"Our hope has to be that this turns into the David and Goliath story," says Prop 7 supporter David Freeman, former head of the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power.
Prop 10's opponents have been slow to raise money. But help may be on the way, because the state's top business and labor groups are against it and may fork over funds to defeat it.
Bonds are good politics, except when times are bad.
This is good and bad news for Prop 10, which is a $5-billion bond. Over the past 32 years, California voters have approved 72 percent of the 109 bonds on the statewide ballot, according to figures compiled by The Field Poll's Mark DiCamillo. But during the last sustained economic downturn in California—in the early 1990s—just three of 13 bonds passed.
Voters, concerned about California's mounting debt and the credit markets, have soured on borrowing, preferring tax increases as a way to fund government programs. Opponents believe Prop 10 is especially vulnerable, because it's a general obligation bond, meaning that the $5 billion would have to be paid back from the state's general fund, which pays for education, health and other popular programs. The cost of repayment is estimated at $10 billion over 30 years. "I think this makes Prop 10 totally beatable," says Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, which opposes Prop 10. "California is in a budget disaster that is insoluble."
Successful ballot initiatives generally involve issues that lawmakers have failed to tackle.
Propositions 7 and 10 seek to legislate in areas in which the state lawmakers and regulators are already making progress. The state currently has mandates in place on renewables (Prop 7 would strengthen these existing rules), and Schwarzenegger has been a relentless champion of alternative-fuel vehicles that would be subsidized under Prop 10. (One of his Hummers—Schwarzenegger bought the first civilian Hummer ever made—runs on biofuel these days and smells like French fries, he says).
"Initiatives are for things the legislature won't do," says Ralph Cavanaugh, energy program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who says he supports the goals of Prop 7 but opposes the initiative because he believes the legislature should deal with this issue. "In California, you have the strongest pro-renewables governor, legislature and regulators in the country."
In the ballot initiative business, simpler is better.
Props 7 and 10 are two of the most complex measures ever to appear on the ballot. Prop 7 is 42 pages long, Prop 10 runs 23 pages. (By comparison, Proposition 8, a high-profile effort to ban same-sex marriage, is a single sentence.)
Complex measures risk getting lost—even in nonpresidential election years—when there are 10 measures on the statewide ballot, and they also provide no shortage of details for opponents to attack. Already, opponents of Prop 7 and 10 are claiming that various "drafting errors" would produce outcomes that could slow the adoption of renewable energy technologies.
Whatever the merits of these arguments, California voters likely have too many reasons to vote no on the measures. Big Solar and Big Natural Gas have their supporters. But they may prove no match for the state's Big Dysfunction.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentVoters on initiatives need what legislators get: public hearings, expert testimony, amendments, reports, etc. The best project for such deliberative process is the National Initiative for Democracy, led by former Sen. Mike Gravel: http://Vote.org. Also http://healthydemocracyoregon.org/ and http://cirwa.org
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Prop 7 is our last chance to do something great and do something big to solve the climate change crises and the need for energy independence. It doesn't seem like it will ever happen in the legislature... SB411 died and there is no talk of something else being offered. I think it will be great if it comes from the people. And all the energy experts are on Prop 7's side, and I would much rather listen to them then the utility companies who are raising my bill 16% and still relying on coal to power our lives. Yes on Prop 7!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this article would have greater merit if the author had taken the time to look at and report on the ballot measures. It's not so much about who has to pay, it's about who will profit. The fact that these are energy props is largely secondary. All of the details can be seen at http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe better story might be found by looking at the list of opponents to Prop 7. You will see that miamor1234's claim of support by "all the energy experts" is not true.
