On local government: Electric utilities ballot box power grab
On this June’s primary ballot will appear what, on the surface, seems like an innocuous question. Should voter approval be required before a municipality decides it would rather supply electrical power than be part of an existing commercial delivery system, such as from Edison?
The requirement for referenda on decisions normally made by a City Council have become popular as, one would surmise, the respect for those who occupy those dais seats has declined. The process by which referenda can qualify is relatively easy for those with outsized passion or deep pockets to pay for signature gatherers. The campaign to get those qualified propositions is usually focused on the “democratizing” of the system, often postured as “letting the people vote.”
However, often hidden in the fine print is the requirement that, rather than being a majority vote, which would be the “democratic” way, approval by two-thirds of the voters, a nearly impossible task, would be required.
That is the case in Proposition 16, a proposal put forward by the private utility companies to hinder the opportunity for cities to start their own public electric utilities. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the private company that serves most of Northern and Central California, is the primary financial sponsor of the initiative, having contributed $28.5 million through March 26, 2010.
PG&E, which reported a $1.22 billion profit in 2009, has notified its shareholders that the cost of contributions to the “Yes on 16” campaign will amount to about 6 to 9 cents per share of the stock. “Direct Voice,” a petition drive management firm, was hired to collect signatures to qualify the proposition for the ballot. They were paid $2,199,794 and succeeded in gaining sufficient signatures for the proposal to qualify.
The opposition to Proposition 16, which includes many city governments and newspapers across the state, primarily centers around two issues: the two-thirds requirement and the cost of any voter approval campaign. If companies are willing to spend this much now, how much would it cost municipal utility proposers to defend its decision against the principal private utility behemoths in an election?
The whole reason for electing a City Council is for them to study, discuss, take testimony, deliberate in public and decide, with a majority vote, about public policy. If the voters don’t like what they decide, that’s what elections are for. Proposition 16 takes yet another decision away from the only people who deal with the jigsaw puzzle that public policy is.
Public policy is not best served when single issues are presented as if they have no impact on anything else the government does. Everything affects everything else. In this case, it might be that a city wants to require the implementation of renewable energy generation as part of its electric use portfolio. Perhaps the only way to get there is by creating a municipal utility. Proposition 16 will make this virtually impossible.
Vote no on Proposition 16. Then, watch your City Council and determine if those in the chairs are the ones you want there. That’s what elections should be about. ER