Funding for opposing camps in the Proposition 7 race to move to 50 percent renewable energy remains lopsided but pro forces are outspending utilities in the home stretch. Far more skewed is funding for Proposition 10, which would spend $5 billion of taxpayer money to encourage the purchase of alternative-fueled vehicles, according to the Secretary of State. Proposition 10 proponents have spent millions, while opponents have spent no money fighting the initiative pushed by Texas oil man, T. Boone Pickens, to purportedly increase energy independence and reduce carbon emissions by promoting non-gasoline powered cars. The Secretary of State’s October 6 filings report shows that Pickens’ company, Clean Energy Fuels, contributed $4.5 million. However, it also notes that the Proposition 10 advocates spent $7.3 million as of September 30 to advance the measure on the November ballot. Clean Energy Fuels, which is based in Orange County, touts itself as the largest transporter of natural gas in North America. The measure asks voters to support the issuance of $5 billion in general obligation bonds, which are to be repaid from California’s General Fund over thirty years--a fund that is deep in red ink. The interest rate on the $5 billion would depend on the going rate. If the interest rate was just five percent, it would amount to $5 billion, or $355 million a year, according to the Legislative Analyst. The majority of Proposition 10’s money--$3.4 billion--would be used to give purchasers of alternative-fueled cars and trucks rebates between $2,000 and $50,000. This includes vehicles powered by natural gas and other fuels that emit at least 10 percent less greenhouse gases than gasoline fueled models. Renewable energy research and development would get $1.2 million. The rest of the pot would be spent on alternative fuel technology development and commercialization. Utilities recently spent an additional $4 million late summer to defeat Proposition 7, the ballot measure that would require that half the power supplies in California come from renewable resources. The Yes on 7 group increased its war chest by $4.5 million in the latest round, Secretary of State filing reports show. Nearly all of the money to increase the odds of the measure’s passage comes from its author Peter Sperling, founder of the for-profit University of Phoenix. The most recent Secretary of State filings show he contributed $4.5 million in September. The state report also states that Southern California Edison’s corporate parent, Edison International, spent an additional $3 million in late August to defeat the plan to boost the renewable mandate from 20 percent in 2010 to 50 percent by 2025. In mid-July, Edison spent $10 million to fight the initiative that would remove the cap on fines for utilities that fail to meet the state renewables mandate. PG&E spent an additional $1 million August 25, following a $12 million contribution to fight the measure in July. Yes on Proposition 7 total contributions reached $7.25 million as of October 1. The yes campaign spent $5.5 million, leaving $1.7 million in cash as of September 30. Much of the money was used to fund television ads. The No on Proposition 7 campaign spent, $26 million, also much of it on television advertisements. Left in their campaign kitty is $1.78 million in cash. Opponents’ spending since the beginning of this year includes: -Edison: $14.2 million -PG&E: $14.5 million Pro Proposition 7 groups spending to date is close to $7.4 million: -Sperling: $7.25 million. -Another $100,000-plus was spent by Jim Gonzalez, an independent public affairs consultant and campaign spokesperson.
