As Absentee Ballots will soon be arriving in your mail box I want to get a jump on the upcoming General Election by providing Part One of “Larry’s Picks” for the Novermber 4, 2008 Election:
Proposition 1A. “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.”
This is a foot in the door to a high speed rail system calling for a $9.95 billion dollar Bond. Amazing. According to several sources this bullet train, when all of the tracks are laid, will quickly ratchet up to over $75 billion dollars.
Further, the ridership projections are excessive. Won’t happen.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Senator Tom McClintock oppose this ballot measure. Larry says vote NO. OPPOSE
Prop 2 “Standards for Confining Farm Animals” Bars tight cages.
Larry says vote NO. OPPOSE
Prop 3 “Children’s Hospital Bond Act.” $980 million in bonds to upgrade children’s hospitals. Adding interest expense this would approach $2 billion over the next 30 years. We have just approved a massive budget and simply cannot afford to burden ourselves especially when we have not spent hundreds of millions of previously approved bonds for this very purpose. Larry says vote NO. OPPOSE.
Prop 4 “Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative.” “Sarah’s Law.”
Parental, or other adult family member, notification by a physician 48 hours prior to performing an abortion on a minor child.
Larry says vote YES. SUPPORT
Prop 5 “Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Paroling and Rehabilitation.”
Mandates probation with treatment instead of jail or prison for many drug crimes and diminishes sentences and shortens parole for many nonviolent crimes when drugs are involved.” LA Times. George Soros is a major player supporting this measure. Larry says vote NO. OPPOSE
Prop 6 “The Safe Neighborhoods Act.”
Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws.”
“Eliminate bail for undocumented individuals charged with violent or gang-related felonies.” This measure “deems any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a “gang-related” felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court, thus, prosecuting these youth as adults.”
Estimated cost $500 million for additional prison space.
Larry says vote YES. SUPPORT.
Prop 7 “Renewable Energy Generation.”
Increased clean generation requirement on utilities. It is rare to find both major parties in agreement. Both the CA Democratic and CA Republican Parties OPPOSE this measure. Larry says vote NO. OPPOSE
Prop 8 “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” You don’t need an attorney to interpret these 14 concise words. Over 60 percent of CA voters approved Prop 22 in 2000 only to see it thrown out by our activist court. Larry says vote YES. SUPPORT
Prop 9 Marsy’s Law: “Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008.” This will provide enforceable rights to family members of crime victims.
Larry says vote YES. SUPPORT
Prop 10 “Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy.” $5 billion in bond rebates to buyers of natural gas and alternative fuel vehicles. Funded by T. Boone Pickens (whose company produces natural gas).
Larry says vote NO. OPPOSES
Prop 11 “Redistricting.” Instead of statewide elected officials picking the voters it should be the voters picking them. The down side is that this Prop. did not include the same provision for congressional districts that are “gerrymandered” manipulated, to protect both major parties.
While not complete Larry says vote YES. SUPPORT
Prop 12 “Veterans Bond Act of 2008.” This Bond Measure will provide access to low-interest mortgages for veterans. With all of the recent fallout over subprime and other questionable mortgages this is a tough call. However this bond is for Cal Vet’s where the current program only covers those who served prior to 1977. This is the least we can do for those veterans who served our country in the past 30 years.
Larry says vote YES. SUPPORT
Stay tuned. In the next two weeks I will post Part two of “Larry’s Picks”
For a real eye opener about Prop 10 see this write up on T Boonedogel Pickens
Propositions have become an end run on the legislative process where ideas are fully examined through hearings, floor debate, and independent analysis. This is the place where laws are crafted that do not run foul of the constitution or wind up in costly litigation. Now they are cynically put forward in hopes of attracting voters that otherwise wouldnt vote (prop 8) or by a big corporation hoping to end run regulations (prop 7 – Edison). Propositions are welfare for lawyers! Let an interest group write a proposition in such a way to get it passed and its guaranteed to be a law thats impossible to enforce or prone to litigation. My advice is much simpler Larry, vote NO on all of them.
