[X] NO -- CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 7 (2008) RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION
One again we are faced with the issue of global warming and the politics of energy in California. This is a bad bill that milks the public’s pockets for the pandering politicians and their special interests supporters.
Among Proposition 7’s provisions …
- All electric utilities (including municipally-owned utilities) will be required to provide half of their electricity from solar and clean energy facilities by 2025. Current law requires the state’s investor-owned utilities (Edison and PG&E, for example) to reach 20 percent renewable energy by 2010.
Can you say, socialism and social engineering? This will force electric utilities to purchase power at above market rates to satisfy the needs of the environmental whackos. I wonder what the far-left “no nukes” environmentalists will do when they find out that nuclear energy is clean green energy? Remember, most Californians are still paying off the bonds that were used to purchase energy during the Enron-manipulations of the energy market. And our bought-and-paid-for politicians did little or nothing to recover the funds from the energy providers who profited by the manipulation.
- The California Energy Commission will be required to identify solar and clean energy zones, primarily in the desert, to jump-start clean power plants.
This appears to be a big-money power play that could turn worthless desert land into pure gold as an “energy site.” Want to be that some politicians are salivating over the campaign contributions and lobbying to help define what zones will be selected.
- Renewable plant construction permits would be fast-tracked for approval by the California Energy Commission once all environmental reviews are in place. Fast-tracking would limit the period for local comments and participation to 100 days.
A ploy to reduce public input and insure that the financiers of any related project will be satisfied that the project will not be subject to the type of public scrutiny and input that delayed nuclear power plant projects long past their point of financial viability.
- Penalties levied on utilities for specific acts of non-compliance would be reduced from 5% to 1%, but the total cap on fines that can be imposed on a utility would be eliminated.
This is slight of hand in the grand manner of Los Angeles telling their voters that they would get a tax rate reduction from 10% to 9% (when a judge ruled that the 10% was illegally and improperly collected) but communications devices which had not been previously taxed (cell phones) would now be taxed – thus raising a significant amount of money for the city and re-establishing a potentially illegal tax. Yes, the will reduce the fine – but remove the cap on total fines that could be imposed on a committee.
- The California Energy Commission (CEC) will have the authority and responsibility to allocate funds from these penalties into the construction and implementation of new and existing transmission lines to provide access for renewable energy to the grid.
This is a true redistribution of wealth, from the pockets of the citizens (via the corporation’s increase in rates to cover the fines) directly into the for-profit middlemen who build and operate transmission facilities.
Feel good provision – for talking points ONLY!
- Utilities will be prohibited from passing along penalties to their electric rate-payers.
Yeah, sure! Corporations have only a few choices to deal with their fines: reduce executive bonuses, reduce the profits going to shareholders, reduce research and development, cut back in personnel, cut back in services or hike the rates using another subterfuge. And, lest us not forget – bankruptcy.
Feel good provision – for talking points ONLY!
- Caps price impacts on consumer's electricity bills at less than 3 percent. However, the non-partisan California Legislative Analyst's Office states that “the measure includes no specific provisions to implement or enforce this declaration”.
Another feel good gesture for talking points – no provision for implementation.
What no nuclear energy?
- Renewable energy sources include solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, small hydro, biomass, and tidal, etc., as provided for in current law Public Resources Code section 25741.
What, no nuclear energy? Nuclear power is the cheapest, most sustainable power source that can deliver the quantities of energy needed to keep California growing. Notice the reference to another law instead of listing its provisions. Here what section 25741 covers …
“The facility uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation of 30 megawatts or less, digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current, and any additions or enhancements to the facility using that technology.”
Oh No! More Derivatives?
- Utilities entering into contracts with alternative fuel providers will be required to sign 20-year contracts.
Can you say financially-manipulated derivatives? Instead of being backed by an income stream generated by mortgage payments, these financial instruments will be backed by an income stream generated by a utility’s vendor.
In order to raise money, companies will collateralize a portion of the anticipated income stream into tradable Wall Street securities. This provision ensures that these bond-like securities have a revenue source lasting 20 years. This is pure and utter crap. In 20 years technology will be radically different, there will be different economic considerations and yet the utilities and, by extension, the people will be saddled with these obligations. Since the contracts are not part of the legislation, we cannot even begin to imagine what toxic provisions they might contain.
GENERATING FALSE CREDIBILITY …
I am always annoyed when proponents of this or that proposition try to infuse credibility into their campaign pitches by using trusted professional people, firemen, policemen, nurses and scientists to push their point. Even though the people portrayed receive very little benefit from the proposition or whose work does not seem to support their learned opinion. This annoyance is second only to my major gripe: politicians who claim “it’s for the children!”
Scientists hawking global warming …
Yes, they are all distinguished scientists with formidable credentials and reputations in their respective fields … unfortunately, not an expert in global climate change, energy policy or economics among them. They all appear to be located in the liberal confines of Santa Barbara, an upscale community which features gorgeous weather and a dramatic view of off-shore ocean drilling platforms.
“Dr. Walter Kohn won 1/2 of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his development of the density-functional theory which has revolutionized scientists' approach to the electronic structure of atoms, molecules and solid materials in physics, chemistry and materials science.”
“Dr. Alan J. Heeger won 1/3 of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery and development of conductive polymers, a novel class of materials with electrical and optical properties like metals and semiconductors, coupled with the mechanical and processing advantages of polymers. "
“Dr. Herbert Kroemer won 1/4 of the Nobel Prize in Physics for developing the semiconductor heterostructures that are used in high-speed and opto-electronics. Heterostructures are heterogeneous semiconductor structures, built in such a way that the interface between the different materials plays an essential role in the device's action. The energy gap variations act as quasi-electric forces on the electrons and holes in the structure, even in the absence of an externally applied electric field.”
There are any number of distinguished scientists who are supporting this or that theory – and the problem is that most of them do so for social reasons rather than based on their Nobel Prize-winning work.
Another Nobel Prize winner …
Yet, another Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Louis Ignarro, seems to be hawking Herbalife vitamin supplements based on his work in nitric oxide. Which gives him greater credibility because he actually is advertising something which has a connection to his work.
“Dr. Louis J. Ignarro won 1/3 of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discoveries concerning nitric oxide as a signaling molecule in the cardiovascular system"
California's corrupt tax and spend legislature, Our inept Governor ...
In this time of fiscal crisis, where our tax and spend legislature and inept Governor has done little more than “paper over” our current deficit, do not allow these politicians to spend even more of the public’s money on a guaranteed windfall for those who cannot currently compete on price within California’s energy market. In view of the past energy schemes, which we are all still paying for, Californians should be paying the lowest price available for their energy requirements – not forced into another social engineering experiment promoted by the far-left environmentalists, corrupt politicians and the special interests.
What can YOU do?
Vote NO on Proposition 7 and all other social engineering experiments which cause Californians to pay more for their energy. Especially ill-defined programs loaded with political goodies for sale to the highest bidder.
Vote NO on any expenditure which will not directly benefit public safety.
Be extremely skeptical when credentialed scientists lend their name to propositions outside of their field. Had any one of these distinguished scientists displayed a background in large scale energy generation, economics of energy generation or global climate change, I would have at least respected their argument while I tried to validate their conclusions. My feelings is that these are bought and paid for scientists looking for funding in their own particular niches and this might be the cooperative price for getting such recognition by the politicians who run UCSB.
-- steve
A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
Reference Links:
PROPOSITION 7: RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
From the California Secretary of State:
Comments