Author: Mathew Mikuni
Proposition 7 seems great on paper. On the surface, it requires California utilities to further increase their use of renewable energy to 20 percent by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 50 percent by 2025. Prop 7 is also supported by two Nobel Prize Winners and an altruistic billionaire. Sounds good, right? However, all is not what it seems.
The most surprising thing that I found out about Prop 7 was the number of groups opposed to it. The California Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and Green Parties have all registered their opposition. I didn’t think these groups could even agree that the world is round. Joining all the main political parties are serious environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, the California League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Even the California Solar Energy Industries Association, who you would think would benefit from such a proposition, is against this initiative. A copy/paste of all the opposition groups into a word document ended up being five pages long.
While the intentions behind Prop 7 are no doubt admirable, the legislation itself has some serious flaws. There are many reasons why this legislation is bad, and they range from confusing language to provisions that make it extremely hard to change its many problems.
However, the most important concern from environmental groups is that Prop 7 unfairly discriminates against renewable energy projects that produce less than 30 megawatts. This effectively excludes everyone who mounts solar panels on their roof and even smaller solar energy plants. Environmental groups believe that this proposition will actually hurt the future development of renewable energy in California.
There are some things about Prop 7 that I like. For one, it forces all utilities to get more serious about investing in renewable energy. Another is that it focuses on the importance of the huge renewable energy factories that will be needed to make any significant dent in our overall energy consumption. However, it’s a poorly written proposition that is extremely hard to modify or fix through the legislature.
It seems that the main argument of Prop 7 supporters is, “well, if the big energy companies are opposed to this, then it must be good.” While this might resonate with many, it’s a woefully inadequate way to judge a proposition that deals with California’s immensely complex energy system. They would also like you to believe that the environmental groups that have been instrumental in passing all the important climate change legislation in the past decade are now suddenly in the pocket of big energy and doing their bidding.
I really applaud the organizers of Prop 7 for putting this on the ballot. They’ve spent countless hours and good chunk of change (over a million dollars), on this measure. However, by not consulting leading environmental groups in California who have a significant amount of experience in the complexities of California’s energy market, they have come up with a piece of legislation that is flawed on a number of significant levels. To save the environment, vote No on Proposition 7.
Mathew Mikuni is a senior DWA major. He can be reached at mrudberg@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
