PG&E's Prop 16: Stalking Horse for Monopoly's Higher Rates? Sustaining Marin, posted by Ed Mainland, a resident of the Bel Marin Keys neighborhood, on Mar 28, 2010 at 7:41 pm Ed Mainland is a member (registered user) of Pacific Sun
PG&E is spending a cool $35 million from ratepayers' pockets to fool voters into thinking Prop 16 is about "taxpayers' right to vote". It's not about anybody's right to vote. And it's not about taxes. Prop 16 is actually about reducing voters' options and taking away rights already theirs. And entrenching PG&E's monopoly. And paving the way to higher rates by amending the state constitution.
PG&E's CEO Peter Darbee has admitted as much. At an investor's conference: he said Prop 16 is intended to "diminish" voters options. That's so because PG&E then only has to spend the amount of money it will take to convince 1/3 of the voters in any community to vote against their own best interests. Requiring a 2/3 majority would make it extremely difficult for any city or county to create a public utility or become a community choice aggregator or even expand a municipal electricity district.
That's what PG&E is banking on. PG&E calculates they will never have to spend another dime to quash greener competition if Prop 16 passes. Requiring a 2/3 majority would discourage public officials from even attempting this kind of vote, especially in the face of a massive PG&E spending blitz. When cities see all that PG&E cash stacked against them, a vote about energy options - all that "democracy" stuff - will never even take place.
Cities setting up community choice aggregation (CCAs) offer a much more democratic option. 100 percent of ratepayers have the choice of opting in or out. Compare that with what PG&E wants -- costly elections where as little as 30-40 percent of voters trouble to show up and 1/3 of that narrower bloc then can halt progress.
Long Beach Press Telegram says, "As it stands, ample opportunities to weigh in on municipal decision-making exist in every California community." People already have the right to vote on whether their city or county should get in the power business, but such decisions are made by a simple majority. Far greater accountability exists with municipally-owned utilities than with private board-room run corporate utilities, and public utilities can make decisions based on reasons other than profitability, such as cleaner energy. All kinds of major decisions, like the sources of our electricity, are made by those boards without voter approval. Prop 16 takes existing rights away from municipalities.
Sacramento Bee states,"Attorneys for the Northern California Power Agency say the way the initiative is drafted may prevent public agencies from providing power to a new subdivision, apartment building or business built within their own jurisdictions without first getting a 2/3 vote of approval from the public.”
This drafting error is reportedly one reason why the California Association of Realtors voted to oppose Prop. 16 -- along with League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, AARP, California Manufacturers & Technology Association, League of Women Voters, California Tax Reform Association and many other civic and business groups.
Chairman Michael Peevey, California Public Utilities Commission, says he objects to the initiative's two-thirds requirement. "I have a philosophical problem with requiring a two-thirds vote on anything," Peevey states. "Then, 33 percent plus one becomes the effective majority."
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison, the architect of the U.S. Constitution, had concerns about the tyranny of the majority over the minority, but he also admitted that the opposite was also worrinsome. He wrote that requiring supermajorities could cause "the fundamental principle of free government" to be reversed. "It would be no longer majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority," he wrote. "... An interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences."
So when do we all get to have a 2/3 approval vote on PG&E's coming rate hikes? Or on anything else PG&E does? Know this about utility rates and Prop 16: PG&E has about $5 billion in rate increase requests pending before the California Public Utilities Commission. So we KNOW rates will go up with PG&E. According to the American Public Power Association, public power across the nation averages about 14% lower rates than privately owned corporate utilities like PG&E. PG&E has some of the highest rates anywhere.
And did anybody get a chance to vote when PG&E was granted its bailout after going bankrupt a few years ago? PG&E's ratepayer bailouts of the past ten year approach $25 billion - which is more than the ENTIRE STATE BUDGET DEFICIT. Moreover, at the time of its bankruptcy bailout in 2004, PG&E's book value was only $23 billion, meaning its customers have bought and paid for this utility in bailouts alone - not even counting all the rate increases.
This trumps any arguments from those who claim to be worried about government spending or budget deficits -- PG&E continues to be able to force more government spending on the state of California every five years or so, and Prop 16 would be the clincher.
Former CPUC Chair Loretta Lynch points out that every penny PG&E puts into Prop 16 lobbying or politics comes from ratepayers. "The CPUC determines what ratepayers must pay to PG&E -- and every penny PG&E gets is either from ratepayers or from the interest earned from ratepayer monies that PG&E has in bank accounts. PG&E does not magically "create value" from somewhere -- every penny they get comes from or is interest on money coming from its ratepayers.