Prop 8 … Over 60 percent of CA voters approved Prop 22 in 2000 only to see it thrown out by our activist court. Larry says vote YES. SUPPORT
Larry, Larry, Larry. Same old talking points, no matter how often you hear the truth. These “activist” judges were almost all conservative Republicans, and they were actually unanimous on the question of Prop 22 being unconstitutional, only divided on the question of the remedy.
Oh. Maybe nobody told you. We have a constitutional democracy, with a judicial system. The people could get in a rotten mood and vote to crucify puppies, and judges would rule it unconstitutional, and that would be the end of that.
And is this your logic: We need to vote against gay marriage again, on principle, just because 60% of us did eight years ago. Like populations never grow up. I don’t care, vote however you want if you want to be the kind of person who wants to keep equal rights away from our gay friends. This proposition is going down, and if by some evil miracle it passes, it’ll just be knocked down again by impartial judges following our California Constitution.
(Agree with you on 11 and 12 though.)
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” You don’t need an attorney to interpret these 14 concise words.
Oh, but we have an attorney at this blog, and you may not remember that he addressed those 14 words, http://orangejuiceblog.com/2008/06/anti-marriage-amendment-advocates-anarchy/
“This November’s anti-gay-marriage amendment is only 14 words: ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ It’s that word ‘only’ that gives the amendment its teeth. Everyone already knows that marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized, as long as they follow the right procedure and neither one is already married. Taken literally it not only invalidates gay marriages (and domestic partnerships?) past present and future, it also invalidates everything (except marriage between a man and a woman).
“Suppose after the amendment passes I want to question the validity of the Service Employee’s International Union. They would show up for bargaining some day, and I would advise my client to disregard them altogether. The SEIU is not valid or recognized in California. The SEIU is not a marriage between a man and a woman. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Therefore, the SEIU is not valid or recognized in California. Don’t bother trying to form a new labor union. If it is not a marriage between a man and a woman, it will not be recognized or valid in California.
“Driving home from the polls might be a problem after the anti-marriage amendment passes, if your driver’s license is invalid for not being a marriage between a man and a woman, and there may be no home to go to as the deed to your house was not a marriage between a man and a woman. Most people will not be too sad to hear that their debt to Providian is no longer valid or recognized, but some of the fun will come out of the news if the bank that has your money is no longer bound by the deposit agreement. You rush to the invalid court and complain to the unrecognized judge about your deposit agreement. The judge holds the deposit agreement up to the light, and takes out his reading glasses. ‘This does not look to me like a marriage between a man and a woman. It looks like a deposit agreement. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’
“That would only happen if your judge is a strict constructionist.”
Ronald St. John, Esq., June 2008
Vern says: (re. Prop 8) … “it’ll just be knocked down again by impartial judges following our California Constitution.”
Vern – If Prop 8 passes it will be an amendment to the CA Constitution and therefore must be followed by your so called “impartial” judges.
Vern says: “Taken literally it not only invalidates gay marriages (and domestic partnerships?) past present and future, it also invalidates everything (except marriage between a man and a woman).”
Vern – That argument was already tried and was knocked down by the CA Supremes.
Prop 7
Larry:
Your terrible wrong about Proposition 7.
I have studied this proposition in depth. I will be voting yes on 7.
The real issue is that the folks like Southern California Edison are fighting this bill. Southern California Edison is the big money behind NO on this proposal. Of course they would fight something that would not put them in complete control and retain control of energy distribution. That by itself should tell you to take a hard look behind the curtain on this issue, As you know I have studied the industry–electrical power industry for 10 years with great intensity. My Masters in Economics was focused on the deregulation of the natural gas industry that took place now over 45 years ago. There are many parallels between that industry then and what is taking place in the renewable energy industry today.
It’s PG&E and Southern California Edison that are raising the rates, not Prop. 7. PG&E is raising rates 6.5% this year; and Edison is raising rates 16% this year. As you know I sent you information that SCE is seeking an additional significant rate increase on top of the stated 16%. The impact of Prop. 7 will never raise consumers’ bills more than 3% over market price in its last year of full implementation: 2017. PG&E and So. Cal. Edison are hiding behind the smokescreen of their misleading TV commercials in the hope that consumers forget that it is the utilities which raise our rates. As you point out the sun is free–its only SCE that keeps it handcuffed.
