Elections in California |
---|
California Proposition 7, would have required California utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. In order to make that goal, levels of production of solar, wind and other renewable energy resources would more than quadruple from their current[ when? ] output of 10.9%. [1] It would also require California utilities to increase their purchase of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2% annually to meet Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements of 40% in 2020 and 50% in 2025. Current law AB32 requires an RPS of 20% by 2010.
The 42 page measure, 7 pages of which is new law, is an initiated state statute that had qualified for the November 2008 ballot in California, [2] and was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.
The California Legislative Analyst's Office, the nonpartisan state agency charged with providing a neutral estimate about the fiscal impact on the state of ballot initiatives and state legislative bills, has arrived at the following summary of Prop. 7's estimated costs:
The official committee supporting Prop 7 is called Californians for Solar and Clean Energy.
For the full list of supporters, see: List of Proposition 7 supporters
The primary financial backer of the initiative is Peter Sperling.
As of September 18, two donors have contributed $5,000 or more to support Prop. 7. They are:
Jim Gonzalez, founding partner of the political consulting firm Jim Gonzalez & Associates in Sacramento, is the initiative's chief spokesperson. [6]
The official committee opposing Prop. 7 is called Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme.
See also: List of Proposition 7 opponents.
As of August 2, three donors are listed as having given $5,000 or more to defeat this initiative. [11] They are:
The opposition coalition as of July 14, 2008 had paid about $175,000 to the campaign consulting firm of Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher. [15]
A poll released on July 22, 2008 by Field Poll showed Proposition 7 with 63% support and 24% opposition. 82% of those surveyed had no initial awareness of Proposition 7. [16]
Month of Poll | In Favor | Opposed | Undecided |
---|---|---|---|
July 2008 | 63 percent | 24 percent | 13 percent |
The petition drive to qualify the measure for the ballot was conducted by Progressive Campaigns, Inc. at a cost of $1.367 million. [24]
Supporters and opponents of Proposition 7 filed lawsuits in Sacramento Superior Court regarding the wording of ballot arguments that voters will see in the official voter's guide. [25]
The lawsuit filed by proponents of Proposition 7 claimed that the opposition’s ballot arguments contained false and misleading statements that should have been deleted. Specifically, proponents sued over the opponents' claim that small renewable providers would be shut out of the market. Noting that there is no language in the measure that states that, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny refused to take sides on the issue. [26]
The lawsuit filed by opponents of Proposition 7 wanted the removal of three statements in the voter's guide:
The opponent's petition was denied in its entirety, with Judge Kenny stating that the opponents had not sufficiently established that those statements were misleading.
The campaign against Proposition 7 has drawn questions about the ties between Pacific Gas & Electric, Sempra, and Southern Cal Edison, and the main environmental groups that have come out against the measure. Articles from the late nineties and 2000-2001 linking the Natural Resources Defense Council to the passage of electricity deregulation, leading to the energy crisis over which Governor Gray Davis was recalled, have resurfaced, leading some to question the veracity of the environmental opposition., . Still more question the independence of groups like the CA League of Conservation Voters (CLVC), the Sierra Club,[ citation needed ] and Acterra, which have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from either the utilities funding the No on Prop 7 campaign or other major energy companies, and have overlapping board memberships with the utilities.
Opponents to Proposition 7 deflect the charge of greenwashing by pointing to the California Green Party's opposition.
Choice | Votes | % |
---|---|---|
No | 8,155,181 | 64.43 |
Yes | 4,502,235 | 35.57 |
Valid votes | 12,657,416 | 92.10 |
Invalid or blank votes | 1,085,761 | 7.90 |
Total votes | 13,743,177 | 100.00 |
Municipalization is the transfer of private entities, assets, service providers, or corporations to public ownership by a municipality, including a city, county, or public utility district ownership. The transfer may be from private ownership or from other levels of government. It is the opposite of privatization and is different from nationalization. The term municipalization largely refers to the transfer of ownership of utilities from Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) to public ownership, and operation, by local government whether that be at the city, county or state level. While this is most often applied to electricity it can also refer to solar energy, water, sewer, trash, natural gas or other services.
The California special election of 2005 was held on November 8, 2005, after being called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 13, 2005.
