addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo
A former member
Post #: 154
Please do your research on Prop 7 before voting.

The bill sounds positive and pretends to support the solar industry, but much of the solar industry is against Prop 7.
The proposition is not well written and redefines what qualifies for the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard. If passed, it could seriously hurt the solar industry in California.

Here is an analysis by the non-profit Calseia:­

Look at the groups who DO NOT support Prop 7 and decide for yourself:

The formal group opposing Prop. 7 is called Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme. The coalition includes the California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the California Labor Federation, the California Taxpayers' Association, the League of California Cities and the California Solar Energy Industries Association. A separate and independent coalition of environmental organizations has been formed, including the California League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies.
A former member
Post #: 296­­

I'm not sure what to think. If both the Republicans, Democrats and big business is against it then maybe I should be for it? The people for it are "A Coalition of Climate Scientists, Consumer, Environmental, and Community Leaders". See­

The actual fine print can be viewed in this PDF­

I certainly don't like the 30MW boundary. And I don't like the idea of any biofuel considered environmentally friendly. Then there's the fact that we can't keep up with demand on new solar panels and turbines with or without tax breaks. And the fact current projections show we need not do anything and we'll be 100% clean way before any of these laws click in. So I'm tempted to say no to prop 7. Actually I always say no to anything that is going to add to our taxes but that's just me...
Bill S
Berkeley, CA
Post #: 242
Thanks for posting your views on this. given you are now an "industry insider". The massive amount on Anti-7 advertising on TV must be getting funded by deep pockets, including some big power companies, which makes me very suspicious of the opposition to it.

Can you simplify this for us and be specific as to:
a) who it will hurt, and b) how it will hurt them?

A former member
Post #: 16
I have not yet made up my mind on these measures, but it is important we all take a close look and do what seems best for moving the renewable energy sources forward in the most expeditious and sustainable manner.

CCSE posted some links to information about both Prop 7 and Prop 10.­
A former member
Post #: 309
I had my mind made up for me on this prop tonight.

It was probably the 5th commercial I've seen that did it.

All of them very negative and well funded.

I have not seen one commercial in favor of this prop. Only these well funded negative commercials.

What's that tell me? That big money is against prop 7. You know, the type of money that controls our two party political system.

So I'm voting YES for this propl
A former member
Post #: 1
The legislative analysis team at REC Solar, Inc. has outlined the major flaws in this bill which it has deemed as a detriment to the progress of the renewable energy economy in the US.

1) It excludes projects under 30MW from counting towards the state Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goals.

2) It reduces the financial penalties for utility non-compliance with the RPS by 80% making it less likely that the utilities will meet the RPS goal.

3) It allows signed contracts rather than installed systems to count toward the state RPS goals.

In a stance that is in line with the vast majority of the industry, these specifics are viewed as harmful. For this reason, support for this initiative is strongly discouraged.
Bill S
Berkeley, CA
Post #: 248
This from our member Jenean who works for a company selling solar panels:

"Well, the main problem that I see is that only systems over 30MW count towards the RPS, which means that there is no incentive for utilities to approve smaller projects and its quite possible that there would be no rebates for small systems (basically all residential and commercial projects).

The only incentive for utilities to support solar projects is due to the mandate by the CPUC for them to comply with the RPS (renewable portfolio standard).

Many people say the prop. is not well written as well, but the main thing I see is redefining what counts as "renewable energy generation."

A former member
Post #: 2
For or against Proposition 7 ? Isn’t it all about the scale of the issue ?…

I am so TIRED of the rancorous debates as the media and opposing sides stir up arguments and misinformation about Prop 7.

So join me by starting a new trend – by picking complex issues apart and looking squarely at the complexity involved instead. In this case -- Proposition 7 causes difficult decision-making for ordinary citizens trying to make the "right" decision, because there seem to be both good and bad aspects to either sides' arguments. Here's how I currently see the issues this raises:

In this debate -- I can immediately and readily discount the opposition of Big Utilities to Prop 7 because they are still invested in the status quo and don't want to be made to change to do the right thing, especially when it will cost them money.

