FROM SACRAMENTO — Two energy propositions on the Nov. 4 ballot illustrate the pitfalls of trying to write state laws by "citizen" initiative.
One, Prop. 10, is pitched as a measure to reduce California's dependence on foreign oil and clean the air. And it may do that. But it's also a straight-out windfall for the measure's chief sponsor and bankroller, billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Saturday, October 25, 2008 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 2 inches; 66 words Type of Material: Correction
Capitol Journal: George Skelton's column in Thursday's California section said that the Natural Resources Defense Council is one of many environmental groups that oppose Proposition 10, and that renewable energy producers and environmental groups contend that Proposition 10 would be more of a hindrance than a help in developing renewable energy. In both cases, the proposition referred to should have been Proposition 7, not Proposition 10.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Wednesday, October 29, 2008 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 2 inches; 89 words Type of Material: Correction
Capitol Journal: A correction Saturday to George Skelton's Oct. 23 column in the California section may have left the false impression that the Natural Resources Defense Council opposes Proposition 7, but not Proposition 10. The NRDC is one of many environmental groups that oppose both Proposition 7 and Proposition 10. Also, one paragraph in the column about environmental groups and renewable energy producers contending that Prop. 10 would be more of a hindrance than a help in developing renewable energy should have referred to Proposition 7, not Proposition 10.
The initiative would authorize $5 billion in state bonds -- $3.4 billion of it to finance rebates for the purchase or lease of alternative fuel vehicles, including those that run on natural gas. Pickens is the founder and majority shareholder of a Seal Beach company, Clean Energy Fuels, that supplies natural gas to fleets of vehicles.
State government shouldn't be providing car rebates. Leave that to the automakers. Thirty years from now, after most of the vehicles have long since been dumped in junkyards, we'd still be paying off the bonds. No taxpayer would sign up for that car deal.
Another $1.25-billion of Prop. 10 money would be spent for research and development of renewable energy. There'd also be some grants to local governments and colleges. Good causes. But they're only available with the Pickens pork barrel package.
Anyway, the state is b-r-o-k-e. It's no time to be launching new spending programs, especially with borrowed money.
Counting interest on the bonds, Prop. 10 would cost $10 billion, or $335 million per year.
Enough about that.
Prop. 7 is a closer call. Aimed at speeding up the evolution of renewable electricity production -- with wind, solar and other oil-free sources -- this initiative, in one respect, is ideal. There'd be no hit on the taxpayers. No tax hike. No bonds. No burden on the strapped state general fund. Any costs would be borne by utility shareholders and/or ratepayers. Users pay.
It's sweeping and complex. And that's one of its big problems for voters. Few are knowledgeable enough about the arcane subject of electricity generation to render an informed judgment on such an intricate proposal.
Problem is, of course, the governor -- any governor -- and the Legislature don't exactly have a sound record on energy policy.
Prop. 7 is the product of Arizona billionaire Peter Sperling, son of the founder of the University of Phoenix. He's apparently worried about global warming and is teamed with former San Francisco Supervisor Jim Gonzalez, a political consultant.
