Solar, wind and other clean energy producers oppose the Solar and Clean Energy Act, Proposition 7, even though it promises them more business at higher prices.

Environmental groups who've fought for renewable energy oppose Proposition 7. Private and public utilities oppose it. Both political parties oppose it. Business and labor, consumer groups, taxpayer groups, the League of Women Voters … You get the idea.

"No" is the green vote on Proposition 7.

The initiative requires utilities to buy half their power from alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal by 2025. Currently, 10.9 percent of power comes from alternative sources. Utilities are trying to hit 20 percent by 2010; the governor and legislators are working on a plan to hit 33 percent by 2020.

But it's not aggressive goals that doom this plan. Rather, energy producers and environmentalists fear Proposition 7 would lead to less alternative energy by pushing small producers out of the market and creating dual oversight that would slow approval of transmission lines.
Eighty percent of the state's "green power" is produced by members of Independent Energy Producers, says Executive Director Jan Smutny-Jones. Not a single producer backs 7. Its ambiguous wording on oversight would "create transmission chaos" and preclude rational solutions, he says.

Jim Gonzalez, a former San Francisco supervisor, is the sponsor of Proposition 7. But it is the brainchild of John Sperling, the billionaire founder of the University of Phoenix, and his son Peter, who's contributed $3 million to the campaign. Both live in Arizona. (We sense a trend. The other poorly conceived energy proposal on the ballot, Proposition 10, is the brainchild of Texan T. Boone Pickens.)

The Sperlings think large solar mirror farms in the desert are the answer. Their initiative defines "solar and clean energy plants" as facilities generating "30 megawatts or more," except for hydroelectric plants. That would exclude 60 percent of the "clean energy" being generated in California.

Proposition 7's supporters say the 30-megawatt provision applies only to siting approval and wouldn't exclude small- and medium-size energy producers. Maybe the courts would see it that way. Maybe the Legislature would fix the murky wording, though that would require a two-thirds vote. But why take the risk?

The Sperlings mean well, says Ralph Cavanaugh of the Natural Resources Defense Council. But they didn't consult with energy producers or environmental experts before writing a long, complex, hard-to-amend law. "It was simple ineptitude," he says.

Proposition 7 requires utilities to buy renewable power even if it costs up to 10 percent above the market rate with 20-year contracts. The effect will be for companies to charge 10 percent above market whether they need to or not. Why take less? The proposition says it will not raise consumers' bills by more than 3 percent, but it doesn't enforce a cap.

Cavanaugh says the requirement to pay more than market rate is a mistake because "We think we can compete on price with fossil fuels."

"Solar and Clean Energy Act" sounds good, but don't be fooled. Proposition 7 isn't the way to boost alternative energy use. When everybody who should love a proposition is against it, you know this is a dud.


<< back <<