Wednesday, May 05 2010 - 04:25 PM
Proposition 16: Good or Bad?
It’s been a while since we talked about Proposition 16. But the “Yes” drumbeat of TV ads and mailers funded by PG&E continues unabated. So it seems a good time to revisit the issue (along with the original comments):

Proposition 16 requires a two-thirds voter approval requirement before local governments can spend or borrow public money to provide electricity to their citizens from alternative sources such as wind or solar.

The measure was brought forward through the initiative process as a Constitutional amendment on the June 8, 2010 California ballot. If approved, it will make it more difficult than it is under current law for local entities to form either municipal utilities or community-wide clean electricity districts known as “Community Choice Aggregators (CCA’s).

Pacific Gas & Electric is the financial sponsor of the initiative, having contributed $28.5 million through March 26, 2010. Proposition 16’s opponents had raised only $40,000 in the same period. And in spite of an ad tagline suggesting that the initiative was also supported by “a coalition of taxpayers, business and labor”, PG&E is the sole donor to the campaign.

The proposed constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds majority vote of local voters before a local government could:
• Establish a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program
• Use public funding to implement a plan to become a CCA provider
• Expand electric service to new territory or new customers.
The CCA program, established in 2002, allows local governments to purchase blocks of power to sell to residents, and to construct municipal electricity generation facilities, which means that cities and counties can become competitors to private utilities.

Supporters say that, in tough economic times like these, voters have every right to decide who provides them with electricity and at what cost.

Opponents say that this is an effort by PG&E to stifle competition and deny consumers choice in their electrical providers.

Arguments Pro:
• Greg Larsen of Larsen Cazanis, a Sacramento public relations firm, is the paid spokesperson for the measure. He says, “Why shouldn’t the people who are going to pay the bill have the right to vote on that?”
• Former Sacramento County Sheriff, Lou Blanas says “As local governments struggle to fund the most essential and basic services, local leaders in several communities are working to spend millions of public dollars or debt to get into the retail electricity business. And they do not want the people to vote on it. In tough times like these, voters deserve a voice in this decision… California voters have consistently supported sound proposals brought before them. In fact, between 2002-2008, 286 local special tax and bond measures that required a two-thirds vote were approved.”
• President and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce, Allan Zaremberg says “Requiring a vote will ensure that the complicated and risky choice to create a government-run electricity business gets the public discussion it deserves. These are long-term deals that can commit generations to hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. And to pay for them, more cuts in local programs might be required or, perhaps, even new taxes or fees. The voters need to be allowed to weigh the promises of benefits versus the real risks and costs of failure.”

Arguments Con:
• The Utility Reform Network. Mindy Spratt of the group says, “This is the worst kind of special interest ballot proposition. Something that would basically benefit one corporation at the expense of everybody else.”
• Nine California state senators sent a letter to PG&E President Peter Darbee in which they said that they believe Proposition 16 is “misguided as a matter of public policy.” The letter was signed by senators Darrell Steinberg, Mark Leno, Jenny Oropeza, Lois Wolk, Christine Kehoe, Alan Lowenthal, Gilbert Cedillo, and Dean Florez.
• The Palo Alto City Council voted by 9-0 in early February to pass a resolution against Proposition 16. The city is worried that if Proposition 16 passes, it might make it harder for the city to buy new non-renewable production or transmission facilities outside its borders.

Estimated fiscal impact: Unknown net impact on state and local government costs and revenues—unlikely to be significant in the short run—due to the measure’s uncertain effects on public electricity providers and on electricity rates. However, residents will likely pay more for electricity in the long run if corporations like PG&E can make local initiatives more costly to implement and easier to block through the initiative process.

