# 2008 California Proposition 7

Elections in California :
Federal governmentU.S. President
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
Dem
Rep
2000
Dem
Rep
2004
Dem
Rep
2008
Dem
Rep
2012
Dem
Rep
2016
Dem
Rep
2020
Dem
Rep
2024
Dem
Rep
U.S. Senate
1849
1850
1852 sp
1856
1857 sp
1860
1860 sp
1868
1872
1873
1873 sp
1878
1880
1885
1886 sp
1887
1891
1891 sp
1893
1895 sp
1897
1900 sp
1903
1905
1909
1911
1914
1916
1920
1922
1926
1928
1932
1934
1938
1940
1944
1946
1946 sp
1950
1952
1954 sp
1956
1958
1962
1964
1968
1970
1974
1976
1980
1982
1986
1988
1992
1992 sp
1994
1998
2000
2004
2006
2010
2012
2016
2018
2022
2022 sp
2024
2024 sp
2028
2030
U.S. House of Representatives
1849
1851
1852
1854
1856
1859
1861
1863
1864
1867
1868
1871
1872
1875
1876
1879
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
12th
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1987
5th sp
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
32nd sp
2002
2004
2005
5th sp
48th sp
2006
50th sp
2007
36th sp
2008
12th sp
2009
10th sp
32nd sp
2010
2011
36th sp
2012
2014
2016
2017
34th sp
2018
2020
25th sp
2022
22nd sp
2024
16th
20th sp
30th
45th
47th
2026 :
State governmentExecutive Governor
1849
1851
1853
1855
1857
1859
1861
1863
1867
1871
1875
1879
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2003 (recall)
2006
2010
2014
2018
2021 (recall)
2022
2026
Lieutenant governor
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Attorney general
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Secretary of state
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Treasurer
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Controller
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Insurance commissioner
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Superintendent
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Board of equalization
2018
2022
Legislature Senate
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special
Assembly
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2021 (79th sp)
2022 (17th sp)
2024
Special
Judiciary Court of appeals
1994
1998
2002
2006
Elections by year
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2012
Jun
Nov
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
State propositions1910–1919
1911
4
7
8
1960–1969
1964
14
1970–1979
1978
6
8
13
1980–1989
1982
8
1986
64
65
1988
98
99
1990–1999
1994
187
1996
196
209
215
218
1998
6
10
227
2000–2009
2000
21
22
36
39
2003
53
54
2004
1A
55
56
57
58
59
60
60A
61
62
63
64
65
66
69
71
2005
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
2006
81
82
83
85
87
89
90
2008
91
92
93
94, 95, 96, and 97
98 and 99
1A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2009
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1F
2010–2019
2010
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2012
29
30
32
34
37
38
39
2014
1
2
41
42
45
46
47
48
2016
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
2018
68
69
70
71
72
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2020–2029
2020
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2022
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
32
33
34
35
36
Full list :
Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles County Board of supervisors
1980
1996
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Ballot measures
1980
A
2008
R
2012
B
J
2016
M
Elections
2020
2022
2024
Los Angeles Mayor
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1909 (sp)
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1929
1933
1937
1938
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2022
2026
City attorney
2009
Ballot measures
1986
U
2017
S
Elections
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019 (sp)
2020
2022
2023 (sp)
2024
Long Beach Mayor
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022 :
Orange CountyOrange County Board of supervisors
2018
2020
2022
2024
District attorney
2018
Anaheim Mayor
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Irvine Mayor
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Costa Mesa Municipal
1947
1953
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
SacramentoMayor
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
San Diego CountySan Diego County Board of supervisors
2020
San Diego Mayor
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1932
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (sp)
1984
1986 (sp)
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2005 (sp)
2008
2012
2013–14 (sp)
2016
2020
2024
2028
City attorney
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
City council
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special :
San FranciscoMayor
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1931
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (recall)
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2018 (sp)
2019
2024
District attorney
2019
2022 (recall)
2022 (sp)
2024
Board of supervisors
1977
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Board of education
2018
2022 (recall)
Ballot measures
2024
G
Elections
2004
Mar
Nov
2005
2006
Jun
Nov
2007
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2011
2012
Jun
Nov
2013
2022
Feb :
San JoseMayor
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024 :
Other localities
Bakersfield
Mayoral elections:
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Fresno
Mayoral elections:
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Oakland
Mayoral elections:
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024
2025
Riverside
Mayoral elections:
1997
2001
2005
2009
2012
2016
2020
2024
San Bernardino
Mayoral elections:
2005
2009
2014
2018
2022
Stockton
Mayoral elections:
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
vte :
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 output of 10.9%. 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, and was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.

## Provisions in the initiative

* All electric utilities (including municipally-owned utilities) will be required to provide half of their electricity from solar and clean energy facilities by 2025. Current law requires the state’s investor-owned utilities (Edison and PG&E, for example) to reach 20 percent renewable energy by 2010.
* The California Energy Commission will be required to identify solar and clean energy zones, primarily in the desert, to jump-start clean power plants.
* Renewable plant construction permits would be fast-tracked for approval by the California Energy Commission once all environmental reviews are in place. Fast-tracking would limit the period for local comments and participation to 100 days.
* Penalties levied on utilities for specific acts of non-compliance would be reduced from 5% to 1%, but the total cap on fines that can be imposed on a utility would be eliminated.
* The California Energy Commission (CEC) will have the authority and responsibility to allocate funds from these penalties into the construction and implementation of new and existing transmission lines to provide access for renewable energy to the grid.
* Utilities will be prohibited from passing along penalties to their electric rate-payers.
* Caps price impacts on consumer's electricity bills at less than 3 percent. However, the non-partisan California Legislative Analyst's Office states that “the measure includes no specific provisions to implement or enforce this declaration”.
* Renewable energy sources include solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, small hydro, biomass, and tidal, etc., as provided for in current law Public Resources Code section 25741.
* Utilities entering into contracts with alternative fuel providers will be required to sign 20-year contracts.