Just last week Southern California Edison was fined $146 Million for falsification of their customer satisfaction surveys. At this time Southern California Edison is facing more significant problems related to falsification for over 5 years at their San Onofre Nuclear facility in San Clemente. I testified at the hearing held by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and pointed out many of the Edison falsifications.
I will be voting YES on Proposition 7 because it is the way forward to promoting and developing the solar industry. Do not be deceived by Southern California Edison and their various associations like the Edison Institute and EPRI–Electrical Power Research Institute. As proven by the latest findings Edison has and will lie and falsify data to bend public opinion.
I would suggest you look at the German model that has effectively eliminated the restrictions and limitations on the solar industry and its ability to sell and recapture investment rates with out the onerous overlay of folks like Southern California Edison and the electrical utility Industry in general in this country. The next step would be a distributed energy model in which small solar facilities–located in the community be the source of power. This would be clean and efficient eliminating the need for fossil fuel consumption and the massive oil imports that are needed to sustain an antiquated model.
All progress has required bold step forward–and this is just another example
Joe H:
Prop 7 is a colossal money making scheme sponsored by the (“Gas Man” – “don’t drill for oil” – “use my CNG”) T. Boone Pickens.
Ya see when we get hooked on T. Boone’s CNG – he will raise the price of that fuel to make more billions and the price of his oil will also remain high.
That T. Boone is one smart swindler.
Vote No on Prop 7.
anon.9:58 pm
While it is tempting to “vote NO on all of them” there are times when our legislature simply fail to act. Simply look at how long it took to agree on a mandatory budget. 85 days. That is why it is important to change the current system where they pick us instead of us picking them. Redistriciting, Prop 11
Brother Vernon. Your opinion of Prop 8
You have taken us down this road too many times to have an intelligent discussion. Your mind is made up and there is no advantage to engaging in further debate on this issue. The votes spoke in 2000 and in less than 50 days they will speak again.
Joe.
While we both are of the same mindset as it relates to Edison I must set those feeling aside in the best interest of ALL Californians as this is a statewide vote.
While I support competition I am also mindfull of the impact this might have on capital improvements in exisiting energy sources such as nuclear power.
And from the Reason Foundation:
In her latest column, Reason’s Skaidra Smith-Heisters writes:
Television ads about Proposition 7 have been airing for weeks in California. The ads are part of a ballot battle that pits Arizona billionaire Peter Sperling and campaign spokesman Jim Gonzalez against a coalition which includes the state’s Democratic and Republican parties, big utilities, alternative energy providers, California Labor Federation, California Taxpayers’ Association, California League of Conservation Voters and California Chamber of Commerce.
Proposition 7 would change California’s renewables portfolio standard (RPS), a set of state mandates for electricity procurement from geothermal, biomass, small hydro, wind, solar and other state-approved alternative energy sources. California’s first RPS was enacted in 2002, when 11 percent of the state’s electricity came from renewable sources. The 2002 RPS mandated that 20 percent of the state’s electricity be renewable electricity by 2017. In 2006, the state’s actual renewable energy share was unchanged at 11 percent, but legislators upped the ante and called for an accelerated RPS anyway-20 percent by 2010.
Today, the state’s renewable electricity share still hovers around 11 percent, yet government energy experts remain confident that the state will eventually meet the 20 percent goal-if not in the next 16 months, then soon enough. They’ve even begun workshops to explore what will be needed to meet Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s longer-term goal of 33 percent renewable electricity by 2020.
Without even a preliminary analysis completed, Proposition 7 would arbitrarily mandate an increase in renewable electricity share of 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025.
Anyone with a bad idea and a billion dollars can buy their way onto the California ballot. What remains to be seen is whether the combined opposition of California’s major lobbies is enough to convince voters to oppose a proposition that nearly two-thirds of them supported in preliminary polling.
Voters have many reasons to oppose Proposition 7. The RPS targets are imprudent and regrettably out of sync with the considerable effort already underway to devise a coherent greenhouse gas reduction strategy for the state. Further, the poorly-worded initiative may inadvertently drive small and mid-size renewable energy projects out of the state market. But the biggest problem with Proposition 7 is that it requires Californians to buy renewable energy no matter how expensive it is-a scenario that promises to damage both ratepayers and the environment.
