| I do some work for No on Prop 7.
I noticed Jeremy Wade's editorial in Beyond Chron, and while I might agree with the odd point here and there, he misses the forest for the trees. First, before we discuss the important issues raised surrounding solar and clean energy, I should point out that the allegations (also picked up at LA-ist) made against some of the environmental organizations are just not true. I have confirmed with several of the groups that they have not taken money from the utilities. I haven't made an exhaustive search of these records, but let's just toss that stink bomb aside. It's only meant to be sensational, and create divisiveness within the environmental community. Such accusations against groups that have fought valiantly for clean energy are not helpful to a conversation about the future of renewables. UPDATE: I was mistaken about at least one of the groups, CLCV. They have taken some money from PG&E to their IE committee.
Bob's post today about the San Francisco Clean Energy Act brings up the other issue: conflating the two initiatives. They are not the same thing. The Clean Energy Act seeks to get to 100% renewables in SF. That's a good thing, especially with Al Gore's challenge to do so within 10 years. But that act is not connected to Prop 7. The SF Clean Energy Act has gone through public hearings, was placed on the ballot by a majority of the Board of Supervisors, and has a long list of endorsements, including several environmental organizations, Asm. Mark Leno and former PUC General Manager Susan Leal. In fact, I personally support the SF Clean Energy Act. But let's be clear: the SF CEA is not the same thing as Prop 7.
The endorsement list for Yes on 7 is considerably shorter, consisting mostly of a few local officials that former SF Supervisor (and current Yes on 7 Consultant) Jim Gonzalez knew from back in the day. As to those environmental organizations: they are overwhelmingly opposed to the measure. Toss in the California Young Democrats, the California Labor Federation, and the California Solar Energy Industries Association, and you have a pretty robust coalition in opposition to a a renewable measure. Why? Well, the measure enscribes some flawed legislation into law, and changes require a 2/3 vote of the Legislature.
Peep the flip for a quick summary of those objections. |
| Really Briefly, here are some major problems with Prop 7. I'll get into each of these in more detail eventually.
1) Pricing: Prop 7 would require providers to purchase renewable power when it is within 10% of market price. Sounds great, right? The problem is that in the near term, this provides an excuse to the retailers not to buy renewables b/c they are over that price. In the long term, the pricing policy totally eliminates the incentive to reduce prices for renewables. Eventually, we will get to the point that renewables are cheaper than the dirty stuff, but why bother to make it cheap when the companies have to buy it at 10% over the overall market rate?
2) Siting: The real problem with siting isn't really the NIMBYism (although that is a problem), it's that we need better transmission. How do we do that? We create renewable "zones" where we can transmit power back to population centers, not herky jerky where anybody has land available. There are a bunch of other, really technical issues here.
3) The loopholes: Prop 7 formalizes a "good faith" exception. If they can't find the energy in "good faith" they face no penalties. In the short term, the interplay with the first problem, could create a large loophole. Basically, if the price of renewables exceeds 10% over market, then the retail power sellers don't have to buy it.
4) The risk to small providers: There's a really scary drafting error in Prop 7 that could kill providers that produce less than 30MW. I can explain the problem in more detail if you want, it's a legal interpretation thing. This is part of the lawsuit last week. |
