In Depth on Measure Imposes New Two-thirds Majority Voter Approval Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers
Pros & Cons - In Depth
Proposition 16 is an initiative sponsored by PG&E that would add new provisions to the California Constitution.
Vote Requirements of Proposition 16
Under Proposition 16, creation of a public utility or initiation of community choice aggregation program would require 2/3 approval by voters in the area to be served. Expansion of the service area of an existing public utility would require separate elections by (1) the voters in the public utility’s current area of service and (2) the voters in the proposed new area of service, with 2/3 of the voters in each election approving the proposed expansion of service.
“Public Money” in Proposition 16
The higher voter requirements of Proposition 16 apply if a local government uses “public funds,” defined very broadly to encompass all sources of money available to government. So, a government undertaking electric service would probably always be using “public funds” and be subject to the vote requirements of Prop 16, unless the proposition’s exceptions applied.
Borrowing for local public utilities or community choice programs would typically be done via revenue bonds, or bonds backed by the revenue stream provided by electricity customer payments. Such bonds are not backed by a local government’s general fund and are not now approved by voters. Proposition 16 would require voter approval of the local electricity venture before these ratepayer-backed bonds could be issued.
Community Choice Aggregation
In 2002, the legislature passed AB 117 (Migden), allowing California communities to form Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs to choose alternative electric service providers for the whole community. The bill garnered strong legislative approval (72.5% Senate, 80% Assembly) and was supported by PG&E even though the statute required them to cooperate fully with CCAs. One reason for the strong support of this legislation was that it was seen as a way to encourage communities to be innovative in providing more clean energy.
Here’s how a CCA works. One or more communities decide they want to form a local energy cooperative, and get approval from the governing boards of the relevant local governments. Following extensive planning to insure supply of the electricity needed for the whole community and fulfillment of legal requirements, the CCA is certified by the California Public Utilities Commission and can go into business. It is the CCA that enters into contracts with electric service providers to deliver the communities’ electricity. But, that electricity is still delivered over transmission lines owned and maintained by the investor-owned utility (IOU). The IOU also continues to handle customer service and billing for CCA customers.
Two CCA programs have been certified, the San Joaquin Valley Power Authority in April 2007 and the Marin Energy Authority in April 2010, and there are other communities in various planning stages. The San Joaquin program never actually went into business and suspended its attempts last summer due to a tight credit market, volatile energy prices, and other concerns. The Marin program (MEA) plans to start serving some customers in May 2010, offering nearly double the ratio of renewable energy at the same or lower cost as PG&E is now charging. (PG&E delivered 14.4% renewable energy in 2009, and MEA is targeting 25% renewable.) MEA also plans to offer 100% renewable energy at a cost of about one cent more per kilowatt hour.
The reasons cited for forming community choice programs include the following:
- increased reliability of power, energy independence, local control
- increased renewable energy supply, reduced greenhouse gas emissions
- improved price stability, lower cost
- improved local economy from new local renewable energy projects
For more information about CCAs, see the websites of the Marin or San Joaquin Authorities.
CPUC Tightens Utility Regulations
At its meeting on April 8, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted some tougher rules that aim to block certain uncooperative practices by investor-owned utilities.
The new rules will:
- Prevent utilities from refusing to sell electricity to CCAs (community choice programs).
- Prevent utilties from offering incentives to local governments not to participate in a CCA.
- Prevent utilities from soliciting opt-out requests before customers have information from the CCA that is necessary for an informed decision about electric service options.
The original legislation authorizing CCAs established that energy customers would be automatically included in the local energy cooperative unless they chose to opt out and continue buying electricity from the investor-owned utility.
Renewable Energy Requirements
State law sets a target of 20% of our electricity being generated from renewable energy sources by 2010. A 2008 executive order by the governor set an additional target of 33% renewable energy by 2020. Although the specific requirements vary for different types of electric providers, all are being encouraged to increase their generation or procurement of renewable energy, in order to help achieve the state’s ambitious targets.
Authority for Government-Owned Public Works
The California Constitution (Article 11, Section 9) establishes that cities may form a municipal corporation to “…operate public works to furnish its inhabitants with light, water, power, heat, transportation, or means of communication.” The city may also regulate private persons or corporations that are supplying those services. Prop 16 singles out one type of public works–power, and places a new restriction on cities’ authority to oversee the delivery of just that one service to its inhabitants.
- A 2/3 majority vote requirement is not excessive for the expenditure of public funds to undertake or expand electric service. This is the same vote requirement local governments have for other kinds of debt, such as parcel taxes and bond measures.
- It is unfair to place customers into community choice aggregation by default and require them to opt-out if they prefer the current electricity provider. People should have to opt-in instead.
- We don’t need another government bureaucracy with new costs and red tape.
- Local governments are not prepared to manage the volatility of energy costs and prices.
- Local governments already have large shortfalls in their budgets and cannot afford to lose the revenue they get from property taxes and franchise fees paid by utilities.
- If Prop 16 passes, it will create a system that is unfair. When the elections required by the measure are on the ballot, PG&E could spend an unlimited amount of ratepayers’ money on the campaign, while local governments are forbidden by law to spend taxpayer money on campaigning.
- PG&E claims that the measure protects the rights of voters, but the 2/3 majority requirement gives decisive power to a minority of voters, not the majority.
- Prop 16 is an abuse of the state’s initiative process. Passage of the measure would set a terrible precedent of corporations using the State Constitution to give themselves special privileges and protections.
