California Proposition 10, also known as theCalifornia Alternative Fuels Initiative, was an unsuccessful initiated statestatute that appeared on theNovember 2008 ballot inCalifornia. Proposition 10 was funded by[1] Clean Energy Fuels Corp.,[2] a corporation owned byT. Boone Pickens. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is the nation's leading operator of natural gas vehicle fueling stations.
Proposition 10 was one of two ballot initiatives focusing on alternative fuels that appeared on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California. Both propositions were rejected by voters that day.
Proponents believe the proposal would have:
Helped consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy oralternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.
Provided funding for research, development and production ofrenewable energy technology, primarilysolar energy with additional funding for other forms of renewable energy; incentives for purchasing solar and renewable energy technology.
Provided grants to cities for renewable energy projects and to colleges for training in renewable and energy efficiency technologies.
According to the government's fiscal analysis office, the initiative would entail:
State costs of about $9.8 billion over 30 years to pay both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($4.8 billion) costs on the bond.
Payments of about $325 million per year.
Increase in state sales tax revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to beyond 2018.
Increase in local sales tax and VLF revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to about 2018-19.
Potential state costs of up to about $10 million annually, through about 2018 -19, for state agency administrative costs not funded by the measure.
Todd Campbell, Clean Energy's public policy director, in response to criticisms about CLNE sponsoring Prop. 10 because of potential benefits to the company told an 'Associated Press reporter, "I don’t think it’s a given that Clean Energy is going to cash in. I wish it were that simple."[7]
The main arguments offered in favor of Prop. 10 are:
The funding it provides will allow the generation of electricity from renewable sources, and provide consumer rebates for the purchase or lease of "clean alternative fuel vehicles".
The funding will allow the replacement of older polluting diesel trucks with clean alternative fuel trucks and provide for research into alternative fuels.
Will reduce dependence on foreign fuel and stop US dollars from going to hostile foreign governments.
Prop. 10 was qualified for the ballot through a petition drive conducted byProgressive Campaigns, Inc., at a cost of $2,418,178 andForde and Mollrich, which was paid $660,084 for signatures. The total signature cost was $3,078,263.[9]
An official opposition group called "No on Proposition 10, Californians Against the $10 Billion Lemon, Sponsored by theConsumer Federation of California", registered with theCalifornia Secretary of State. The organization raised approximately $171,000, primarily from labor unions.[10][11]
TheLos Angeles Times editorialized against Prop. 10 on September 19, saying, "Spending bond money on something as intangible as privately owned vehicles is a terrible idea"[13] TheSanta Monica Mirror said, "Self-serving Prop. 10 sounds good, should lose".[14]
TheSan Francisco Chronicle is opposed, writing, "The chief backer and bill payer for the measure is T. Boone Pickens, the folksy Texas oilman and apostle for energy independence who founded a firm that just happens to supply natural gas for cars and trucks".[15]
No