California Proposition 10

Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds.

Summary:

Authorizes $5 billion in bonds paid from state’s General Fund, to help consumers and others purchase certain vehicles, and to fund research in renewable energy and alternative fuel vehicles. Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $10 billion over 30 years to repay bonds. Increased state and local revenues, potentially totaling several tens of millions of dollars through 2019. Potential state administrative costs up to about $10 million annually.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m a supporter of alternative energy and other environmental efforts. However, I don’t believe the government has any business providing rebates to consumers who are purchasing vehicles.

If the state wants to improve the vehicle efficiency, it should do so through mandates on primary fuel sources or fuel efficiency standards. This would impact all Californians equally, without providing a direct benefit to only the few who are able to purchase a new car.

Additionally, much of the funding for this initiative has come from Clean Energy, a company owned by T. Boone Pickens. The manner in which this proposal is drafted gives preference to natural gas, which Clean Energy stands to benefit from financially. The special interest implications are obvious.

Further, I’d like to see research and promotion of alternative energy be more ambitious, rather than falling back on natural gas, which itself is a fossil fuel.

I’m voting No on Prop 10.

Additional information is available at Ballotpedia.

Comments

Charlie
says:
November 26, 2008 at 12:56 PM

Why hasn’t a prop or effort been put through to benefit innovation. Capitalize on the Automotive X Prize for instance. Why don’t we offer $5B to the top ten ideas submitted for the X Prize? I agree with you point to offer the benefit to more people aside from those who can buy a new car.

I’m praying for a no to the big 3 bail outs.
Cheers,
C

Post a comment