California PG&E and SCE Fighting Against Pickens Plan and Alternative Energy
July 23, 2008
Utilities push back big against Prop. 7
A November ballot measure to expand renewable energy produced in California faces a long, expensive fight, as two of the state's biggest utility companies have poured $22.5 million this week into beating the initiative.
"This is a declaration of war," said Jim Gonzalez, a former San Francisco supervisor and sponsor of the measure.
The recent donations -- $12.25 million from PG&E and $10.25 million from Southern California Edison -- come on top of the $1.2 million energy-providers have already contributed.
Gonzalez said he fully expects this is only the beginning of the utilities' donations: "This is the opening gambit."
The target of the funds is Proposition 7, which would require all California utilities to generate at least half of their power from alternative sources, such a solar or wind, by 2025. Utilities are currently required to provide 20 percent of energy from renewable by 2010.
In a statement, Southern California Edison said the measure "would upend the existing regulatory process, disrupt existing renewables development, significantly raise rates and threaten reliability."
Proposition 7 was placed on the ballot largely on the strength of donations from Peter Sperling, the son of John Sperling, an Arizona billionaire and founder of the University of Phoenix.
Sperling donated $3 million to gather signatures to qualify for the ballot. Gonzalez's firm has contributed another $100,000.
The fall ballot fight -- with deep-pocketed utilities on one side and a billionaire on the other -- could wind up as the most expensive of the season.
Gonzales would not reveal if Sperling had committed to future donations, saying the campaign intended to rely on an online network of contributors, though he added, "We will spend whatever it takes to win."
The measure has united a broad and curious coalition in opposition: Democrats with Republicans (both state parties), environmentalists (the Natural Resources Defense Council) with utility companies, big labor (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) with big business (California Chamber of Commerce), and so on.
"It's kind of like I'm uniting every warring group in the state," Gonzalez told the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this month.
So far, all the money has come from the utility companies, whose largesse, Gonzales suggested, played a role in securing the endorsements of the state parties.
"The utility companies can run but they can't hide," he said. "They can't hide behind environmental groups and they can't hide behind political parties whose conventions they sponsor."
John White, an environmental lobbyist who directs the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, said environmental groups and renewable energy advocates oppose the measure because it was poorly drafted.
Environmentalists, White said, are "afraid that the measure, while well intentioned, is so poorly drafted that it could undermine the goals."
Even with such a broad coalition, the opponents of Proposition 7 face an uphill fight against public opinion. The Field Poll reported this week that, when read a brief description, 63 percent of the voters surveyed said they would support Proposition 7.
"We don't feel we have to spend the tens of millions they have to do to stick with the status quo," said Gonzalez.
Posted by Shane Goldmacher on July 23, 2008 10:02 AM
Utilities push back big against Prop. 7
A November ballot measure to expand renewable energy produced in California faces a long, expensive fight, as two of the state's biggest utility companies have poured $22.5 million this week into beating the initiative.
"This is a declaration of war," said Jim Gonzalez, a former San Francisco supervisor and sponsor of the measure.
The recent donations -- $12.25 million from PG&E and $10.25 million from Southern California Edison -- come on top of the $1.2 million energy-providers have already contributed.
Gonzalez said he fully expects this is only the beginning of the utilities' donations: "This is the opening gambit."
The target of the funds is Proposition 7, which would require all California utilities to generate at least half of their power from alternative sources, such a solar or wind, by 2025. Utilities are currently required to provide 20 percent of energy from renewable by 2010.
In a statement, Southern California Edison said the measure "would upend the existing regulatory process, disrupt existing renewables development, significantly raise rates and threaten reliability."
Proposition 7 was placed on the ballot largely on the strength of donations from Peter Sperling, the son of John Sperling, an Arizona billionaire and founder of the University of Phoenix.
Sperling donated $3 million to gather signatures to qualify for the ballot. Gonzalez's firm has contributed another $100,000.
The fall ballot fight -- with deep-pocketed utilities on one side and a billionaire on the other -- could wind up as the most expensive of the season.