"Last chance"? Melodrama much?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to act as a nation to utilize every resource available to us to loosen the grip our dependence on foriegn oil has on us. Our economy is in a sorry state of affairs directly related to the high cost of fuel which affects everything from loss of jobs to a record loss of homes not to mention the rise in cost of all consumer goods. We have become so dependant on foreign oil that we have neglected to fully utilize such natural sources of energy such wind power & solar power. Along with modern technology such as plug in cars, hybrid cars, v2g technology ,and regenerative braking technology. We still seem to be floundering as a nation as to devising the best plan utilize all that is available to us and lift ourselves out of this mess we are in. We need to take our closest look at which candidates put our economy and energy crisis at the forefront of their agenda. The Manhattan Project of 2009 by Jeff Wilson pretty much says it all...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
Beyondgreen: you say that "We need to act as a nation to utilize every resource available to us to loosen the grip our dependence on foriegn oil has on us" and then you fail to mention the biggest energy resource available to us -- oil off the coast of California. Instead you claim we've "neglected wind and solar" when we haven't. We've subsidized the heck out of both of these technologies for decades and they still account for less than 2 percent of our energy BECAUSE they are costly and irratic. And both solar and wind require some other baseload energy generation to cover the gaps when the sun ain't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIgnoring the 98 percent of our energy resources in favor of the politically correct "2 percent" solution is exactly how we got into this mess. If we are truly serious about energy independence and lowering energy costs, we'll start drilling for more proven offshore oil now and augment those with new technologies as they become cost effective and economically feasible.
I think the real culprit is the propositions themselves. As a voter that is the first place I looked. Prop 7 would help people buy new vehicles. That is an expensive test with little garauntee of improvement to the totally energy conservation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething that is much more effective is what has happened to gas prices. Allowing prices to rise has cause the largest decline in miles driven since they started keeping records and has pumped more money into alternative fuels. The current fiscal crisis California is experiencing has it's roots in Gray Davis's decision to keep electricity prices low by paying all our electric bills. Maybe if he had let them rise we would already have more green industry. We certainly would have more money to spend on Prop 10 now.
I think Scientific American should stop reporting financial limitiations as if they are seperate from ecological concerns. After all the word "ecology" was fashioned after the word "economy" to denote it's complex interworkings. So often they report, "we have all the technology to do this. All we need is the US to spend $70,000,0...." That always has economic impact. The economic impact is a feature, not a stumbling block.
I think we're all in favor of sensible solutions. I personally tend to agree more with beyondgreen and less so with Alex280zman - I think we really need a gigantic, serious, well considered, unilaterally (HA!) supported initiative akin to the Apollo Space Program or the Manhattan Project... deep, and broad in scope. But I think it's crucial that a) it be very well thought out by top academics and experts and have all the kinks worked out PRIOR to initiation, and b) NOT be some greed based scam or deception on ANYONE'S part. As to why I disagree with Alex280zman, the information I have (perhaps inaccurate - it's so difficult to tell these days) is that we don't HAVE all THAT much oil off our coast.. and that even if we began drilling now, it won't come online for quite a while and will still be insufficient for our colossal and gluttonous energy use (see http://www.postcarbon.org/) Should it be a COMPONENT of a comprehensive plan? Sure. As they say "everything" should be on the table. But it's true that we are essentially running OUT of oil and so we really need to address long TERM alternatives and begin developing those now. I guess the main thing is to engage everyone and to take the time and be willing to invest to do it properly and intelligently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving lived in California and Oregor for more than 30 years, my observation is that initiatives cover a multitude of sins which the legislature cannot or will not address. California's constitutional requirement of a 2/3 majority to pass anything is part of the problem of passing "sensible" law. This rule was enacted as a populist backlash in the early 20th c. to counter-act the abuses of farm & rail lobby.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA second thought, if "green" efforts are to be taken seriously then they need to be more than no-growth and anti-growth NIMBY (not in my back yard) spoilers. Sensible growth plans must match environmental concerns to job & income concerns rather than pander to knee-jerk reactions from either side of the proposition. Oregon & California - vanguards of anything "green" - have a justly deserved reputation for revealing a scope of legislative myopia, failure & incompetence in this regard.
Given the even ideological split in the state, perhaps the current state of affairs is a solution of a kind: while the State legistlature impotently gridlocks, municipalities and counties might raise bonds & taxes & apply local methods to solve their perceived issues.
In my own case, after more than 30 yrs I finally emigrated from California (& later Oregon). Another jurisdiction seems safer as the pace of legislation & initiatives overcomes tax receipts. The ambition of a volatile minority can only bankrupt the rest of us.