Prop. 7: A costly energy scheme

State needs renewable power, but this measure is confusing and destructive. On its face, Proposition 7 looks like an environmentally beneficial proposal aimed at increasing California utilities' use of ...

[Robert J G Jackson Sr]

Agreed. The proposition has fatal flaws. The goal should be for utilities to provide power cheaply, and in sufficient quantity, by utilizing all available methods of power production. A far better idea is the SCE plan to put solar panels on tall buildings to take advantage of our sunshine. I would far prefer to subsidize the start of that program. Vote no on Proposition 7.

[Tam Hunt]

Unfortunately, the authors of this editorial don't seem to have taken the time to read the text of Prop 7, or the Legislative Analyst's report on Prop 7. If they had, they would know that Prop 7 does not limit the eligibility of any project based on size. Prop 7 does not change the law on this issue in any way that matters.

Moreover, even if it did (for the sake of argument), it would have no negative impact on the small renewable energy market in California. California approved a $3 billion program last year for small solar. And Congress just passed today an 8 year extension of the 30% investment tax credit for solar. These are huge boosts for small solar and are in no way impacted by Prop 7.

Prop 7 is not perfect, but on balance it is quite good. It will take us far in achieving much higher levels of renewables, through large- medium- and small-scale renewable energy sources. We need all of these if we are to have a sustainable future.

[Kelly Rivas]

I am amazed by the flurry of opposition on such speculation, especially in these times when speculation is what tossed us into this financial crisis. The financial crisis and it's continued problems are attributed to uncertainty and fear. This same uncertainty and fear is exactly what we see in the opposition language to Proposition 7 as well as in many other campaigns.

I'm very interested in linguistics - semantics, word choice, and language. I study it. This article has all the other opposition articles I have read is chalk full of the language of fear and uncertainty. "Could" "seem" "would". These words represent a non verified claim, based on the speculation of the worse case scenario.

I've taken a look at the text of Proposition 7 to verify this speculation. I cannot. Nor can they be verified in the state legislative analyst's report. It's apparent these claims COULD happen, it's also apparent we COULD curb climate change and increase renewable energy.

The veracity of these claims however is jeopardized by the mere lack of a simple word: "WILL". We only see the stability of the word WILL in the text of Proposition 7 and in the many comments defending it. In a pure technical battle of language, which is what so many in opposition are concerned about - the mere language of the text - Proposition 7 WILL accomplish everything it proposes and by a well written law no less.

Aside from that point of language. I know the goals and means to accomplish them that proposition 7 provides will be successful and not harm the current renewable market. There are no major flaws or loopholes in the text itself, Proposition 7 is amending the current flaws and loopholes that have allowed for such non-compliance as we see with the IOU's.

[Sofia Marie]

California League of Conservation Voters, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists + PG&E = Deregulation crisis and Blackouts of 2001.

I wouldn't trust this alliance even if I were paid to. hahah oops no pun intended since all of these groups take money from So Cal Edison and PG&E.

[Melissa]

For one thing, why is it that you negatively spin the fact that Prop 7 is mostly being funded by Peter Sperling. You fail to mention that he is a part-time resident of California, that studied here in Santa Barbara and that he has also donated millions to preserve the wetlands, most specifically Ellwood Mesa.

If you want to take a look at dishonest funders lets take a look at who is funding the opposition. Surprise! The three major utilities, Sempra, PG&E, and SCE. By the way, SCE just got fined $146 million for rigging customer satisfaction surveys and altering safety data, which led to customers paying $81 million more than necessary. Thank you for being concerned in our best interest, it really shows.

In addition, please note that one of the biggest misconceptions that is still being marketed is that Prop 7 would rule out small businesses and other facilities from qualifying for the Renewable Portfolio Standard because there is a 30 megawatt clause. David Freeman, an authority on energy nationwide, and especially here in California as former head of SMUD and LA DWP, clears this up unequivocally in his testimony to the Joint Legislative Hearing on Prop 7, "Prop 7 changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what size can qualify. The opponents fail to distinguish between "facilities" which count toward the RPS without any size limitations, and "plants" over 30 megawatts - for siting purposes only - will be approved by the Energy Commission....the 30 megawatt distinction applies to plants which do not need an Energy Commission permit in the first place."

I'd also like to share that Dr. Donald Aitken - physicist, solar architect, former Chief of Research at the Union of Concerned Scientists and co-creator of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is supporting Prop 7 as an uncompensated individual. Unlike, many of the groups opposing Prop 7. Take a look at PG&E's grant list and you will find both political parties along with many others.

Prop 7 is looking out for the consumers and the small businesses, unlike our friends from SCE, PG&E and Sempra. Do not be fooled by the millions of dollars they have to spin the "facts" of this initiative and vote Yes on 7.

[redpandabear]

We need more global warming to make Solar Energy to work better more sun light more energy!!!