California Proposition 10, Bonds for Alternative Fuels Initiative (2008)
| California Proposition 10 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 4, 2008 | |
| Topic Bond issues and Energy | |
| Status | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 10 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 4, 2008. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported authorizing the state to issue $5 billion in bonds for alternative fuel projects. |
A "no" vote opposed authorizing the state to issue $5 billion in bonds for alternative fuel projects. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 10 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 5,098,666 | 40.59% | ||
|
|
7,464,154 | 59.41% | ||
Measure design
If Proposition 10 had been approved, it would have allowed the State of California to sell $5 billion in general obligation bonds for a variety of renewable energy, alternative fuel, energy efficiency, and air emissions reduction projects.
It was one of two ballot initiatives focusing on alternative fuels to appear on the November 4 ballot in California. The other was Proposition 7, which was also defeated.
- See Energy policy in California for a full explanation of energy policy across the state.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 10 was as follows:
| “ | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Provides $3.425 billion to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology. • Provides $1.25 billion 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. • Provides grants to cities for renewable energy projects and to colleges for training in renewable and energy efficiency technologies. • Total funding provided is $5 billion from general obligation bonds. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
Support
Yes on 10 led the campaign in support of Proposition 10.
Supporters
- American Cancer Society, California Division[1]
- South Coast Air Quality Management District[1]
- T. Boone Pickens[1]
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition 10 were submitted to the California Voter Guide by Dr. Alan Henderson, former president of the American Cancer Society, California Division; Miguel Pulido, governing board member of the South Coast Air Quality Management District; and Allison Hart, executive director of the Clean and Renewable Energy Association:[1]
| “ |
You can take action today to reduce California’s dependence on foreign oil; reduce air pollution that causes asthma and cancer; and create new green technology jobs to strengthen our state’s economy—without raising taxes. Vote Yes on Proposition 10. PROPOSITION 10 WILL PROVIDE URGENTLY NEEDED FUNDING TO:
YES ON 10 WILL LEAD US TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE Californians pay billions of dollars to hostile foreign governments while the price of gasoline soars to record levels. Proposition 10 will increase our energy independence through the production of electricity from wind, solar, and other renewable sources and by giving California motorists the choice to buy vehicles that run on electricity produced from renewable sources and cheaper domestic alternative fuels. PROPOSITION 10 MEANS CLEAN AIR AND A HEALTHIER FUTURE FOR US AND OUR CHILDREN Most of our transportation fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, create pollution that contains carcinogens and toxins that cause asthma and cancer. Dirty, aging diesel trucks are a leading source of air pollution. As a result, California has four of the ten most polluted cities in America according to the American Lung Association. Proposition 10 will help replace more than 28,000 diesel trucks with trucks that run on cleaner alternative fuels. It will also provide rebates for consumers who purchase more fuel efficient vehicles and vehicles which run on clean alternative fuels that meet or surpass the state’s global warming goals. PROPOSITION 10 WILL GIVE CONSUMERS MORE ALTERNATIVES TO HIGH-PRICED GASOLINE Record high gas prices are squeezing California’s families and hurting our economy. Proposition 10 invests in research and development of less expensive cleaner alternative fuels and provides rebates to give consumers the choice of purchasing alternative fuel vehicles. PROPOSITION 10 WILL STRENGTHEN CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY By making a significant investment in clean and renewable energy technologies, Proposition 10 will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, develop new clean energy industries in California, and create thousands of good-paying jobs. YES ON 10 HAS STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY AND EFFICIENCY STANDARDS Proposition 10 has strict accountability standards to guarantee that funds are used properly. Independent financial analysis and audits are required. Rebates for the purchase of alternative fuel or high-mileage vehicles will be given directly to consumers. There are no new bureaucracies created by Proposition 10. PROPOSITION 10 WILL NOT RAISE TAXES, FEES, OR UTILITY RATES Proposition 10 will not raise sales tax rates, vehicle license fees, or utility rates. It will generate millions of dollars for California communities from the sale of new alternative fuel vehicles. FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, CLEANER AIR, A HEALTHIER FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN, AND A STRONGER ECONOMY, PLEASE VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 10.[2] |
” |
Opposition
No on 10 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 10.[3]
Official arguments
