California Proposition 10, also known as the California Alternative Fuels Initiative, was an unsuccessful initiated state statute that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. Proposition 10 was funded by[1] Clean Energy Fuels Corp.,[2] a corporation owned by T. 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 or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.
Provided funding for research, development and production of renewable energy technology, primarily solar 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.
The initiative authorizes $5 billion in bonds paid from state’s General Fund, allocated approximately as follows:
58% in cash payments of between $2,000 and $50,000 to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles;
20% in incentives for research, development and production of renewable energy technology;
11% in incentives for research and development of alternative fuel vehicle technology;
5% in incentives for purchase of renewable energy technology;
4% in grants to eight cities for education about these technologies; and
3% in grants to colleges to train students in these technologies.
Estimate of fiscal impact
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.
Supporters
T. Boone Pickens
Allison Hart, Mitzi Dudley and Thomas Daly filed the initial ballot language.
Funding and Boone Pickens
Reports filed through December 31, 2008 listed four major donors to the initiative:
Clean Energy Fuels Corp.[1] donated $18,647,250. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is owned by T. Boone Pickens.[3]
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]
Arguments in favor of Prop. 10
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.
Significant improvement in California Air quality, reduction of Air Pollution.
Alternatives to high-priced gasoline are important.[8]
Path to the ballot
Prop. 10 was qualified for the ballot through a petition drive conducted by Progressive Campaigns, Inc., at a cost of $2,418,178 and Forde and Mollrich, which was paid $660,084 for signatures. The total signature cost was $3,078,263.[9]
Opponents
Opposed by
An official opposition group called "No on Proposition 10, Californians Against the $10 Billion Lemon, Sponsored by the Consumer Federation of California", registered with the California Secretary of State. The organization raised approximately $171,000, primarily from labor unions.[10][11]
Forty daily newspapers wrote editorials against Proposition 10.[12]
Arguments against Prop. 10
Would require taking $10 billion out of the state's general fund over a 30-year period.
There are relatively few mechanics who know how to fix natural-gas engines and few filling stations offer natural gas.
Newspaper endorsements
Opposed to Prop. 10
The Los 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] The Santa Monica Mirror said, "Self-serving Prop. 10 sounds good, should lose".[14]
The San 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]
^ ab. Archived from the original on 2012-10-26. Retrieved 2011-08-10.
^Los Angeles Times, "Reject Proposition 10", September 19, 2008
^Santa Monica Mirror, Self-Serving Prop. 10 Sounds Good, Should Lose", September 18, 2008
^San Francisco Chronicle, "Why Proposition 10 is a boondoggle", September 25, 2008
^(PDF). California Secretary of State. 2008-12-13. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-10-18. Retrieved 2009-02-21.
Further reading
Opinion: Proposition 10 fights global warming
2 energy propositions flawed, critics say, San Francisco Chronicle.
My Take on T. Boone's California Prop 10 18 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine, by Judy Dugan.
Political winds buffet California measures on energy 18 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Sacramento Bee, September 15, 2008.
Why should we vote for Prop 10?
Prop 10: Fueling a cleaner California
External links
Facts on Prop 10, official website supporting Prop. 10.
No on 10 Website - A project of the Consumer Federation of California
Full text of the initiative
Signature count pending 2 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine
Number nine, number nine, number nine, Los Angeles Times, June 6, 2008
CaliforniaPropositions.org Prop 10 information page 13 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine
April 19, 2023
2008, california, proposition, california, proposition, also, known, california, alternative, fuels, initiative, unsuccessful, initiated, state, statute, that, appeared, november, 2008, ballot, california, proposition, funded, clean, energy, fuels, corp, corpo. California Proposition 10 also known as the California Alternative Fuels Initiative was an unsuccessful initiated state statute that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California Proposition 10 was funded by 1 Clean Energy Fuels Corp 2 a corporation owned by T 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 or alternative fuel vehicles including natural gas vehicles and to fund research into alternative fuel technology Provided funding for research development and production of renewable energy technology primarily solar 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 Contents 1 Provisions of the initiative 1 1 Estimate of fiscal impact 2 Supporters 2 1 Funding and Boone Pickens 2 2 Arguments in favor of Prop 10 2 3 Path to the ballot 3 Opponents 3 1 Opposed by 3 2 Arguments against Prop 10 4 Newspaper endorsements 4 1 Opposed to Prop 10 5 Results 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External linksProvisions of the initiative EditThe initiative authorizes 5 billion in bonds paid from state s General Fund allocated approximately as follows 58 in cash payments of between 2 000 