UCAN isn't fond of the initiative process as a means of creating complex public policy. So consider this general bias in our evaluation of two energy-related initiatives scheduled to appear on the November California ballot. The question we are asked is whether people should vote for Proposition 7 or Proposition 10. Our answer is no. Here's why:

The first initiative is Proposition 7. It sounds very appealing: raise the target for the state's renewable energy portfolio from 20% to 50%. What can be wrong with more non-polluting power? Let me count the ways.

1. This is complex policy stuff. Policy wonks and other legislative/regulatory types have spent the better part of five years debating and developing a renewable portfolio standard that works for the state of California. They have attempted to balance the very real issues of cost, of control, of realistic timelines, of emerging technologies, of competitive advantages enjoyed by incumbents, of the role of the utilities, siting, transmission and a host of other such issues. This is an issue that requires a very thoughtful and diligent effort -- not a poorly drafted initiative.

2. This is costly stuff. Renewable power is great. UCAN loves renewables. We promote solar power. We think wind power is good too. But a lot of renewable power is costly and the premiums being demanded by some renewable power developers are simply too high. The promoters of this initiative haven't bothered to calculate what the expected costs to consumers would be if their 50% mandate were legally compelled. We've not seen any thoughtful calculation of the costs (and we've not spent the time to do the specific calculations) but we know this much: it'd be quite costly. The proposition supporters know that their proposal would cost a lot -- which is probably their motivation for the clause in Proposition 7 which would take renewable power issues out of the hands of the CPUC (which reviews costs) and give them to the CEC, is a policy-making agency.

3. This is tricky stuff. The law of unintended consequences is destined to stretch its long-arms around this initiative if it ever passes. Proposition 7 contains a “competition elimination” provision that has the potential to force smaller renewable energy companies out of California’s market. Similarly, it could create bureaucratic entanglements as the CEC and CPUC struggle to figure out which agency has proper jurisdiction over utility contracts with renewable power developers.

There are many other reasons to be suspicious of this Proposition. If you want to know more, you can check out the opponents' web sites.

But frankly, you probably needn't have to go to that trouble. This initiative is another in the long-line of well-meaning, misleading and ill-conceived ballot bombs that seem to plague every election year.

The other energy-related initiative is Proposition 10. The Consumer Federation of California calls it a $10 billion boondoggle. We aren't sure that the $10 billion figure is accurate, but it would cost billions of dollars and it is most certainly a boondoggle. Just putting aside the fact that the initiative's sole sponsor, T. Boone Pickens, who owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a natural gas fueling station company that stands to benefit from this proposal, should California really cast its transportation lots with natural gas rather than gasoline? We think not. Most others agree. The Los Angeles Times editorial page recently opined:

"The initiative deceptively reads like it's supporting all alternative-fuel vehicles and renewable energy sources. But a closer read finds a laundry list of cash grabs -- from $200 million for a liquefied natural gas terminal to $2.5 billion for rebates of up to $50,000 for each natural gas vehicle.

Much of the measure's billions could benefit Pickens' company to the exclusion of almost all other clean-vehicle fuels and technology. Engines that run on compressed natural gas have a place in pollution reduction, especially for heavy trucks and public buses. But natural gas is a nonrenewable fossil fuel that we import from foreign sources, and it is no better (and in some cases worse) when it comes to emissions and fuel efficiency compared with the best hybrid cars or the new ultra-clean diesel engines. Most insidiously, Proposition 10's lavish rebates for natural gas-powered cars and trucks could crowd out superior technologies from taking root in California, the largest transportation market in the United States."

UCAN agrees. Two thumbs down on Proposition 10.