On Thursday, I headed over to Berkeley for a press conference at the Sierra Club against Props 7 & 10. Also there were the CA League of Conservation Voters, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. All four of these groups are opposed to the two environmental measures on the ballot, Prop 7 and Prop 10.
Unfortunately, these two measures were not sufficiently vetted. Prop 7 could discourage renewable development with poor siting mechanisms and a risk of shuttering small renewable producers. Prop 10 is a massive giveaway to natural gas interests, and Swiftboater T. Boone Pickens.
The San Francisco Bay Guardian, certainly no friend of the utilities, also reluctantly came to the decision that both of these props were losers. Join the Calitics Editorial Board in voting No on Props 7 & 10.
Here we go again, another round of endorsements. The bulk of these will be fairly uncontroversial here. On Prop 7, Brian Leubitz did not vote due to the fact that he works for the campaign. See the flip for more information on our positions.
The California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC) is something of a stodgy institution, not particularly known for making big statements. While it's worth noting that al least one member of the PUC has a history as an executive with the utilities in California, the CPUC's take on Proposition 7 is at least worth a look, especially now that major newspapers, like the LA Times today and the SJ Merc, and all the major environmental groups in the state, including the Sierra Club, are opposed.
The CPUC report is available in HTML . Thank you CPUC, I wish more governmental bodies and research institutions could put their reports in HTML so I'm not constantly having to open bulky PDFs which make copy and paste difficult. Though you can still find a Word Doc here and a PDF here. So to my friends from policy school at the CPUC who might have taken part in this analysis, thanks! Sorry, end tangent.
Anyway, the report is broken down into thirteen points, but is generally pretty short. While they do not take a formal position on the initiative, as they are a governmental body, they have few words of praise and a bevy of criticism of Prop 7. Take this for example:
[Prop. 7] will establish... [a] potentially dysfunctional, structure for the further development of renewable energy in California ... [Prop 7] could lead to grid operation problems.
They take a look at each of the 13 things that the analysts at the CPUC perceive that Prop 7 will do, but begin with this summary of concerns...over the flip.
The editorials are starting to trickle out of the newspapers. Let's start out with a big one from the San-Diego Union-Tribune going no on Prop 8:
As gay couples have gone to the courthouse and entered into matrimony, usually surrounded by champagne, family and friends, the worst fears of gay marriage opponents suddenly seem greatly inflated. For instance, Christian conservatives have asserted for years that allowing gays to marry would undermine heterosexual unions - hence, such laws as the Defense of Marriage Act. In truth, however, there has been no discernible impact on traditional marriage between a man and a woman now that gay couples in California have the same right.
* * *
In the past, this page has advocated civil unions for gay couples rather than marriage. But our thinking has changed, along with that of many other Californians. Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same dignity and respect in marriage that heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. We urge a No vote on Proposition 8.
This echoes a similar shift from San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. I would expect most of the big city papers to go No on 8 with a few holdouts here and there.
Prop 4, or the Vote No, No, and No again to parental notification measure, is also getting some bad reviews. Like this one from the Bakersfield Californian: (yeah, really)
This is the third time in four years California voters have been asked to place a "notification hurdle" in the way of minor women obtaining an abortion. Twice California voters have said NO. They should do so again.
* * *
If the woman fears having her parents or guardians notified, she can ask a judge to waive the notification requirement or ask that an alternate adult be notified instead.
But for an alternate adult to be notified, the minor must claim she is being abused - sexually, physically or emotionally. Her report is sent to law enforcement and child protective services. Likely a young woman who fears retaliation would reject the notion of provoking a criminal investigation of her family to obtain an abortion.
* * *
Again, this year's attempt falls short and should be rejected.
Follow me over the flip for a few more endorsements...
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.
I am proud to do some work opposing Prop 7, but I'll get into more details about that later.
Ballot propositions are big business here in California. I'm pretty sure this is not what Hiram Johnson had in mind with this whole initiative process, but you could write a whole other book about that. With all these initiatives, we end with a lot of work for some election lawyers. Like we saw with the Prop 8 folks who are suing AG Jerry Brown over the hate amendment's title, the Yes on 7 folks didn't like some of the ballot arguments from the No side.
Long story short, one of the arguments against Prop 7 is that some language in the text of the proposition could lead to an impossible economic situation for small (<30 MegaWatts) renewable providers. The Yes folks wanted to boot that from the ballot arguments, because, well, they they just didn't want you hearing about that messy drafting stuff. Well, sometimes the truth hurts, as a Sacramento superior court has allowed the language to stay. More over the flip.