Proposition 7 softens the criteria for determining the state’s reference price for electricity, allows utilities to charge 10 percent over that reference price to accommodate the higher price of renewable energy generation, and locks utility companies into 20-year contracts with generators. That means Californians could be bound to very expensive utility contracts even as far more cost-competitive renewable energy sources, energy-saving technologies, and other greenhouse-gas-cutting opportunities become available. To top it off, the proposition specifies that the new laws it creates could only be changed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature or another ballot initiative, so it would be hard to fix the problems that Proposition 7 would create in the future.
Proponents of the measure get one thing right: they say it won’t raise taxes. But since it will expand state government, create redundant responsibilities among state agencies, and increase local government costs, it will certainly result in greater government spending. Their claim that the measure won’t increase electricity rates by more than 3 percent is simply false; the Legislative Analyst’s Office has determined that “the measure includes no specific provisions to implement or enforce this declaration.”
Larry, redistricting in CA is just another Reep attempt to shift the balance of power in their favor. I dont blame you I would do the same if the numbers favored you.
Also it was your “no tax and spend” crowd that held up the budget so that there wouldnt be a tax increase. Actual legislation by minority because of the 2/3 vote requirement. Want change? Let the majority govern and you’ll get your legislation and budgets on time.
Joe, thanks for the clarification on Prop 7. I thought it was the other way around and Edison wanted Prop 7 for a solar power plant. My bad.
Oh, as long as Joe and Larry are reading here let me ask a question.
When I was up in Oregon this summer I read that the Oregon Utilities will not be purchasing any excess energy produced by individual’s solar or wind power plants because there was no room on the grid for their power. This caused me to think that the ‘grid’ that runs electricity across the country doesn’t have places to store energy and that its produced by the mainstream energy producers in whatever quantity the demand requires. Now I believe that the law in Ca requires the utilities to accept excess RPG and compensate the private provider for it. This must reduce the amount of power the utilities have to buy but because they buy in big contracts does it really result in a savings?
So my question is this. If I produce excess RPG what effect does this have on the power grid and the power company and more importantly everyone’s electric bill?
anon.
We both need to look into the future. While Reep’s may benefit today there was a time when our party was in the majority be it here in CA or inside the beltway.
Although congressional districts are not included in this Prop simply check out the map for the 23rd congressional district that runs for 200 miles from Oxnard to the Monterey County line. That needs to be fixed. And, as we often say, you cannot eat an elephant in one bite. Let “change” commece by supporting Prop 11 on Nov 4th.
Larry, we’ve been hearing that ‘trust me’ from the other side of the aisle for almost 8 years now and all its gotten us is crisis after crisis.
Sorry, if I’m going to vote for a redistricting plan its going to be a bipartisan plan that the legislature holds hearings on, debates on the public record, and passes by a majority of both houses and is signed by the Governor NOT a special interest financed, signatures paid for, and publicized at great expense to dupe the voters into supporting it.
This might be a great plan (it’s not) and if it is it will survive the legislative process. The Proposition process has been taken out of the hands of the common man it was meant to empower and hijacked by special interests (yours and mine) that are unable to get a majority of support from our elected representatives.
If you want to fix the problem first take the money out of the political system then divy up the spoils, I mean districts.
I know, vote NO on all of them. “Just say NO” never sounded so good.
Larry, on the bright side we agree on over half of your picks
anon.
Unllike a battery, you generally cannot store energy. With respect to generating your own energy and getting a rebate from utilities such as Edison Intl., simply ask Joe. He is installing solar panels on his home now. I bleieve he has stated that they will not give him a credit. See following from SCE.
Net Energy Metering (NEM) is a program designed to benefit Southern California Edison (SCE) customers who generate their own electricity. To qualify, an eligible SCE customer must produce energy from an electric generating system using solar, wind, biogas, or fuel cell technology, or a hybrid generating system.
Note: Net Energy Metering does not allow you to sell power back to SCE or into California’s wholesale electricity market.
Brother Vernon. Your opinion of Prop 8. You have taken us down this road too many times to have an intelligent discussion. Your mind is made up and there is no advantage to engaging in further debate on this issue.
