Green ballot issues had mixed success Tuesday night. Here is a quick look.

Here in Pennsylvania, 2.8 million, or 61 percent of the people voting, supported the referendum seeking permission to borrow $400 million to pay for upgrades and repairs to aging sewer and water infrastructure.

"The $400 million bond issue will allow the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority, or PENNVEST, to award grants and loans for water treatment systems and pipelines. The money will be available for municipally owned drinking water and wastewater systems in every corner of the state, large or small, urban or rural," according to a release from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

The funding will be available to the 183 publicly owned water systems that are facing federal mandates to reduce nutrient pollution in the Susquehanna and Potomac river basins and in the Chesapeake Bay.

The Sustainable Infrastructure Task Force that Governor Rendell convened early this year released a report last week citing at least $36.5 billion in capital repairs and upgrade that are needed statewide over the next 20 years to maintain service. In addition, the task force estimates the commonwealth will need to spend another $77.1 billion for operation, maintenance and debt service. The report is available online at this link; click on the “Clean Water referendum” link.

"This is part of a larger national problem," said Rendell. "Across the country, we're confronted with a staggering total of national infrastructure shortfall of $1.6 trillion," he said in the release.

According to the Department of State Web site, the meassure passed with 59.6 percent of the vote in Berks County; 61.3 percent in Chester County and 68.2 percent in Montgomery County.

Also in Pennsylvania, Adams County approved a $10,000,000 Bond for the preservation of farmland, open space, habitat, and watersheds. It passed by 75% approval. And in Upper Saucon Township, voters approved a $24,000,000, 0.25 percent earned income tax increase for open space and recreational lands. It passed by 50% approval.

In California, two green initiatives were rejected by voters. Nearly two-thirds rejected a measure that would have required the state's utilities to generate half their electricity from windmills, solar systems, geothermal reserves and other renewable sources by 20205.

A second proposition, which would have floated a $5 billion bond to give rebates to Calinfornians who buy alternative fuel vehicles, as well as set aside money for research, was also defeated.

Also in Califnornia, a $9.95 billion project to pay for a high-speed train, passed by five percentage points.

However, in Missouri, voters approved a similar but less ambitious measure to the California question which will require the "show Me" state to produce 15 percent of its electricity from clean energy in 20201.

And in Florida, voters approved a measure that will allow homeowners to install renewable energy devices on their property without changing its value for tax purposes.

In Colorado, a measure that would have ended tax credits for the oil and gas industries, adding $300 million a year to state coffers, was defeated when the industry spent $11 million in an advertising blitz to defeat it, The Denver Post reported.

The tax break is so effective that 81 percent of the companies for a tax refund in 2004. The new money would have been used to college scholarships for families who make less than $100,000 a year.

A $3.4 million ballot measure in Maine to pay for water projects passed by a slim margin.

The people have spoken.

In addition to selecting candidates who have "pro-green" policies on Tuesday, voters across the country (including here in Pennsylvania) will also be able to vote on those green policies themselves.

In Pennsylvania, the ballot referendum asks voters for permission to borrow $400 million to improve water and sewer infrastructure.

The bond, if passed, would be in addition to the $800 million the 2008 budget already authorized to upgrade plants, primarily in the watersheds that drain into the struggling Chesapeake Bay.

The economy being what it is these days, the issuance of those bonds was put on hold last month because of the state of the bond market.

But that didn't keep Gov. Ed Rendell from promoting the issue during a campaign stop in Pottstown on Saturday.

The state government estimates Pennsylvania has a $36.5 billion need over the next 20 years to repair and upgrade water and wastewater systems. The state has 2,200 water systems and 1,100 sewage treatment systems.

Some taxpayer watchdog groups are urging voters to reject the measure because of the increased debt load it will place on Pennsylvanians.

But Matthew J. Brouillette, president and CEO of the conservative Commonwealth Foundation
which opposes the measure, nonetheless predicted: "Most likely, voters will overwhelmingly approve this measure, just as they have in the past," he said, making specific reference to the $625 million for Growing Greener II in 2005.

Given that most sewer systems in established towns dump sewage, treated to various levels of cleanliness, into rivers that also serves as drinking water sources; and given that most of those towns, like Pottstown, are cash-strapped, it certainly seems like a better thing to spend money on than say, a new sports stadium.

But Pennsylvania is not alone in putting green questions to voters this Tuesday.

According to this article in USA Today, several states are asking green questions and many of them, have to do with promoting renewable energy sources.

According to the paper, three states have renewable energy questions on the ballot.

Missouri's initiative would require investor-owned utilities to buy or produce 15% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. It has broad support and no organized opposition, the paper reported.

Not so in California where an initiative that would require utilities to get half their power from renewable resources by 2025, setting the toughest standard in the nation, has drawn much opposition. Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, and both political parties say it has too many loopholes.

Another California proposal would authorize $5 billion in bonds to give rebates for alternative-fuel vehicles and to promote renewable energy.

