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.

If you saw the Olympics last night, you might have seen the bold new ad by Al Gore’s “We” campaign:

Today, the “We” Campaign launched a new national television ad aimed at promoting the campaign’s challenge to repower America — by generating 100 percent of America’s electricity from truly clean sources within 10 years.

The ad, entitled “Switch,” (http://www.wecansolveit.org/switch) features Americans of all backgrounds — rural and urban, blue collar and white collar — making the change from fossil fuels to cleaner, renewable forms of energy by symbolically “turning on” a giant, 25-foot light switch. Actor William H. Macy narrates the ad.

“America’s three great national challenges — our economy, national security and climate change — can all be addressed by switching to renewable energy,” said Cathy Zoi, CEO of the nonpartisan Alliance for Climate Protection, which is managing the “We” Campaign. “The Olympics are a time for all Americans to reflect on our nation’s achievements and what we as a people can do together. Choosing the right path and repowering our nation is something we can do, and something that will benefit us all.”

Just as “change” is the key word in this election and mistaking the mood of the electorate helped cost Hillary Clinton and her supporters the nomination, the key word for the next cycle is likely to be “switch” and misjudging the electorate will have the same results.

First, watch the ad and join the 1.5 million who have signed on to the campaign:

In the ad narrator Macy notes, “We all know our country faces tough challenges: a weaker economy, soaring gas prices, growing dependence on foreign oil and a worsening climate crisis.” He continues, “We can switch to smarter, cleaner forms of power and take advantage of free energy sources like the wind and sun….The answer is simple: power our country with 100 percent clean electricity within ten years.”

“Together, we can repower America,” the ad concludes. “Together, we can solve the climate crisis.”

That message — Al Gore’s message — is clearly resonating with voters of all persuasions, but especially Democratic Party primary voters and donors. Which is why it makes no sense for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to oppose the SF Clean Energy Act to switch the city to 100% clean energy.

This is the challenge of our time and history will record those who side with polluters like PG&E against the movement to switch that is growing every day. By the time the Democratic primary heats up, this vote will be as poison as the Iraq War vote (it is no coincidence that the polluters are using the same right-wing tactics the neocons used in their push against the reality-based community).

Yet it is not too late. Every day more and more people are realizing that the time to make the switch is now, the time for bold action is now. Hopefully, Gavin Newsom will have the wisdom to realize the how silly it sounds when he regurgitates PG&E’s talking points and will stop and think about what it is Al Gore is saying.

If he needs help, I recommend that his Climate Czar suggest he stop repeating PG&E’s misinformation and check out www.WeCanSolveIt.org, because we can. And we will. And we are paying attention to whom ‘we’ includes.

I have little doubt that Senator Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Nominee had it not been for her caving to right wing talking points and voting for the Iraq War. Being on the wrong side the the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation is what advanced her career from inevitable nominee to junior senator. At the time, many of us in the netroots were flabbergasted, we knew it was a disastrous course of action and came to the conclusion that those who sided with George Bush and the neocons either had no grasp of the situation or were doing it for as a purely political calculation (and a poor one at that as Clinton discovered).

Iraq was the single biggest foreign policy decision, but when it comes to the global climate crisis, I’m getting a sense of déjà vu from the positioning and language used by San Francisco Mayor and 2010 California Gubernatorial hopeful Gavin Newsom as to why he’s siding with PG&E against the Sierra Club on clean, renewable energy.

As was reported this morning on Clean Energy Act getting seven of eleven votes on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and thus qualifying for the 2008 fall ballot:

San Francisco supervisors Tuesday approved the submission of a November ballot measure calling on the city to produce more than half of its energy through renewable sources within a decade, and also explore a move toward city control of its power.

The San Francisco Clean Energy Act calls for the city to fulfill 51 percent of its energy needs through renewable energy by 2017, rising to 75 percent by 2030, and 100 percent “or the greatest amount technologically feasible or practicable” by 2040.

The Charter Amendment says San Francisco wants clean, renewable energy and we need to set our sights on it and figure out how to make it happen. Sounds like something a Democrat facing a Democratic Primary would want to support, especially in light of Al Gore’s bold call to action to act even more aggressively.

Right Wing Talking Points Emerge

Democrats step up to fight against global climate change and you’ll be shocked to know that the polluters fought back using right-wing talking points:

A host of big-name politicos, including several supervisors, Assemblyman Mark Leno and former Public Utilities Commission manager Susan Leal, gathered on the steps of City Hall Tuesday to support the act.

“This is our time,” Supervisor Tom Ammiano said. “We’re going to win, and we’ll keep the lights on for you.”

Opponents, including Pacific Gas and Electric Co., say voters would see their utility rates spike if the city turns to public power. In mailers sent to voters last week, PG&E also says city government can’t even fill potholes and shouldn’t be granted another responsibility.

Look at the language in the mail. It didn’t defend PG&E, it attacked the very concept that government can deliver services. To defend PG&E’s monopoly profits, they are going after the very fundamentals of government. So did Mayor Gavin Newsom defend his city’s government, of buy into the right-wing talking points:

“Let’s call it what it is, it’s a public power initiative to take over PG&E … who are by any objective standards doing more than any other utility in the United States of America [to reduce greenhouse emissions],” Newsom said.

A campaign to defeat the initiative has already been formed through Newsom advisor Eric Jaye’s political consultant group.

There is so much, so wrong with that that I think it needs a list:

• It is not a takeover of PG&E, it is a push for 100% clean, renewable energy.
• If he’s right that PG&E is the best vehicle to move beyond fossil fuels, they will be the vehicle. However, when on the same day PG&E announces a $850-million carbon-based plant a few miles from San Francisco it might look ridiculous
• The right-wing talking points in the misleading mail cited above against San Francisco government being able to get anything done is being sent by the Mayor’s own chief consultant?

Why is Gavin Newsom trying to make Al Gore cry?