California Online Voter Guide

November 2008 General Election
17th edition

Proposition 7 - Renewable Energy Generation. Failed

Initiative Statute

Summary

• 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.

• 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.

What a Yes or No Vote Means

YES: A “YES” vote on this measure means: Electricity providers in California, including publicly owned utilities, would be required to increase their proportion of electricity generated from renewable resources, such as solar and wind power, beyond the current requirement of 20 percent by 2010, to 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025, or face specified penalties. The requirement for privately owned electricity providers to acquire renewable electricity would be limited by a cost cap requiring such acquisitions only when the cost is no more than 10 percent above a specified market price for electricity. Electricity providers who fail to meet the renewable resources requirements would potentially be subject to a 1 cent per kilowatt hour penalty rate set in statute, without a cap on the total annual penalty amount. The required time frames for approving new renewable electricity plants would be shortened.

NO: A “NO” vote on this measure means: Electricity providers in California, except publicly owned ones, would continue to be required to increase their proportion of electricity generated from renewable resources to 20 percent by 2010. The current requirements on privately owned utilities to purchase renewable electricity would continue to be limited by an annual cost cap on the total amount of such purchases. Electricity providers would continue to be subject to the existing penalty process, in which the penalty rate (currently 5 cents per kilowatt-hour) and a total annual penalty cap (currently $25 million per provider) are set administratively. The required time frames for approving new renewable electricity plants would not be shortened.

Full Text of Proposition 7 - (PDF)

Official Campaign Web Sites and Contact Information

• Yes on Proposition 7

Yes On 7 Solar and Clean Energy
Email: Contact page
Web site: www.yeson7.net


• No on Proposition 7

Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme
Phone: (866) 811-9255
Email: info@noprop7.com
Web site: www.noprop7.com

Who Signed the Ballot Arguments

• Yes on Proposition 7

  Dr. Donald W. Aitken, Ph.D., Renewable Energy Scientist, Los Angeles County
  John L. Burton, California State Senate President Pro Tem (Ret.)
  Jim Gonzalez, Chair , Californians for Solar and Clean Energy
  

• No on Proposition 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

News Articles

CVF's News Stories section provides California voters with convenient access to a sampling of news articles that give an overview of the potential impact of the propositions on the ballot.

Follow the Money

Proposition 7 Campaign Finances through October 18, 2008
Position	Support			Oppose
Total Raised	$9,229,700			$29,766,221
Top Donors	Name	Amount		Name	Amount
	Peter Sperling, Vice Chairman, Apollo Group Inc. [Phoenix, AZ]	$9,000,000		Pacific Gas & Electric Corporation [San Francisco, CA]	$13,895,250
	Jim Gonzalez, President, Jim Gonzalez & Associates [Sacramento, CA]	$229,500		Edison International (via Southern California Edison) [Rosemead, CA]	$13,720,250
	Judy Aquino, Operations Manager, Enrichment Educational Experiences, Inc. [San Fernando, CA], Chris Knopp, Teacher, EDUHSD [Camino, CA], (tied)	$100		Sempra Energy [San Diego, CA]	$2,104,000
				The Lincoln Club of San Diego County [San Diego, Ca]	$46,721

 

Detailed information about all contributors for and against Proposition 7 is available from campaign finance reports at Cal-Access, the Secretary of State's campaign disclosure web site. To view the most recent contributions, select a committee and click "Late and $5000+ Contributions Received".

 

 

Proposition 1A Proposition 2 Proposition 3 Proposition 4 Proposition 5 Proposition 6 April 28, 2009n value="prop8.html">Proposition 8 Proposition 9 Proposition 10 Proposition 11 Proposition 12

This page was first published on September 27, 2008 | Last updated on December 21, 2008
Copyright California Voter Foundation, All Rights Reserved.