Propositions 7 and 10 Offer Californians No Real Alternatives: Sierra Club California Opposes Both

Jim,

Your analysis of Proposition 10 is very disappointing. Not only are there more incentives available for hybrids and plug-in hybrids (approximately 112,000 consumer incentives for both categories) than for dedicated clean fuel vehicles for passenger cars, the remaining incentives (not just the 55,000 for passenger cars) are wide open for battery electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles - the very vehicles that Sierra Club supports. In fact, it is likely that more battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles will be produced next year than natural gas or propane vehicles for California consumers to purchase because it is projected that only 1,250 NGV passenger cars will be produced for California in 2009, leaving 53,750 consumer incentives up for grabs for the following models: GM's Equinox (600 anticipated to be leased); Honda's FCX (600 anticipated to be leased); Mitsubishi's iMiev; Phoenix Motor Cars' electric SUT and SUV; ZAP Electric Cars' Alias, Zap-X and Truck XL; Tesla Motor Cars' Roadster and Sedan. Most of these companies are significantly more nimble than the majors and could really take advantage of funding provided under Prop. 10. For heavy-duty categories, Balqon Corporation is making an all electric drayage truck and has 20 of these vehicles at the Port of Los Angeles. These vehicles qualify for Prop. 10 funds and could significantly help California's Ports and goods movement network clean up the air for the surrounding and adjacent communities.

Further, if you took advantage of my offer to meet with you and discuss the clean air and global warming benefits of Prop. 10, you would have discovered that ballot initiative reduces up to 4.1 million tons of GHGs/year, 26,000 tons of NOx/year, 2,600 tons of VOCs/year, and 1,000 tons of PM/year. You would also have learned that the measure could displace 720 mm to 1.2 billion gallons of petroleum annually, saving CA consumers at least 3.3 billion dollars/year (assuming oil stays at $100/barrel, which it won't) and reducing the country's need to drill 50 miles off our coasts (an action that was passed as of this week by Congress). To be clear, Prop. 10 isn't a duplication of current programs. It is a Manhattan Project for clean vehicles and renewable energy that actually has a chance of gaining real results, a change that can promote clean vehicles using clean fuels for generations to come and energy portfolio targets that we hope to achieve by 2010. The benefits of Prop. 10 are not just limited to the clean air that it will produce by vehicles or clean power generation, or the petroleum that it will initially displace, but ultimately from the benefits that it will continue to be generated as Prop. 10 will transform California's clean industries and create green jobs and sustainable markets for consumers to take advantage and benefit from.

Sierra Club of CA's opposition is short-sighted and it deeply saddens me as a long time supporter of the Club. Your refusal to return my repeated attempts to communicate with you has left you misinformed and the Club equally so and that is is a real disservice to the organization. I can understand opposing a measure or a piece of legislation with arguments that are true, but the reasons for rejection that you laid out here are hollow. Honestly, I just don't understand why you never returned a phone call or an e-mail. As a long time environmentalist, a former elected supported by the Club, and a supporter of Proposition 10, I strongly encourage you and the Club to reconsider your position and to take the time to review the third party work by TIAX that demonstrates clear and substantial benefits derived from Prop. 10. You owe it to the Club.

Todd

Todd:

Sierra Club’s unanimous decision to oppose Prop. 10 was made after careful consideration of all available information, just as our positions on all propositions and candidates are made.

Let me refresh your memory for a minute here, Sierra Club voiced our concerns about Proposition 10 during our several meetings with you this year. First on February 7th, before you even attempted to get Proposition 10 on the ballot, we met at the offices of the Coalition for Clean Air in Sacramento and gave you our initial thoughts on it. After that meeting, we exchanged emails and letters with you, further discussing Proposition 10. This exchange resulted in you coming to our offices in Sacramento on June 27 for a face to face meeting with me and Sierra Club California volunteer leaders to further discuss our concerns and problems with Proposition 10.

You are probably busy with your campaign to remember all that, so allow me reiterate Sierra Club’s top five objections with Proposition 10 for you:

1. Your proposition defines natural gas as a “clean fuel,” a favored position equivalent or superior to renewable energy sources that emit little or no air pollution or greenhouse gases. Burning natural gas produces more than 80 million metric tons of greenhouse gas, according to California Air Resources Board estimates. We worry that defining natural gas as a clean fuel could lead to increased use of that fossil fuel.
2. Your proposition sets a low bar for other alternative fuels. “No dirtier than gasoline” isn’t a standard to shout about from the rooftops – let alone to spark the next “Manhattan Protect.”
3. Your support for clean-fuel trucks is heartening to hear, but as we told you in our multiple meetings, a more focused program that devoted all of its funds for the purpose could have converted 10 times the number of diesel trucks to clean fuels, and achieved major improvements in clean air.
4. You neglect to point out that the biggest beneficiaries of this measure - besides your employer, Clean Energy Fuels Corp. - would be bond investors. Passing Prop. 10 would require $5 billion to support the program would be borrowed through issuing bonds, and most of this would be distributed as rebates to buyers of “clean alternative vehicles.” Repayment of the bonds is not supported by any revenue stream created by the initiative would cost the state $9.8 billion.
5. Last, you and the other proponents of this measure neglected to remove references to hydroelectric power as a “renewable” source of energy. We worry these references could lead to more environmentally damaging large dams being built in our state.

Sierra Club supports real incentives for renewable power, which is why we reluctantly opposed Proposition 10. Regretfully, had you and your billionaire backers been a little more flexible and addressed our concerns, we could have resolved this to our mutual satisfaction.

Post a comment