And a measure in Colorado would increase taxes on the oil and gas industry and use 10% of the revenue to promote energy efficiency and renewable sources. The oil and gas industry opposes it.

It will be interesting to see if the recent downturn in the economy will convince voters to pull back from measures which may cost them money in the near future, but save them money in the long run.

But given the nature of the presidential race, don't expect any screaming headlines on the subject until the dust settles.

Suddenly, solar power is hot.

And no, I don't mean the special oil heated by fields of mirrors in the Mojave desert (although that's hot too).

No, what I mean is that perhaps Malcolm Gladwell's famous "tipping point" may have been reached.

Prodded, no doubt, by the constant pleas on this blog and the mighty influence of the Thin Green Line's 13 regular readers, both the House and Senate this month passed by large margins, legislation that will extend tax breaks for investment in renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.

Of course, this being Washington, the bills are different so the two houses of Congress have to negotiate something they can both agree on, never a sure thing in this day and age when everyone talks the bi-partisanship talk, but almost universally fails to walk the walk.

According to this Sept. 26 article in The New York Times, "the tax credit would increase domestic investment in the solar industry by $232 billion by 2016 and generate 440,000 jobs, many in manufacturing, construction and engineering."

But now that we have Washington on board (we hope) with taking advantage of the most free, most renewable, most dependable energy source in the solar system, we turn around to find our fellow tree huggers raising a fuss.

What am I talking about?

Well according to this Sept. 23 article in the Times, environmentalists in the southern California desert are protesting massive solar projects planned for flat land where the sun shines 364 days a year.

Their problem? The Mojave ground squirrel, the desert tortoise and the burrowing owl. (Why is it always an owl?)

Time for a little hypocrisy.

Yes, this blog supports protecting old-growth forests from logging for the spotted owl. Yes, this blog, with some reservations, believes hydro-power (another green source) needs to take the needs of migrating fish into account.

So do we need to worry about the squirrel, the tortoise and the owl too? Aristotle would argue that we cannot support the preservation of one habitat and support the disturbance of another only because it's hot and dry and only crazy people would want to live there. (Sorry mom).

But Aristotle, hemlock and all, lived in a world of theoretical absolutes and we live in a world where even crazier people live in an even hotter desert half a world away and sometimes you have to choose the lesser evil.

Condemn me if you will green purists, but I'm afraid I have to come down on the side of massive solar power installations on this one. And for justification, I will turn to a justification so often over-used by the administration I love to criticize.

The answer, folks, is national security. This country can simply no longer afford to depend on a fossil fuel technology. When Barack Obama talks about building a new energy infrastructure in ten years, he is talking about a necessity, not a frill.

If you doubt me, ask the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, it's not just in California's deserts that such projects are being proposed.

According to this Sept. 24 article in The Mercury (written by yours truly), one use being championed for the former OxyChem site in Lower Pottsgrove is a solar power park.

The proposal comes within the framework of a joint project of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Dept. of Energy. It is a push to put alternative energy projects on former industrial sites, often called "brownfields," on which it is often difficult to attract redevelopment. Talk about a win-win.

(Click here to learn more about this program.)

Meanwhile in the win-win department, and also to show that not all Californians lean toward lunacy, I point to yet another article in the Times which is cause for hope.

In the far-left bastion of Berkeley, the city council is doing something innovative.

As this Sept. 17 article illustrates, the city is starting a low-interest loan program to encourage the installation of solar power in its homes.

"The loans, which are likely to total up to $22,000 apiece, would be paid off over 20 years as part of the owners’ property-tax bills," according to the Times. This will make solar power more accessible to people who cannot afford the up-front costs and thus cannot benefit from the usual tax-break incentive government favors.


Already cities from San Francisco to Annapolis, Md., and Seattle, to Cambridge, Mass., are calling to get the details.

Here in Pottstown however, we're actually trying to limit solar power installations under the rationale that they could ruin the lines of our historic architecture.

According to this Sept. 13 article in The Mercury (also written by yours truly), the Pottstown Planning Commission has proposed changes to the zoning law that would regulate how solar panels could be installed. Borough Council has agreed to hold a public hearing on the subject, but no date has yet been set.

This may once again be an occasion for hypocrisy as I am not sure, despite my love for old homes (I live in a house built in 1916 after all), whether its wise to deny energy-efficiency to those whose homes are least likely to have it.

We may even have to get the police may have to get involved.

For it seems that solar panels are popular not only with city councils and other law-makers and law-abiding citizens. According to this Sept. 23 article in the Times, solar panels are now in such demand that people are stealing them!

"Police departments in California — the biggest market for solar power, with more than 33,000 installations — are seeing a rash of such burglaries, though nobody compiles overall statistics," according to the Times.

"Investigators do not believe the thieves are acting out of concern for their carbon footprints. Rather, authorities assume that many panels make their way to unwitting homeowners, sometimes via the Internet," the paper reported.

So (wait for it....) when I said solar power is "hot," I meant it in more ways than one!

(Oh come on, don't groan. That one was sweet!)