California renewable energy Proposition 10 (and T. Boone Pickens) defeated
We heard plenty about the results of some of the various races and ballot measures around the country over the past couple of days. However, there was one ballot proposal in California that didn't get much attention outside of the state but might be of interest around these parts. Proposition 10 would have provided for the sale of $5 billion in bonds that would be used to invest in renewable energy projects in the state along with consumer incentives for alternative energy vehicles. With the interest that would have to be paid on those bonds the total cost to California taxpayers would have been nearly $10 billion. It would have cost that much if the proposal passed. However, more than 60 percent of California voters cast their ballots to reject prop 10. It turns out the proposition was proposed and largely funded by one T. Boone Pickens who not surprisingly stood reap huge rewards if it passed. Pickens and his allies spent over $23 million on their campaign while opponents spent only $170,000. Opponents revealed that much of the money from the proposal would be used to pay for natural gas conversions for vehicles, part of the "Pickens Plan" that the billionaire has been promoting for months.
[Sources: The Auto Channel, California Progress Report]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Adam Moore 2:07PM (11/06/2008)
The fact that it came from the one person didn't bother me that much. What made the difference for me was how the rebates would be handed out. Rebates were given based on MPG which started at 40MPG and the top end was 60MPG. I don't think it does enough to promote vehicles like the volt which achieve some true value to the environment. I would have axed the 40MPG rebate and increased the rebate on the 60MPG level. We know that electric vehicles are going to be expensive. Without a larger rebate for those items mass production is going to take longer to achieve.
Reply
jpm 2:37PM (11/06/2008)
I live in CA too and voted NO on this crap. Sorry Pickens, California's can't be dooped that easily into buying your natural gas cars that don't really help the environment and depend on a fossil fuel. We want electric and plug-in hybrids. Get with the f**king program.
Reply
Joe B. 8:52PM (11/06/2008)
Yep. I agree. I distrust his plan from the beginning. The man made his money on oil. All of a sudden he's into green tech. His Picken Plan to sell wind is a cover to sell another resource: water.
http://media.www.dailynebraskan.com/media/storage/paper857/news/2008/08/29/Opinion/Sanford.Pickens.Plan.Is.Coverup.Scheme-3408468.shtml
JoeP 2:39PM (11/06/2008)
I voted against it. I am helping to develop green technology and notice that companies that go after grants become addicted.
Instead of large grants for large companies, how about simply encouraging government agencies to be helpful instead of territorial, uninterested in really understanding what we and others are trying to do, and making things seemingly unnecessarily complicated.
We're not looking for special dispensations from the law, but would certainly appreciate friendly, helpful, knowledgeable folks working for the government. We want to make technology that leaves the air cleaner, but are seen as the enemy from certain government agencies. It is inexplicable to us why they are so difficult to work with...suddenly changing requirements are standard.
Before I get carried away, I want to ask how much it would cost for the agency people to be respectful and to remember that they are servants of the public, and that their purpose is to bring about the greater good for the public, and not to prove how powerful they are.
This is a blanket statement, and some agencies are easy to work with, but how many are needed to derail a project that has public benefit without public harm? 1. How many people in that agency does it take to derail that project? Not many, and often there is no recourse.
OK. Enough from me, but I know that I'd rather see professional agency employees than massive giveaways, and guess what...it's much cheaper.
Sometimes it is better to review the small details than to make an entire new project.
Wish us luck.
Reply
greg woulf 3:18PM (11/06/2008)
I'm not 100% for it, but I think it was well intentioned and a good step toward oil freedom. Instead we get nothing. Nothing that does any good, we get people saying we should walk more and use EV's that won't sell.
Reply
gorr 5:41PM (11/06/2008)
This is a horrendus decision to reject natural gas as an alternative to gasoline and diesel. It cost few for infrastructure and few to convert a car and pollute 10x less then gasoline/diesel.
And you can put hydrogen gas to replace natural gas if you have a compressed tank but you need to retard ignition timing to 2 degree past top dead center because hydrogen explode and natural gas and gasoline burn.
Reply
!!D 6:44PM (11/06/2008)
I think the voters of CA did the right thing. Switching to vehicles that pollute less can be done cost-effectively and without subsidy by choosing vehicles that use energy more efficiently.
I support the Pickens Plan, but I believe taxpayers should not write such a big check. We should only pay only for the public infrastructure parts.
Reply
Rick 9:57AM (11/07/2008)
Thankfully defeated. While I support parts of Pickens plan enthusiastically, many parts of this proposal yelled SPECIAL INTEREST. Remember who got us into this financial mess. The WHOLE good of the country must come before someone profits personally.
Reply
pwcopy 10:25AM (11/07/2008)
T. Boone was also a big sponsor of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could spit.
Reply
LesMiserables 2:39PM (11/25/2008)
11-06-2008 @ 2:37PM
jpm said...
I live in CA too and voted NO on this crap. Sorry Pickens, California's can't be dooped that easily into buying your natural gas cars that don't really help the environment and depend on a fossil fuel. We want electric and plug-in hybrids. Get with the f**king program.
--------------------------------
Jpm…
>I live in CA too and voted NO on this crap.<
Every administration since Nixon’s “State of the Union Address” (Jan. 30. 1974) has promised to end U.S. oil dependence but we’re more dependent now than ever.
Check it out here… http://static.ning.com/pickensplan/pdf/Promises_Without_a_Plan.pdf .
The reason is that Corporate oil’s powerful influence has always been able to eliminate any threat to keeping us oil dependent.
The skillful assassination of Prop. 10 and T. Boone Pickens’ character by Corporate oil lackeys such as the Consumer Federation of California ( http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/11/a_powerful_coal.html ) and autobloggreen ( http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/11/06/california-renewable-energy-proposition-10-and-t-boone-pickens/ ) are recent examples of how this is accomplished.
>natural gas cars that don't really help the environment<
Why do you say natural gas cars don’t help the environment?
Natural gas vehicles run 90% cleaner than those using gasoline.
Imagine how much pollution could have been avoided if the U.S. had converted as much as possible to natural gas powered vehicles beginning in 1974!
Just think of all the resources and money that have been wasted on gasoline emission systems too!
>We want electric and plug-in hybrids.<
Hybrids aren’t financially practical for consumers yet for reasons like they have to be serviced by the dealers and the cost of battery replacement after warranty expires is something like $3000 to $8000 the last I saw.
You’ll never save enough on the cost of gasoline to offset the cost of buying and owning a hybrid. Their fuel efficiency only helps reduce U.S. oil consumption which doesn't reduce an owner’s cost of transportation.
>Sorry Pickens, California's can't be dooped<
Shouldn’t that read… “Californian’s can’t be duped” ?
Are you sure you know what f**king program you want others to get with?
LesMiserables
Reply
Alan Dittman 11:11AM (7/16/2009)
"If" we as a nation double wind production as President Obama wants to do it will only represent just under 1% of the energy needed to power America. I am not against alternative energy, but we must be practical and the only way to become energy independent in the shortest period of time is to produce our own oil and gas. We do have the resources to do this. Trying to switch to quickly to alternate and expensive forms of energy could very likely bankrupt this nation. We are not far from that now. The biggest bang for the buck is to make homes that are more energy efficient so that we "use" less energy.
Reply