Strange Bedfellows Oppose “Green” Proposition 7

Environmental groups applaud the good intentions of Prop 7’s backers, but they insist that the measure—which was drafted by lawyers and lobbyists with little experience in the renewable energy market—is poorly written. If Prop 7 passes, opponents warn, it could actually disrupt renewable energy development in California and possibly lead to another energy crisis.

Can you imagine how difficult it is for someone like me, who has been pushing for a working clean energy system in California, to be telling people not to vote for a solar bill? says Sue Kateley of the California Solar Energy Industries Association, an opponent of Prop 7. [The proposition’s backers] are very sincere, and they want the same things, she adds. But it’s a flawed proposition. That’s the bottom line.

The problem with Prop 7, Kateley explains, is language that is unclear at best and could prove counterproductive to its supporters’ efforts. For example, language intended to encourage the construction of large-scale solar plants could actually prevent the utility companies from signing new contracts with smaller facilities. These smaller facilities—that is, facilities that produce less than 30 megawatts—now hold 60 percent of the utility companies’ contracts with renewable energy providers.

Another example is a section that prevents the utility companies from purchasing electricity from renewables providers for more than 10 percent above the market price. The intention was to keep consumers from being overcharged, but opponents say that, as it is worded now, Prop 7 practically guarantees that consumers will pay 10 percent more than the going rate for clean energy. Additionally, language in Prop 7’s introduction promises to cap rate increases for consumers at 3 percent. But, because the language is not included in the actual text of the bill, opponents say it is unenforceable.

Supporters are insisting that opponents are simply misreading Prop 7. But opponents say that room for such misinterpretation should not exist, and that the holes in Prop 7 render it ineffective. As of press time, calls made to the Sacramento office of Prop 7 spokesperson Jim Gonzalez were not returned.

The bureaucracy that Prop 7 promises to create is also of major concern to the coalition of city and county governments, labor and business organizations, and taxpayer, consumer and environmental groups opposing the measure. A handful of these environmental groups approached the team that drafted Prop 7 shortly after it was filed with the Secretary of State and presented a list of concerns, along with some suggestions on how to fix Prop 7. However, those unsolicited suggestions were ignored; Kateley has since offered to help draft a new proposition that would achieve Prop 7 proponents and opponents’ shared goals.

On the list of suggested changes submitted to the Prop 7 camp last fall was allowing the California Energy Commission to continue overseeing renewable energy development for the state. Prop 7 would have the agency share that responsibility with the Public Utilities Commission. Because consensus between these two regulatory bodies has, historically, been difficult to come by, and because Prop 7 fails to give either agency the final say in the matter, opponents foresee major delays in the approval process for new projects.

That could prove disastrous, they say, for the renewables market, which is still in its infancy. The confusion it will create will likely also deter investors from backing smaller startup companies, whose technology could prove invaluable in helping stop global warming, a stated goal of Prop 7.

[Prop 7] is going to create a lot of confusion in the marketplace, Kateley explains. We have people right now who are trying to develop, build and sell projects. [Prop 7] will put those projects on hold. And that affects jobs, and affects livelihood.

Prop 7 currently has the support of several high-profile individuals, including former California State Senator John Burton, San Francisco Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Gerardo Sandoval, and actor/activist Danny Glover. Eco-pioneer S. David Freeman has been a vocal supporter of Prop 7, but his name does not appear on the proposition’s official list of endorsers. Neither do the names of any prominent statewide organizations.

PG&E, recognizing the inherent flaws in Proposition 7, was quick to sign onto the No on 7 campaign. And supporters of Prop 7 have been using that to enlist support for the initiative, playing to Californian’s lingering distrust of PG&E after the 2001 energy crisis. But voters are being urged to take a look at the complete (and very long) list of groups opposing the measure.

It’s the funniest looking list, jokes Kateley. Republicans and Democrats, utility companies and renewable energy providers—talk about odd bedfellows. Every leading environmental group in the state is opposing Prop 7, along with more than two-dozen renewable energy providers, the larger of which would stand to profit most from the competition elimination that Prop 7 unwittingly guarantees. Why would they be against it if it were good policy? It promises them a bigger share of the market, explains No on 7 spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks. They’re opposing it because it won’t work.

It sets up a system for failure, she adds. And, if it passes, we’re stuck with it. Because you can’t change it or undo it without a two-thirds vote by the state legislature or going back to voters again.

Equally unfortunate is the confusion caused for voters, say Kateley and Fairbanks. Without a law background to decode Prop 7’s legalese or some market experience, Joe Voter is left having to guess which side is on his side. Voters don’t know what to do, says Fairbanks. It’s not easy to read these things, adds Kateley. The language is very confusing, and there are numerous references to code sections of current law that you’d have to look up. But I trust the intellect of voters. And I think that, if they take the time to familiarize themselves with Prop 7, they’ll see what we do.