New ad bashes Proposition 7's possible fallout
By Ben van der Meer, PolitickerCA.com Senior ReporterAn anti-Proposition 7 group launched a new ad this week with warnings from small renewable energy group and taxpayers on how they'd be affected if the measure passes.
In the ad, Susan Kateley, executive director of the California Solar Energy Industries Association, said the measure mandates that renewable energy be bought from the largest providers of such resources.
"That's why most renewable producers and environmental groups oppose Prop. 7," she says in the ad, which began airing over the weekend.
That's followed in the commercial by Teresa Casazza of the California Taxpayers' Association, who said the measures allows a 10 percent hike in utility rates that consumers would pay.
In a press release announcing the ad, Casazza said the measure's language is so poorly written that it will result in lawsuits and additional costs for ratepayers.
Proposition 7, which is mostly opposed by large utilities, would mandate that utilities get half of their energy from renewable resources by 2025.
Though it has provisions to limit the effect on ratepayer utility bills to 3 percent increases, an independent analysis found no mechanism within the proposition to enforce the provision.
The measure was added to the ballot by Peter Sperling, a wealthy activist who has previously been involved in environmental causes. The measure is also opposed by both labor and business groups and both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Contributors
Wally S. Edge
This week's Winners & Losers. | CLICK HERE >
Wally N. Edge
And now for something completely different:
Acting on behalf of the Almighty Eternal Creator, who is holding sole ownership to His ... >
Alex Benes
Can’t run again? Fire away!
On the cusp of an emergency session of the legislature, termed-out Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) took the ... >
Rob Tornoe
To view a larger version of this cartoon, click here. >
| Politicker INTERACTIVE | |
 |
Lawmaker Profile Follow the funding of your representatives |
 |
270 to Win See how Obama got to the magic number |
Top Tags
Most Active Stories
- Lawmakers push Thompson for Interior Department head
- In CA-04, McClintock lead now at 592 votes over Brown
- Prop. 8 lawyer: ‘No one would be able to stop' recall attempt of justices should high court invalidate ballot measure
- Huber trails by 1,000 in AD-10, no change in CA-04 vote totals
- Harman, Reicher candidates for Obama administration posts
- California environmentalists celebrate Waxman's victory
- Blakeslee aiming at state senate seat in 2012
- Silicon Valley CEO steps down, fueling rumors of Obama administration appointment
- Police question O.C. GOP executive director based on false lead
- Spokesman says governor intends to finish term but remains eager to help incoming president
- Alan Keyes files suit over Obama citizenship question
- Sheehan claims her campaign against Pelosi is being sabotaged
- Former L.A. Mayor crosses party lines, endorses Obama
- CA Nurses Association airs McCain/Palin ad in battleground states
- Bay Area transportation chief under consideration for Obama Administration post
- Wolk launches TV ad over Aghazarian per diem collections
- Huffman named co-chair of high-profile Assembly Environmental Caucus
- Newsom acknowledges 'failures' of San Francisco's 'sanctuary city' policies
- Miller says government must next turn its attention to propping up sagging 401K and pension plans
- Brown reaches multibillion-dollar settlement with Countrywide over predatory lending practices
Quote of the Day
"I am honored by the vote of the Democratic Caucus. We are at a unique moment and have an opportunity that comes only once in a generation. I will work with all parts of our Caucus and across the aisle to deliver the change that the American public expects us to deliver."
-- U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman on his selection as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee
Recent Press Releases
- November 5, 2008
- October 29, 2008
Syndicate
Everyone knows that...
Big money is being spent on the "no, I'm afraid" argument. It's obvious, like duh, cause everytime I turn around, I hear that (place cause words here) commercial! And yes I came here too, from Solar Cali's comment on the California Majority Report (which I told the writer that he knew noth'n about energy).
You see, A Solar Power Tower is what all these !@#$# people overlook, or they have their own agenda.
SPT's reflect quit literally a thousand suns onto a heat storage system similar to what the aluminum industy has been using all along, thus being able to store heat for use later. Now, the reason why "they" don't want you to know that is because it would become the first of solar (or wind) to become like a mainstream power plant. This means that there are no more excuses. With mass production, flat mirrors, motors, (basically parts developed decades ago) now they are being refined.
The only expensive part is overcoming the "NO, I want to keep renewable energy overpriced" crowd! Oh, and the superbly fine nuclear class generators (also already developed decades ago)!
