SANTA CLARA COUNTY (May 7, 2010) – The Chambers of Commerce Coalition of Santa Clara County has formally opposed Proposition 16. The Campbell, Gilroy, Hispanic Silicon Valley, Los Altos, Milpitas and Santa Clara Chambers of Commerce are among the members of the Coalition that are opposed to the proposition.
Proposition 16 would require local governments to obtain the approval of two-thirds of voters before providing electricity to new customers, expanding such service to new territories if any public funds are involved, or buying power at wholesale prices to sell to residents through a Community Choice Aggregation program if public funds or bonds are involved.
With only a simple majority vote of approval on June 8, Proposition 16 would impact the ability of publicly owned electric utilities to expand electric service beyond their current boundaries and could negatively impact the ability of publicly owned utilities to effectively conduct business within their existing boundaries.
The Coalition believes that the measure significantly limits the choices of who provides electricity to local jurisdictions and also makes it easier for the for-profit utilities to raise rates. The major objection to the proposition is the two-thirds vote requirement. The Coalition believes voters should be allowed to have the choice of electricity providers without requiring the supermajority vote that is frequently difficult to garner.
Another power grab by a well funded special interest. The worst is how they make sound like tax payer protection.
Comment by Pat Morse 05.10.10 @ 9:45 pmI feel a 2/3 vote is necessary but do not understand how it is that the average citizen will benefit with a majority vote. How is it that there are so many contributors of electricity in so many areas of California. I have had no problem using another provider and PG&E provided my billing. Can you clearify for me?
Comment by Ned Shamlian 05.11.10 @ 12:14 pmCurrently you can have another provider and your bill comes from PG&E under a program called Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). PG&E supported the law that founded CCA, but has fought every community that has tried to establish one. Right now a elected officials can choose to set up an energy authority, which they did in South San Joaquin County, Yolo County, Marin County and in San Francisco. PG&E fought every single one tooth and nail and brought every single one to majority elections, which are fair. The problems with a 2/3 super-majority is that it creates a de facto majority 1/3.
Instead of providing good service and low prices, as well as clean energy, thus a reason to stay with PG&E, the company is amending the state constitution to lock in high prices and make it impossible for anyone to choose a different provider or for public power to compete with them. I think the coalition opposing Prop 16 speaks volumes, and follow the money supporting Prop 16: it’s only PG&E.
Comment by turn 05.12.10 @ 10:12 amLeave a comment