Major Editorials:
• The editorial board of the San Francisco Guardian said on September 22, 2009 that “this is a profoundly important issue, and every elected official, city council, board of supervisors, and utility agency in the Bay Area needs to immediately come out in opposition and start organizing to defeat it.”
• The Oakland Tribune editorialized for a “no” vote, saying, “Voters should not be fooled into thinking Prop. 16 is anything about improving the democratic process. It is entirely about PG&E’s financial interests and would do considerable harm to local governments’ ability to create and expand publicly owned utilities for the benefit of electricity customers. We urge voters to soundly reject Prop. 16 to protect their own pocketbooks and local choices about electricity service, and to send a message to PG&E and other special interests that the voters cannot be bought.”
• The Fresno Bee’s editorial board urges a “no” vote, saying, “Proposition 16 is the clearest illustration yet of how special interests have corrupted California’s initiative system.”

Okay, now it’s your turn. What’s your opinion of Proposition 16?

04/24/10 – 05:57 PM
American says…
If 16 passes, local governments will have an even more difficult time to invest in business.

INVEST IN BUSINESS?!?!?!
SOCIALISM?!?!?!

Government CAN NOT invest in business like this unless it provides for FREE electricity like it was MEANT TO BE!!!

Or,

Provide public investment partnership interests at ALL AVAIL. With shares available to buy from the City Hall, (or whichever government entity is choosing to consider this type of endeavor.)Even if private “small stock” investments were allowed to buy up all monetary shares from government, … along with maintaining a strict partnership with shareholders and government employee maintenance & operations of the organization, then it will be QUESTIONABLE!!!

Don’t let the GUB’MENT be considered as a viable “option” to create sustainable “competition” under the guise of public interest. The only way the government will be able to afford this is if it will be able to run this type of organization through CURRENT tax revenue. Because you have to think, if government shares were all bought up by those “SHAREHOLDERS/RECEIVERS OF THIS PARTICULAR UTILITY”, then the only way it will maintain an equal portion of the maintenance and operations of the organization is through its own tax revenue.

NO PROFITS SHOULD GO TO GOVERNMENT COFFERS!!!
ALL PROFITS SHOULD BE FORMED INTO STOCKS/SHARES OF THE COMPANY AND SOLD TO RECIEVERS OF THIS UTILITY.

Maintain and operate the organization through contracts with the GUB’MENT entity.

KEEP CAPITALLISM WITH THE PEOPLE NOT FOR THE GUB’MENT!!

OK, ive been babblin, cuz im medicated, but lets see what i wrote and send this bad boy message!!!

04/24/10 – 06:02 PM
American says…
ALSO…Keep the U.S.A. Captalism alive through Austrian Economic philosophy…DONT ALLOW GOVERNMENT!! I don’t know why this should even be an option, but for CONSERVATIVES IN THIS COUNTRY, in order to establish a system in harmony, and have a more effective public safety entity that is in charge of keeping us safe, then this idea I said before should be the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM of negotiation solutions. DONT ALLOW GUB’MENT TO PROFIT!!! IT DOES ENOUGH ALREADY THROUGH TAXES!!! Keep business revenue and profits in the coffers of INDIVIDUALS NOT GUB’MENT!!!

04/24/10 – 06:04 PM
American says…
This Green Crack (cannabis sativa) is AWESOME!!! 2 GreenThumbs UP!!! Don’t let the name fool you…MARIJUANA IS SAFE….It’s safer for you than ANYTHING you ingest and/or digest.

04/24/10 – 06:09 PM
American says…
Hey what the hell is that X right there…that cut off the best part!!

04/24/10 – 08:03 PM
highground says…
VERY BAD. ALL CALIFORNIANS SHOULD VOTE NO ON THIS CORPORATE MONOPOLY PROTECTION ATTEMPT.

04/24/10 – 08:07 PM
Cagy Wolf says…
Govt. should be self supporting. Its just another kind of welfare.

04/25/10 – 07:59 AM
Captain Jason says…
Cagy Wolf says…
“Govt. should be self supporting.”

Could you please elucidate on that? How do you define, “self supporting” when it comes to a government tasked with spending for services for the people?

04/26/10 – 03:30 PM
Ray Cunneff says…
I’m leaning toward a “no” on Proposition 16. It seems to me a cynical attempt by PG&E to protect its monopoly by making it far more difficult for municipalities to go “off the grid” and seek energy independence through alternative sources of electricity, primarily wind and solar power.