and 50 000 to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles 20 in incentives for research development and production of renewable energy technology 11 in incentives for research and development of alternative fuel vehicle technology 5 in incentives for purchase of renewable energy technology 4 in grants to eight cities for education about these technologies and 3 in grants to colleges to train students in these technologies Estimate of fiscal impact Edit 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 Supporters EditT Boone Pickens Allison Hart Mitzi Dudley and Thomas Daly filed the initial ballot language Funding and Boone Pickens Edit Reports filed through December 31 2008 listed four major donors to the initiative Clean Energy Fuels Corp 1 donated 18 647 250 Clean Energy Fuels Corp is owned by T Boone Pickens 3 Chesapeake Energy 1 contributed 3 000 000 Aubrey McClendon 500 000 McClendon lives in Oklahoma and is the co founder of Chesapeake Energy 4 Westport Fuel Systems 250 000 On August 11 it was disclosed that U S House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is an investor in CEFC 5 6 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 Arguments in favor of Prop 10 Edit 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 The diesel trucks that would be replaced produce dangerous pollution Significant improvement in California Air quality reduction of Air Pollution Alternatives to high priced gasoline are important 8 Path to the ballot Edit Prop 10 was qualified for the ballot through a petition drive conducted by Progressive Campaigns Inc at a cost of 2 418 178 and Forde and Mollrich which was paid 660 084 for signatures The total signature cost was 3 078 263 9 Opponents EditOpposed by Edit An official opposition group called No on Proposition 10 Californians Against the 10 Billion Lemon Sponsored by the Consumer Federation of California registered with the California Secretary of State The organization raised approximately 171 000 primarily from labor unions 10 11 Consumer Federation of California Executive Director Richard Holober managed the No on Proposition 10 campaign The No on Proposition 10 campaign won endorsements from every major labor consumer taxpayer business and environmental organization in California 12 including the California Labor Federation the Sierra Club The Natural Resources Defense Council the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association the California Taxpayers Association the California Democratic Party and the California Chamber of Commerce Forty daily newspapers wrote editorials against Proposition 10 12 Arguments against Prop 10 Edit Would require taking 10 billion out of the state s general fund over a 30 year period There are relatively few mechanics who know how to fix natural gas engines and few filling stations offer natural gas Newspaper endorsements EditOpposed to Prop 10 Edit The Los 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 The Santa Monica Mirror said Self serving Prop 10 sounds good should lose 14 The San 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 Results Edit Electoral votes by county Proposition 10 16 Choice Votes No 7 464 154 59 41Yes 5 098 666 40 59Valid votes 12 562 820 91 41Invalid or blank votes 1 180 357 8 59Total votes 13 743 177 100 00References Edit a b c Archived copy Archived from the original on 2012 03 17 Retrieved 2011 07 29 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint archived copy as title link How sustainability goals become reality Clean Energy Fuels 2021 11 08 Retrieved 2022 03 27 Leadership List of 5 000 donors to Proposition 10 Pelosi dontgo Bombshell Money August 11 2008 Nancy Pelosi s financial disclosure statement for 2007 PDF Archived from the original PDF on 2009 03 25 Retrieved 2008 10 02 New York Times Green Inc blog The Pickens Plan and Proposition 10 September 25 2008 California voter guide arguments for and against Prop 10 Archived from the original on 2008 10 02 Retrieved 2008 10 02 Expenditure detail Campaign filing for No on Proposition 10 Californians against the 10 Billion Lemon Recipient Committee Campaign Statement a b California Proposition Endorsements November 4 2008 Archived from the original on 2012 10 26 Retrieved 2011 08 10 Los Angeles Times Reject Proposition 10 September 19 2008 Santa Monica Mirror Self Serving Prop 10 Sounds Good Should Lose September 18 2008 San Francisco Chronicle Why Proposition 10 is a boondoggle September 25 2008 Statement of Vote 2008 General Election PDF California Secretary of State 2008 12 13 Archived from the original PDF on 2012 10 18 Retrieved 2009 02 21 Further reading EditOpinion Proposition 10 fights global warming 2 energy propositions flawed critics say San Francisco Chronicle My Take on T Boone s California Prop 10 Archived 18 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine by Judy Dugan Political winds buffet California measures on energy Archived 18 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine Sacramento Bee September 15 2008 Why should we vote for Prop 10 Prop 10 Fueling a cleaner CaliforniaExternal links EditFacts on Prop 10 official website supporting Prop 10 No on 10 Website A project of the Consumer Federation of California Official California voter guide for Proposition 10 Full text of the initiative Signature count pending Archived 2 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine Number nine number nine number nine Los Angeles Times June 6 2008 CaliforniaPropositions org Prop 10 information page Archived 13 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title 2008 California Proposition 10 amp oldid 1127431908, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