Gonzales would not reveal if Sperling had committed to future donations, saying the campaign intended to rely on an online network of contributors, though he added, "We will spend whatever it takes to win."
The measure has united a broad and curious coalition in opposition: Democrats with Republicans (both state parties), environmentalists (the Natural Resources Defense Council) with utility companies, big labor (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) with big business (California Chamber of Commerce), and so on.
"It's kind of like I'm uniting every warring group in the state," Gonzalez told the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this month.
So far, all the money has come from the utility companies, whose largesse, Gonzales suggested, played a role in securing the endorsements of the state parties.
"The utility companies can run but they can't hide," he said. "They can't hide behind environmental groups and they can't hide behind political parties whose conventions they sponsor."
John White, an environmental lobbyist who directs the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, said environmental groups and renewable energy advocates oppose the measure because it was poorly drafted.
Environmentalists, White said, are "afraid that the measure, while well intentioned, is so poorly drafted that it could undermine the goals."
Even with such a broad coalition, the opponents of Proposition 7 face an uphill fight against public opinion. The Field Poll reported this week that, when read a brief description, 63 percent of the voters surveyed said they would support Proposition 7.
"We don't feel we have to spend the tens of millions they have to do to stick with the status quo," said Gonzalez.
Posted by Shane Goldmacher on July 23, 2008 10:02 AM
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Braman on -
Desmond,
I just posted a negative perspective for Prop 7 over on the souther califronia discussion group. Also I posted links to the discussion on a number of other groups. It's interesting that no one has answered in 24 hours. Prop 7 is a tangible policy issue, and there isn't any discussion about it. Please feel free to post your perspective in reply to what I posted. I'm very surprised that more people aren't talking about Prop 7 in California. the link below should get you there...
http://push.pickensplan.com/group/southerncaliforniapickenssupportg...
-
Permalink Reply by DESMOND FARRELLY (D) on -
Hello John, you are right Prop 7 is a very heated topic, it has divided a lot of Californian's along the lines of which prop to oppose or support. Personally I have mixed feelings about Prop 7, I am not going to weigh in on it. However Prop 10 I am in full support of. Prop 7 has a lot of legalese and it could very well raise our power rates if passed. We do not want to defeat the purpose of the Pickens Plan, we need to get off the high priced foreign oil addiction, and make the transition to AMERICAN MADE sources of Power and Energy. Thanks for sharing your links, I really appreciate the discussion and your input.
Desmond Farrelly
-
Permalink Reply by Lawrence Murray on -
We have to do what is good for us, our neighbor, our friends, California, our nation and our world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look at the money!!! they got us into this energy mess!!!!!!!!!! want to keep us in the mess!!!!!
We have to do what is right! yes on 1a, 7 and 10. We have to get off imported oil. We have to send the message to Sacramento!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And get Amtrack to build our new trains!
-
Permalink Reply by DESMOND FARRELLY (D) on
-
Hello Lawrence Heck yes, we need to get off the foreign Oil Addiction big time, and as Americans we have got to pull ourselves up by our boot straps and move forward on the road to Energy Independence full steam ahead.
Like you I know that Prop 1a will represent a considerable investment for we Californian's in the form of our Tax Money, however the return on investment we recoup will have enormous proportionate ramifications on the overall benefit it will yield for All California. Not only that, but a rail line powered and fed by the might Pickens Plan for Wind Energy, and we have the fuel and power to provide propulsion for our rail lines of today as well as for our tomorrow. I know T. Boone has a winner with this one, we have got to keep the horizon in our sights and stay on target and make sure we reach our common goals. We Can Do It,.... after all...We Are Americans !
Desmond Farrelly
-
Permalink Reply by Allenwrench on -
In a statement, Southern California Edison said the measure "would upend the existing regulatory process, disrupt existing renewables development, significantly raise rates and threaten reliability."
Well if that is what CA watns then give it to em.
