235 | 35.57 |
Valid votes | 12,657,416 | 92.10 |
Invalid or blank votes | 1,085,761 | 7.90 |
Total votes | 13,743,177 | 100.00 |