Thanks Solar Cali for sending me here...
"No on 7" is flawed !
Reasons why "No on 7" is flawed
They say enviromentalists are against it...
So what, since most enviro-maniacs oppose largescale renewable energy projects, they do not care about global warming and post oil crisis or simply, they prefer their own agenda.
They say that it cuts out the little guy...
Good! Utilities buying from small producers is like wholesalers trying to buy from retailers, obviously not good!
They point to "a rate increase of 10% above market value"...
10% more for electricity is definately not a concern for average people unless they don't care about reversing GW and post oil crisis. Only a short sited person would want to save that 10% in favor of not allowing RE (and California) to create largescale responsible energy.
We need billions of mirrors to offset negative albedo, perhaps opponents should think about that too!
That is mirrors that reflect sunlight onto steam generators. On a massive scale, these things would be cheap enough to compete with gas fired generators. Just 1/10 to 1/5thth of the Mojave would power 3x USA's electrical usage and would promote the next new tech: Cheap electrical storage needed for billions of e-cars!
So tell everyone to vote yes on 7 so we can have a clean Responsible Energy solution that wouldn't cost nearly as much (per unit) as smallscale solar.
Proposition 7
This is why I seldom vote for propositions eventhough I agree in principle with their subject. Any problems with an initiative can only be changed by the voters through another initiative.
Everyone wants cleaner renewal energy, but to lock a methodology to solve a complex problem in a statute makes it very difficult to get it right.
These problems should be solved through the legislature where all affected interests can be heard and any errors can be corrected by subsequent legislation.
>>money trail between the
>>money trail between the Big Utilities and the select environmental groups opposed to Prop 7.
Show me the money trail between the Green Party of California -- opposed to Prop 7 -- and the Big Utilities. Please. I'd love to see it.
Numerous city councils are also now getting on board against Prop 7 because they are discovering that it takes away local control of their publicly owned utilities. Their responsibility is to the citizens in their cities.
There are many reasons to oppose this that have nothing to do with the "Big Utilities".
Decide for yourself
Dear Reader, et. al,
I welcome and encourage you to visit my website, http://confusedinsolarcalifornia.blogspot.com/, where I provide citations and direct links to the money trail between the Big Utilities and the select environmental groups opposed to Prop 7.
Thanks!
Solar Cali Girl
>>This is simply not true.
>>This is simply not true. This is a lie being propogated by the Big Utilities to scare voters.
Do a search of solar "cali girl" and you'll find several ugly comments on blogs that recommend against Prop 7, trying to say that anyone against it is in the pocket of the big utilities, also "simply not true." While many opponents do take money, there are so many against this that you can easily find many who do not. Look here:
http://www.noprop7.com/oursupporters.html
Look at the issue for yourself and don't be swayed by the efforts of "cali girl" to discredit anyone who doesn't agree instead of providing the proof of "her" claims.
>>they have tried to confuse the issue with false information about the initiative at every turn
Actually, the Pasadena City Council just voted unanimously to oppose Proposition 7 because "In a report to the council, city staff said that if the proposition passed, the city could lose some control of the utility. “If approved, Proposition 7 will eliminate the ability of this community to decide the timing and cost impacts associated with the ‘greening’ of its energy portfolio,” the report states. “This measure violates the city’s legislative principle of preserving local control of the city’s utility by the city council by making [publicly owned utilities] subject to the jurisdiction of the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission.”
So there are a lot of problems here that have nothing to do with PG&E.
Actually, independent analysis DID find 3% cap
You state: "Though it has provisions to limit the effect on ratepayer utility bills to 3 percent increases, an independent analysis found no mechanism within the proposition to enforce the provision."
This is simply not true. This is a lie being propogated by the Big Utilities to scare voters.
In fact, the independent Legislative Analysts Office found that the cost to consumers would be capped at 3% and a Sacramento judge upheld Prop. 7's ballot argument that the cost to consumers would be capped at 3%.
Remember, this is the Big Utilities funding 100% of the opposition to Prop. 7, and they have tried to confuse the issue with false information about the initiative at every turn. This is exactly like what happened in the run up to the CA energy crisis - The Big Utilities swore up and down deregulation would be a boon to consumers. Turned out, consumers got rolling blackouts and Big Utility executives got millions in their pockets.
Post new comment