I marvel at some of the cornucopian's outlooks for our future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian
Recently the cornucopians are putting their hopes in keeping the jets flying on algae oil?
Well, who knows??
I am not like the atheists that claim they know everything under the sun...I am just a lowly agnostic that in the end does not know.
But the cornucopians still have a way to go with algae powered jets. When the cornucopians can pave roads and make roofing shingles out of corn instead of asphalt and make tires out of sewage sludge instead of crude - maybe their time will have arrived.
Whether one is an intellectual, cornucopian or survivalist, they all have to live in the future to some extent with their thoughts.
The difference between a survivalist and the other two is this.
The intellectuals can keep their mind fixated on the future and fantasy as long as they want. They have no reckoning in the present. Their currency of trade is in 'thought' and not in practical application.
The survivalist on the other hand must come back to the present to prepare for and implement via 'practical application' what his future needs will be. As futurists we try to anticipate future events and the direction the
world is headed in and as survivalists we try to prepare for those circumstances.
So I'd suggest to Al Gore or any politician that takes up the renewable energy challenge to open up your eyes to truth of 'what is,' develop a survivalists mentality and not get lost in the fantasy of 'wishful thinking' with how you hope things to be.
But being truthful is lofty goal in and of itself for politicians, irrespective of changing our entire world when it comes to powering it.
The mantra of the ego based, power hungry politician is; "Give me power for a day and I hope the roof waits to falls in on the next guy and the music wont stop on my presidency." Everything they do while in office is aimed not at truth and what is best for our country, but at spin, lies and making themselves look good in the eye of the voters.
All you political knuckleheads that go to these rallies to kiss the asses of your political deities - pin them down on 'Peak Oil' and see what they say. What you will get is NOTHING from them. They could not utter the words Peak Oil if their life depended on it. So it goes with truth and politicians - they do not mix.
Al Gores proposed a challenge to both political candidates to switch all electric generation in the US from fossil fuels to renewables within 10 years. Mr. Gore is way off mark with what we will need for future energy generation in the US.
He has not addressed a realistic view of the problem. He needs to increase his goal to a minimum of 300% to 400% of our current electric generation capacity. Then he may be approaching what America will really need.
And I am conservative in my outlook. The actual number may be closer to 500% to 600% of our current capacity when we factor in the IF'S, AND'S & BUT'S.
In the US, 93.2% of our electric comes from nonrenewable, fossil burning or greenhouse gas producing methods.
If we are looking to hydroelectric and renewable sources, 4.46% of our electric comes from hydroelectric and 2.34% comes from renewable energy production.
Out of this 2.34% of renewable sources, an undisclosed portion still contributes to global warming despite its prestige of being a 'renewable energy source' as it involves the burning of wood, black liquor, wood waste, municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, tires, agriculture byproducts and biomass.
Only a fraction of the 2.34% of renewable electric energy that is produced comes from geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind. These are the areas that Gore wishes to expand.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html
Electricity is where mankind will turn to for power requirements when all fossil fuels as well as uranium dry up in the near future.
We can see that humans love affair with fossil fuels will look like a blip on the screen of humans historical record on earth.
from:LATOC
If you don't know what peak oil has to say about our world and don't want to read the rest of my post, then at least check out:
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer
1) When everyone switches to electric cars and plug into the grid, the demand for electricity will go up tremendously.
2) Homes that use natural gas, propane, heating oil will switch to electricity as the fossil fuels will dry up. The highest demand areas such as heating our homes, heating water and cooking are areas that can't be done on practical basis with solar in many parts of the country
Sure if you life in CA or AZ you got some hope with the solar hot water. Maybe the NE can also get some hot water in the hot humid summers. But the goal of this massive energy change is to make it as seamless as possible. Proper planning is the difference between part time and full time power. Proper planning is the difference between less deaths versus massive deaths.
http://dieoff.org/
3) All trucks, trains and airplanes will have to find new power sources. Trains can switch to steam, electric or electromagnet. Truck may have to be smaller and run on electric or bio fuels. Farm equipment can be powered by bio fuels.
