Propositions 10 and 7, both dealing with alternative energy, went down to defeat in Tuesday’s voting. Prop. 10 would have authorized a $5 billion bond issue in part to help consumers by alternative-fuel cars, but ran into stiff opposition from, among others, environmental groups.

Prop. 7 would have required utilities in the state to use 20 percent renewable power by 2010, 40 by 2020 and 50 by 2025, and was also opposed by some activist groups.

Sierra Club lobbyist Jim Metropulos, who fought against both propositions, was pitted against T. Boone Pickens, a big supporter of Prop. 10.

Metropulos and other opponents said Prop. 10, which would have cost $10 billion over 30 years, was far too expensive in times of tight budgets. They also contended it was meant to benefit a natural gas company in Seal Beach that Pickens partly owns — a contention rejected by Prop. 10 supporters.

“I’m very happy people have looked past T. Boone Pickens and the commercials,” Metropulos said.

As for Prop. 7, he thought California voters might be sending a message by voting against it: that making rules for alternative power generation is too complex a problem to be settled by a ballot initiative.

The next step, he said, will likely be the introduction of new legislation in close consultation with the various stakeholders in renewable power.

Legislators, he said, are “not going to see this as voters rejecting renewable power. They need to do the right thing through an open, public process and legislation.”

Later: reaction from supporters.

Related coverage:

• Prop. 10: Allocates $5 billion for alternative fuels
• Prop. 10: Criticisms range from profits to regulatory limits
• Prop. 10: Supporters say measure moves the state toward broader use of alternative fuels
• Prop. 7 also encourages alternative energy uses
• All election coverage