ME? You’re also saying the same exact thing you said months ago, ignoring criticisms and points you don’t want to hear.
The votes spoke in 2000 and in less than 50 days they will speak again.
That’s what it comes down with you, “We won 8 years ago so we’re gonna win again!” But the polls are not looking good for you, especially since Jerry Brown has been allowed to describe the measure accurately on the ballot as “takes away the right of same-sex couples to marry.” You had better get out to those church parking lots if you want to pull this one off! (And don’t bother with Catholic, Episcopal, Unitarian, Congregational, or Lutheran churches, they’re also tending pro-equality.)
I see three motivations (apart from the nonsensical “sick it to the judges!”)
1. People really don’t think gays should have the same rights as them, which I think reflects badly on those people;
2. People actually fear that gay marriage will some how infect their own marriage, which I think reflects badly on their sanity;
3. Republicans see a previously-successful plan to get anti-gay Christians out to the polls, who will also probably pull the lever for any “R”s while they’re there. (Larry even accidentally admitted that once in comments!) Cynical, cynical…
OK, it’s on.
Ha! We won, didn’t we?
Not for long.
Anonyms, I will have to take a closer look at 11. I had thought it was painstakingly nonpartisan and would shake things up, making politicians have to be more responsive to the voters in their districts, which is why incumbents of both parties oppose it. I will study it more with your comments in mind. I know a lot of Democrats who feel that it’s just as likely we could get more seats under it as the reverse, and if we don’t it’ll be our fault.
anon.
Sadly, for any of us to expect our state legislature to vote for the potential of losing their comfortable partisan seats is a pipe dream.
If you follow statewide elections you will see that the real fight is within each party in the primaries. Once a standard bearer is chosen by each party, it’s virtually a cake walk come November. That’s the problem.
Just a few things
1: Junior you confused Prop 7 with Prop 10.
Prop 7 is not funded by T boone Pickens… it is funded by Peter Sperling. He is not some billionaire with a bad idea, he is actually a good man who donated over 3 million dollars to the Santa Barbara wetlands. And prop 7 is seriously underfunded in comparision to the now 28 million dollars that PG&E and Edison are paying to defeat it. By the way that is our money they are spending, on something that would save us money in the long run.
2. Larry please point to the line in the initiative that leaves out small renewables? Can’t? That’s okay because it doesn’t exist. Energy Expert S. David Freeman has been challenging the opposition to point this out, and no one can. No one can find the exact line in the language where prop 7 leaves out small renewables. The utilities use this argument as a scare tactic to gain an opposition coalition. Prop 7 has energy experts (S. David Freeman who got us out of the 2001 energy crises), Nasa climate scientist James Hansen, Dr. Donald Aiken who created the renewable portfolio standard in Ca, environmental groups, and democratic groups on it’s side. But no paper, news report, and even some bloggers fail to point this out.
I personally would hate to be on the side of the groups who wanted to play politics with the investor owned utilities who wanted to stop the solution from happening. I prefer to be with the experts.
3. Three Nobel Prize winners recently proclaimed their support of proposition 7. I don’t believe it would be in their interest to put their name behind a “poorly written” initiative. They actually went so far as to write a letter to every opposing group urging them to change their position and create a united front for renewable energy in California.
Here are their names:
Walter Kohn
Research Professor of Physics and Chemistry
Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1998)
Alan J. Heeger
Professor of Physics and Professor of Materials
Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (2000)
Herbert Kroemer
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Nobel Laureate in Physics (2000)
Prof. Kohn is a theoretical physicist with a Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1998). He
has been a member and/or Board member of the Federation of American
Scientists, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense
Council for several decades. He is concerned and actively involved in the
national discussions concerning energy and global warming, including the
production of a pair of films on solar energy (“The Power of the Sun”, translated
into 9 languages). He has contributed to the recent international meeting in Bali
through its chair, German Chancellor Angela Merkl.
Prof. Heeger is a physicist and a Materials Scientist physicist with a Nobel Prize
in Chemistry (2000). He created the technology of low cost “plastic” solar cells
using the Bulk Heterojunction concept. Plastic solar cells promise to provide a
significant decrease in the cost of producing electricity from the sun. He
participated in the conference on Climate Change and Global Sustainability
sponsored by Chancellor Angela Merkl (October 2007).