- State law requires the investor-owned utilities like PG&E to “cooperate fully” with CCAs in their efforts to become established. PG&E in placing Prop 16 on the state ballot, among other actions, is violating that law.
- Prop 16 protects the monopoly of PG&E and the other investor-owned utilities. Competition among energy providers is important to sustainability because it fosters innovation and increased efficiency
YES on 16—Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote • www.taxpayersrighttovote.com
All of the “Yes on 16” campaign’s $28.5 million in contributions have come from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the sponsor of this initiative: (from Cal-Access postings as of 4/14/2010)
Supporters of Prop 16 include: (Signers of official arguments are in bold.)
• California Chamber of Commerce and many local Chambers including Irvine,
Oakland Metropolitan, Orange, Pacific Grove, Pleasanton, San Francisco, Sonoma Valley
• California Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown & Speaker of the Assembly
• Bay Area Council, Bay Area Buisness Roundtable
• Oakland Jobs and Housing Coalition, Oakland Builders Alliance
• Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco
• Asian Business Association of Los Angeles
• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
• California Republican Party
NO on Prop 16—Taxpayers Against the PG&E Power Grab
www.powergrab.info • 415.929.8876 x306
The NO on Prop 16 campaign has received a total of $31,449: $18,000 from TURN (The Utility Reform Network) and the rest from individuals and organizations ($100 to $2,000 each). (from Cal-Access postings as of 4/14/2010)
Opponents of Prop 16 include: (Signers of official arguments are in bold.)
• Cities/Towns: Alameda, Berkeley, Burbank, Glendale, Healdsburg, Lodi, Palo Alto, Pasadena, Redding,
Roseville, San Francisco, San Rafael, Santa Clara, Sebastopol, Tiburon, Tulare
• Utility districts and local agencies: Burbank, Healdsburg, Modesto, Redding, Sacramento
• San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission, South San Joaquin Irrigation District
• Marine Energy Authority, San Joaquin Valley Power Authority
• League of CA Cities, CA State Association of Counties, CA Municipal Utilities Association
• Northern California Power Agency Commission, Southern California Public Power Authority
• CA Special Districts Association
• AARP, Consumer Federation of CA
• California Tax Reform Association
• TURN (The Utility Reform Network)
• Local Clean Energy Alliance, Climate Protection Campaign, Water Planet Alliance
• Global Exchange, Sustainable Marin, Sierra Club, California League of Conservation Voters
• Planning and Conservation League
• League of Women Voters of California, CALPIRG–CA Public Interest Research Group
• Chambers of Commerce: Folsom, Fremont, Greater Riverside, Santa Clara, Stockton
• SiliconValley.com
• California Labor Federation, SEIU–California State Council, San Francisco Labor Council
• CA Nurses Association, CA Federation of Teachers
• CA Realtors Association, CA Manufacturers and Technology Association
• CA Farm Bureau, Agricultural Energy Consumers Association
• Editorial Boards: Contra Costa Times, Fresno Bee, Long Beach Press Telegram, Marin Independent
Journal, Merced Sun Star, Modesto Bee, Oakland Tribune, Redding Record Searchlight,
Sacramento News & Review, San Francisco Bay Guardian, San Francisco Chronicle,
San Jose Mercury News, Vallejo Times Herald
• Former state energy commissioners: John Geesman & Carl Wood
• California Democratic Party, California Young Democrats
• U.S. Congress: John Garamendi
• State Senators: Darrell Steinberg, Mark Leno, Ellen Corbett
• Assemblymembers: Paul Fong, Jared Huffman, Nancy Skinner, Mariko Yamada
- Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) – Bill lookup at www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
- AB 117 (2002, Migden) established Community Choice Aggregation. See the final bill & analyses.
- Marin Energy Authority • www.marinenergyauthority.org
- San Joaquin Valley Power Authority • www.communitychoice.info
- other CCA programs • www.marincleanenergy.info/Other_CCAs.cfm
- State Government Agencies
- California Energy Commission • www.energy.ca.gov • Lots of information and statistics.
- California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) • www.cpuc.ca.gov. This agency regulates the big investor-owned utility companies.
- 4/8/2010 CPUC meeting – The commission tightened utility regulations relating to community choice programs. See Item 3 in the agenda & meeting presentation.
- News & Opinion:
- Letter from Darrel Steinberg (President Pro Tem) and other state senators to PG&E about their initiative, claiming that it is misguided public policy.
http://www.localcleanenergy.org/files/Steinberg_a_Darbee-16.pdf - “Proposition 16–An Overview,” California Municipal Utilities Association, March 24, 2010. This points out confusion over the meaning of Prop 16’s provisions and their impact on municipal utilities.
http://noprop16.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CMUA-NoProp16Presentation... - “PUC tells utilities not to hinder power co-ops,” Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee, April 8, 2010.
- “PG&E strategy: exploit voter angst to pass Prop 16 under 'voter's rights' guise,” Dan Aiello, California Progress Report, April 15, 2010.
- “Plugging in a monopoly,” George Skelton, Los Angeles Times, April 18.2010
- “Pioneer public power program launches in Marin,” David R. Baker, San Francisco Chronicle, May 7, 2010.
- Letter from Darrel Steinberg (President Pro Tem) and other state senators to PG&E about their initiative, claiming that it is misguided public policy.

Print or Create PDF
RSS Feeds
Mobile or Single Column




ShareThis