But all these bio fuels take away from our food production. We can see that adding 5% of corn ethanol does to the food picture - and we still use 95% gasoline. What will happen to food when we are 0% gas and 0% diesel and 100% bio fuels and ethanol?
Airlines? My prediction is they will eventually shut down. Although one commentator on CNBC puts her hopes in running planes on algae oil. Again time will tell. But as a survivalist I must go with 'what is' and not fantasy of the cornucopians.
In any case, trains, especially electric trains will be a big area of transport in our future both for products, food and people when airlines cease operate.
4) Population increase. More people = more demands for electric. When people feel bad they look for diversions from pain. If they can't get drugged up with alcohol or drugs, they also like some genital situation to escape a hellish life.
More sex = more people.
I don't see the pop trend changing any time soon unless people can't get food and starve or freeze from lack of heat.
5) Global warming - hotter people demand more electric for A/C.
6) Solar and wind are good supplemental power sources but crappy uninterrupted power sources. One person said that on average a wind farm that is spread out will yield power about 33% of the time, as the wind is blowing on average in some part of a large geographic area.
So, to make up for when the wind does not blow, we will need much larger scales of wind generation than we anticipate now. We get brownouts even with full capacity and fip the switch, fossil fueled convenience.
Exporting the power is another problem. We can make electricity in high wind areas, but will lose much of it if we have to export the wind generated electric long distances to the big cities.
Solar only works for a few hours a day in ideal circumstances...and does not work much at all if the sun is not out. Our countries power needs are 24 hours.
The sorry thing about electricity is it cannot be easily stored. (We can store the 'energy' of electricity by pumping water via electric pumps uphill and having the water drain back downhill to power a turbine at a later time.)
7) The US will go back to being a manufacturing nation and have to cut it's addiction to cheap Chinese and other foreign goods. All these cargo tankers run on diesel. So, as we cut back on shipping, local manufacturing will return more so out of design than by desire. More industrial manufacturing = more need for electricity.
8) Without energy our country is open for takeover ... no jets...no tanks...no transport on the ground or in the air. Luckily we will still have nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers as long as the uranium holds out. But the jets on the flattop all use jet fuel. All the supplies for those subs and carriers petroleum dependent. Will our military be as successful as it is today when it is all electric? I don't know, but I do know an all electric military will drain the grids capacity even further.
As a survivalist I cannot afford to live in dream land as the mind manacled intellectuals and cornucopians do, I don't pretend to have a crystal ball and be able to predict the future. I can only prepare for 'possibilities' of what are to come.
Intellectuals and cornucopians put all their faith in predicting an unknown future that is based on lofty hopes, dreams and wishful thinking. Whereas the successful survivalist puts their hopes and dreams in preparing for an uncertain future and knows that 'wishful thinking' does not go far in life or death situations.
In Richard Heinberg's book 'Power-Down' he contrasts the survivalist mentality with that of the preservationist.
The wiki on this topic:
"A survivalist is a person who anticipates and prepares for a future disruption in local, regional or worldwide social or political order."
"Preservationism...as a term distinguishing between survivalist groups who wish merely to survive a collapse of civilization, and communities who wish to preserve as much of human culture as is possible in the event of collapse."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preservationist
Mr. Heinberg talked about a gene bank founded by Nikolai Vavilov in Russia and the dedicated preservationists that guarded the seed and gene pool. He went on to say how 9 of the scientists and workers starved to death because they refused to eat the seeds and tubers in the gene bank.
Now, I don't know if a few seeds or tubers would have made much difference in their surviving. But I can say a survivalist would have eaten the first one to die. While their efforts were most admirable, we can say their life was not an enviable one for us to emulate. And in the end they failed miserably at self preservation and survival.
But Mr. Heinberg brings up a good point - balancing the two areas of survival with preservation. For we may well survive, but if we do not preserve a semblance of a somewhat livable world to survive in, we may not wish to survive in what remains.
