California Proposition 7 (2008)

From Ballotpedia

California Proposition 7 was a statewide ballot proposition that appeared on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California. It was defeated, earning 35.4% of the vote.^[1]

Had Proposition 7 been approved, it would have required California utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. It also would have required 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. It would also have allowed penalties for non-compliance to be waived. Under current law, investor-owned utility companies must comply with an RPS of 20% by 2010 and there is no waiver for non-compliance.^[2],^[3]

Election results

California Proposition 7:
		Votes	Percentage
Yes		4,376,814	35.4%
NO		7,984,617	64.6%
Total votes		12,361,431	100%

Provisions in the initiative

The measure enacted the following provisions:

• 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 only requires the state’s investor-owned utilities (PG&E, Edison, and Southern California Edison) to reach 20 percent renewable energy by 2010.
• Utilities will be prohibited from passing along penalties to their electric rate-payers.
• Penalties will automatically be levied on utilities for non-compliance. The current cap on fines that can be imposed on a utility for non-compliance 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.
• 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.
• The California Energy Commission may not approve a plant unless all environmental reviews are met.
• Caps price impacts on consumer's electricity bills at less than 3 percent.
• 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.
• Establishes a process to waive penalties for noncompliance including, among other things, inadequate access to transmission lines.
• Requires a 2/3 majority vote of the Legislature to amend.

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.^[4]

Supporters

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

• Dr. Donald Aitken - Physicist, solar architect, former Chief of Research at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and recipient of the World's Solar Industry Award
• S. David Freeman- Energy policy advisor to Presidents Kennedy and Carter. American engineer, attorney, and author of "Winning Our Energy Independence"
• Finn Kydland- Nobel Prize Winner in Economics in 2007
• The Community Environmental Council of Santa Barbara
• Alicia 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
• Tom Hayden, American social and political activist and politician. Leader in the anti-war and civil rights movements of the 1960s.

Celebrities supporting Prop 7

• Danny Glover

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

Arguments made in favor of Prop. 7

The arguments made in support of the measure included:

• 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.
• S. David Freeman, who headed the Los Angeles Department of Power and Water, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the Tennesee Valley Authority, and who served as energy policy advisor to Presidents Kennedy and Carter, has said that: "Proposition 7 can provide us the carbon-free domestic energy that will drive our nation’s vehicles for less than $1 a gallon gasoline equivalent.”
• Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers union, states that "This policy will help California make major strides in the fight against climate change, reduce our state's dependence on dirty energy and promote healthier and safer communities for generations to come."
• 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.
• Provides for review by local government.
• Proposition 7 closes the loopholes in existing law that allow the utilities from escaping compliance with the RPS.
• It requires municipally owned utilities, which are currently exempt from the RPS and are the most intensive users of coal, to also comply with the new renewable energy standards.
• Will have no negative impact on small-scale renewables and will likely benefit small-scale renewables.
• 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
• The campaign against Proposition 7 is 100% funded by the state’s three big utilities, PG&E, Southern Cal Edison, and Sempra, and it is an unfortunate betrayal to their members that a handful of mainstream environmentalists have lent their good names to help the utilities defeat an increased renewable energy mandate.
• Dr. Donald Aitken, former lead scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, has stated: "It dismays me to see the environmentalists resorting to such tactics, and presenting arguments not based on fact, or that distort fact. And it should certainly dismay them to be in bed with the utilities, who are absolutely gleeful that they have a cover for their perennial opposition to more aggressive applications of renewable."

