California Proposition 7 (2008)

Elections in California
Federal government Presidential elections 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 Primary elections Democratic 2000 2004 2008 Republican 2000 2004 2008 2012 United States Senate elections 1950 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1992 (special) 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 Congressional elections At-Large (1849-1863) 1864 1866 1868 1870 1872 1874 1876 1878 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 12th (1946) 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 11th (2006) 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Special elections to the House 5th (2005) 48th (2005) 36th (2007) 12th (2008) 10th (2009) 32nd (2009) 36th (2011) 34th (2017)
State government (executive) Gubernatorial elections 1849 1851 1853 1855 1857 1859 1861 1863 1867 1871 1875 1879 1882 1886 1890 1894 1898 1902 1906 1910 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 (recall) 2006 2010 2014 2018 Lieutenant gubernatorial elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Attorney General elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Secretary of State elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Treasurer elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Controller elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Insurance Commissioner elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Superintendent of Public Instruction elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
State government (legislative) State Senate elections 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Special State Assembly elections 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Special
State government (judicial) Court of Appeals elections 1994 1998 2002 2006
Propositions 1910-1919 1911 4 7 8 1960-1969 1964 14 1970-1979 1972 11 17 1978 8 13 Briggs Initiative 1980-1989 1982 8 1986 64 65 1988 98 99 1990-1999 1994 187 1996 196 209 215 218 1998 6 10 227 2000-2009 2000 21 22 36 39 2003 53 54 2004 1A 55 56 57 58 59 60 60A 61 62 63 64 65 66 69 71 2005 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 2006 81 82 83 85 87 89 90 2008 91 92 93 94, 95, 96, and 97 98 and 99 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2010-2019 2010 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2012 29 30 32 34 37 38 39 2014 1 2 41 42 45 46 47 48 2016 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Full list
Elections by year State elections Nov 1992 Nov 1994 Nov 1996 Nov 1998 Nov 2000 Nov 2002 Nov 2004 Nov 2005 Nov 2006 Feb 2008 Jun 2008 Nov 2008 May 2009 Jun 2010 Nov 2010 Jun 2012 Nov 2012 2014 Jun 2016
Los Angeles Mayoral elections 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1909 (M) 1909 (N) 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1929 1933 1937 1938 1941 1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 General elections 2009 2011 2013 City Attorney elections 2009 Board of Supervisors elections 1980 1996 2006 2008 2010 2012
San Diego Mayoral elections 2000 2004 2005 (special) 2008 2012 2013–14 (special) 2016 City Council elections 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
San Francisco Mayoral elections 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 Board of Supervisors elections 1977 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 General elections Mar 2004 Nov 2004 Nov 2005 Jun 2006 Nov 2006 Nov 2007 Feb 2008 Jun 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2009 Jun 2010 Nov 2010 Nov 2011 Jun 2012 Nov 2012 Nov 2013
San Jose Mayoral elections 2014

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 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.

Provisions in the initiative

• All electric utilities (including municipally-owned utilities) will be required to provide half of their electricity from solar and clean energy facilities by 2025. Current law requires the state’s investor-owned utilities (Edison and PG&E, for example) to reach 20 percent renewable energy by 2010.
• The California Energy Commission will be required to identify solar and clean energy zones, primarily in the desert, to jump-start clean power plants.
• Renewable plant construction permits would be fast-tracked for approval by the California Energy Commission once all environmental reviews are in place. Fast-tracking would limit the period for local comments and participation to 100 days.
• Penalties levied on utilities for specific acts of non-compliance would be reduced from 5% to 1%, but the total cap on fines that can be imposed on a utility would be eliminated.
• The California Energy Commission (CEC) will have the authority and responsibility to allocate funds from these penalties into the construction and implementation of new and existing transmission lines to provide access for renewable energy to the grid.
• Utilities will be prohibited from passing along penalties to their electric rate-payers.
• Caps price impacts on consumer's electricity bills at less than 3 percent. However, the non-partisan California Legislative Analyst's Office states that “the measure includes no specific provisions to implement or enforce this declaration”.
• Renewable energy sources include solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, small hydro, biomass, and tidal, etc., as provided for in current law Public Resources Code section 25741.
• Utilities entering into contracts with alternative fuel providers will be required to sign 20-year contracts.

Estimated fiscal impact

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:

• Increased state administrative costs of up to $3.4 million annually for the regulatory activities of the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by fee revenues.
• Unknown impact on state and local government costs and revenues due to the measure’s uncertain impact on retail electricity rates. In the short term, the prospects for higher rates - and therefore higher costs, lower sales and income tax revenues, and higher local utility tax revenues - are more likely. In the long term, the impact on electricity rates, and therefore state and local government costs and revenues, is unknown.

Supporters

The official committee supporting Prop 7 is called Californians for Solar and Clean Energy.

• Dr. Donald Aitken
• David Freeman - energy policy advisor to Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.^[3][4]
• The Community Environmental Council of Santa Barbara
• Alice Wang (Vice-chair of the California Democratic Party)
• Christine Pelosi, former Executive Director of the Democratic Party
• Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers Union

For the full list of supporters, see: List of Proposition 7 supporters

Arguments made in favor of Prop. 7

• Three Nobel Prize–winning scientists have said that Proposition 7 provides powerful and necessary tools to reach the goals of 50% renewable energy by 2025.
• It would make California the world leader in clean power technology.
• It would help create over 370,000 new high wage jobs.
• It meets environmental protection standards as outlined in the Warren-Alquist Act and Desert Protection Act.
• Will have no negative impact on small-scale renewables and will likely benefit small-scale renewables
• Does not limit projects to those over 30 megawatts
• Provides a "feed-in tariff" for any size project, under which utilities must buy power offered by renewable energy companies that is cost-effective
• Strengthens penalties for utility non-compliance by eliminating the current cap on penalties imposed by the Public Utilities Commission

Donors who support Prop. 7

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:

• Peter Sperling. $5,250,000.
• Jim Gonzalez & Associates. $101,500.^[5]

Campaign consultants

Jim Gonzalez, founding partner of the political consulting firm Jim Gonzalez & Associates in Sacramento, is the initiative's chief spokesperson.^[6]

Opponents

The official committee opposing Prop. 7 is called Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme.

• Pacific Gas and Electric Company
• Edison Electric
• Sempra Electric
• The California Democratic Party
• The California Republican Party
• The California Labor Federation
• The California Taxpayers' Association
• The League of California Cities
• The California Solar Energy Industries Association
• The Sierra Club of California
• The California League of Conservation Voters
• The Natural Resources Defense Council
• The Union of Concerned Scientists

See also: List of Proposition 7 opponents.

Arguments made against Prop. 7

• The measure is poorly written and so complicated that it could hurt the cause of renewable energy in the state.^[7][8][9]
• It will force small wind and solar companies out of the market because it excludes small renewable plants smaller than 30 MW from counting towards new requirements.
• It will guarantee that electricity consumers will pay 10% above market rates for renewable power forever, even when the costs of solar and wind sources become more competitive.
• It requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to change it."^[7]
• It would automatically lead us to litigation."^[10]

Donors who oppose Prop. 7

As of August 2, three donors are listed as having given $5,000 or more to defeat this initiative.^[11] They are:

• PG&E, $13,720,250
• Edison, $13,720,250
• Sempra, $104,000,^[12][13][14]

Campaign consultants

The opposition coalition as of July 14, 2008 had paid about $175,000 to the campaign consulting firm of Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher.^[15]

Polling information

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]

Newspapers Opposed to Proposition 7

• The Imperial Valley Press^[17]
• The Riverside Press-Enterprise^[18]
• The San Diego Union-Tribune^[19]
• The San Jose Mercury News^[20]
• The Santa Cruz Sentinel^[21]
• The Los Angeles Times^[22]
• The Santa Rosa Press Democrat^[23]

Path to the ballot

The petition drive to qualify the measure for the ballot was conducted by Progressive Campaigns, Inc. at a cost of $1.367 million.^[24]

Lawsuits over ballot language

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:

• Prop 7 will help create over 370,000 new prevailing wage jobs
• Prop 7 prohibits the utilities from passing on their penalty costs to consumers if they fail to meet renewable energy standards
• Prop 7 is guaranteed to never add more than 3% per year to consumer electricity bills

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.