### Estimated fiscal impact

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:
* Increased state administrative costs of up to $3.4 million annually for the regulatory activities of the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by fee revenues.
* Unknown impact on state and local government costs and revenues due to the measure’s uncertain impact on retail electricity rates. In the short term, the prospects for higher rates - and therefore higher costs, lower sales and income tax revenues, and higher local utility tax revenues - are more likely. In the long term, the impact on electricity rates, and therefore state and local government costs and revenues, is unknown.

## Supporters

The official committee supporting Prop 7 is called Californians for Solar and Clean Energy.
* Dr. Donald Aitken
* David Freeman - energy policy advisor to Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
* The Community Environmental Council of Santa Barbara
* Alice Wang (Vice-chair of the California Democratic Party)
* Christine Pelosi, former Executive Director of the Democratic Party
* Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers Union
For the full list of supporters, see: List of Proposition 7 supporters

### Arguments made in favor of Prop. 7

* Three Nobel Prize–winning scientists have said that Proposition 7 provides powerful and necessary tools to reach the goals of 50% renewable energy by 2025.
* It would make California the world leader in clean power technology.
* It would help create over 370,000 new high wage jobs.
* It meets environmental protection standards as outlined in the Warren-Alquist Act and Desert Protection Act.
* Will have no negative impact on small-scale renewables and will likely benefit small-scale renewables
* Does not limit projects to those over 30 megawatts
* Provides a "feed-in tariff" for any size project, under which utilities must buy power offered by renewable energy companies that is cost-effective
* Strengthens penalties for utility non-compliance by eliminating the current cap on penalties imposed by the Public Utilities Commission

### Donors who support Prop. 7

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:
* Peter Sperling. $5,250,000.
* Jim Gonzalez & Associates. $101,500.

### Campaign consultants

Jim Gonzalez, founding partner of the political consulting firm Jim Gonzalez & Associates in Sacramento, is the initiative's chief spokesperson.

## Opponents

The official committee opposing Prop. 7 is called Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme.
* Pacific Gas and Electric Company
* Edison Electric
* Sempra Electric
* The California Democratic Party
* The California Republican Party
* The California Labor Federation
* The California Taxpayers' Association
* The League of California Cities
* The California Solar Energy Industries Association
* The Sierra Club of California
* The California League of Conservation Voters
* The Natural Resources Defense Council
* The Union of Concerned Scientists
See also: List of Proposition 7 opponents.

### Arguments made against Prop. 7

* The measure is poorly written and so complicated that it could hurt the cause of renewable energy in the state.
* It will force small wind and solar companies out of the market because it excludes small renewable plants smaller than 30 MW from counting towards new requirements.
* It will guarantee that electricity consumers will pay 10% above market rates for renewable power forever, even when the costs of solar and wind sources become more competitive.
* It requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to change it."
* It would automatically lead us to litigation."

### Donors who oppose Prop. 7

As of August 2, three donors are listed as having given $5,000 or more to defeat this initiative. They are:
* PG&E, $13,720,250
* Edison, $13,720,250
* Sempra, $104,000,

### Campaign consultants

The opposition coalition as of July 14, 2008 had paid about $175,000 to the campaign consulting firm of Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher.

## Polling information

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.
| Month of Poll | In Favor | Opposed | Undecided |
| July 2008 | 63 percent | 24 percent | 13 percent |

## Newspapers Opposed to Proposition 7

* The Imperial Valley Press
* The Riverside Press-Enterprise
* The San Diego Union-Tribune
* The San Jose Mercury News
* The Santa Cruz Sentinel
* The Los Angeles Times
* The Santa Rosa Press Democrat

## Path to the ballot

The petition drive to qualify the measure for the ballot was conducted by Progressive Campaigns, Inc. at a cost of $1.367 million.

## Lawsuits over ballot language

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.
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.
The lawsuit filed by opponents of Proposition 7 wanted the removal of three statements in the voter's guide:
* Prop 7 will help create over 370,000 new prevailing wage jobs
* Prop 7 prohibits the utilities from passing on their penalty costs to consumers if they fail to meet renewable energy standards
* Prop 7 is guaranteed to never add more than 3% per year to consumer electricity bills
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.

## Results

Proposition 7 :
| 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 |

### Basic information

* California Voter's Guide for Proposition 7
* Text of initiative as scanned images
* Text of initiative as PDF
* Text of initiative as plain text
* Arguments in favor of 7, proposed for official ballot book.
* California Voter Online guide to Proposition 7
* Smart Voter Guide to Proposition 7
* Arguments against 7, proposed for official ballot book.
* CaliforniaPropositions.org Prop 7 information page

### Supporters

* Yes on Prop 7, website of supporters.
* Solar & Clean Energy Initiative campaign committee Details of income and expenditures
* Supporter funding sources

### Opponents

* No on Prop 7, website of opponents.
* Opponent funding sources