• See California Proposition 7 videos

These arguments have been made contesting what Prop 7 opponents are saying:

• Propsition 7 in no way excludes renewable energy producers of under 30 megawatts from participating in the RPS. Proposition 7 makes no changes to current law regarding what size plants qualify for the RPS. The independent, non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office rejected this claim in their analysis of the measure.
• Proposition 7 does not lock in rates at 10% above market rate. It is deceptive for the big utilities such as PG&E, which this year alone asked for a 16% rate increase, to use this scare tactic to trick voters.
• A sacramento-based Republican political consulting firm that worked against affordable prescription drugs came up with the economic predictions put forth by the opponents.
• Current law states that the only way to make amendments to a successful ballot iniative is to pass another initiative, unless a provision is included to allow it to be amended in the Legislature. Prop.7 includes such a provision, allowing it to be amended in the state legislature with a 2/3rds vote. This serves two important purposes: (1) It gives the Legislature the flexibility adjust Proposition 7 and (2) it protects the integrity of the will of the voters by not making it too easy for Legislature to gut it.

Donors who support Prop. 7

The primary financial backer of the initiative is Peter Sperling.

As of October 9, two donors have contributed $5,000 or more to support Prop. 7. They are:

• Peter Sperling. $7,250,000.^[5]
• Jim Gonzalez & Associates. $101,500.^[6]

Campaign consultants

Jim Gonzalez, founding partner of the political consulting firm Jim Gonzalez & Associates in Sacramento, is the initiative's campaign consultant. ^[7]

Opponents

The official committee opposing Prop. 7 is called Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme, No on 7, Major funding from PG&E Corp. and So. Cal Edison Company, a coalition of environmentalists, renewable energy companies, taxpayers and labor.

Pacific Gas & Electric Southern California Edison Sempra California Municipal Utilities Association The California Democratic Party The California Republican Party The California Green Party The California Peace & Freedom 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

For a full list, see: List of Proposition 7 opponents.

Arguments made against Prop. 7

Arguments made against Prop. 7 included:

• Prop. 7 is so poorly written that it could hurt the cause of renewable energy in the state. ^[8][9][10]

• Prop. 7 will force small wind and solar companies out of the market. It excludes renewable plants smaller than 30mw from counting towards the new requirements. Today, nearly 60% of contracts under California’s renewable requirements are with these small providers. Excluding small providers will eliminate a major source of clean power and thousands of jobs.

• Prop. 7 contains a provision that virtually guarantees 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. Nothing in the text of the initiative limits increases in electric bills to 3% as proponents claim.

• Prop. 7 will cost consumers and taxpayers hundreds of millions per year in higher electric rates - a $300 increase per household per year. By eliminating competition from smaller renewable providers and creating a seller’s market that forces customers to pay 10% above market for renewable energy, Prop. 7 will increase costs to electricity consumers and taxpayers by hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

• Prop. 7 will slam the brakes on renewable energy development. It locks into law many flaws that are currently stifling renewable power development in California and creates new roadblocks to renewable development. Prop. 7 arbitrarily shifts authority over the renewables market from the California Public Utilities Commission to the California Energy Commission, which could lead to significant delays, added bureaucracy and costly lawsuits.

• Prop. 7’s problems would be virtually impossible to fix. No changes can be made without another vote of the people or an unlikely 2/3 vote of the legislature.

• See California Proposition 7 videos.

Donors who oppose Prop. 7

The financial backers of the No on Prop 7 campaign are Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern Cal Edison, and Sempra.

As of October 23, these four donors are listed as having given $5,000 or more to defeat this initiative.^[11] They are:

• PG&E, $13,720,250.00
• Edison, $13,720,250.00
• Sempra, $2,300,000.00^[12],^[13]
• The Lincoln Club Of San Diego County, $46,720.74

Campaign consultants and expenditures

As of October 31, 2008, the No on 7 campaign had paid about $437,814.12 to the campaign consulting firm of Bicker, Castillo and Fairbanks; $192,562.66 to the political consulting firm Forward Observer; $89,985 to the political consulting firm Sipple: Strategic Communications; $24,375 to the political consulting firm Superoxygen Inc.; $923,557.81 to Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher.^[14]

As of October 31, 2008, the No on 7 campaign has spent $25,300,000 on television and radio advertising, $547,160 on polling and survey research, and $1,075,150 on slate mailers. ^[15]

Polling information

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.