As an inhabitant of the world -- I should vote "yes" on proposition 7 because we desperately need solar, wind and geothermal renewables -- NOW, not in 50 years -- for the health of all the world's species (including ours) and to save the environment, (as we currently know it anyway). It is my impression that Prop 7 is ALL about increasing the production of solar energy as quickly as possible -- even if that means giving the utility companies the golden egg in the process.

As an inhabitant of the world, I should also override my concern for the local impacts of solar arrays in the desert and mega-structure transmission lines ruining my local communities and habitats. They can be seen as unfortunate and unavoidable causalities in the face of bigger global concerns.

But as a local citizen, of SoCal in particular, I should have concerns about the loss of my local precious habitats, landscapes and viewsheds, as well as the visual and possible health impacts of high voltage transmission lines on local communities.

As a citizen of the USA, CA, SoCal, and my local environment and community -- I should also vote NO on Prop 7 in order to support the small local solar, wind and geothermal businesses that have struggled against all odds in the past 30 years to promote the businesses they believe in, sometimes at great personal cost.

But as an inhabitant of the world primarily -- and even of the USA, and perhaps even at the CA scale -- I should override my concern for the small solar, wind and geothermal companies who oppose this proposition for fear of their livelihoods. They may have to be collateral damage -- very unfortunate losses -- in the war we now have to wage to save the climate. If they really deserved a chance to play in the sandpit on an even playing field, we should all have started developing renewables back in the 70s when it was obvious we should wean ourselves off of oil.

As an inhabitant of the world AND my local community and habitat -- my preference -- the only real win/win solution I see -- would be support for an ideal solar enegy system (that currently is not being supported by the State, Feds or utility companies suprisingly enough) -- of DISTRIBUTED solar, wind and/or geothermal installations at the residential scale. And if it's of importance to you, this would also address concerns about terrorists' ability to attack more centralized energy production centers. This solution could also allow for small renewable business to thrive, while encouraging personal economic benefit for ordinary citizens who invest in solar, wind or geothermals on their properties (.i.e. ordinary citizens could put in systems scaled for production to not only cover their own foreseeable electricity needs such as heating, hot water, lights and electric car recharges, but to produce extra electrical energy to add to the grid -- and actually get paid for it by the Big Utilities (if we could ever get them to really allow us poor plebs REAL/FULL NET METERING [look it up]. BTW – please excuse a little personal soapboxing here -- if other States like Pennsylvania encourage and allow full net metering [i.e. reverse meters where you get paid for the extra solar you as a resident produce], why can't California of all places???)

But again, primarily as an inhabitant of the world -- I don't know if we have the time to wait for a distributed system of renewables to happen. It could take years -- if it's even possible at all because of all the political maneuvering that the BIG UTILITIES will invest to fight it -- let alone all the political rancor and stalemate that would obviously ensue.

So to sum up: It's a shame that Prop 7 can't do all things for all people. Either knowingly or unwittingly, it may have been written to sacrifice some local small solar businesses and cause visual/health impacts on local communities and habitats as it pushes forward in its overriding goal of addressing the global climate and energy crisis we face.

If the GLOBAL issues of climate and energy concern you more than the potential LOCAL impacts to small businesses, potential citizen solar production, and local visual, health and ecological impacts on landscapes, viewsheds, environmental habitats and human communities , then you should vote YES on Prop 7.

If you are more concerned about the LOCAL impacts vs. the potential GLOBAL benefits to be gained, and/or just don't think Big Centralized Renewables are at least a short term and more immediate part of the solution to the world energy and climate crisis, then you should vote NO.

But wouldn't it be nice to have a win-win situation instead of this complex GLOBAL versus LOCAL and BIG versus SMALL rancorous debate -- where we could have solar, geothermal and wind integrated completely and without impact into our local communities and habitats in a local distributed way, (not in centralized solar, wind and geothermal factory farms); where citizens get the benefit of investing in renewable energy resources and there is no real visual or ecological negative impacts from the new installations?? The only clear looser in this solution would be the Big Utilities....

But despite this deep, heartfelt wish...I personally fear that the global energy and climate crisis won't wait until we can get it right, locally…I will be voting to support Prop 7 today.

Did I miss anything?.....
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy