Renewables Have Mixed Results at Polls
Renewable energy proposals had mixed results in yesterday’s elections, with Missouri easily passing one measure but California rejecting two others.
This entry from the InformationWeek blog has details:
In Missouri, Proposition C was passed, requiring investor-owned electric utilities “to generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass, and hydropower with the renewable energy sources equaling at least 2% of retail sales by 2011 increasing incrementally to at least 15% by 2021, including at least 2% from solar energy; and restricting to no more than 1% any rate increase to consumers for this renewable energy.”
In California, Proposition 7 on renewable energy generation was handily defeated. With 77% of precincts reporting, the measure lost by a 2-to-1 margin. Likewise, Proposition 10 failed by a wide margin. Had it been approved, Proposition 10 would, according to the official voter information guide, “eliminate a credit that allows oil and gas companies to deduct property taxes from severance taxes. The change would bring in an estimated $321 million in the first year, with most going to college scholarships, plus communities affected by energy development, wildlife habitat, and clean energy projects.”
California’s Prop 10 came under fire from some environmental groups… as well as some readers of this blog (see my post from Oct. 18th and the associated comments). Just a quick note to all readers: I’m not necessarily promoting any of the items I blog about. I just want to make you aware of these items. It’s up to you to evaluate these things for yourself (whether a ballot measure or some new product). I blog… you decide.
1 Comment
Tara
Nicely put – being from California myself, Prop 7 and 10, although looking decent on the surface came under heavy scrunity as to where the funds were actually going to go and what benefits would been seen.
With the number of propositions asking for such large amounts of money (that let’s be honest, just don’t exist), it seems voters wanted to ensure that they were really going to get what they were having to pay for. And based on results, they didn’t think they were.
It doesn’t mean California voters don’t want renewable energy and alternative fuels – based on results, they just didn’t like the way the props were designed.
Comments RSS feed —