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	Polling company	In Favor	Opposed	Undecided
July 2008	Field	63 percent	24 percent	13 percent
October 18-28	Field	39 percent	43 percent	18 percent[17]

Newspapers in Favor of Proposition 7 (3)

• The Napa Valley Register^[18]
• The Santa Barbara Independent^[19]
• The Gay and Lesbian Times^[20]

Newspapers Opposed to Proposition 7 (46)

Alameda Times-Star[21] Bakersfield Californian [22] Bay Area Reporter [23] Contra Costa Times [24] UC Berkeley Daily Californian [25] East County Times[26] Eastern Group Publications [27] Fremont Argus [28] Fresno Bee [29] Hayward Daily Review [30] Imperial Valley Press[31] Inland Valley Daily Bulletin [32]

La Opinion [33] Long Beach Press-Telegram [34] Los Angeles Daily News[35] Los Angeles Times[36] Malibu Times[37] Merced Sun Star[38] Modesto Bee[39] Oakland Tribune [40] Orange County Register [41] Pasadena Star News[42]

Redding Record-Searchlight[43] Ridgecrest Daily Independent [44] Riverside Press Enterprise[45] Sacramento Bee [46] San Bernardino Sun [47] San Diego City Beat [48] San Diego Union-Tribune[49] San Francisco Bay Guardian[50] San Francisco Chronicle [51] San Gabriel Valley Tribune [52] San Jose Mercury News[53]

San Mateo County Times[54] San Ramon Valley Times [55] Santa Cruz Sentinel[56] Santa Rosa Press Democrat[57] Torrance Daily Breeze [58] Tulare Advance Register [59] Tri-Valley Herald [60] Vacaville Reporter [61] Valley Times [62] Victorville Daily Press[63] Visalia Times Delta [64] West County Times [65] Whittier Daily News[66]

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.^[67]

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. ^[68]

The lawsuit filed by proponents of Prop. 7 claimed that the opposition’s ballot arguments contained false and misleading statements that should be deleted. Specificaly, proponents sued over the opponents claim that small renewable providers would be shut out of the market.

Noting that "In this instance, it appears that the parties have two opposing interpretations of certain amendments contained in Proposition 7. Specifically, the crux of the issue is the interpretation to be given to Public Utilities Code section 399.12 of the initiative. Each of the party’s interpretations has some support in the initiative’s text. In such a situation, the Court cannot say that Petitioner has presented clear and convincing proof that the challenged statements are false or misleading. Accordingly, the Petition is denied." Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny.

The lawsuit filed by opponents of Prop. 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 , with Judge Kenny stating that, "The Court concludes that, again, the parties have two opposing interpretations of Proposition 7, each of which may be plausible. And, once again, the Court cannot say that Cross-Petitioner has presented clear and convincing proof that the penalty pass-on statement is misleading. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a peremptory writ requiring amendment of the penalty pass-on statement. the opponents had not sufficiently established that those statements were misleading."

External links

Basic information

• California Voter's Guide for Proposition 7
• Text of initiative as scaned 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.
• University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law: Legal Analysis of Proposition 7, California Initiative Review
• CaliforniaPropositions.org Prop 7 information page
• Institute of Governmental Studies Hot Topic: Proposition 7
• Sacramento Bee Ballot Watch for Proposition 7

