Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Requiring California utilities to get half their power from renewable sources by 2025 should be an easy sell in the ecology-conscious state, home to one of the world's strictest laws to fight global warming.

Yet voters may reject the Nov. 4 ballot measure, known as Proposition 7, amid opposition from an unusual alliance of Democrats, Republicans, environmental groups, utilities and renewable-energy companies.

Environmentalists say the plan contains loopholes that would make it easier for utilities to avoid meeting renewable energy requirements. Energy producers say it would raise costs and create a burdensome new system of regulation.

``We want to make it easier for renewable energy to come to California, and changing all our rules midstream is not the way to do that,'' said Ralph Cavanagh, energy program co-director at the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council, which opposes the measure with the Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists and California League of Conservation Voters.

The proposition is the brainchild of Arizona billionaire Peter Sperling, a board member of Apollo Group Inc., owner of the University of Phoenix. He has contributed all but $230,000 of the $9.23 million spent to promote the initiative, according to state records.

California propositions are often bankrolled by the wealthy. Also on the Nov. 4 ballot is a measure proposed by Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a provider of natural gas for cars that was co-founded by billionaire Boone Pickens, that would subsidize the use of the vehicles.

`Should Be Ashamed'

The dispute on Proposition 7 began after Sperling rebuffed environmental groups' requests to withdraw the measure.

The groups then joined with PG&E Corp., Edison International and Sempra Energy, three utilities who have given all but $47,000 of the $30 million contributed to kill the proposal, mostly for advertising that says it would lead to higher rates.

``They chose to side with PG&E and fight the most important ballot measure to improve renewable power in California that has ever been offered,'' said Steve Hopcraft, a spokesman for the initiative. ``They should be ashamed.''

California gets 12 percent of its power from the sun, wind and other sources that can't be depleted and produce little or no air pollution. A state law mandates an increase to 20 percent by 2010.

Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have mandatory renewable-energy production requirements.

Governor's View

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a proponent of curbing greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, opposes the measure. He favors raising the target to 33 percent by 2020. Proposition 7 would go further, pushing the mandate to 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025.

A Field Poll released today showed the measure is opposed by voters 43 percent to 39 percent.

The issue in California is how to make power without contributing to global warming. Fossil-fuel combustion generates roughly 3.5 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide per hour, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency.

The California Public Utilities Commission, the agency that regulates power generation, opposes the measure, saying it may raise electricity rates. The commission said it may require utilities to buy energy from alternative energy projects that produce a minimum of 30 megawatts, freezing out smaller producers. The measure's supporters say it doesn't impose any such condition.

Sperling wants to show that clean energy is a good alternative to generators fired by coal and natural gas, said Hopcraft. Sperling won't benefit financially from the measure, Hopcraft said.

`Moving Forward'

The Sperling family has a history of putting millions behind ballot initiatives. Sperling's father, Apollo Group founder John Sperling, helped bankroll a measure allowing medical marijuana in California, passed in 1996.

Peter Sperling ranks 301st on the Forbes magazine list of richest Americans, and John Sperling is No. 321. They declined to comment.

Opponents say the measure has laudable goals, but contains loopholes that may allow utilities to avoid complying with the new renewable energy requirements and bring unneeded changes to regulations on where projects and transmissions lines are located. They also oppose the requirement of a two-thirds vote from the legislature to change the rules if the measure passes.

``The details really shake up what we have in California that is working now,'' said Jan Smutny-Jones, executive director of the Independent Energy Producers Association, an industry trade group in Sacramento, California. ``It may not be as fast as the Sperlings would like, but we're moving forward.''

Outspending Supporters

The California Chamber of Commerce, which represents 16,000 businesses in the state, has come out against the measure. BrightSource Energy, an Oakland, California-based company building a solar farm in the Mojave Desert, is among the renewable-energy companies against the plan.

Standard & Poor's Corp. said Oct. 23 the proposition may harm the credit quality of municipal-owned power companies in California.

Critics are ``nitpicking'' the proposal, said David Freeman, the former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority under President Jimmy Carter and of public utilities in New York, Los Angeles and Sacramento. The proposition would lead to large- scale solar projects in the desert, he said.

``Even if the flaws are correct, the good that it will do just swamps these concerns,'' Freeman said.

The measure will have a tough time passing, said Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles policy research firm. This decade, 70 percent of California measures have been defeated, he said.

``When there is a lot of money being spent against something,'' Stern said, ``it has a very high chance of going down.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Adam Satariano in San Francisco at asatariano1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: October 31, 2008 12:56 EDT