October 1st 2008
Shining The Light On Solar Bias
I
n California, we have Proposition 7 on the ballot in November, which would require the state’s utilities to use 50% alternative energy by 2025, up from our already difficult to achieve goal of 20 percent by 2010.
Nearly all of the money given in support of Prop 7 has come from one man, Peter Sperling, who’s given $7.5 million of mostly Daddy’s Money (Daddy founded the University of Phoenix). Sperling is another of those tedious heirs with a cause. Quite an heir, actually, America’s 301st richest individual.
The SacBee story tells us nothing more than the University of Phoenix hook; Forbes (linked above) tells us a bit more:
Father, John: Cambridge-educated humanities professor at San Jose U. Left academia to start for-profit University of Phoenix 1970s. Became Apollo Group; public 1994. Today enrolls more than 300,000 students in more than 100 programs for associate, bachelor’s, master’s degrees online or in classroom. Peter serves as senior vice president. Company faced numerous lawsuits; allegedly violated Higher Education Act by paying its recruiters based on number of students they enrolled; fined $10 million. Securities fraud: estimated $270 million damage award against company for misleading investors recently overturned. (emphasis added)
Sperling, who is so very concerned about California’s carbon footprint, owns more than 30 homes, says Ballotpedia:
In November 2002, Sperling paid $32 million for a home in San Francisco (right) -the record price at that time for a San Francisco home. The home was later placed on the market for $65 million, after approximately $18 million was spent to improve it. As of 2007, no one had lived in the home. News reports indicate that Sperling owns more than 30 homes throughout the world.
Speaking of carbon footprints, what do you suppose the carbon footprints of these Peter Sperling enterprises might be?
Sperling is also the Chairman and a founder of Communication Services, Inc., a Phoenix, AZ-based full-service communication engineering and construction firm serving the U.S. Coast Guard, FBI, Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. commercial wireless industry. In addition, Sperling is Chairman of Ecliptic Enterprises, a Pasadena, CA-based provider of integrated space imaging and telemetry and payload deployment systems for NASA, JPL, the NRO and the commercial satellite industry, and he is also a principal in Daedalus Real Estate Advisors, a developer of commercial office and industrial property.
(OK, it’s not all Daddy’s money; that’s why I added the “mostly” above.)
Despite the dubiousness of Sperling’s efforts to force Californians to be more carbon-light than he is himself, SacBee appears to be as close to Sperling as Gwen Ifell is to Obama. Here’s how the article described opponents of the bill:
The state’s biggest utility companies, PG&E and Edison International, are opposing the measure and have donated more than $27.5 million to the cause. Sempra, an energy company, has contributed another $104,000.
You cannot live in California and not know that every major environmental group in the Golden State is vehemently opposed to Prop 7, including the California League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club California and Union of Concerned Scientists. Also opposed are solar manufacturers by the dozens. Their point:
An unprecedented and diverse coalition of solar, wind and renewable energy companies, consumer, taxpayer, senior, labor, small businesses, local governments and environmental organizations all oppose Proposition 7 on the November ballot. Prop. 7 was placed on the ballot by an Arizona billionaire with no expertise in renewable power issues. The measure purports to increase the percent of renewable power utilities must purchase. However, it is so poorly drafted that renewable energy and environmental experts warn Prop. 7 will not achieve its goals and, instead, will actually “slam the brakes” on renewable energy development in California, result in significant increases in our electric bills and could result in another energy crisis. Prop. 7.
By making the utilities the only stated opponents, the SacBee article will drive many to support Prop. 7. Is the SacBee guilty of incredibly shoddy or incredibly biased reporting? It’s got to be one or the other.