Prof. Kroemer is a theoretical physicist with a Nobel Prize in Physics (2000),
awarded for developing semiconductor heterostructures used in high-speed and
opto-electronics. They are the fundamental concept underlying all
semiconductor-based lasers and light-emitting diodes; the latter leading to a
revolution in lighting technology. Heterostructures are also widely used in
modern high-speed communications electronics.
Thank you.
Sophia Marie.
The fact that there are three Nobel Prize winners supporting your side should not dismiss or trump the opposing argument. I am certain that those opposing this renewable energy plan could produce similar experts.
You bring back fond memories for me. There was a time in my life when I served as a Working Group Chairman for the IEEE where two dozen similar experts from around the world put our heads together creating new standards used in the world of electronics. At our annual conferences we often discussed the key for advancement for these academics that comes down to three words. “Publish or perish.” I met men and women with great minds and ideas who could provide presentations on some state of the art concepts that sadly could not be reproduced outside the lab in the real world.
As stated above, in 2000 the goal was to have 20 percent of our energy be from renewables yet in 2005 that number never exceeded 11 percent. While Arnold is shooting for 33 percent by 2020 this Prop would mandate compliance of 50 percent by 2025.
Sofia,
You are right, Prop 10 is the “T. Boone gets richer quicker” scheme.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/07/29/t-boones-stake-oil-tycoons-got-a-dog-in-california-energy-fight/?mod=googlenews_wsj
“you generally cannot store energy”
There are all sorts of new technologies out there, such as molten salt, that are used for thermal energy storage.
The sun super heats the liquid salt all day to over 1000 degrees and it is stored to be released for up to a week.When electricity is needed, the hot salt is pumped to a conventional steam-generator to produce superheated steam for a turbine/generator as used in any conventional coal, oil or nuclear power plant. A 100-megawatt turbine would need tanks of about 30 ft tall and 79 ft in diameter to drive it for four hours by this design.
http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable_Energy/solarthermal/NSTTF/salt.htm
Larry and friends:
Solar creates no green house gases. If the grid gets enough power–shut down the belching gas, coal, and oil fired plants. They are all problematic.
By the way Larry–after my solar is installed–your free to charge your car, batteries, tooth brush or hair clippers at my house. Cost to you–ZERO.
Joe
Hi Joe, thanks for installing solar and helping out the planet. Tell me, will the power company buy your excess energy?
I’m thinking that if we can’t force replacement of energy through individual RPG’s then what chance do we have of a green revolution? Maybe the power companies will invest in RPG’s (I know Edison is going to, that’s why I thought they were supporting Prop 7) that way we can pay for the new technology AND pay the old prices for the new cheaper energy. Heck, they should just ask for a Trillion from the Government to build it all at once.
You know about Government Trillions dont you? You just put your lips together and…
I must say….I don’t agree with you about nearly everything up there. What I do want to say about that is I think you should reconsider your opposition to number 7. I’ve been noticing a lot of uncanny alliances in the opposition party and have done some hunting down on the money trail. I suggest before you oppose it, you make sure you’re getting paid like everyone else to speak out against it. Have you seen how much of our rate-payer money has been used to oppose 7?! It’s obscene. Check it out: http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1304245&session=2007&view=late1
anon 7:31 p.m. To your opening paragraph.
From my earlier comment: Note: Net Energy Metering does not allow you to sell power back to SCE or into California’s wholesale electricity market.
Kelly.
Help me understand your comment. “….I don’t agree with you about nearly everything up there.” Is that a reference to the entire list of recommendations or solely to Prop 7?
Kelly. Compensation? While I served as Orange County chairman for Prop 98, as a non paid volunteer, I am not being paid by ANY of the supporters (or opponents) of these latest Ballot Propositions.
We can agree that CA must consider every form of eneregy, including renewables. However, at this time we only get 11 percent of our energy from those sources. As you are concerned about emissions, would you support expansion of clean nuclear energy?
Prop 7 and the current laws on small scale solar generation are insane. You can only get a zero sum bill even if you currently generate more energy from your PV solar panels at home than you use*. What you say that isn’t fair? Nope, and neither is Prop 7.