Greenwashing

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., . Still more question the independence of groups like the CA League of Conservation Voters (CLVC), the Sierra Club, 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.

Opponents to Proposition 7 deflect the charge of greenwashing by pointing to the California Green Party's opposition.

Results

Electoral results by county.

Proposition 7^[27]

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

Basic information

• California Voter's Guide for Proposition 7
• Text of initiative as scanned images
• Text of initiative as PDF
• Text of initiative as plain text
• Arguments in favor of 7, proposed for official ballot book.
• California Voter Online guide to Proposition 7
• Smart Voter Guide to Proposition 7
• Arguments against 7, proposed for official ballot book.
• CaliforniaPropositions.org Prop 7 information page

Supporters

• Yes on Prop 7, website of supporters.
• Solar & Clean Energy Initiative campaign committee Details of income and expenditures
• Supporter funding sources

Opponents

• No on Prop 7, website of opponents.
• Opponent funding sources

References

1. ↑ California Distributed Energy Resources Guide
2. ↑ Sacramento Bee: "Renewable power initiative poised for ballot, draws fire, April 8, 2008
3. ↑ Biography of Dr. Donald Aitken
4. ↑ Biography of S. David Freeman
5. ↑ Donors to Prop. 7
6. ↑ "Utilities Push Back Big Against Prop. 7," Sacramento Bee, July 23, 2008
7. 1 2 San Francisco Chronicle, "Surprise opponents to renewable energy measure", July 5, 2008
8. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Opponents say California power initiative is ill-advised", April 8, 2008
9. ↑ "California Public Utilities Commission", "Proposition 7 - The Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008", September 11, 2008
10. ↑ “RENEWABLE ENERGY: Utilities earmark big bucks to stop Calif. ballot measure,” Greenwire, June 19, 2008
11. ↑
12. ↑ List of large donors opposing Prop 7
13. ↑ Money talks loudly in Prop 7 contest
14. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Large utilities finance anti-7 coalition", September 22
15. ↑ Anti-7 expenditures
16. ↑ July 22 Field Poll results on Proposition 7
17. ↑ "Imperial Valley Press", "Noble Trend Isn't Sound", July 10, 2008
18. ↑ "Riverside Press-Enterprise", "No on 7", September 11, 2008
19. ↑ "San Diego Union-Tribune", "No on Props 7 and 10: Energy measures are ill-Conceived fiascoes", September 12, 2008
20. ↑ San Jose Mercury News, "No is the green vote on Proposition 7", September 13, 2008
21. ↑ "Santa Cruz Sentinel", “As We See It: Vote no on 'green' measures, 7 and 10", September 18, 2008
22. ↑ "Los Angeles Times", "No on Proposition 7: Even environmental groups see problems with this initiative to increase renewable energy", September 19, 2008
23. ↑ "Santa Rosa Press Democrat", "No on Prop. 7", September 25, 2008
24. ↑ Campaign expenditure details
25. ↑ Maclachlan, Malcolm (2008-08-06). "Ballot language battle could be key for Prop. 7". Capitol Weekly. Retrieved 2008-10-16. 
26. ↑ Young, Samantha (Associated Press writer) (2008-09-25). "Calif. initiatives boost renewable power". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2008-10-16. 
27. ↑ "Statement of Vote: 2008 General Election" (PDF). California Secretary of State. 2008-12-13. 

Additional reading

• It ain't easy legislating green, Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2008
• California voters may toughen renewal targets, Reuters, April 8, 2008
• Energy Department Says Wind Energy Could Be Savior, San Francisco Chronicle, May 13, 2008
• Geothermal Markets are heating up Energy Current May 5, 2008
• Energy bill a step back for clean power, opponents say
• Prop 7 pits opponents
• 2 energy propositions flawed, critics say, San Francisco Chronicle.
• Political winds buffet California measures on energy, Sacramento Bee, September 15, 2008.
• Officials: "No" is green vote on risky energy proposition
• A charged debate over Prop. 7 renewable energy plan
• Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Targets for All Utilities – NO
• California PHOTON: Prop 7 Analysis