"In the face of this scientific consensus, a few global warming deniers - many of whom do not have relevant scientific expertise and are funded by industry - kick up dust, cloud the issues, change the subject, and say, 'Well, we can't be absolutely sure. Let's just wait and see what happens.' But if we wait, we may lose the ability to address the problem as certain unstoppable climate change processes are set in motion. We may well become committed to catastrophe." ¹

---

PG&E and Edison Claim

Prop 7 is poorly written and supported by people who don't know energy policy.

FACT

According to three Nobel Prize winning scientists Prop 7 "merits support." In addition, California's foremost energy expert S. David Freeman, along with Dr. Donald Aitken who was the pioneer scientist who helped to develop the RPS Standard strongly support Proposition 7. This is another attempt by the Big Utility funded opposition to scare the public with vague and baseless claims. Prop 7 was carefully drafted by legal, environmental, and energy experts assembled by the former Chair of the State Senate Energy and Commerce Committee, Senator Martha Escutia (ret.).

---

PG&E and Edison Claim

Prop 7 is going to cost rate payers $300 a year.

FACT

The independent, non-partisan California Legislative Analyst reported that the total cost of Prop 7 to the state was 3.4 million. That is .0002% of the state budget. AND, Prop 7 guarantees that the solar and clean energy that is built with Prop 7 will never raise your rates more than 3% in 2025. This is how it works:

Prop 7 requires that 50% of California's electricity comes from renewable sources by 2025. It also says that the renewable energy utilities by to sell consumers can cost up to 10% more than non-renewables like coal and natural gas. This 10% cost cap ensures your bill will never go up more than 3% because of Prop 7. Now - if you look at your utility bill this is how it breaks down

• 50% of your bill goes to the cost of doing business; company overhead (salaries, facilities, TV ads fighting Prop 7)


• The other 50% is the actual cost of fossil fuels to generate electricity that you use.


• Now Prop 7 says that half of the 50% of the bill that reflects the cost of energy must be renewable by 2025 - which is 25% of your total bill.


• So, in a worst case scenario all of this renewable electricity - which makes up 25% of your bill - can be 10% more expensive than what you use now. This works out to a 2.5% increase on your whole bill. We are rounded up to 3% to be safe. (On a $100 dollar utility bill that works out to two dollars and fifty cents in a cost case scenario)

The utility companies don't want to change their ways and are trying to scare people by telling them it will raise their bills, but these same utilities are raising our electric rates as much as 16%.

---

PG&E and Edison Claim

Prop 7 is going to hurt the desert.

FACT

Prop 7 protects the environment. It requires that all new renewable energy plants meet all environmental laws, rules and regulations, including the Desert Protection Act and the California Environmental Quality Act as well as local government reviews.

---

PG&E and Edison Claim

Prop 7 is opposed by both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party; surely there must be a good reason for their mutual opposition.

FACT

The Democratic Party in the last few years received $1.5 million from PG&E and Southern California Edison; and the Republican Party received $1.1 million. That's why they were stopped from supporting Prop 7. Prop 7 however is supported by Southern California Americans for Democratic Action and the Santa Barbara County Democratic Central Committee.

---

PG&E and Edison Claim

Well respected environmental organizations are opposing Prop 7 with good reason.

FACT

The last time the Big Utilities and these prominent environmental groups joined on energy policy was in 2001 to convince the Legislature to pass "energy deregulation" - which resulted in energy crisis, rolling blackouts and billions paid by consumers.

---

PG&E and Edison Claim

Prop. 7 excludes small renewable energy companies from the market.

FACT

No. This is another distortion being spread by the utility companies. Prop. 7 in no way excludes renewable energy companies of any size from selling their power on the market - in fact it specifically includes small companies. After reviewing the opposition's claims, the Attorney General, and the independent non-partisan State Legislative Analyst's Office, found that no such exclusion existed.

---

PG&E and Edison Claim

Proposition 7's goals of 50% renewable electricity by 2025 are impossible; a 33% standard by 2020 would be more realistic.

FACT

A recent study from Scientific American states that solar technologies can meet 69% of all of the electricity needs of the entire U.S. by 2050. With all of the other renewable technologies that are included in the initiative, such as wind, geothermal, and tidal, the 40% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2020 and the 50% RPS by 2025 is achievable, especially as technology continues to improve. (New Zealand has a 90% goal by 2053. The Japanese government anticipates that 50% of residential electricity in Japan will come from solar energy by 2030)

---

PG&E and Edison Claim

Proposition 7 would encourage waste to energy garbage burning. Retail sellers would now be able to build garbage burners by classifying them as a renewable energy source.

FACT

Proposition 7, The Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008 provides absolutely no incentives for the construction of garbage burner facilities. In fact, the Prop 7 tightens restrictions contained in existing law against using garbage burners to meet Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) targets. The municipalities could not use Prop 7 in any way to fast track publically owned garbage burners to meet RPS standards.

---

PG&E and Edison Claim

Proposition 7 would reduce investor owned utilities' penalties by 80% when they do not comply with the renewable portfolio standard. Non-complying utilities will profit from the $.05 to $.01 per kilowatt hour penalty reduction and will be more likely to continue to rely on dirty energy production.

FACT

Proposition 7 toughens penalties against all retail sellers of electricity by eliminating the current cap on penalties. Prop 7 provides for penalties beyond the current cap. Prop 7 further strengthens penalties by putting them into law instead of simply classifying them as a regulation; and by prohibiting retail sellers from passing these penalties onto ratepayers.

---

PG&E and Edison Claim

Proposition 7 hurts the environment. It provides an expedited approval process to site and build clean energy plants that would be used to circumvent the California Environmental Quality Act and the Federal Desert Protection Act.

FACT

Proposition 7 clearly states that no fast tracking can occur until all environmental protections and reviews required by existing federal and state law are carefully considered, including the Desert Protection Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. Only then could the Energy Commission "green light" solar and clean energy plants.

---

PG&E and Edison Claim

Proposition 7 will allow corporations to simply sign contracts for renewable energy that will count towards Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), without actually being required to produce the renewable energy.

FACT

This would be serious corporate fraud in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley federal law, and would expose investor owned utilities to shareholder lawsuits.

---

PG&E and Edison Claim

Proposition 7 would force utilities to buy electricity they can't use. Retail sellers "must take" all offers regardless of time or place of delivery.

FACT

Proposition 7 would not in any way force utilities to buy electricity that is not available or they cannot use. Proposition 7 simply provides greater flexibility for electricity retailers to contract with suppliers of solar and clean energy.

---