"So when PG&E says that they are using "shareholder" money to pay for their Prop 16 political campaign, it is just a label that has been affixed to a bucket of ratepayer dollars that were set aside by the CPUC to pay those shareholders/for the company's profit. CPUC can raise or lower that bucket of shareholder money (or change the rate of return on equity) or the CPUC can effectively dump more money in that bucket (by either taking it out of other buckets or by increasing the amounts of money ratepayers have to pay). That's the way CPUC can "give" PG&E our own money to use against us, for example, Prop 16."
Prop. 16 has been called a "a poster child of the pitfalls of our initiative process: If any individual or any group has enough money, they can get an initiative on the ballot."
Prop 16 would deform California's constitution to benefit only a single, powerful corporation. Don't be fooled. Vote NO on Prop 16.
Posted by Marinite, a resident of another community, on Mar 28, 2010 at 9:52 pm
PG&E's CEO made $9.4 million bucks last year...I think maybe they should think about lowering their rates so people don't have to worry about their electricity going off after they lose their jobs and perhaps pay that dude a little less. I think he could probably get by with just $8 million bucks a year...might have to give up a few vacations in his private jet, but we all have to tighten the belt these days.
Posted by Ed Mainland, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Yep, we should announce a contest for the best idea on how PG&E should be better spending the $35 million the monopoly corporation is putting into its Prop 16 political campaign. Surely a lot of greener energy could be purchased for that amount of cash. The prize for the contest winner could most logically come out of the swollen salary of PG&E's overpaid CEO Peter Darbee and those lavish consultant fees of PG&E shill Joe Nation.
Posted by Ed Mainland, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2010 at 9:53 pm
The success of MEA/MCE now rests on how many Marin ratepayers will be suckered or won't be suckered by PG&E's political warfare against the Marin cleaner energy start-up. The only real "risk" MEA/MCE runs is the unremitting hostility of PG&E's executives to any upstart competition. PG&E's suits are trying every trick in the book to induce ratepayers to opt out of MCE. It's David and Goliath. But anybody that wants more clean energy and fewer greenhouse gas emissions has got to be on the side of David (MCE). Who else can give us 100-percent green power out of the starting gate for only a few dollars more. Opt up, Dan, to DEEP GREEN and 100-percent renewables. Stand with David against Goliath. If MCE "fails", we'll know who to blame, won't we? We'll blame all those millions of dollars (our ratepayer dollars) PG&E is pumping into its anti-MCE and pro-Prop 16 disinformation campaign.
Posted by Sea, a resident of another community, on Apr 3, 2010 at 6:26 am
Ed the whole argument is getting old, because there isn't anything new. Shell Oil Company continues to pollute countries in Africa, while MEA claims to supply 100% green electricity. A walking living contradiction. Marin will be 100% and screw the rest of the world. So much for global warming. What about conservation, the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gases. Clearly not something MEA has any interest in. Pie in the sky foolishness. Let commen sense prevail.
Posted by Ed Mainland, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2010 at 8:53 pm
PG&E has not met state targets for either energy efficiency or renewable power. MCE will do a better job, a much better job, at both, including using less electricity, that is, conserving it. It's as simple as that.
Posted by Sea, a resident of another community, on Apr 4, 2010 at 5:47 am
As simple as your statement is it makes no sense at all. Please tell me how MCE will do a better job @ conserving. Wouldn't conservation be something that the end user practices, encouraged by the provider. As I said nothing new here, just double talk. What about your parent company, Shell Oil, and the fact they are a major world polluter.
Posted by Ed Mainland, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Mrs. or Mr. "Sea": PG&E itself already buys lots of its energy from Shell. So why object to MCE also procuring energy from Shell -- the AAA-rate bidder with the best offer -- when that will be twice as renewable? It's a business decision. Anyway, Shell is a short-term first-contract expedient with requisite market clout that dwarfs PG&E's; for MCE it's a device for finally getting up and running and on the road toward much more locally and regionally generated clean, renewable energy. It's in the contract now -- MCE can substitute local renewables through contract modifications even in the first years, and MCE has expressed the intent to get to 100 percent green energy in less than 10 years.
Some other advantages MCE offers:
- MCE redirects nearly $1 million dollars a month of profit we were giving PG&E shareholders for use within our own community
- MCE offers clean energy at or below PG&E rates
- PG&E has ten rate hikes already pending with the CPUC, MCE allows us a way to avoid those.
- MCE is just going out and purchasing clean energy from a AAA rated
supplier, but PG&E will still maintain and repair transmission lines, and do billing.
