<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>10 is a tough one... good business for Pickens. But I think he has
made the connection on Wind v N Gas v Gasoline. Natural Gas is A real
solution for moving us away from imports (especially from global
hot spots). Changing over the fuel system is not very difficult or costly
and it would certainly be much cleaner burning than using gasoline.
But, we do not have enough NG to consider this as even an interim option, hence
his push for wind to open up supplies of natural gas. I do
not see why the push for solar water heating would not also be
part of his effort - I guess he cannot figure out a way to make that work
for him. </DIV>
<DIV>If every single NG water heater in the US went 50% solar, how much extra NG
would this country have?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Patrick Redgate</DIV>
<DIV>AMECO Solar</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 10/5/2008 2:24:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
nickvida@eesolar.com writes:</DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>On prop
10,<BR><BR>yes you may feel whatever way you would like about Pickens. Seeing
how<BR>much windy land he owns in texas and that he owns clean energy natural
gas<BR>stations makes it a bit insipid that he is trying to use the government
to<BR>increase his infrastructure. But as a tradesman, if you dont think
natural<BR>gas is a important way to run your fleet of heavy vehicles now and
in the<BR>future, then i dont understand that. You can run CNG right now, in
fact I<BR>do and have for years. It is effective and lower emissions (isnt
that part<BR>of what your business is? environmentalism?) I have seen one work
van that<BR>runs on batteries in europe that has a low range and a long charge
time.<BR>The reality of our business and all the other tradesman is driving up
to<BR>200 miles a day and driving around often. You can do what you are
doing<BR>now, (buying gas until the battery van comes out never joel?), run
a<BR>neighborhood business, or use natural gas. And if you do already, then
you<BR>welcome an increase in the infrastructure and can only hope they will
use<BR>garbage and cow poop to reach increasing demand instead of imports. And
of<BR>course, when the sales fleet and customers are all going around in
EVs,<BR>you are right Joel, this state will have officially pulled its head
out of<BR>its natural pocket.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>> Hello
Jay,<BR>><BR>> CalSEIA (and I) am opposed to Prop 7 because, among other
things, it would<BR>> exclude renewable projects that are 30MW or less from
counting toward the<BR>> State's Renewable Portfolio Standard. If Prop 7
becomes law, it will<BR>> adversely impact the developing markets for
distributed solar technologies<BR>> that are located close to load centers
and reduce market opportunities for<BR>> many solar companies throughout
California. Ensuring that <30MW systems<BR>> can<BR>> be counted
toward RPS goals is very important to expanding the use of<BR>>
solar<BR>> in California. The Prop 7 people seem well-intentioned and
probably got<BR>> their >30 MW language from the distinction between
small and large hydro<BR>> (large hydro is bad ecology). I am not a "small
is beautiful" hardliner<BR>> because some big problems require big
solutions. I think that the world<BR>> needs both small and large scale PV.
We need Jay's PV and PG&E's 800 MW PV<BR>> too.<BR>><BR>> Prop 10
is another story. The Los Angeles Times editorialized against Prop<BR>> 10
on September 19, saying, "Spending bond money on something as<BR>>
intangible<BR>> as privately owned vehicles is a terrible idea unless there
is a clear<BR>> public benefit." The Santa Monica Mirror said,
"Self-serving Prop. 10<BR>> sounds<BR>> good, should lose." See<BR>>
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_10_(2008)
T.<BR>> Boone Pickens will definitely benefit from his Prop 10. I think he
is<BR>> smart<BR>> enough to figure out a market-driven way to sell and
fuel more natural gas<BR>> vehicles. I also think that one of Prop 10's
supporters, the California<BR>> Air<BR>> Resources Board, failed in
their duty to the public when the caved to the<BR>> automobile and fossil
fuel industries and killed the electric vehicle<BR>> mandate. Take fossil
fuels out of Prop 10 and I might be in favor of it,<BR>> but<BR>> I am
against burdening the next generation with another $10 billion debt<BR>>
for<BR>> a transitional technology like slightly cleaner vehicles. Let's
make the<BR>> great leap forward and end our addiction to fossil fuels
asap.<BR>><BR>> Joel Davidson<BR>><BR>> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>> From: "jay peltz" <jay@asis.com><BR>> To: "RE-wrenches"
<re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org><BR>> Sent: Sunday, October 05,
2008 12:00 PM<BR>> Subject: [RE-wrenches] California solar
intiatives<BR>><BR>><BR>>> Hi All in
California.<BR>>><BR>>> What seems to be the best way to go on the
two intiatives #7 and #10.<BR>>><BR>>> Thanks,<BR>>>
jay<BR>>><BR>>> peltz power<BR>>>
<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">New <B>MapQuest Local</B> shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. <A title="http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001" href="http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001" target="_blank">Try it out</A>!</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>