Phyllis Currie, the head of Pasadena Water and Power, estimates that the initiative, called Proposition 7, could raise water and power rates in the city by 35 percent to 40 percent.

"It would mean we could be mandated to bring on renewable resources much faster than we need them, have the transmission capacity for them, or can afford to pay for them," Currie said at last week's City Council meeting. Advocates of the measure, who showed up at the meeting to urge the council not to vote to oppose it, disputed those numbers.

"The measure ensures that the rate-payer will never have an increased bill of more than 3 percent," said Laurette Healey, a former deputy state controller, who is a spokeswoman for the initiative's proponents.

The proposition does have language that seeks to cap customer rate increase at 3 percent. But according to the state's Legislative Analyst's Office, the proposition contains "no specific provisions to implement or enforce this declaration." If the bill passed and a legal challenge showed that the utility could not legally pass along increased costs, the city would then have to bear the cost of more expensive power, Pasadena officials said.

"I think we need to make it clear to our rate-payers that even if it is capped at 3percent the cost must be paid," said Councilwoman Margaret McAustin. "There will be a cost, whether it is in increased rates or a reduction of other city services, or something else."

The council voted unanimously to oppose the bill.

The initiative mandates that utilities, like Pasadena Water and Power and Southern California Edison, get 40 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025. Utilities currently must reach a 20 percent goal by 2010. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the effect the initiative would have on power prices is unclear. It would depend on whether the price of fossil fuels continues to rise, and whether renewable power prices are able to continue to drop steadily.

The initiative is also designed to give state energy commissions the authority to make long-term deals with renewable energy companies on terms similar to fossil fuel companies.
While power companies, utilities, and cities have been quick to oppose the measure, it also has drawn opposition from a long list of environmental advocates.

"This is a well-intentioned bill that was written by people who are not very knowledgable," said Ralph Cavanagh of the National Resources Defense Council. "They hired people who, frankly, don't know what they are talking about."

Cavanagh said the initiative provides too many ways for utility companies to get legally excused from complying with the measure's requirements, and takes away too much power from local governments to initiate renewable power projects. Even the California Solar Energy Industries Association, a conglomerate of solar and wind power companies, is against the measure. Association officials say the measure's renewable power requirements cannot be fulfilled from small-scale projects.

"Any projects that generate 30 megawatts or less would not count," said Sue Kateley, the executive director of the organization. "Every company in our organization works on projects that are smaller than that."

She cited as an example a recent Southern California Edison project that installed 2 megawatts worth of solar cells at a warehouse, enough to power about 1,500 homes, according to Department of Energy figures. Kateley said the project is designed to eventually install enough solar panels throughout the county to generate 250 megawatts of power.

"These types of small projects are the kinds we believe would not be included," said Kateley.

The bill was put on the ballot by a former San Francisco County supervisor, without the consultation of major environmental groups. Their lack of participation may be a major source of their opposition, said Proposition 7 spokeswoman Healey. "What upsets people on the state level is they think it is a process that has cut them out of the legislative steps and procedures that they prefer to take," she said. "I think that is at the heart of their opposition."

The city's opposition will likely be noted in campaign materials, but no taxpayer resources can be used to fund opposition groups against measure. Councilman Sid Tyler, after asking whether there was anything the city could do to help the opposition to the bill, suggested the opposition campaign has its work cut out for it.

"It is going to require a very strong campaign," said Tyler. "As soon as voters see solar and clean energy on the ballot, you know which box they are going to check."