A proposal for a campus-wide referendum on a new fee to raise money for the College to purchase renewable energy passed unanimously in the Student Affairs Committee (SAC) late Tuesday night, setting off feverish preparation among supporters to educate students on the issue in advance of the possible vote, which would start Monday.

The legislation, which comes to a full Undergraduate Council vote on Sunday, would put an item on next week’s Presidential ballot asking students if they support a $10 renewable energy fee on their termbill—and second, whether the charge should be “opt-in,” “opt-out,” or mandatory.

“I think that [renewable energy] is a really important issue for our community, and that Harvard should be taking the lead,” said Council President Matthew W. Mahan ’05.

There had been considerable debate in the SAC over the way in which the fee would be presented on the termbill. The original proposal, co-written by the Environmental Action Committee (EAC) and Harvard Students for Clean Energy, did not include the second question and called for an opt-out charge.

Before and during Tuesday’s meeting, the environmental groups argued that opt-out would raise the most money, while some SAC representatives were concerned that it would “con” students into paying an unwanted fee.

Still, everyone involved—including the current candidates for council president and vice president, all six of whom co-sponsored the legislation—sounded pleased with the result.

“I don’t know that it matters much,” said presidential candidate Teo P. Nicolais ’06 of the opt-in or -out debate. “The most important thing is that it’s optional.”

Matthew J. Glazer ’06, also running for President, saw the possible referendum as a chance to publicize energy problems.

“I’m really excited for the EAC—I think it’s a great opportunity to educate students on environmental issues,” Glazer said.

Ian W. Nichols ’06, running for vice president on a ticket with Ty Moore ’06, hoped that a succesful referendum would play a part in convincing the administration, rather than the students, to pay for renewable energy.

“This is definitely a temporary solution and it definitely makes the campus more aware of this issue,” Nichols said.

In the Quincy House Small Dining Room on Wednesday night, the EAC was hard at work preparing to make the campus more aware. Members made posters, miniature wind turbines, and buttons reading “The Power is Ours,” to publicize their support of the referendum and of the opt-out option.

“We don’t believe the mandatory choice is the best choice because we believe that students should have a choice over whether they support renewables,” said Allison I. Rogers ’04, who now works for the Harvard Green Campus Initiative. “We’re positive that the opt-out method would be the most successful and the campaign now needs to educate the campus on why the opt-out method is best.”

The EAC and Harvard Students for Clean Energy estimated in their position paper for the proposal that $10 from every undergraduate would pay for 4 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity—equal to 25 percent of the College dorms’ yearly energy consumption, or the yearly production of one “state-of-the-art wind turbine.”

Even if the renewable energy fee wins a majority in the possible referendum, the fee would still have to be approved by the Faculty Council before being placed on the termbill.