Introduction
Proposition 7, titled The Solar and Clean Energy Act, is largely sponsored and backed by Jim Gonzalez, a former San Francisco county supervisor (appointed by then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein in 1986), and Peter Sperling, the son of the billionaire who founded Pheonix University.
Prop 7
The proposed law's text states that its intent is to accomplish the following:
- Address global warming and climate change, and protect the endangered Sierra snowpack by reducing California's carbon-based greenhouse gas emissions
- Tap proven technologies such as solar, geothermal, wind, biomass, and small hydroelectric to generate clean energy throughout California and meet renewable energy targets without raising taxes on any California taxpayer
- Require all California utilities-including government-owned utilities like the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power-to procure electricity from solar and clean energy resources, in the following timeframes: 20 percent by 2010; 40 percent by 2020; and, 50 percent by 2025
- Fast-track all approvals for the development of solar and clean energy plants and related transmission facilities while guaranteeing all environmental protections — including the Desert Protection Act
- Create production incentives for the development and construction of solar and clean energy plants and related transmission facilities
Assess penalties upon all utilities that fail to meet renewable resource targets, and prohibit these utilities from passing on these penalties to consumers- Permit long-term 20 year contracts for solar and clean energy to assure marketability and financing of solar and clean energy plants
- Cap price impacts on consumers' electricity bills at less than 3 percent
- Grant the Public Utilities Commission the powers to enforce compliance of the renewables portfolio standard upon privately owned utilities, assess penalties for non-compliance, and prohibit utilities from passing on penalties to consumers
- Grant the California State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (the Energy Commission) the powers to: Enforce compliance of the renewables portfolio standard upon government-owned utilities, assess penalties to those utilities for non-compliance, and prohibit the utilities from passing on penalties to consumers; adopt rules to fast-track all approvals for the development of solar and clean energy resources and plants while guaranteeing all environmental protections — including the Desert Protection Act; allocate funds to purchase, sell, or lease real property, personal property or rights-of-way for the development and use of the property and rights-of-way for the generation and/or transmission of solar and clean energy, and to upgrade existing transmission lines; and, identify and designate Solar and Clean Energy Zones — primarily in the desert.
The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that there would be at least $3.4 million in added costs as a result of Proposition 7 because of increased administrative responsibilities that the law would add to the Energy Commission.
The LAO estimates that an increase in short-term electricity rates as a result of Proposition 7 would be likely, with "unknown" further long-term costs.
Reports and Studies
California’s Proposition 7:
An Analysis
By Stephen Weisman, California Center for Environmental Law and Policy, October 2008
The Money Picture
The two largest groups of contributions to the Yes on 7 campaign as of October 8, 2008:
| Peter Sperling | $7,250,000 |
| Jim Gonzalez | $130,000 |
The three largest groups of contributions to the No on 7 campaign as of October 8, 2008:
| Pacific Gas & Electric | $13,895,000 |
| Edison International | $13,719,000 |
| Sempra Energy | $104,000 |
Television Spots for and against Proposition 7
These television advertisements are funded and produced by the political committees in favor of and in opposition to Proposition 7. Their inclusion here is for informational purposes only and is in no way meant to advocate one or the other side of the debate.
Yes on Proposition 7
No on Proposition 7