California's Prop 16: a power monopoly's attempt to stop municipal negotiations for lower rates

[crikkett]

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/7741

PG&E wrote Prop 16 and contributed $34.6 million to win its passage.

The flood of Prop 16 TV ads don’t mention that the initiative was written to guarantee that PG&E’s high priced electricity monopoly will never be challenged.

Prop 16 makes it nearly impossible for locally elected officials to bypass PG&E and use the purchasing power of hundreds of thousands of local residents to negotiate discounts from independent power generation companies.

Prop 16 rewrites a 2002 law that PG&E supported at the time. The law allowed municipalities to contract for direct purchases of electricity (known as "community choice aggregation") at a future time, much as large business purchasers of electricity (factories, hospitals and the like) had been allowed to negotiate bulk purchase discounts before the energy deregulation debacle of 2000- 2001 brought direct access purchasing to a temporary halt.

That moratorium is nearing an end. San Francisco and a group of cities in Marin County are gearing up to negotiate bulk electric discounts for their residents.

PG&E decided it better stop municipal purchasing in its tracks before its customers acquire a taste for lower electric rates.

IMO Prop 16 is the power company's version of privatizing water. TV stations in my region are saturated with "Yes on 16" ads from 5pm thru prime time, including during local San Francisco newscasts. San Francisco intends to purchase power directly from green sources at lower rates than PG&E will provide.

I've been watching SF TV stations during kitchen chores at these time periods in the last few weeks. I haven't heard a single news story that tells us what Prop 16 is about. But the ads run during their commercial breaks.

:mad: It's enough to make you cynical.

[msongs]

1. doesnt seem to be any organized ads opposing - i live in a city util area n yak at the neighbors

will be mailing them a vote no on 16 flyer closer to the election.

Msongs

[crikkett]

6. Good for you!

Thanks for your activism!

[FBI_Un_Sub]

2. PG&E

A naked power grab by PG&E

[wtmusic]

3. Vating against any measure with $$$ behind it

almost always ends up being the right thing to do.

[diane in sf]

4. the opposition has very little money

[kristopher]

5. California PIRG features this LA Times article on their website

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-cap19-2010apr19,0,2197348,full.column

Plugging in a Monopoly

...This is what Prop. 16 would do, according to the neutral legislative analyst:

* Before a local government entity could start up electricity service, it would need approval of two-thirds of the voters in the area to be served.

* Before an existing public utility could expand electric service into new territory, it would need a two-thirds vote in both the currently served area and the new territory.

* Two-thirds voter approval would be needed for a local government to contract with an electricity provider other than a private utility through a relatively new arrangement called "community choice aggregation." Several communities are looking seriously at creating such arrangements, and PG&E is scared.


The author of the piece is definitely not a supporter.