RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
No on Proposition 7
| Wednesday, Oct 1 2008 7:33 PM
Last Updated: Wednesday, Oct 1 2008 7:36 PM
Seldom have we seen a ballot measure unite so many often-warring interests utility companies, environmental groups, government energy regulators, alternative energy producers and both political parties.
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:
Loading Stories
Advertisement
The problem: Proposition 7 has united these groups in opposition.
Prop. 7 is so poorly written and the potential consequences so dire that groups that would normally support an alternative energy initiation are screaming: NO!
California voters should join this chorus of concern on Nov. 4. Vote NO on Prop. 7.
The initiative's goals are admirable: reduce California's dependence on fossil fuel and reduce global warming.
But the brainchild of Arizona billionaires John and Peter Sterling, the founders of the University of Phoenix, went off track at the start. They failed to adequately consult with groups long involved in California's development of alternative energy. Instead they created a nightmare of consequences that could spike energy costs and set back the movement.
The initiative requires California utilities to obtain 50 percent of their energy from alternative sources solar, wind, biomass, etc. by 2025. California already is on track to increase these supplies. But 50 percent by 2025 is doubtful.
The initiative seems to exclude systems that generate less than 30 megawatts from the state's renewable-power goal. Tough break for rooftop systems and smaller plants.
The initiative allows alternative producers to charge over 10 percent more than the going rate for their energy and locks utilities into 20-year contracts.
Enacting this flawed and complicated scheme through the initiative process requires a difficult two-thirds vote of the Legislature or voter approval to correct problems.
The out-of-state billionaires who concocted this scheme should have kept the $7.5 million they already have spent on the campaign in their pockets.