*It’s one reason why I didn’t do a solar PV roof a few years ago when I looked into it. Right now I’m super glad I didn’t. I would have had to get a loan to do it and since my wife worked in the mortgage business and lost her job in this really poor job market, we would be under even greater pressure than we are now with the additional debt load. While it would have been good for society it would have been bad for us.
Folks:
Of course Edison opposes Prop.7. Edison has a history of falsifying data and health and safety records. Deceiving the public is built into Edison’s DNA. to
They would eventually be forced to follow the German Model–which they would pay the small producer for their excess energy. This would eventually lead to Edison and their associates having to shutting down the belching monsters they presently employ to produce energy. Then folks might think of distributed energy–small local solar plant and Edison then will be at a real disadvantage–sort of like the dinosaurs they are.
Joe,
Please show me where Prop 7 does what you say, paying the home generator for surplus power.
Folks.
Nuclear power plants are virtually carbon free yet no one has suggested expansion of this form of energy as many express concern over greenhouse emissions. While renewables, collectively, only generate 11 percent of our energy, nuclear power generation is considerably higher at 19 percent.
See the following: The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 19% of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—78% as of 2006.
Regrading Prop 1 A. While no one has commented on my recommendation let me add comments by Tom Schatz whos einterivew appeared in Capitol Weekly.
What are the key changes that would be needed in order to make a viable high speed rail system?
It really has to be started from scratch. The assumptions were too optimistic, based on speeds and ridership and construction and bond costs that just aren’t realistic, based not only on US experience but on international experience. The closest that could be compared is the Acela line between Washington and Boston where the density is about the same as the population that would be covered in California. The ridership is much lower than predicted.
Joe and Larry, the more I read the more I find my idea of voting NO on all of them to be the smartest thing to do. First, these things all cost money and if we cant even agree on a budget due to money shortages what the heck are we thinking? That the economy will improve? You’re taking Sarah’s medicine if you think that.
I realize there is a ‘strange bedfellows’ thing going with the opposition to Prop 7. The fact that Edison is opposing it is enough to make me vote in favor BUT an environmental advocacy group I support sent me the following:
No on Proposition 7: Protect small solar producers and encourage solar energy production
Proposition 7 fails to address the obstacles that have been identified by conservation groups, energy agencies, the renewables industry, and others as barriers to reaching our renewable energy goals. In addition, the proposal jeopardizes achievement of the current requirement of California law, which requires that 20 percent of electricity sold to customers be renewable by 2010.
Proposition 7 threatens the status of small-scale renewable resources under California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Proposition 7 authors amended the definition of “eligible renewable energy resource” by replacing the phrase “an electric generating facility” with “a solar and clean energy facility.” The proposed change puts the entire spectrum of small-scale renewable generation technologies at risk, and requires a two-thirds legislative majority to provide a remedy, leaving Californians stuck with a flawed and inflexible renewable energy policy. The success of California’s renewable energy future is too critical to achieving our clean energy goals to lock in fatally flawed legislation. Environmental, labor and consumer organizations are united in our commitment to the success of California’s renewable energy future– but we are also united in our opposition to Prop 7, which will not deliver that future.
See, this is what Propositions get you – FATALLY FLAWED LEGISLATION. Save the cheerleader, save the world. Just say NO on Nov 4th.
Oh yeah, last day to register to vote if you moved or got married and changed your name is October 20. Register and vote please, even if you dont agree with me.
Larry,
I don’t support nuclear energy. Although it may cause no emissions while generating electricity, we still have an energy intensive process to mine for and process uranium. This does produce emissions. We also don’t have a clean and sustainable way to properly dispose of the waste produced from nuclear facilities. My idea of a clean and renewable method of electricity production means no emissions and no waste.
The more important issue at hand however is the consequences California and Californians are facing from climate change. If we cannot urgently correct our system of producing energy in tandem with conserving energy and moving away from oil, every aspect of our lives will be adversely affected. Just the single fact of warming temperatures will melt our snowpacks too quickly for us to capture the water. We will face water shortages not only for our homes and thirst but more threateningly for our food supply and agricultural economy.