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. ↑ Official election results
2. ↑ California Distributed Energy Resources Guide
3. ↑ Renewable Portfolio Standard
4. ↑ "Legislative Analyst's Office," "Proposition 7"
5. ↑ Secretary of State
6. ↑ Secretary of State
7. ↑ [1]
8. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Surprise opponents to renewable energy measure", July 5, 2008
9. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Opponents say California power initiative is ill-advised", April 8, 2008
10. ↑ "California Public Utilities Commission", "Proposition 7 - The Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008", September 11, 2008
11. ↑ [2]
12. ↑ Secretary of State
13. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Large utilities finance anti-7 coalition", September 22
14. ↑ Anti-7 expenditures
15. ↑ Anti-7 expenditures
16. ↑ July 22 Field Poll results on Proposition 7
17. ↑ Field Poll for the Sacramento Bee, October 31, 2008
18. ↑ "Napa Valley Register", "Vote Yes on Proposition 7", October 8, 2008
19. ↑ "Santa Barbara Independent", "Prop 7: Yes", October 9, 2008
20. ↑ "Gay and Lesbian Times", "Our Endorsements for State and Local Propositions", October 9, 2008
21. ↑ "Alameda Times-Star," "Vote no on Prop. 7," October 2, 2008
22. ↑ "Bakersfield Californian," "No on Proposition 7," October 2, 2008
23. ↑ "Bay Area Reporter," October 14, 2008
24. ↑ "Contra Costa Times," "Vote no on Prop. 7," October 2, 2008
25. ↑ "Daily Californian," "The Daily Californian General Election Endorsements, November 2008," October 28, 2008
26. ↑ "East County Times," "Vote no on Prop. 7," October 2, 2008
27. ↑ "Eastern Group Publications," “November 4, 2008 Ballot Recommendations: Part 1,” October 16, 2008
28. ↑ "Fremont Argus," "Vote no on Prop. 7," October 2, 2008
29. ↑ "Fresno Bee", "Vote no on Props. 7 and 10: The fine print makes both measures disingenuous", October 7, 2008
30. ↑ "Hayward Daily Review," "Vote no on Prop. 7," October 2, 2008
31. ↑ "Imperial Valley Press", "Noble Trend Isn't Sound", July 10, 2008
32. ↑ "Inland Valley Daily Bulletin," “The green vote on this measure is 'no'. Our view: Initiative's feel-good message doesn't compensate for its flaws" October 21, 2008
33. ↑ "La Opinion," "Two mesures to reject," October 18, 2008
34. ↑ "Long Beach Press-Telegram," "Prop. 7: A costly energy scheme," October 3, 2008
35. ↑ "Los Angeles Daily News," October 16, 2008
36. ↑ "Los Angeles Times", "No on Proposition 7: Even environmental groups see problems with this initiative to increase renewable energy", September 19, 2008
37. ↑ "Malibu Times," October 15, 2008
38. ↑ "Merced Sun Star", "Our View: Propositions 7 and 10 won't clean up environment", October 14, 2008
39. ↑ "Modesto Bee," "Let’s go green, but Props. 7 and 10 won’t get us there," October 6, 2008
40. ↑ "Oakland Tribune," "Vote no on Prop. 7," October 2, 2008
41. ↑ "Orange County Register," “California Prop. 7 Editorial: A energy-fraud twofer”, September 30, 2008
42. ↑ Pasadena Star News, "Vote No on Proposition 7"
43. ↑ "Redding Record-Searchlight", "Prop. 7 wrongly rushes forward on green energy"
44. ↑ "Ridgecrest Daily Indepedent," "Prop. 7: another flawed measure," October 27, 2008
45. ↑ "Riverside Press-Enterprise", "No on 7", September 11, 2008
46. ↑ "Sacramento Bee," October 9, 2008
47. ↑ "San Bernardino Sun," “The green vote on this measure is 'no'. Our view: Initiative's feel-good message doesn't compensate for its flaws" October 21, 2008
48. ↑ "San Diego City Beat," "Our Endorsements: Prop. 7," October 17, 2008
49. ↑ [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/editorial2/20080912-9999-lz1ed12bottom.html "San Diego Union-Tribune", "No on Props 7 and 10: Energy measures are ill-Conceived fiascoes", September 12, 2008]
50. ↑ The San Francisco Bay Guardian", Proposition 7, Renewable-energy generation -- NO", October 8, 2008
51. ↑ The San Francisco Chronicle, "Vote no on Proposition 7", October 5, 2008
52. ↑ "San Gabriel Valley Tribune," “Vote ‘no’ on Prop. 7”, Octobe r 12, 2008
53. ↑ San Jose Mercury News, "No is the green vote on Proposition 7", September 13, 2008
54. ↑ "San Mateo County Times," "Vote no on Prop. 7," October 2, 2008
55. ↑ "San Ramon Valley Times," "Vote no on Prop. 7," October 2, 2008
56. ↑ "Santa Cruz Sentinel", “As We See It: Vote no on 'green' measures, 7 and 10", September 18, 2008
57. ↑ "Santa Rosa Press Democrat", "No on Prop. 7", September 25, 2008
58. ↑ "Long Beach Press-Telegram," "Prop. 7: A costly energy scheme," October 3, 2008
59. ↑ "Tulare Advance Register," “Prop 7: High energy risk,” October 28, 2008
60. ↑ "Tri-Valley Herald," "Vote no on Prop. 7," October 2, 2008
61. ↑ "Vacaville Reporter," “Good idea, poor grade: Vote no on Proposition 7,” October 23, 2008
62. ↑ "Valley Times," "Vote no on Prop. 7," October 2, 2008
63. ↑ "Victorville Daily Press," “Energy Fraud”, October 1, 2008
64. ↑ "Visalia Times Delta," “Prop 7: High energy risk,” October 28, 2008
65. ↑ "West County Times," "Vote no on Prop. 7," October 2, 2008
66. ↑ "Whittier Daily News," “Vote ‘no’ on Prop. 7”, October 12, 2008
67. ↑ Campaign expenditure details
68. ↑ Ballot language battle could be key for Prop. 7, August 6, 2008

