California votes no on Renewable Energy requirements

[adciv]

Prop 7, Prop 10

better link with description for each of the 12

California Energy Commission


Ok, it comes down to two things. Prop 7 deals with requirements for the public generation of electricity. Prop 10 deals with providing money to reasearch, developement and deployment of primarily solar (although other are included) totalling $5B.

I'm runing through the numbers for Prop 7. I'll post some more info when I get done. As to prop 10, CA has a budget defecit of several billion. It seems to me additional spending is the last thing you would want right now.

[adciv]

Probably for the same reason that 'Affirmative Action' has been ruled legal.

[collegestudent22]

Then why can they spend a billion so that veterans can get cheaper credits? (ohnoes, another thread)

How that is ok with equal treatment laws (if you have them) is beyond me anyway.

Why would it be against equal treatment laws? They serve the government, then the government pays them with easier access to a loan. Granted, it probably isn't something that should be added on to the deficit, but they say that the money will easily be returned through mortgage payments, so we'll see.

Frankly, seeing that Prop 2 passed and it will cause as much damage to the economy as any of these others, I believe that the majority of California voters are batshit insane anyway.....

[Arres]

They serve the government, then the government pays them with easier access to a loan.

Nonsense. The government pays them with money. When they served. After they served they have access to VA loans, VA hospitals, and a number of other benefits (including free admission to Knott's Berry Farm right now, wheee!)

[collegestudent22]

Nonsense. The government pays them with money. When they served.

And there has never been a private sector job that also allowed access to some benefits AFTER the job is done. Guess nobody should expect a pension either....

[Arres]

And there has never been a private sector job that also allowed access to some benefits AFTER the job is done. Guess nobody should expect a pension either....

After they served they have access to VA loans, VA hospitals, and a number of other benefits

Start at the beginning. Read all the way through to the end. They certainly do NOT need MORE funded by bonds. Now, if we have a budget surplus, and our state isn't at all in debt and we want to vote on whether to use it for that? I'll think about it.

[collegestudent22]

Now, if we have a budget surplus, and our state isn't at all in debt and we want to vote on whether to use it for that? I'll think about it.

This was what I was saying. The issue is that the state is in debt. The question was:

How that is ok with equal treatment laws (if you have them) is beyond me anyway.

The answer: It does not violate equal treatment laws, because the government is providing a service to people that provided them a service.

Whether you want the government to do so, that is another issue entirely, Arres.

[Martin Blank]

You guys went off-topic way too quickly. I'm going to explain Prop 12 very simply:

Bonds of these types have never, ever lost dime one in California. They were first used in the 1920s, and even during the Great Depression, they always made money at the end of the term. That's not to say that no one has ever defaulted on a loan under it; just that the overall results have been to make the state money. The only reason for the bond issue is to replenish the existing program.

Back on the original points, the two measures were far too complex. I didn't like the renewable energy generation requirements because they were far too complex, and there were too many waivers. Power generators had to meet the requirements by such and such a date, except if they could get a waiver, which could be granted for technological or financial means, which extended the dates available, or could exempt them entirely.

The clean fuel vehicle one was far too expensive. Rebates paid for by the state amounted to up to $10,000 per car, and a person buying a used one could get 75% of the rebate given to the original person. One car could, in relatively short order, cost the state $17,500. Considering the budget mess we're in, there was no way it was going to pass.