One of the clues to their ploy is the two-thirds requirement rather than a simple majority. Calling it the “Taxpayer’s Right to Vote Act” seems (to me) a deceptive and manipulative way to stifle competition.

04/26/10 – 06:33 PM
highground says…
PROPOSITION 16 IS BAD LAW. IT IS DESIGNED FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY. IT, IF PASSED, WOULD UNDERMINE THE TAX PAYERS ABILITY TO TAKE DOWN THE INVESTOR OWNED POWER COMPANIES AND DISTRIBUTE ELECTRICITY WITHOUT PROFIT. VOTE NO ON 16. MAINTAIN YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE FOR LOWER MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILLS WITH A SIMPLE MOJORITY.

04/28/10 – 11:44 PM
Ray Cunneff says…
The constant barrage of “yes of Proposition 16” ads is really beginning to annoy me. In addition to the TV ads, I’m now getting a flood of e-mails. The more I look into it, the more convinced I am that this is a “power grab” (pun intended) by PG&E. It is an attempt to stifle competition and protect their monopoly through the initiative process and tons of money. Municipalities have every right to develop alternative sources of electricity, primarily wind and solar, and this is a cynical and manipulative attempt to crush it. Don’t be fooled!

04/28/10 – 11:54 PM
Ray Cunneff says…
If PG&E really cared about “the people’s right to vote”, they would have called for a simple majority, not two-thirds. Has anyone seen a “no on 16” ad? No. Because they are being out-spent 100-to-1 by PG&E. (Interestingly, Edison does not support this initiative.)

04/29/10 – 12:05 AM
avbornbred says…
The public utilities are as crooked as they come. Look at the DWP in Los Angeles. The infrasture is failing with major water main breaks all over LA. Where has all the money gone to keep the system up and running? Answer, the union. Mid level supervisors on up to the top level, all receive huge pensions, more than police chiefs and fire chiefs.

If cities allowed every homeowner in LA County to have a windmill similar to the ones in the Sam’s Club parking lot, Edison would go broke. That is why cities will not allow even the smallest of windmills in housing tracks. I think you have to have a lot size bigger than 10,000 feet to qualify.

Politicians, Obama, and the rest of the left, all preach going green. They want the power companies to go green so they can continue to charge over inflated rates. They do not want the average citizen to go green because of the lost revenue. I wish I could save myself $300 to $500 bucks a month by having my own windmill here in the AV.
That would be a great incentive for me to go green. I would even consider solar panels if it were cost effective. If the utility companies were losing $300 bucks a month from every homeowner, it would bring them down. The cities will charge huge fees for the average Joe to go green.

Going green can work, as long as there is competition. The politicians will make sure they control all of the energy sources to keep revenue coming in.

When you hear the term, “Free Wind =’s Free Energy,” don’t believe it. I envy the few people in the AV who currently are saving money using their own windmills and solar. More POWER to them.

04/29/10 – 02:08 AM
Ray Cunneff says…
We are blessed in the Antelope Valley with an abundance of (potential) wind and solar power. PG&E wants to make it more difficult for us to go “off the grid” and obtain energy independence by using the initiative process to deceive us. Competition is the lifeblood of American capitalism and PG&E wants to smother it. If passed, Lancaster’s new solar energy facility (something mayor Parris has championed) could be delayed, challenged or even stopped.

04/30/10 – 04:15 PM
Ray Cunneff says…
The constant drumbeat of “Yes on 16” continues unabated and nobody seems to question the motives behind it. Are we really that gullible?

05/01/10 – 02:31 AM
Ray Cunneff says…
No on 16!!!

05/01/10 – 04:50 AM
Captain Jason says…
Ray Cunneff says…
“The constant drumbeat of “Yes on 16” continues unabated and nobody seems to question the motives behind it. Are we really that gullible?”

Obviously, Ray, that is how Parris got elected and reelected. I remember being taught a truism that has held accurate to this very day: Persons may be smart, but people are stupid.

Would you like to comment on this blog post? Login to talk back!