Less Polluting Fuels Win Two, Lose One

The November 7 election brought in victories for alternative energy, in spite of the defeat of Proposition 87, which would have raised $4 billion for non-fossil fuels. Proposition 1B, approved by state voters, provides $20 billion for transportation projects, including funds for nontraditional fuels. But the biggest coup for renewables proponents and environmentalists was the defeat of seven-term Republican Congress member Richard Pombo, who pushed a fossil-fuel-based future, including offshore drilling. In Pombo's 47-53 percent loss to Jerry McNerney, alternative energy advocates gained a supporter. "The rejection of Richard Pombo will mean a saner approach to energy policy and will greatly reduce the onslaught of poorly conceived bills designed to benefit big oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries," said Carl Zichella, Sierra Club Western director. The Sierra Club, among other environmental groups, threw major resources at the race to oust Pombo. Pombo was co-chair of the House Energy Action Team. He supported drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and tax breaks for promoting oil and gas production. He also opposed energy-efficiency standards for vehicles. McNerney supports fuel efficiency and energy-efficient buildings and appliances and wants the U.S. to be a leader in reducing greenhouses gases and other pollution. He has been a consultant to Pacific Gas & Electric, FloWind, the Electric Power Research Institute, and other utility companies. He is now the chief executive officer of a start-up company that intends to manufacture wind turbines. Proposition 1B passed by 61.3 percent to 38.7 percent. The measure will provide $19.9 billion to fund a wide variety of transportation projects throughout the state. They will include freeway and public transit upgrades and converting diesel equipment used to haul goods through the state's biggest ports to alternative fuels, such as liquefied natural gas. It also will help convert school buses to cleaner alternative fuels. The proposition will provide $3.2 billion for "goods movement and air quality," including $2 billion for infrastructure improvements to highways, rail lines, and ports. It includes $1 billion to reduce emissions from the equipment used to haul cargo. It also will provide $200 million to retrofit and replace school buses. The goods-movement and air-quality provisions of Proposition 1B rest on the governor's goods-movement plan, which the California Air Resources Board and Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency developed jointly. The agencies released phase one of the plan late last year and will meet on an action plan November 17 in Sacramento. Their plan envisions greater use of alternative fuels - including compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and electricity - in vehicles and equipment used to move imported goods through the state's ports. Among other projects in the plan are providing shore power hookups for ships while they are in port so they do not have to run their onboard engines to maintain shipside power and converting train locomotives to alternative fuels or electric hybrid drive systems. It was supported by some engine makers and energy companies, along with a host of construction companies, construction trade unions, and land developers. ConocoPhillips contributed $25,000. The company is involved in a joint project with Mitsubishi subsidiary Sound Energy Solutions to import liquefied natural gas into the Port of Long Beach. Manufacturers of heavy-duty trucks, buses, and other equipment contributed $185,000. Organized labor spent $1.03 million in support. The defeat of Proposition 90 - a measure that would have hamstrung state agencies with a new eminent-domain law - was cheered by regulators in and outside the energy market. Outcomes on other state ballot measures that focused on energy issues were met with mixed reactions by various stakeholders. Proposition 90 was rejected by 54.7 percent of the state's voters. California Public Utilities Commission president Mike Peevey expressed relief that the measure was defeated. "The ability to perform agencies' daily functions was not impaired," he said November 9. Prop. 90 was touted as a means of protecting private property rights but would have exposed the CPUC, the California Coastal Commission, and other state and local agencies to a flood of lawsuits for rules perceived as affecting private landowners. For example, approval of a transmission line, power plant, or liquefied natural gas project by regulators would have subjected agencies to lawsuits from landowners claiming property impacts (Circuit, Sept. 15, 2006). Supporters spent $4 million, while Prop. 90 opponents spent three times that amount. Also defeated by a majority of state voters was Proposition 87. That measure would have raised $4 billion for alternative-fuels commercialization, research, and development from a severance tax on oil extracted in California. The ballot measure intended to reduce gasoline consumption by one-fourth. It could have led to an expansion of the state's alternative energy infrastructure, including renewable energy supplies and efficiency (Circuit, Sept. 1, 2006). Susan Smartt, executive director of the California League of Conservation Voters, stated that the fight was far from over. "Californians want alternative energy choices and understand that our economic and community health are dependent on weaning us off of fossil fuels - this issue is not going away," she said. Prop. 87 was the most costly measure, with opponents, principally oil companies, spending close to $100 million to defeat the measure. Initiative supporters contributed a little more than half that amount of money. - Elizabeth McCarthy & William J. Kelly

Over 11K Stories!

| Independently Powered Energy News

Less Polluting Fuels Win Two, Lose One

vdharadmin

Related Posts

Auld Lang Zine

PacifiCorp to Join ISO’s Proposed Expanded Day Ahead Market, Adding Regional Grid Momentum

Ensuring Overburdened Communities Benefit from Fossil Free Transportation Investments

Voters Reject SMUD Annexation