The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 10 were submitted by Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Association; Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network (TURN); and Marty Hittelman, president of the California Federation of Teachers:[1]
| “ |
What do you call it when one company puts a measure on the ballot to put taxpayer dollars in their own pockets? Special interest legislation. Corporate welfare. Ripping off the taxpayers. That’s the truth about Proposition 10. One company, owned by Texas billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens, paid ALL the money for the signatures that put this measure on the ballot ($3,000,000!). And—surprise—they are first in line to get the lion’s share of the taxpayer dollars it would appropriate. Proposition 10 would take nearly $10 BILLION OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS primarily to subsidize trucks and large vehicles so that they can run on natural gas sold by—you guessed it— companies like the one owned by T. Boone Pickens. Even if it was not a special interest sweetheart deal, Proposition 10 would still make no sense. Here’s what it does: In the middle of a budget crisis, it takes taxpayer dollars away from education, healthcare, public safety, and universities in order to provide fleet operators, including very large and profitable corporations, a subsidy for buying or leasing natural gas trucks. That’s right. It gives these corporations up to a $50,000 rebate per truck they buy or lease—without even a requirement that their exhaust will improve air quality. The state already has a $200 million clean fuels program, paid for by fees, not by cutting vital services. The existing program funds all clean transportation, without a bias toward natural gas. Prop. 10 also duplicates programs that ratepayers are already paying for. Today, electricity ratepayers provide billions to alternative energy through the rates we pay, with closely regulated oversight by the Public Utilities Commission. Prop. 10 would make us pay for virtually the same thing but with less oversight— and the companies will get paid whether they produce any power or not! Consumers will be hurt too. Most of our home heating and much of our electricity comes from natural gas. So, what happens if we subsidize natural gas vehicles, greatly increasing the demand for expensive natural gas? Our electricity and heating bills will go up! Tens of millions of dollars in Proposition 10 are directed to public relations, outreach, and other marketing gimmicks. Bonds should be used for paying off infrastructures like roads and schools over time—not for public relations. Prop. 10 is not what it appears. Read the language carefully. We all have serious concerns about the environment and want to act responsibly. Providing what appear to be incentives to act more responsibly in our choice of vehicles sounds great. But Prop. 10 is dishonest about its intent. It provides little real, sound alternative energy or technology. Prop. 10 requires long-term borrowing for short-term benefits and potentially obsolete technology. Prop. 10 is bad for taxpayers, bad for vital public services, bad for consumers, and bad for the environment. What is it good for? It could provide billions to the company who put it on the ballot. Vote NO on 10.[2] |
” |
Polls
- See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.
| Month of Poll | Pollster | In favor | Opposed | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| October 2008 | Field | 49 percent | 39 percent | 12 percent[4] |
Media editorials
Support
- The Bay Area Reporter[5]
Opposition
- Contra Costa Times[5]
- The Los Angeles Times editorialized against Proposition 10, saying, "Spending bond money on something as intangible as privately owned vehicles is a terrible idea unless there is a clear public benefit."[6]
- The Santa Monica Mirror said, "Self-serving Proposition 10 sounds good, should lose."[7]
- Oakland Tribune[5]
- Orange County Register[5]
- Riverside Press-Enterprise[5]
- Sacramento Bee[5]
- San Diego Union-Tribune[5]
- The San Francisco Chronicle was 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."[8]
- San Jose Mercury News[5]
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2008, at least 433,971 valid signatures were required.
Proposition 10 qualified for the ballot through a petition drive conducted by PCI Consultants, 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]
See also
External links
- Official Voter's Guide to Proposition 10
- Full text of Proposition 10
- Summary of donors to and against Proposition 10 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 10 from Follow The Money
- Signature validation sheets (archival)
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 University of California Hastings, "Voter Guide for November 4, 2008," accessed March 18, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Campaign filing for No on Proposition 10; Californians against the $10 Billion Lemon
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Survey says: Poll numbers for Props. 1A, 3, 4, 10 and 12," November 1, 2008 (dead link)
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Institute for Governmental Studies, "November 2008 endorsements" (dead link)
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Reject Proposition 10," September 19, 2008
- ↑ Santa Monica Mirror, Self-Serving Proposition 10 Sounds Good, Should Lose," September 18, 2008
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Why Proposition 10 is a boondoogle," September 25, 2008
- ↑ Expenditure detail
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |