The resounding defeat of two state ballot initiatives pitched as clean-energy solutions to climate change doesn't mean Californians' support for renewable and alternative fuels has softened, environmental leaders said Wednesday.
If that were true, voters also would have rejected a $10 billion bond to build a bullet train linking Northern and Southern California, said Bernadette Del Chiaro, an advocate for Environment California.
"Californians are keenly interested in promoting real, big and bold clean-energy solutions as demonstrated by their willingness to pass Prop. 1A," Chiaro said, referring to the high-speed rail bond that won by four points.
About 65 percent of voters struck down Proposition 7, a measure to mandate greater use of renewable energy sources. Proposition 10, which asked voters to borrow $5 billion to help companies and consumers buy environmentally friendly vehicles, was opposed by 60 percent of voters.
Proponents of Proposition 7 called Tuesday's defeat a "missed opportunity" to take "a giant step forward in the fight for clean energy." Representatives of leading environmental groups that opposed the measure called it "a false start" and "unwelcomed distraction."
"Californians want more renewable energy powering our economy, but want it done right," said Cliff Chen, an energy analyst with the environmentalists Union of Concerned Scientists.
Proposition 7 would have require public and privately owned utilities in the state to get at least half their electricity from clean, renewable sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal, by 2025. Law now requires only privately owned utilities, such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co., to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010.
Major environmental groups, renewable power companies and other opponents argued that the measure was poorly drafted and would have had the unintended effect of delaying rather than accelerating use of renewable power. The environmentalists were oddly aligned with the very utilities they have been needling to reduce fossil fuel consumption – PG&E, Edison International (Southern California Edison) and Sempra Energy (San Diego Gas & Electric).
The utilities raised nearly $30 million in opposition while about $8 million was spent promoting the proposition – most of it from Arizona billionaire Peter Sperling, whose wealth comes from the for-profit University of Phoenix colleges.
The defeat of Proposition 7 probably will put more pressure on the Legislature to overhaul state energy policies in favor of cleaner-burning power plants.
Spokesmen for both sides said they are lining up support for legislation next session to require utilities to get at least 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020 in the fight against global warming, as state utility and energy commissions have recommended.
Call The Bee's Chris Bowman, (916) 321-1069.
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.