Our View-Proposition 10 would drive green out of California

Some things can smell so alluring that we humans are tempted to taste them. We can be misled by our dysfunctional olfactory senses into sticking something in our mouths that might not taste as good as it stinks.

For instance, fennel seeds used in Italian sausages smell terrific, but can leave a bitter memory on the taste buds and cause heavy flatulence later.


California voters should be wary that Proposition 10, the Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy Bond, is possibly the "fennel" on November's string of initiatives.


Proposition 10 uses the flowery sales pitch of "saving the environment" as its foundation to spend $5 billion on subsidized natural gas vehicles. That investment will cost state taxpayers more than $10 billion over 30 years, with payments averaging $335 million per year, according to the voter guide.

Approximately $1.5 billion, would be used for research and development of alternate fuel vehicles and clean energy technology. It smells good so far, eh?


It would allocate another $250 million for equipment to generate renewable energy. It would also provide $200 million to several California cities for alternative energy demonstrations. Even that plan seems aromatic, doesn't it?

"Taste this," beckons Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens. He has good reason to tempt us with this rancid scheme; he will make more billions. But none of this produces measurable environmental benefits to our state.


By establishing his ploy in California — one he has already shelled out $10.75 million to promote, according to the Sacramento Bee — Pickens stands to reap great financial rewards.


Pickens has already opened natural gas filling stations throughout Canada and the U.S. via his Clean Energy Fuel Corp., and he wants more of his stations on corners near you. It's all good if it's all green, right? Wrong. This is a big oil mogul passing gas.


Much of the initial seed money — nearly $3 billion — will be used to purchase alternative fuel vehicles through a complexity of rebates that offer no guarantees to taxpayers. In fact, to qualify for the rebate checks, the only requirement is that the vehicles be purchased in California — no matter where the buyer is from.


A hybrid car that gets 45 miles per gallon, for instance, would qualify the first 55,000 buyers to a $2,000 rebate and that's it.

Conversely, according to the Los Angeles Times, people who buy "clean alternative fuel" vehicles are eligible for a $10,000 rebate. As the L.A. Times points out, however, none of these vehicles are "on the new-car market," rendering that rebate program as a moot point.


What's left of the bond money, approximately $1 billion, is earmarked to give $50,000 rebates to those who buy natural gas-powered trucks. But the initiative doesn't bar out-of-state purchasers from buying the trucks here and taking them to other states to sell them, while still collecting the California rebate checks.


This would hardly do anything to help "green" this state, while it might benefit others' bank accounts. Truthfully, from an economic standpoint, Proposition 10 will "de-green" the state.

The legislative analyst predicts Californians will need to raise sales taxes and vehicle license fees to sustain the program, adding that state administrative costs will average $10 million per year, depriving other state programs of needed funds.


The proposition is opposed by the unlikely coalition of the Sierra Club, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Federation of Teachers and the California School Employees Association.

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.