HiggyBaby wrote: Proposition

[adelord]

[quote=HiggyBaby]
Proposition 7 Renewable engergy generation
[/quote]
It took me a while to find the information necessary to evaluate this one.

summary: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1305922.html

A supporter whose opinion I respect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._David_Freeman

Where the big money for and against it comes from
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302703&session=2007&view=late1
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1304245&session=2007&view=late1

Major donors supporting it: Peter Sperling and Jim Gonzolez
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Peter_Sperling
http://jimgonzalez.com/profiles.asp

Major donors opposing it: big utility companies

With that information in mind, I looked at
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_(2008)

Am I missing any critical piece of information necessary to make a decision on this?

My general checklist:
1. Is it really necessary?
2. Can the market solve this problem within an acceptable period of time?
3. Can we (the taxpayers) afford it?

I will vote for it.

Best cases I have seen against my position: http://ecoworld.com/blog/2008/10/01/costing-californias-proposition-7/
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/REPORT/88422.htm

The numbers used by eco-world are probably intellectually honest, and I think an investment on the order of $2,000 per year per Californian household is necessary for our long-term growth and security.
The short comings of the bill identified in the CPUC report are tolerable, and can be reformed via a 2/3rds vote in the legislature.

Check out http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan for additional background on solar as an energy option.