Posted by Ed Mainland, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Apr 8, 2010 at 12:25 am
The more MEA succeeds in ramping up local and regional generation of renewable power and in taking greater advantage of potential funding for energy efficiency, the more jobs and business opportunities there will be in the sectors participating, notably solar PV installers and building retrofit and efficiency workers. How many more local green jobs there will be depends on how fast, effectively and broadly this ramp-up takes place, and on how many Marin ratepayers stick with MEA.
Posted by Kevin, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Apr 9, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Sorry Ed, I must be a dim bulb,...but how does MEA make it any easier for PV installers and building retrofit and efficiency workers to secure more work. Those trades and their wares are readily available for all right now. And the current federal and state rebates and credits for that work is not impacted by the existence of MEA. I hope you know as well as I that in NIMBY Marin there unfortunately will not be any significant scale power generation. Look at what McEvoy Ranch had to go through to get one damn windmill in West Marin ! Just what tangible green jobs do you really see?
Posted by Sea, a resident of another community, on Apr 10, 2010 at 6:36 am
Ed the fact is the Association of Solar Contractors opposes MEA for ovious reasons. The fact is many of these contractors and their workers can look forward to harder times if this pie-in-the-sky scheme ever gets off the ground. Another fact is that there will be no new green jobs in Marin. You must know by now state and federal laws and codes regarding energy efficiency has nothing to do with your group. Truly if you had any interest in the local economy related to green energy you would have considered the Berkely Model. What is going on In Berkely is good for the community, good for the enviorment, good for business, good for the consumer, and it is happening right now. The best part is it has nothing to do with politics, big money, or Shell Oil.
Posted by Louise L Mathews, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Apr 10, 2010 at 12:18 pm
MEA strategy: Begin by giving an opponent a handicap. Then pull the rug out to level the playing field.
Corporate self-interest is natural to Pacific Gas & Electric.
MEA’s government self-interest is hostile in a democratic society.
It looks likely that MEA will delay sending Opt-Out notices until election season is in full swing. In the blitz of campaign junk mail MEA’s Op-Out Notice to PGE customers will be ignored.
It is the same “informational gave you a chance” marketing used repeatedly by governments to unbalance citizen representation in the decision making process. A level playing field does not begin by placing the consumer's choice in an adversarial perspective.
Does anyone else see the parallel of MEA’s cattle baron mentality to the widespread voter disenfranchisement in Florida and Ohio or the Flood Zone 9 misuse of public trust?
What subset of Americans is corrupting America? Exactly when did the voters agree to shred the Constitution? Who is their leader when elected government officials still swear to uphold the Constitution? To what constitutional allegiance are they swearing?
Town of San Anselmo MEA proposed dark green costs have increased far above the cost estimated at the March 9 Council meeting. Does this identify a bait and switch consumer protection issue or it simply the reality of one man’s struggle to be a political highflyer at the expense of a countywide Enron?
Marin Energy Authority is a Joint Powers entity and as such its Management Team can “re-evaluate how best to calculate the dark green option”. How many times will the dark green price be re-evaluated? Nobody is talking.
Posted by Ed Mainland, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Isn't the real "corruption" PG&E's use of $35 million in ratepayers money to buy Constitutional protection for its corporate monopoly and stockholders while squelching competition? Vote NO on Prop 16.
Meanwhile, if you read PG&E's Corporate Responsibility Reports and look at where their energy comes from, the picture is not pretty -- the amount of electricity coming from coal has gone from 1% to 4% to 8% in 2008.
Web Link . Apparently, greenhouse gas emissions from PG&E's generation have increased 30 percent in the last few years.
Its true that under PG&E's aegis, relocalized renewable electricity in Marin hasn't moved ahead at all. So MEA is the very best shot we have to change that and provide all the jobs and business that local power will bring. MEA is the best instrument available to attack and dismantle the barriers to distributed relocalized power that were listed in a recent study by the University of California law school.
The Berkeley Model (AB 811) is good as far as it goes and Marin Energy Authority has plans to get it going in Marin bigtime. Trouble is, it's limited to those who own houses and who can afford the financing (even if it's "on-bill" financing) and doesn't include big commercial users. That means it can't compare with the scalability and mass impact of Marin Clean Energy and community choice aggregation. Those putting solar on their houses with AB 811 financing will find a ready market for their surplus power in Marin Clean Energy. And that will mean lots of jobs for solar installers.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
PG&E is spending a cool $35 million from ratepayers' pockets to fool voters into thinking Prop 16 is about "taxpayers' right to vote". It's not about anybody's right to vote. And it's not about taxes. Prop 16 is actually about reducing voters' options and taking away rights already theirs. And entrenching PG&E's monopoly. And paving the way to higher rates by amending the state constitution. 
