Political winds buffet California ballot measures on energy

Two of the world's richest men bankroll alternative-energy initiatives on the November ballot. Each is opposed by some of the very champions of those alternatives.

Adding to the confusion, both measures carry "renewable energy" in their titles.

Political commentators aren't helping much, naming Proposition 7 "Big Solar," and Proposition 10 "Big Wind." But the former promises more power from renewable sources generally, not just the sun. The latter would actually invest more public money in natural gas than wind farms.

A political tussle over the separate initiatives, heralded as solutions to global warming, may confuse voters. In the past, voters have rejected competing or conflicting propositions.

The energy proposals target different sectors of the economy: transportation, which accounts for about 40 percent of California's climate-warming emissions, and electric power, which emits about 25 percent of these greenhouse gases - mainly carbon dioxide.

For Proposition 10, think "vehicles." For Proposition 7, it's "power plants."

Proposition 10 promises to accelerate California's shift away from gasoline to alternative fuels, notably natural gas.

The measure would authorize $5 billion in bonds to help companies and consumers buy fuel-efficient or alternatively fueled vehicles. The largest beneficiaries would be operators of fueling stations for a growing fleet of commercial vehicles and buses that run on natural gas.

"We're trying to move consumer behavior," campaign consultant and former state Air Resources Board chairman John Dunlap said at a legislative hearing on the energy propositions last week.

Clean Energy Fuels Corp. of Seal Beach, the nation's largest supplier of natural gas for transportation, provided most of the $3.75 million raised for the initiative as of July 31, according to state campaign finance records.

Texas tycoon T. Boone Pickens runs Clean Energy.

Pickens, 80, made his fortune in oil. More recently he launched a national campaign attacking America's dependence on imported oil with television spots touting wind power for the nation's electricity grid, so natural gas that now runs power plants can instead fuel vehicles. That's how Proposition 10 earns the moniker "Big Wind."

Pickens can outspend opponents of Proposition 10. Yet they're hitting back with claims the measure is a costly, self-serving initiative that ties public money to bonds that will live beyond the life expectancy of natural gas-fueled trucks.

Billionaire vs. utilities

Billionaire Peter Sperling has no apparent financial gain due him after pouring $3 million into Proposition 7. His wealth comes from Apollo Group Inc., which owns the for-profit University of Phoenix colleges.

Sperling's contribution, however, is dwarfed by the $23.7 million raised by Proposition 7 opponents, mainly California's investor-owned utilities, including Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Edison International. Foes also include several companies that rely solely on renewable energy from wind, solar or hydroelectric powerhouses.

Environmental opponents include the California League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

These groups see Proposition 7 as poorly drafted and capable of disrupting the diversified renewable energy production they helped establish through years of negotiations with California regulators.

"Proposition 7 was put together by people who don't know what they're doing; they don't understand California's clean energy policies, laws and markets," said Craig Noble, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, in an online posting.

Formally called the "Renewable Energy Generation" initiative, Proposition 7 would require California's utilities to get at least half of their energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal by 2025. It tilts heavily toward solar energy, hence "Big Solar."

California already has one of the most aggressive laws on renewable energy. It requires utilities to ratchet up use of renewables at least 1 percent each year, so that by 2010 they account for at least 20 percent of utilities' electricity.

Utilities are not likely to reach the current target until 2012 or 2013, according to the California Public Utilities Commission. The portion of renewable energy California consumes actually has declined in the past five years, from 14 percent to 12.7 percent.

The biggest obstacle to expanding renewable power is transmission access. Big solar, wind and geothermal projects are planned in the deserts and mountains, away from power grids.

Prop. 7 would have utilities doubling the pace to 2 percent annually and mandate targets of 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025. That's well above Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's goal of 33 percent by 2020. The state utility and energy commissions on Friday recommended the California Air Resources Board adopt the governor's plan to fight global warming. It's unclear how much Prop. 7's higher goals would cost consumers.

SMUD not sunny about Prop. 7

The measure would require publicly owned utilities such as Sacramento Municipal Utility District to meet renewable energy quotas, which currently apply only to private electrical suppliers like PG&E.

SMUD board Chairman Larry Carr said the district hardly needs to be prodded. SMUD already has the state's largest solar power portfolio, he said.

Earlier this year, SMUD voted to oppose the proposition, saying it erodes the district's autonomy and puts unwarranted emphasis on just one energy source - the sun - when a number of renewable sources show promise.

Ironically, the initiative's star pitchman is David Freeman, the blunt-talking former head of SMUD.

"If we don't get off of non-renewables in this decade, then global climate change will change this life as we know it. We are in a crisis," Freeman said at last week's hearing. "As a guy who has run utilities, I can tell you it's important to keep their feet to the fire."