Additional reading

• "The Santa Barbara Independent Global Warming in a Time of Economic Meltdown Invest in Alternative Energies"
• "LA Times Proposition 7: Clean Energy for California "
• "The Santa Cruz Sentinel Prop. 7 raises the bar on renewable energy"
• Beyond Chron Politics of Money and Fear
• "Propositioning Downtown: Where We Stand on the Issues"
• The Big Utilities' Green Halo
• The Santa Barbara Independent Prop. 7 Is a Serious Tool for Producing Much-Needed Renewable Energy"
• Propositioning Downtown: Where we stand on the issues
• "Tellin it"
• "Prop 7: 50% by 2025...Let’s Set an Example for America and the World"
• "Chasing Clean Air"
• "Confused in Solar California, a blog dedicated to finding out what's up with all the inexplicable opposition to Prop. 7"
• 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

v • d • e 2008 ballot measures in California Prop 1A-Train • Prop 2-Animals • Prop 3-Hospitals • Prop 4-Abortion • Prop 5-Marijuana • Prop 6-Crime sentencing • Prop 7-Alternative energy • Prop 8-Marriage • Prop 9-Crime victims • Prop 10-Alternative fuel bonds • Prop 11-Redistricting • Prop 12-Veterans • Prop 91 • Prop 92 • Prop 93-Term limits • Prop 94-Pechanga • Prop 95-Morongo • Prop 96-Sycuan • Prop 97-Agua Caliente • Prop 98-Eminent domain • Prop 99-Eminent domain

	v • d • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Ballot Measures	History of I&R | City and county ballot initiatives | School district bond issues | Laws governing initiatives | Recall process |
Ballot measures by year	1912 • 1914 • 1916 • 1920 • 1922 • 1978 • 1980 • 1982 • 1984 • 1986 • 1988 • 1990 • 1992 • 1993 • 1994 • 1996 • 1998 • 2000 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • 2006 (local) • 2007 • 2008 • 2008 (local) • 2009 • 2009 (local) • 2010
Government	California State Constitution | Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | State assembly | State senate |
Elections	Recalls | Vote fraud | 2010 elections |
Judiciary	California Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Superior Courts | District Courts | Judicial selection in California | Judicial News |
Transparency Topics	Public Records Act | Transparency Checklist | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations |
Divisions	State | List of counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts, A - L | List of School Districts, M - Y | Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of township websites | Evaluation of school district websites |