California: NO on Props 7 & 10

Lessons for Other States

When Hiram Johnson, progressive governor of California from 1911-1917, added the state initiative (plus the referendum and recall) to allow for more "direct democracy", I wonder if he ever thought it would provide an avenue for rich out-of-staters to cash in on the Golden State. Propositions 7 and 10, if passed next Tuesday, could richly swell the coffers of an Arizona and a Texas billionaire. Furthermore, I wonder if he and his contemporaries could foresee California's collective influence on other states.

Proposition 7, the Solar and Clean Energy Act, is described in the CA 2008 Official Voter Information Guide and is supposedly intended to reduce use of coal, nuclear power and offshore drilling by increasing installations of solar and wind power.

However, Prop 7 favors large, utility-scale installations of 30MW or more. Today, 60% of all solar contracts are for smaller PV systems. This could force small renewable energy companies (dealer-installers) out of the California market, reducing competition and jobs. (This can already be seen on large projects where only SunPower, SPG Solar and Sun Edison corner the market.) There is no wording in Prop 7 to limit increases in electricity bills and it allows power providers to always charge 10% above market price for power, stifling competition for more renewable energy. Basically, Prop 7 would make the state more dependent on electricity from Arizona--power produced from coal and nuclear plants. Both state Democratic and Republican parties are against Prop 7 as are the CA League of Conservation Voters, CA Taxpayers Assn, even the state's investor-owned utilities, SCE, PG&E and SDG&E.

Proposition 10, the Alternative Fuel and Renewable Energy Act, is what might be called Prop Pickens. That's because Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens shelled out $3 million to get this initiative on the ballot. Prop 10 would take some $10 billion CA taxpayer dollars to subsidize large vehicles and trucks to run on natural gas, much of which is sold by, of course, Mr. Pickens. Despite claims to the contrary, the initiative is craftily written to exclude hybrids, plug-in hybrids, electric cars and true alternative fuels like vegetable oil and hydrogen.

Granted, natural gas burns cleaner than gasoline or diesel but it still is a fossil fuel that emits CO2 at combustion. Calling natural gas an alternative fuel is somewhat deceptive when the goal is to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. All in all, Prop 10 asks $9.8 billion from CA taxpayers: $5 billion in a 30-year bond from state's General Fund to which must added $4.8 billion in interest. This, from a state currently enduring an $8 billion budget shortfall.

Widespread Ramifications

More and more states are adopting clean energy portfolios that mandate less coal- (and nuclear) produced power for more natural-gas produced power. With more utilities switching to natural gas AND an increased demand from the transportation sector, the cost for this resource could become staggering and soon. Higher electricity bills and pricier natural-gas tankfulls are sure to follow.

As the energy paradigm shifts, we must constantly be vigilant of which "green" initiatives support the common good: The green that means clean, renewable energy for everyone or the green that lines the pockets of the supremely wealthy few.

Commentary: Power by the People for the People

Anyone reading this blog is very likely a proponent of solar power. For any sceptics who might happen by, you are certainly welcome. Either way, as a solar professional I have found there are good and not-so-good ways to stimulate solar growth in the United States and worldwide. This election year is proving my point.

Energy has never been more important to developed countries and the very rapidly developing countries of the Far East. Conventional sources of energy production--coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear--are being consumed at alarming rates. These sources get costlier as they get harder to find and mine. They're hard on the environment from which they're extracted; they pollute air and water; and they are downright dangerous to use. They are also controlled by huge conglomerates and utilities that produce and set pricing pretty much as they please.

Solar and wind power offer a rare opportunity for all of us. These truly renewable power sources can help us rearrange the typical utility-ratepayer relationship. Producing power with solar panels on the roof or adjacent lot or parking structure directly gives "power to the people." When connected to the power grid, net metering makes the utility more of a facilitator than a power provider. This sort of opportunity on a mega-scale is rare in history.


So, when voting on issues involving solar or wind power, be wary of who is behind such issues. Oil and natural gas companies and for-profit utilities are getting involved in renewable energy production either for sheer profit motives or government mandates. Overall, this isn't actually bad because it means less fossil and nuclear resources will be consumed. On the surface, the Pickens Plan (wind power) is the perfect example of this (see "Pickens: J.R. Ewing with a Twist?" Sept. 16 posting). But it also means bigtime petroleum billionaires and farflung, impersonal corporations keep control of energy, its distribution and its pricing. Furthermore, while we might assume energy from the sun and wind are cheaper to produce over the longrun, we CANNOT assume these power providers will pass along the savings.

By making direct investments in solar and wind, we are producing reliable power by ourselves for ourselves. We must all try to keep it that way.