In summation:
Renewables are our future.
Renewable are not a seamless and fungible replicant for fossil fuels.
Renewables do not replace the petrochemical uses of crude oil.
Renewables do not replace the specialized uses of natural gas in industry or food production.
Renewables will be our future by design and not by desire.
But they are the default choice for our furture power needs as ALL fossil fuels and nuclear energy source will be depleted in the near future.
The more realistic we are with our evaluation of the conversion to renewable energy, the less deaths will occur from fantasizing about the improbable future that the intellectuals, cornucopians and political spin doctors have dreamed up..
-
Permalink Reply by DESMOND FARRELLY (D) on
-
Wow, for a self described "lowly agnostic" you have your stuff together very well. I enjoyed reading your research references and the materials you provided to substantiate your input into this forum. I think that perhaps a good way to encapsulate the feelings, and the drive and the inclinations of those like so many of us who are part of the Picken's Army is to say simply we believe in a better way. We believe in the ingenuity of the American People, and we believe we can solve our problems of tomorrow today, and we can work on creating solutions for tomorrow by putting our collective knowledge, purpose and intelligence together to form a better more perfect Energy platform for our great nation. Hey we cannot buy our way out of this energy crises rut from Communist China outsourcers on this one. If we as a People, and citizens of the greatest nation that has yet existed on this good green earth can do it, well my belief is we can do it. We need to take that first step and say we are Americans and not only are we going to do it, but we can do it better . Thanks for your commentary.
Desmnond Farrelly
-
Permalink Reply by John Henry on -
I expressed my view on Prop 7 here:
http://push.pickensplan.com/forum/topic/show?id=2187034%3ATopic%3A1...
As others have pointed out, something is very fishy with this prop. An Arizona billionaire is funding a prop to benefit the citizens of California?
Both prop 7 and prop 10 are costly propositions - particularly prop 7. If prop 7 passes, Californians will see a significant increase in the cost of electricity. Expect to see generator owners idle their plants and wait for stage 1 alert whereby they can enter the market and get $30,000MWh. Are we so gallable that we don't learn from the engergy crssis of 2000-2001?
See:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/STANDING/ENERGY/_home/AR...
-
Permalink Reply by John Russo on -
There are many good posts on alternatives and props to get them implemented. We have to see through the hype and read the fine print. Many propositions are written to include multiple items confusing the main issues. We will get off oil. Today we cannot afford to dump one more expenditure on this state. We are going broke. Instead we should be funding conversion to any and all alternatives, planning on building bioplants for fuel funded by private companies with tax breaks and continue to implement wind and natural gas. This helps promote more jobs and gradually reduces oil dependency. Last thing we need is an increase in electric costs. If you have not read the article on the Enron Loopwhiole visit my site www.essentiality.net/energy.html I still get upset thinking about how that company raped this state and walked away.
Americans are waking up. We are tired of being lied to, handed a bad bill of goods and paying the bill. The bailout situation angered one man so badly that he walked up to one banking CEO and began beating the hell out of him. Exeecutives from AIG spent $23,000 of the bailout money on other execs for body spa treatments.
-
Permalink Reply by John Henry on
-
"Americans are waking up".
No they are not. Check the latest poll on prop 7.
How wrong can it be? Forcing utilities to get 50% of their power from renewable? What a utopia idea...
Funny they don't finance a proposition that says: Everybody have to cut their energy usage 50% by 2015.
-
Permalink Reply by Randall Henry on -
"More industrial manufacturing = more need for electricity" . Referenance item 7 above.
If industrial manufacturing that consumes electricity could be encouraged to correct the Power Factor for their equipment that uses electricity as an induction load, our power requirements would be substantially less. This would save all types of non-renewable fuels, especially natural gas and oil. Correcting the Power Factor of large Induction Motors to Unity or close to Unity would do wonders for the load on the Nations power grid.
One way to encourage manufacturing to upgrade their equipment would be tax breaks.
Featured Action
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