I see Prop. 7 as the necessary immediate action in addressing the imminent threat of climate change consequences. It may not be perfect and indeed I would prefer to see distributed clean power, but it is THE ONLY viable option and it comes from us. It certainly hasn’t come from the legislation and it certainly won’t ever come from the utility companies.
We are only at 10.9%, you were being generous. This is a decline from several years ago when we reached nearly 14%. We can make 50% and beyond, it’s a matter of really wanting it. As consumers of electricity it is our responsibility to demand a cleaner product and refuse to be complacent in the consumption of coal, gas, oil, AND nuclear produced energy. The utility companies must recognize the saying that “the customer is always right”.
Carl,
I agree utilities should pay their individual solar producers for the excess energy they supply to the grid. They don’t and it’s a real crime. Proposition 7 cannot amend or address this systemic problem because utility companies do not recognize individual or residential solar users as an electricity producer. Should this change and the utility companies consider residential solar production to be an electricity producer, we would all be included as small renewable energy providers under AB32 and Prop. 7.
I think we just came up with an idea for a better proposition than Prop 7.
How about requiring utility companies to purchase excess energy from individuals or businesses that are able to generate more power than they use?
As someone pointed out earlier the utility company can actually control the amount of energy they produce so make them use renewable first from us then generate their own for the rest. Since the utility company generation is usually environmentally unfriendly this will help with that problem. The energy they buy off long term contracts will make up the rest. Now they may need to renegotiate the delivery schedue on these contracts due to individual and business electric generation but with energy prices as high as they are and technology in solar and wind production continuing to improve I think individuals and all businesses might find it cost effective to start generating their own energy plus some to sell back to the utility company.
Too bad this isnt in the legislature, we could just amend the bill. Noooo, this has to be a Proposition! Oh well, somebody had to waste a bunch of money on something I guess.
I totally agree Anonyms! They had a couple of bills up their in Sac to do just that and they didn’t get out of the committees ;-(
Lets write a Proposition! Doh!
anon 3.51 p.m.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for our legislature to pass any meaningful legislation. When I visit elected officials in SAC they have told me how much they appreciate visitors from their districts who are not paid lobbyists. I have seen several of these sharp men in their $1,000 Versace and Zegna suits walking the halls of the Capitol promoting their Agenda while offering to take elected officials and their staff out to lunch or a local sporting event. Many of these lobbyists make well over $100,000 a year promoting multiple clients.
Do you really think that elected officials, who need tens of thousands of dollars to run for re-election, are not accepting campaign contributions from these lobbyists?
anon they also rely on the lobbyists for research, actuall writing and rewriting legislation, and letting the lawmakers know where their coalitions are for different legislation. It’s obscene and should never have developed into this. It’s as bad as shouting ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater.
Hey, we could suspend the first amendment rights for political expression and influence of all paid lobbyists and publicly finance televised debates for all candidates removing as needed the first amendment rights in regards political contributions of any groups over a certain size (bigger than a family or neighborhood). Give them enough staff to do the research needed and we might be able to get some stuff done without lobbyists fingerprints all over it.
What? Too common sence?
Big Utilities Pay Off Democrats and Republicans- Does this surprise you?
Did you know between 2002 and 2008, electric utilities in California gave $13,291,877 to influence political parties and ballot measures? That, of course, doesn’t include the $27.5 million dropped by PG&E, Southern Cal Edison, and Sempra to defeat Proposition 7. Now we are talking $40,791,877.
Yeah, that’s an eye-popping $40 million by the Big Utilities to influence California politics over the last seven years – 2/3rds just on defeating Prop 7 this year!
And were you aware that Pacific Gas & Electric is the 3rd largest industry-contributor to California elected officials and candidates? This isn’t money to the parties (which is included in the above amount) – this is money just to candidates and elected officials. The grand total that our legislative representatives have taken from PG&E? $973,078 this year alone. The distinguished list of utility beneficiaries that you elected to represent you can be found here (http://confusedinsolarcalifornia.blogspot.com/).
And that’s not counting the hundreds of thousands (millions, likely) doled out by PG&E to environmental groups, community groups, and various non-profits, by the Big Utilities to influence California politics and energy policy. This is most recently evidenced by the overwhelming misinformation campaign to defeat renewable energy requirements via Prop 7.