California Proposition 10, Alternative Fuels Initiative (2008)
- 1 Election results
- 2 Text of measure
- 3 Support
- 4 Opposition
- 5 Polls
- 6 Editorial opinion
- 7 Path to the ballot
- 8 External links
- 9 References
If Proposition 10 had been approved, it would have allowed the State of California to sell $5 billion in general obligation bonds for a variety of renewable energy, alternative fuel, energy efficiency, and air emissions reduction purposes.
Proposition 10's opponents spent less than 1% as much as Proposition 10's supporters. It was one of two ballot initiatives focusing on alternative fuels to appear on the November 4 ballot in California. The other was Proposition 7 and it, too, was rejected by voters.
|California Proposition 10, Alternative Fuels Initiative|
Turnout: 79.4% of registered These final election results are from the California Secretary of State's election results page.
17,304,091 California residents were registered to vote as November 4, 2008, out of the 23,208,710 who were eligible to register. 13,743,177 of these registered voters, or 79.42%, cast a ballot. The 12,562,820 votes cast for Proposition 10 came to 72.6% of registered voters.
Text of measure
The ballot title was:
The official summary provided to describe Proposition 10 said:
- Provides $3.425 billion to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.
- Provides $1.25 billion for research, development and production of renewable energy technology, primarily solar energy with additional funding for other forms of renewable energy; incentives for purchasing solar and renewable energy technology.
- Provides grants to cities for renewable energy projects and to colleges for training in renewable and energy efficiency technologies.
- Total funding provided is $5 billion from general obligation bonds.
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:
- State costs of about $10 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($5 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $335 million per year.
- Increase in state sales tax revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to about 2019.
- Increase in local sales tax and vehicle license fee revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to about 2019.
- Potential state costs of up to about $10 million annually, through about 2019, for state agency administrative costs not funded by the measure.
- American Cancer Society, California Division
- South Coast Air Quality Management District
- T. Boone Pickens
- Allison Hart, Mitzi Dudley and Thomas Daly filed the initial ballot language.
- Assorted politicians including Barack Obama mentioned that they support the efforts of T. Boone Pickens.
Arguments in favor
The main arguments offered in favor of Proposition 10 included:
- The funding it provides will allow the generation of electricity from renewable sources, and provide consumer rebates for the purchase or lease of "clean alternative fuel vehicles".
- The funding will allow the replacement of older polluting diesel trucks with clean alternative fuel trucks and provide for research into alternative fuels.
- The proposal will reduce dependence on foreign fuel and stop US dollars from going to hostile foreign governments.
- The diesel trucks that could be replaced produce dangerous pollution.
- Significant improvement in California Air quality, reduction of Air Pollution.
- Will provide earth-friendly and cheaper alternatives to high-priced gasoline.
Donors and Boone Pickens
$22,720,573 was contributed to the campaign in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition 10.
Donors of $50,000 or more were:
|Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (originally called "Pickens Fuel")||$18,647,250|
|Westport Fuel Systems||$250,000|
- Todd Campbell, Clean Energy's public policy director, in response to criticisms about CLNE sponsoring Proposition 10 because of potential benefits to the company told an 'Associated Press reporter, "I don’t think it’s a given that Clean Energy is going to cash in. I wish it were that simple."
Consultants who worked on the "yes" campaign included:
- Would require taking $10 billion out of the state's general fund over a 30 year period.
- There are relatively few mechanics who know how to fix natural-gas engines and few filling stations offer natural gas.
$173,218 was contributed to the campaign in favor of a "no" vote on Proposition 10.
Donors of $10,000 or more were:
|California School Employees Association||$50,000|
|Consumer Federation of California||$47,994|
|California Nurses Association||$40,000|
|California Federation of Teachers||$10,000|
- See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.
|Month of Poll||Pollster||In favor||Opposed||Undecided|
|October 2008||Field||49 percent||39 percent||12 percent|
"Yes on 10"
- The Bay Area Reporter
"No on 10"
- Contra Costa Times
- The Los Angeles Times editorialized against Proposition 10, saying, "Spending bond money on something as intangible as privately owned vehicles is a terrible idea unless there is a clear public benefit." The Santa Monica Mirror said, "Self-serving Proposition 10 sounds good, should lose".
- Oakland Tribune
- Orange County Register
- Riverside Press-Enterprise
- Sacramento Bee
- San Diego Union-Tribune
- The San Francisco Chronicle was opposed, writing, "The chief backer and bill payer for the measure is T. Boone Pickens, the folksy Texas oilman and apostle for energy independence who founded a firm that just happens to supply natural gas for cars and trucks".
- San Jose Mercury News
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
As an initiated state statute, 433,971 signatures were required to qualify Proposition 10 for the ballot.
Proposition 10 was qualified for the ballot through a petition drive conducted by Progressive Campaigns, Inc., at a cost of $2,418,178 and Forde and Mollrich, which was paid $660,084 for signatures. The total signature cost was $3,078,263.
- Official Voter's Guide to Proposition 10
- PDF of the mailed November 4, 2008 voter guide for Proposition 10
- November 4, 2008 ballot proposition election returns
- Proposition 10 in the Smart Voter Guide
- Analysis of Proposition 10 from the Institute of Governmental Studies
- Guide to Proposition 10 from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against Proposition 10 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 10 from Follow The Money
- Signature validation sheets (archival)
- Facts on Prop 10, official website supporting Proposition 10.
- No on 10 Website - A project of the Consumer Federation of California
- Opinion: Proposition 10 fights global warming
- 2 energy propositions flawed, critics say, San Francisco Chronicle.
- My Take on T. Boone's California Prop 10, by Judy Dugan.
- Political winds buffet California measures on energy, Sacramento Bee, September 15, 2008.
- Why should we vote for Prop 10?
- Prop 10: Fueling a cleaner California
- California voter guide, arguments for and against Proposition 10
- Follow the Money, "Donors to Yes on Proposition 10"
- List of $5,000 + donors to Proposition 10
- Pelosi #dontgo Bombshell: Money, August 11, 2008
- Nancy Pelosi's financial disclosure statement for 2007
- New York Times Green Inc. blog, "The Pickens Plan and Proposition 10", September 25, 2008
- Expenditures of the Prop 10 campaign committee
- Campaign filing for No on Proposition 10; Californians against the $10 Billion Lemon
- Follow the Money, "Donors to No on Proposition 10"
- Sacramento Bee, "Survey says: Poll numbers for Props. 1A, 3, 4, 10 and 12", November 1, 2008
- Institute for Governmental Studies, "November 2008 endorsements"
- Los Angeles Times, "Reject Proposition 10", September 19, 2008
- Santa Monica Mirror, Self-Serving Proposition 10 Sounds Good, Should Lose", September 18, 2008
- San Francisco Chronicle, "Why Proposition 10 is a boondoogle", September 25, 2008
- Expenditure detail