Prop 10 is biased towards investments in natural gas technology— over cleaner alternatives such as wind and solar technology—while draining California’s already over-committed general fund.”

– California League of Conservation Voters

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“…the initiative (Prop 10) would accomplish little to facilitate real, sound alternative energy or technologies, and its reliance on long-term borrowing for short-term benefits and potentially obsolete technology would put us on the wrong road.”

– Sierra Club

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Proposition 10… could increase global warming emissions.”

– Mary Nichols, Chair, CA Air Resources Board

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“The measure (Prop 10) adds to the state’s fiscal problems, lines the pockets of the plan’s billionaire sponsor, and provides taxpayers nothing of lasting value – just a promise of clean air, with no requirements to make sure the promise is fulfilled.”

– California Taxpayers Association

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“In the pantheon of egregious ballot initiatives, Proposition 10 is the worst of the worst. In one fell swoop, this deceptively named “Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act” would worsen the state’s budget crisis, undermine its fight against global warming and enrich a Texas billionaire – T. Boone Pickens…Don’t let a Texas billionaire pull another Enron swindle on California. Say “No” on Tuesday to Proposition 10.”

– Sacramento Bee’s SECOND Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Proposition 10 is harmful to California’s financial health.”

– State Treasurer Bill Lockyer

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“The reduction of greenhouse gases is a priority for our state, however this measure is not the most cost effective way to achieve reductions. Proposition 10 does not allow all technologies to compete for taxpayer dollars.”

– California Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Allan Zaremberg

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“California’s Prop10 to legislate into existence a market for natural gas vehicles would unnecessarily add pressure to drill and is a poor investment in times of scarce public dollars.”

- Natural Resources Defense Council

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“The purposes of this bond are not an appropriate use for state-issued, bond-generated revenues.”

– League of Women Voters opposition statement to Prop 10

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“This initiative is essentially a special interest give‐away to the natural gas industry, lead by oil and natural gas tycoon T. Boone Pickens, that promises no environmental benefits…Natural gas is just another fossil fuel and one that carries with it significant global warming impacts not to mention ecological impacts from the extraction and transportation of natural gas. California’s should not be fooled. Voters should turn down Prop. 10 and tell T. Boone Pickens to invest his millions of dollars in real clean energy solutions.”

– Environment California

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, listed by Forbes as the 131st richest American, really, really wants your money. So much so that his natural-gas fueling company has shelled out $3.2 million to further the reprehensible scam known as Proposition 10.”

– Los Angeles Times Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“California needs low-polluting alternative fuels in its future. But voters shouldn’t be misled to think this measure is a balanced answer. Vote no on Proposition 10.”

– San Francisco Chronicle Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“How does it make sense to float 30-year bonds to pay for vehicles that would last just a few years? How does it make sense to have the $50,000-per-vehicle subsidy available on a first-come, first-served basis sure to be gamed by interstate trucking companies that don’t even have to use the vehicles in California?”

– San Diego Union Tribune Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Proposition 10 saddles California taxpayers with $10 billion and 30 years of new state debt while unfairly disadvantaging the most promising emerging vehicle and fuel technologies, and it does so with no guarantee of environmental benefits to us or our children.”

– Greg Vlasek, Former Executive Director of the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“A company owned by billionaire T. Boon Pickens, a major supplier of natural gas, paid to gather the signatures to put Proposition 10 before voters. Without guaranteeing any net reduction in emissions, Proposition 10 will help to make a very rich man even richer…We’re outrageously in debt. It’s lunacy to even consider taking on even more debt. The losers will be state taxpayers with less money for services they value.

- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“The measure is being pushed by oil and gas industry millionaire T. Boone Pickens, who is its primary benefactor. This deal by Pickens requires California to assume $10 billion in debt to be repaid over 30 years for a natural gas system of dubious advisability…Proposition 10 is more a personal windfall for its sponsor than a benefit for Californians.”

– La Opinion Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Opponents of Proposition 10 include many environmental groups, labor unions and consumer groups. But their voices are being swamped by the TV ads paid for by Pickens. Pro-Proposition 10 has raised $13 million, 200 times the amount contributed by the opponents defending the taxpayer. That’s why we feel compelled to say once again: No on 10.”

– San Jose Mercury News Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“This $5 billion bond, supported by billionaire T. Boone Pickens, would have Californian subsidize natural gas over other deserving alternative energy sources. It doesn’t make sense (except to Pickens, who stands to profit if the measure is passed).“

– Sacramento News and Review

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Proposition 10, which would fund the development of renewable energy and help consumers purchase alternative-fuel vehicles, has a certain green appeal. And after reading the details, it leaves us feeling green - green as in queasy.”

- Daily Breeze Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Little wonder he has already spent millions to qualify Proposition 10 for the ballot and underwrite the upcoming campaign. He stands to make a hefty profit at your expense if the initiative passes. Don’t let him get away with it. Vote no.”

- Contra Costa Times Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Don’t be suckered — Prop. 10 is a sham that would commit $10 billion in public money primarily to enrich investors in natural gas, especially T. Boone Pickens, without doing much for consumers or the environment.”

– Plug In America

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Proposition 10 provides a $5 billion bond for a pre-determined alternative fuel — natural gas…If the State is not careful and diligent about the source and direction of alternative fuel funds, Californians could easily be paying the highest cost for the least efficient fuels and technologies, while other states more patiently and thoroughly allow the market and developing research to decide which technologies and fuels are the least expensive and most efficient.”

– Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“(Prop 10)…duplicates programs already available through money collected from utility ratepayers…”

– California Farm Bureau Federation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Traditionally bonds are for permanent projects with broad societal benefit. In this case, rebates could be as high as $55,000 per purchase, forcing all taxpayers to support bond repayment in order to give rebates to the wealthy.”

– California Church IMPACT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“A nice title but this is a complete misleading boondoggle. T Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman who funded the “Swift Boat Veterans” of 2004, has put up all the money for this bill. It gives rebates to vehicles that run on hydrogen, electric and natural gases. Only problem is there are currently no vehicles that run on hydrogen or electric currently on the market and the only person selling natural gas is, you guessed it, T. Boone Pickens. It will also give huge tax credits to purchase natural gas trucks that have no strong environmental benefit, but run on T. Boone Pickens fuel. A definite No on prop 10.

– San Francisco Examiner

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“While the initiative smells pretty on the surface, it reeks at a time when our state economy is reeling from recent and still-looming budget crises. Our recommendation on this distasteful “fennel” proposition is “No.” It doesn’t smell good enough to swallow.”

– Daily 49er Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“A corporate raider’s slick trick to pick California’s green clean? That’s what every state newspaper editorial board weighing in thus far believes. The plan has also been nixed by a remarkably wide range of strange bedfellows: the Sierra Club and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; the Consumer Federation of California and the California Chamber of Commerce; the California Tax Reform Association and the California Nurses Association.”

– Silicon Valley Metro Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“So here is the message to California: this (Prop 10) is the toxic mortgage to beat them all–we end up paying out ten billion dollars over the next thirty years for vehicles which are going to need a fuel we won’t have enough of and need to keep Americans from freezing, ten billion dollars for vehicles which will be on the scrap heap before we finish paying for them, ten billion dollars for vehicles that won’t even necessarily be used in California (which is good and bad), and ten billions dollars wasted that we won’t be spending to build a decent rail system to help California, the largest engine of the American economy, prepare itself for fast approaching peak oil and gas.”

– Julian Darley, Post Carbon Insitute

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“This is another attempt to use tax funds to benefit a billionaire…The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 10.”

– Santa Rose Press Democrat Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“The ends may appear green and dandy, but the means by which to achieve those ends is blackened with blemishes. Vote No on Proposition 10.”

– The Daily Californian Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Sounds good - until you look at the cost of paying off the bonds, which adds another $5 billion in costs to taxpayers. Do you really want to pay your neighbors to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles? Market forces will do that, without a Prop. 10 boondoggle.”

– Lompoc Record Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“…why not just promote electric vehicles? Natural gas is, after all, a fossil fuel. Incidentally, Pickens owns Clean Energy, a natural-gas fueling-station company, which has contributed $3.2 million to Proposition 10, the so-called “Big Wind” measure on California’s November ballot. Then the Los Angeles Times and Washington Monthly reported more holes in Pickens’ plan to “save America,” suggesting he’s using the wind plan as cover for a profitable water plan. The windmills will be built on a strip of land where, according to the L.A. Times, Pickens eventually plans to pipe water from the Ogallala aquifer to Dallas. Pipeline right-of-way is usually hard to acquire, but Pickens convinced the Texas Legislature to hand him over the land through eminent domain.”

– Green Guide, Sacramento News and Review

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“What Proposition 10 will bring to California is more bond debt. That $5 billion in bonds will be repaid over 30 years, bringing the cost to an estimated $10 billion.California does not need to take on additional debt to finance the purchase of vehicles.”

– Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“But borrowing money to offer car rebates and financial incentives is fiscal nonsense; bond funds should go for long-term public investments. Nor is such largesse a sensible use of public funds for a state with so many more pressing needs.”

– The Press Enterprise Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Most insidiously, Proposition 10’s lavish rebates for natural gas-powered cars and trucks could crowd out superior technologies from taking root in California, the largest transportation market in the United States.”

– Anthony Rubenstein, consults on clean technology, eco-sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Los Angeles Times

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Which makes Proposition 10 as self-serving a measure as California has ever seen, and one that deserves defeat – even before mentioning the impact of $5 billion more in bond obligations on an already-strapped state budget.

– Santa Monica Mirror Editorial

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Using natural gas has some small advantages…The public benefits are rather small, so I don’t think…our government should put much effort into promoting it.”

– Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis and a member of the California Air Resources Board, Wall Street Journal

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Hang onto your wallet. Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens is spending a fortune on Proposition 10. His initiative would cost California taxpayers $10 billion…in tax giveaways to manipulate the marketplace to favor natural gas as a “clean” vehicle fuel to the disadvantage of cleaner alternative energy technologies.”

– Richard Holober, Consumer Federation of California, The Desert Sun

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“(Prop 10)…will ultimately cost California tax payers 9.8 billion to fund when interest costs are included to benefit the natural gas industry, the trucking industry, and bond investors all while simply trading our dependence upon one fossil fuel for another.”

– The Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy (AREP)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So are high-rolling corporate capitalists suddenly becoming altruistic environmentalists? Not likely. Even the Wall Street Journal (7/29) refers to it as “the stealthy Prop 10.”

– California Green Party