This November, California voters, widely recognized as among the most progressive on renewable energy issues, will have two big decisions to make. Propositions 7 and 10 deal with renewable energy mandates and alternative fuels, respectively. Considering the present mood of California, and the nation as a whole, you would think this was a no-brainer. However, both propositions are facing fierce contention from some surprising sources. So what are they all about? Right now I will address Proposition 10… I’ll focus on Prop 7 a little later.

What is Prop 10?Upon reading a summary of Prop 10, it seems like an easy choice. Basically, the measure allocates $5 billion in rebates, incentives, research, and development of alternative fuels and alternative and hybrid vehicles. This money would come in the form of a bond to be repaid from California’s general fund; in other words…taxpayers. $2.5 billion would be rebates for buyers of alternative-fuel vehicles. $340 million would go to buyers of fuel-efficient vehicles like the Toyota Prius, and the leftovers go to research and development.

Sounds pretty good, right? So why the heated battle? Here’s what both sides are saying:The Ayes…

Proponents of Proposition 10, which is backed by Clean Energy Fuels, founded by oilman-turned-natural-gas-and-wind-power-man T. Boone Pickens, state the seemingly obvious; that it will further California’s march into clean-tech history as a world leader in renewable energy. They say that this measure is necessary in today’s climate of expensive, imported oil and soaring energy costs. They say it is essentially a remake of 2006’s Proposition 87, the most progressive ballot initiative in U.S. history. Prop 10, they assert, will make an even stronger dent in greenhouse gas emissions and give a gargantuan boost to the blossoming alternative vehicle market.

Pickens has been pushing his views on wind, natural gas, and energy independence in ads all over the country. In California he, with a little help from Oklahoma natural gas tycoon Aubrey McClendon, is putting his muscle directly into legislation. Pickens has invested over $3.5 million in support of Proposition 10, dubbed the California Alternative Fuels Initiative. He is far and away the law’s biggest financial proponent.

The Nays…

Surprisingly, Proposition 10 is opposed, and with much vigor, by environmental groups, the renewable energy industry, and taxpayer advocacy groups. Why would groups such as these oppose an initiative that seems, by what proponents are saying, almost a recitation of their mission statement? Opponents say Prop 10 would actually be a disservice to California’s clean energy movement. They say the measure would only benefit special interests such as Pickens’ Clean Energy Fuels. They say that it contains no accountability and promotes only corporate interest. To top it all off, opponents say Prop 10 would only add to California’s soaring budget deficit and would cost $10 billion (roughly $330 million annually) over a 30-year payback period.

Anthony Rubenstein, the former chairman of Californians for Clean Energy and a big proponent of the nearly-passed Proposition 87, calls Proposition 10 a “deceptive, counterproductive initiative.” He notes, in an LA Times Op-Ed, that the vast majority of the money would support natural gas vehicles and exclude nearly all other alternative fuel technologies. Furthermore, he points out, there is nothing on the bill to stop companies from buying natural gas trucks, reaping millions in taxpayer-funded rebates, and then driving the trucks right out of the state for use in other markets. Well-intentioned or not, Rubenstein and other opponents say, Proposition 10 is flawed.Aye or Nay?

In the face of such criticism from generally well-respected sources, it is hard to support an initiative that would otherwise be an easy choice. Indeed, the bill seems too narrowly focused and is suspiciously funded by out-of-state parties. And, after all, why would these oil and gas tycoons pay for the manufacturing of commercial natural gas vehicles when they can get California taxpayers to do it for them?One thing that has become obvious about legislation at all levels is that, if the language can be manipulated at all by corporations and other special interests, it will be. So, in the midst of a budget crisis in California, it seems foolish to adopt such a narrow vision of a clean energy future. Especially one that severely limits diversity, would greatly increase the deficit, and leaves open too much room for loopholes and manipulation.

What do you think?

Posted on September 26th in Solar Politics by Dan.