Renewables struggle in US state ballots

Typography
Citizens in three US states this week cast their votes on state-level renewable energy initiatives, but only one was successfully voted through. California voters strongly rejected ballot proposals that would have set renewable energy mandates for utilities and provided R&D funding for renewables while Colorado voters declined to repeal an oil and gas industry tax credit to fund renewable energy and other projects.

Citizens in three US states this week cast their votes on state-level renewable energy initiatives, but only one was successfully voted through.

California voters strongly rejected ballot proposals that would have set renewable energy mandates for utilities and provided R&D funding for renewables while Colorado voters declined to repeal an oil and gas industry tax credit to fund renewable energy and other projects.

But voters in Missouri agreed by a robust margin to amend state law to require investor-owned electric utilities, cooperative utilities and certain municipal utilities to generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources.

!ADVERTISEMENT!

California's Proposition 7 would have required utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025 and imposed penalties for non compliance. Utilities would have been required to sign 20-year minimum contracts for renewable energy and new renewable energy projects would have received fast-track approval by California regulators. The measure failed with 65% voting against it.

It was opposed by a broad coalition, including environmental and renewable energy groups, because of its unintended consequences, said Ralph Cavanagh, energy programme co-director for the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco. If enacted, it would have created loopholes for utilities to avoid purchasing renewable energy and a definition of renewable energy that excluded all projects under 30MW, he said.

“We were against it because it would slow renewable energy down and we believe Californians voted against it as a gesture in support of renewable energy,” Cavanagh said.

Proposition 10 in California would have allocated $5 billion generated by new bonds to fund alternative fuel vehicles, research and development in solar energy and other renewables technology, and grants for cities and colleges for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. But the bonds would cost California – currently struggling with a massive budget deficit – $10 billion over 30 years and about $335 million in payments each year. Sixty percent of California voters rejected the measure.

Colorado Amendment 58 would have repealed more than $300 million in tax credits for oil and gas companies, with 10% of the funds paying for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. But the oil and gas sector strongly opposed the amendment, spending $12 million in television advertising to urge voters to reject the measure, said George Merritt, communications director for A Smarter Colorado, a coalition advocating passage.

“They were able to run an overwhelming ad campaign misleading people,” he said. “We knew it was going to be a tough one to pass.”

The Colorado Secretary of State has declined to release the results, but the Denver Post is reporting the initiative was defeated by a 59% to 41% vote.

In Missouri, Proposition C requires utilities to secure at least 2% of retail sales from renewable energy sources by 2011, increasing to at least 15% by 2021, including at least 2% from solar energy. The ballot initiative, which passed with 66% of the vote, will restrict any rate increase to consumers for this renewable energy to no more than 1%.

"By passing Proposition C, Missouri voters have done their part to boost their state's economy, create good paying local jobs and stabilise their energy bills,” Jeff Deyette, a clean energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement.

This article is reproduced with kind permission of Environmental Finance magazine. 
For more news and articles visit www.environmental-finance.com or 
subscribe
 to Environmental Finance.