No on Prop 10 – Stop T. Boone’s Pickpocket Initiative

It's surprising to read that the Consumer Federation of California's own executive director failed to do his own homework and borrowed his lines from a bitter consultant who was turned down by the proponents of Proposition 10 campaign. It kind of makes you wonder what else the Consumer Federation of California tells others when they attempt to influence public policy for the state of California if their own ED puts forward this kind of poor analysis.

Let me explain. Proposition 10 is a $5 billion dollar bond that will ultimately cost the California taxpayer $10 billion dollars over 30 years. What Holober fails to tell you is that Proposition 10 will displace over 720 milliion gallons of diesel and gasoline annually, saving California consumers over $3.3 billion dollars in fuel savings each year. Multiply that by 10 years and the California consumer saves $33 billion dollars in fuel cost savings alone, assuming gasoline and diesel prices stay where they are today. However, the future price of oil is likely to rise sharply as countries like China and India continue to grow their economies and Russia and the Middle East continue to nationalize their resources and cut off their energy pipelines to the West.

Holober claims that Proposition 10 is solely a natural gas play for vehicles and even goes as far as to state that the measure excludes hybrids. Ironically, consumer passenger car incentives within Proposition 10 heavily favor hyrbid and plug-in hybrid strategies over clean vehicles like natural gas or hydrogen. In fact, there are roughly 112,000 consumer incentives slated for hyrbids and plug-in hybrid vehicles that natural gas vehicles cannot apply for. Unlike hybrids, natural gas vehicles must compete against hydrogen, propane, battery-electric cars, etc., for only 55,000 consumer incentives under Propostion 10. Oh, and did you know Honda only made 1500 natural gas Civic’s last year. That leaves over 53,000 consumer incentives up for grabs. Proposition 10 is hardly a natural gas play.

Holober claims that Proposition 10 does not provide any quantifiable environmental benefits due to a lack of standards, but Proposition 10 clearly states upfront that all vehicles that receive consumer incentives must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10% and meet or surpass all prevailing pollution standards. In fact, the environmental protections that Proposition 10 put in place reduce greenhouse gas emissions up to 1.4 million tons annually, smog-formiing pollution by up to 26,000 tons annually, air toxics up to 2,300 tons annually, and harmful soot by up to 1,000 tons annually. Proposition 10 therefore not only provides tens of billions in fuel savings to consumers, it provides public health benefits in the billions for California breathers.

Having a simple understanding of AB 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) and the extensive pollution generated at California's ports, Proposition 10 should help California businesses meet impending tough greenhouse gas regulations established by the California legislature and keep critical jobs alive for California's growing work force. In fact, Proposition 10's support of clean air vehicles and renewable power generation will create “green jobs” and a “green Industry” right here in California. California-based companies like Zap, Tesla, Phoenix Motor Cars, all who make battery-electric vehicles only stand to benefit from Proposition 10. Interestingly enough, Holober chides Clean Energy in his attack – a company that doesn’t make cars or renewable power generation.

Holober then touts the Proposition 1B program managed by the California Air Resources Board that replaces aging diesel trucks on the road with new diesel trucks as a model for clean air programs and consumers. What Holober doesn't tell you is that Proposition 1B, an initiative sold to the public to clean up our ports, actually gives away California taxpayer money to Fortune 500 companies like Coke and Pepsi who already replace their diesel trucks every seven years to avoid maintenance issues and the independent-owner operators who are in dire need of swapping out their 20 year-old diesel trucks don’t have the resources to apply for Proposition 1B funds. Can Holober really be this naive on how Prop. 1B funds are so poorly handed out? What’s worse is that the Prop. 1B program does nothing to reduce California’s dependence on foreign energy, reduce the cost of fuel to the California consumer, or substantially clean the air. In fact, unlike a truck that runs on electricity or liquefied natural gas, a new diesel truck has the fueling infrastructure to leave the state or the country for that matter. That’s why I find it bizarre that Holober criticizes Proposition 10 for providing consumer incentives toward clean, high mileage alternative fuel vehicles that will stay in California due to limited fueling infrastructure and registration and residency requirements.

Unfortunately, Holober’s analysis gets worse folks. Not only is Holober dead wrong on claiming that Proposition 10 excludes hybrids amongst other misstatements, he even claims that Proposition 10 provides $200 million toward the construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal. This is direct evidence that Holober failed to read Proposition 10 and borrowed his bogus arguments from an invalid source. There is no provision in Proposition 10 that provides funds for an LNG terminal or production facility and I challenge him to prove otherwise.

Of course, Holober hopes Californians fall for his demonization of Boone Pickens. Get this. Here's a guy who wants to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in renewable energy, create thousands of green jobs, and decrease our dependence on foreign sources of energy, and Holober rails on Pickens for not being "altruistic." Does Holober think sending $700 billion dollars to foreign countries each year, money that funds both sides of the war on terror, is a better option? Holober insinuates that Pikens wouldn’t be doing this if there wasn’t something in it for him. I say, “who cares?” How many folks can invest hundreds of millions of dollars without an expectation of a return? That’s a bad thing? In spite of all the good that may come from it?

I recently took a look at the Chronicle of Philanthropy and it says that Pickens has donated nearly a half-billion dollars to philanthropic causes over the course of his career, including $7 million to Katrina-related charities. In proportion to their earnings, I’d bet Pickens is a bit more altruistic than Holober, but I’m just guessing here.

This November, I hope California voters join me and other California consumers to vote yes on Proposition 10 as it promotes renewable power generation and clean, efficient vehicles that are clean, affordable and American.

What is someone from Texas doing funding and pushing an initiative in California anyway?

Who cares if Pickens stands to gain if Prop. 10 passes? Would you rather give your hard earned money to terrorists? I choose to invest mine in California and in America by supporting a plan that harnesses clean fuel from the United States. Further, we need green jobs and Prop. 10 does that right here in California. Those who stand against a Texan with no plan must support foreign oil, plain and simple. Wake up!

Vote yes on 10!

Stop T. Boone Pickens

Stop T. Boone Pickens

Stop T. Boone Pickens

Clean Energy does produce vehicles, they directly fund BAF Technologies. The Port trucks they want funded are converted by one of their very own board members, Westport Innovations. Diesel will be cleaner and less costly in 2010 than Natural Gas will ever be. The incremental cost of the conversion to Natural Gas blows any savings right out the window because the cost of maintenance is astronomical!

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.