Sempra is a North American public utility holding company based in San Diego, California. The company is one of the largest utility holding companies in the United States with nearly 40 million consumers. Sempra's focus is on electric and natural gas infrastructure and its operating companies include: Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) in Southern California; Oncor Electric Delivery Company in Texas; and Sempra Infrastructure, with offices in California and Texas.
San Diego Gas & Electric is a regulated public utility that provides natural gas and electricity to San Diego County and southern Orange County in southwestern California, United States. It is owned by Sempra, a Fortune 500 energy services holding company based in San Diego.
A Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is a regulation that requires the increased production of energy from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, which have been adopted in 38 of 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The United States federal RPS is called the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). Several states have clean energy standards, which also allow for resources that do not produce emissions, such as large hydropower and nuclear power.
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), also known as Community Choice Energy, municipal aggregation, governmental aggregation, electricity aggregation, and community aggregation, is an alternative to the investor-owned utility energy supply system in which local entities in the United States aggregate the buying power of individual customers within a defined jurisdiction in order to secure alternative energy supply contracts. The CCA chooses the power generation source on behalf of the consumers.
Proposition 4, or the Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, also known to its supporters as Sarah's Law, was an initiative state constitutional amendment in the 2008 California general election.
The California state elections, November 2008 were held on November 4, 2008 throughout California. Among the elections taking place were those for the office of President of the United States, all the seats of California's delegation to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all of the odd-numbered seats of the State Senate. Twelve propositions also appeared on the ballot. Numerous local elections also took place throughout the state.
California Proposition 6, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods Act and The Runner Initiative, is a statutory initiative that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. This proposition was rejected by voters on November 4 of that year.
California Proposition 5, or the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act was an initiated state statute that appeared as a ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot in California. It was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.
Proposition 11 of 2008 was a law enacted by California voters that placed the power to draw electoral boundaries for State Assembly and State Senate districts in a Citizens Redistricting Commission, as opposed to the State Legislature. To do this the Act amended both the Constitution of California and the Government Code. The law was proposed by means of the initiative process and was put to voters as part of the November 4, 2008 state elections. In 2010, voters passed Proposition 20 which extended the Citizen Redistricting Commission's power to draw electoral boundaries to include U.S. House seats as well.
California Proposition 10, also known as the California Alternative Fuels Initiative, was an unsuccessful initiated state statute that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. Proposition 10 was funded by Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a corporation owned by T. Boone Pickens. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is the nation's leading operator of natural gas vehicle fueling stations.
Solar power has been growing rapidly in the U.S. state of California because of high insolation, community support, declining solar costs, and a renewable portfolio standard which requires that 60% of California's electricity come from renewable resources by 2030, with 100% by 2045. Much of this is expected to come from solar power via photovoltaic facilities or concentrated solar power facilities.
Proposition 23 was a California ballot proposition that was on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. It was defeated by California voters during the statewide election by a 23% margin. If passed, it would have suspended AB 32, a law enacted in 2006, legally referred to its long name, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Sponsors of the initiative referred to their measure as the California Jobs Initiative while opponents called it the Dirty Energy Prop.
A California Congressional Redistricting Initiative, Proposition 20 was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California. It was approved by 61.2% of voters. Election officials announced on May 5 that the proposition had collected sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure is known by its supporters as the VOTERS FIRST Act for Congress.
Proposition 39 is a ballot initiative in the state of California that modifies the way out-of-state corporations calculate their income tax burdens. The proposition was approved by voters in the November 6 general election, with 61.1% voting in favor of it.
Proposition 34 was a California ballot measure that was decided by California voters at the statewide election on November 6, 2012. It sought to repeal Proposition 17, originally passed by voters in 1972, thus abolishing the death penalty in California.
Proposition 62 was a California ballot proposition on the November 8, 2016, ballot that would have repealed the death penalty and replaced it with life imprisonment and forced labor without possibility of parole. It would have applied retroactively to existing death sentences and increased the portion of life inmates' wages that may be applied to victim restitution.
Proposition 66 was a California ballot proposition on the November 8, 2016, ballot to change procedures governing California state court challenges to capital punishment in California, designate superior court for initial petitions, limit successive petitions, require appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals, and exempt prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods.
Arizona House Bill 2005 is state-level legislation introduced in the Arizona State Legislature and signed into law in 2018.