California Proposition 7, Renewable Energy Standards and Market Regulations Initiative (2008)

California Proposition 7
Election date November 4, 2008
Topic Energy
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 7 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 4, 2008. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this ballot measure to increase the state's renewable portfolio standard and make changes to renewable energy market regulations.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot measure to increase the state's renewable portfolio standard and make changes to renewable energy market regulations.

Election results

California Proposition 7
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		4,502,235	35.57%
No		8,155,181	64.43%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 7 was as follows:

“

Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Requires utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations. Raises requirement for utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. Imposes penalties, subject to waiver, for noncompliance. Transfers some jurisdiction of regulatory matters from Public Utilities Commission to Energy Commission. Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants. Requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 year minimum) to procure renewable energy. Creates account to purchase rights-of-way and facilities for the transmission of renewable energy.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

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.

”

Support

Californians for Solar and Clean Energy led the campaign in support of Proposition 7. Jim Gonzalez, founding partner of the political consulting firm Jim Gonzalez & Associates in Sacramento, worked for the campaign.

Supporters

Individuals

• Dolores Huerta
• Peter Sperling

Arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ Vote Yes on Proposition 7. • We can do better than dirty coal, nuclear power, and offshore drilling. Proposition 7, The Solar and Clean Energy Act, requires all utilities to provide more solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, tidal, and small hydroelectric energy. Renewable energy standards are increased 2% per year, over seventeen years, so that half of our electricity will come from cleaner and cheaper sources by 2025. Proposition 7 is a balanced solution that will reduce the rising costs of energy, and limit the dangers of global warming, including increased wildfi res, water shortages, threats to endangered species, and illnesses from heat induced pollution. Proposition 7 was carefully written and reviewed by legal, energy, and environmental experts. Proposition 7 requires the California Energy Commission to designate solar and clean energy production zones, primarily in our vast deserts. Vote Yes on Proposition 7 to: • Make California the world leader in clean power technology. • Help create over 370,000 new high wage jobs. Proposition 7 meets all environmental protections, including: • The California Environmental Quality Act. • The Desert Protection Act. • Local Government Reviews. Vote Yes on Proposition 7 to help grow a strong market for large, and small, solar and renewable energy businesses. California fi rms have developed this proven technology that will meet our present and future electricity needs The independent, nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst found that administration of Proposition 7’s renewable energy standards would only cost three and a half million dollars. Also, if the utilities fail to meet renewable energy standards, utilities are prohibited from passing on penalty costs to consumers. Proposition 7’s shift to solar and clean energy is guaranteed to never add more than 3% per year to our electricity bills. So, why are the utilities spending tens of millions of dollars on “greenwashing” propaganda; sponsoring political parties; and partnering with select environmental groups to mislead us? Because California’s electric utilities have a dirty little secret: Most of California’s electricity comes from burning coal and fossil fuels. Experts agree that 40% of global warming pollution comes from this type of electricity generation. Electricity from dirty power plants, owned, operated, or transmitted by California utilities, releases 107 million metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year. That makes California the world’s 16th largest global warming polluter. (Half of Los Angeles’ electricity is generated with out-of-state coal.) Remember, the utilities botched the 2001 energy crisis; then paid their top executives million dollar bonuses. Vote Yes on Proposition 7. • Energy from the sun, wind, tides, and heat from the earth will always be clean, free, safe, and unlimited. • Expensive fossil fuels, oil and gas drilling, and dangerous nuclear power, will cost Californians more. We need to do something major and environmentally smart, to stop global warming pollution Let’s stop relying on foreign oil, and imported energy, so that future generations can live in peace. California is especially blessed with renewable energy resources. We can lead the world in clean energy Vote Yes on Proposition 7 Dr. Donald W. Aitken, Ph.D., Renewable Energy Scientist John L. Burton, California State Senate President Pro Tem (Ret.) Jim Gonzalez, Chair, Californians for Solar and Clean Energy ”

Opposition

Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 7.

Opponents

Parties

• California Democratic Party
• California Republican Party
• California Green Party
• California Peace & Freedom Party

Organizations

• California Municipal Utilities Association
• California Labor Federation
• California Taxpayers' Association
• League of California Cities
• California Solar Energy Industries Association
• Sierra Club of California
• California League of Conservation Voters
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Union of Concerned Scientists

Businesses

• Pacific Gas & Electric
• Southern California Edison

Arguments

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ Wind, solar, and other renewable power providers; environmental, consumer, and taxpayer groups; business and labor; and global warming scientists all OPPOSE Proposition 7. Prop. 7—paid for by an Arizona billionaire with no energy expertise—is a deeply fl awed measure that will: • NOT achieve its stated goals and will actually disrupt renewable power development. • Shut small renewable energy companies out of California’s market. • Unnecessarily increase electric bills and taxpayer costs by hundreds of millions of dollars, without achieving its stated goals. • Create market conditions that could lead to another energy crisis. PROP. 7 FORCES SMALL WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY COMPANIES OUT OF THE MARKET Prop. 7 contains a competition elimination provision shutting smaller renewable energy companies out of California’s market. Renewable power from plants under 30 megawatts won’t count toward meeting the law. Today, nearly 60 percent of contracts under California’s renewable requirements are with these small providers. “Proposition 7 would devastate California’s small solar businesses by forcing us out of the market—eliminating a major source of clean power and thousands of jobs.” — Sue Kateley, Executive Director, California Solar Energy Industries Association PROP. 7 ALLOWS ENERGY PRICES TO BE CONTINUALLY LOCKED IN AT 10% ABOVE MARKET RATES AND LIMITS COMPETITION. Proposition 7 allows power providers to always charge 10% above the market price of power, stifling competition for renewable power. And nothing in Prop. 7 limits increases in our electric bills. PROP. 7 DISRUPTS THE RENEWABLES MARKET AND COSTS CONSUMERS AND TAXPAYERS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. “Prop. 7 has many troubling provisions that will signifi cantly increase costs for electricity consumers and harm the California economy.” — Philip Romero, Ph.D., Former Chief Economist, California Office of Planning and Research “Prop. 7’s flawed provisions will disrupt renewable power development, unnecessarily drive up costs, and stall efforts to substitute clean power for more expensive energy sources.” — Sheryl Carter, Energy Program Co-Director, Natural Resources Defense Council “Proposition 7 would lead to more bureaucracy and red tape and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.” — Teresa Casazza, President, California Taxpayers’ Association WE’RE STILL PAYING FOR THE LAST ENERGY CRISIS. Prop. 7 will create market conditions ripe for manipulation, much like ENRON took advantage of consumers during the energy crisis. “California consumers are still paying almost $1 billion each year—nearly $100 for every electricity customer—for the last energy crisis. We don’t need a poorly-written measure that will lead to another energy crisis and higher electric bills.” — Betty Jo Toccoli, President, California Small Business Association OPPOSED BY LEADING ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND RENEWABLE POWER PROVIDERS. California leads the nation with clean energy standards requiring utilities to significantly increase renewable power, and we’re expanding those efforts. Prop. 7 jeopardizes this progress. Organizations leading the fight against global warming all OPPOSE Prop. 7: • California League of Conservation Voters • California Solar Energy Industries Association • Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies • Environmental Defense Fund • Natural Resources Defense Council • Union of Concerned Scientists Vote NO on Prop. 7. Sue Kateley, Executive Director, California Solar Energy Industries Association Tom Adams, Board President, California League of Conservation Voters Teresa Casazza, President, California Taxpayers’ Association ”

Polls

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.

Month of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
July 2008	Field Poll	63%	24%	13%
October 18-28, 2008	Field Poll	39%	43%	18%

Media editorials

Support

• Napa Valley Register
• Santa Barbara Independent
• Gay and Lesbian Times

Opposition

• Alameda Times-Star
• The Bakersfield Californian
• Bay Area Reporter
• Contra Costa Times
• East County Times
• Fremont Argus
• The Fresno Bee
• Hayward Daily Review
• Imperial Valley Press
• Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
• La Opinion
• Long Beach Press-Telegram
• Los Angeles Daily News
• Los Angeles Times
• Malibu Times
• Merced Sun Star
• The Modesto Bee
• Oakland Tribune
• Orange County Register
• Pasadena Star News
• Redding Record-Searchlight
• Riverside Press Enterprise
• The Sacramento Bee
• San Bernardino Sun
• The San Diego Union-Tribune
• San Francisco Bay Guardian
• San Francisco Chronicle
• San Gabriel Valley Tribune
• San Jose Mercury News
• San Mateo County Times
• San Ramon Valley Times
• Santa Cruz Sentinel
• Santa Rosa Press Democrat
• Torrance Daily Breeze
• Tri-Valley Herald
• Valley Times
• Victorville Daily Press
• Visalia Times Delta
• West County Times
• Whittier Daily News

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2008, at least 433,971 valid signatures were required.

The petition drive to qualify the measure for the ballot was conducted by PCI Consultants, Inc. at a cost of $1.367 million.

Lawsuits

Supporters and opponents of Proposition 7 filed lawsuits in Sacramento Superior Court regarding the wording of ballot arguments in the official voter's guide.

The lawsuit filed by proponents of Proposition 7 stated that the opposition’s ballot arguments contained false and misleading statements that should be deleted. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny denied the petition.

Similarly, the lawsuit filed by opponents of Proposition 7 wanted certain statements removed. Judge Kenny also denied opponents' petition.

See also

2008 Measures

• 2008 Measures
• Carbon emissions regulations on the ballot
• Energy market regulations on the ballot
• 2008 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• November 4, 2008, General Election Voter Guide