There are a lot of reasons to oppose the PG&E-backed ballot initiative, "New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers". We think a better name would be: "The Utility Monopoly Protection Amendment", or ThUMPA, since this measure would allow utility companies to use the state constitution to beat back local governments that try to provide energy choices for their communities.
If it passes, the referendum would amend California’s Constitution so that communities that wish to give consumers an alternative to investor-owned utilities would first need two-thirds approval from voters. Why two-thirds? Well, you need a two-thirds vote to raise taxes in California. PG&E is trying to trick voters into thinking that this is about taxes and taxpayers, when in fact it is about choice of energy service.
Most deceptively, PG&E makes it sound like the initiative would “give taxpayers a choice.” But PG&E has designed this “choice” to be as difficult as possible for voters. That’s why they didn’t offer a majority vote; because a public alternative to investor-owned utilities might actually pass. But a two-thirds vote, where the utility can spend an unlimited amount on the campaign — and local governments are banned from campaigning at all — would set up a hurdle too high to get over.
The irony, of course, is that no one ever gets to vote on anything PG&E does (or the other monopoly utilities like Southern California Edison or San Diego Gas and Electric); only public power options offer citizens the right to vote on how they are run, and these opportunities come with every regular election.
The targets of this measure are municipal utilities and a program that most Californians have probably never heard about: Community Choice. Community Choice is a right— under state law— that allows local governments to contract for electric power, and make this service available to all local utility customers. Customers are automatically enrolled, unless they choose otherwise, and are given multiple notices of their rights to opt out of the program. Community Choice differs from municipal power in that the utility continues to operate the transmission/distribution system, billing, and customer service.
There is a compelling public interest to make it as easy as possible for communities to promote clean energy, reduce pollution and greenhouse gases, and increase local and consumer control over energy decisions. PG&E’s ballot initiative makes a mockery of its self-proclaimed leadership in clean energy and climate protection, places corporate interest above the public good, and makes it more difficult to confront global climate change.
PG&E sees affordable green power as a threat and wants to protect its market share by manipulating the legal referendum process under the rubric of jaded and fictitious taxpayer populism. In “two-thirds” elections it wants, PG&E has the unlimited right to reach into our rates to fund its campaigns. It can also sprinkle money on community organizations, and support local political candidates—to ensure that everyone either “partners” with PG&E or remains on the sidelines. On the other side of the campaign, the cities and public power agencies are banned by law from campaigning. Public agencies are forbidden to spend ANY money on electoral campaigns, and public employees may only participate as private individuals. The fight would not even be close to fair.
Letter of opposition addressed to California State Attorney Edmund Brown
Official website: http://noprop16.org
Key points on why Sierra Club California opposes Proposition 16:
• It subverts the California Constitution and initiative process.
It manipulates the legal and electoral process to enshrine PG&E’s electric power monopoly in the Constitution.
• It distorts our democratic system.
A 2/3 majority approval is not a one person, one vote system. It gives opponents twice as much voting power as those who vote Yes,making it nearly impossible to achieve public approval.
• It eliminates your community’s choice to opt out of PG&E’s high rates.
Prop 16 stifles competition for electric power. PG&E has the highest rates in California. In addition, PG&E has already begun 2010 with one rate increase and plans nine others that would hurt both residential and commercial customers.
• It violates state law by thwarting local control of energy.
Prop 16 is specifically meant to undermine California’s Community Choice law (AB 117), which gives cities and counties the option of buying cheaper, cleaner power than that provided by PG&E. AB 117 requires electric utilities to cooperate with Community Choice programs.
• It threatens the future of clean energy and green jobs.
Prop 16 undermines local renewable energy development and the business growth associated with it.
• It stalls greenhouse gas reductions.
Prop 16 undercuts efforts to provide sustainable, clean energy options to PG&E’s dependence on fossil fuels.
