Environmental activists suffered another defeat recently, as ballot results showed that the states of California and Colorado rejected enacting laws that would have regulated the use of electrical energy and would have forced utility companies to produce their energy from renewable sources, or to only purchase electrical current thus generated. Unfortunately, state voters didn't see eye-to-eye with the proposals brought forth by policy-makers.
 

On the bright side, voters in Missouri showed more concern for the environment, by agreeing to set in place policies that would require even investor-run utility companies to comply with "green norms" of operation. Opponents to the legislative initiative were outnumbered considerably, so now even municipal utilities will have to buy current produced from alternative, renewable power sources, such as wind farms, solar-powered generators and geothermal plants.
 

Across the country, states are holding ballots, to see what their citizens think about allotting federal funds for renewable energy. This money would fuel research and development grants, aimed at improving already-existing electricity-generating processes. The funds could have also helped create new solar cell type, better wind mills, and finance prospections for new, exploitable geothermal sites.
 

"By passing Proposition C, Missouri voters have done their part to boost their state's economy, create good paying local jobs and stabilize their energy bills," said Union of Concerned Scientists clean energy analyst, Jeff Deyette.
 

In Colorado, Amendment 58 would have funded energy efficiency projects, with money obtained from setting tax credits on oil and gas companies. But a large opposition campaign, financed by these companies, spent $12 million on TV ads and lobby, so the measure did not pass. "They were able to run an overwhelming ad campaign misleading people. We knew it was going to be a tough one to pass," said A Smarter Colorado communications director, George Meritt.

 
California environment activists said they did not vote the proposal because it would have virtually tied renewable energy production to the ground, due to severe restrictions. "We were against it because it would slow renewable energy down and we believe Californians voted against it as a gesture in support of renewable energy," argued Natural Resources Defense Council energy program co-director, Ralph Cavanagh.