HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 3A 04/19/2010w~~z,U~
a '~
r
Ig5$
DATE: April 19, 201.0
~l~~,v~.dc~ Itewv # 3.~1
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: John C. Brown, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Opposing Proposition 16, the "New Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for
Local Public Electricity Providers."
RECOMMENDA'T'ION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution opposing Proposition 16.
BACKGROiTND:
Proposition'16, known as the "New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity
Providers" has qualified for the June 2010 California primary election ballot. It is sponsored by
PG&E; and if approved by voters, would require .multiple two-thirds votes for any public power
utility to expand or upgrade electric service outside of its territory to serve existing customers.
Proposition 16 would also impact the ability of cities and counties to engage in Community
Choice Aggregation programs by requiring the same two-thirds vote. A copy of the analysis of
Proposition 16, prepared by the Legislative Analyst's office, is attached for further background
and information.
DISCIJSSLON:
Proposition 16 requires that any bonded. indebtedness or use of public funds to expand electric
delivery service must be approved by two-thirds of the voters within the territory (including
newly annexed territory, even where the annexation has been approved by the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the local government has been designated by LAFCO as
the electric service provider). The only exception to this is if the local government is the sole
provider of such services within its jurisdiction.
Because eligible renewable .resources would be exempted from the requirements of Proposition
16, public utilities -after having failed to reach the two-thirds voter threshold to acquire
conventional sources of generation -would likely have to purchase electricity generated at a
higher cost, presumably from investor-owned utilities such as PG&E in Northern California,
which in turn may have an impact on rates for electricity customers. The impact of higher costs
Agenda Review:
Dept. Director City Attorney Finance Director ,,o~~ City Manager
would.be particularly negative for business customers that need reliable and affordable electricity
to remain competitive.
At its February meeting, the Board of Directors of the League of California Cities voted to
oppose Proposition 16. Opposition of the measure is shared in growing numbers by cities locally
and statewide.
>FINAN:CIAL IMPACTS: There are no costs associated with the City taking a position on
Proposition 16. According to the California Legislative Analyst's Office, the fiscal effects of
this initiative are unknown. The net impact on state and local government costs and revenues are
dependent on future voter decisions, due to the measure's potential effects on electricity rates
and publicly owned utility operations.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution.
2. Proposition 16 Summary
3. Summary from League of California Cities/Committee on Environmental Quality
4. 'Summary from League of California Cities Board of Directors
5. Legislative Analysis
2
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA OPPOSING
PROPOSITION 16, KNOWN AS THE "NEW TWO-THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT FOR
LOCAL PUBLIC ELECTRICITY PROVIDERS"
WHEREAS, Proposition 16, known as the "New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local
Public Electricity Providers", has qualified for the June 2010 California primary election ballot;
and
WHEREAS, Proposition 16 is being sponsored by PG&E, and if approved by voters,
would require multiple two-thirds votes for any public power utility to expand electric service
outside of its territory to serve existing customers; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 16 would impact the ability of cities and counties to engage in
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA); and
WHEREAS, there are no costs associated with the City taking a position on Proposition
16; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 16 would have an unknown cost to local government costs and
revenues due to its potential effects on electricity rates and electric operations, as well as the
costs associated with any special elections that would be required under the initiative; and
WHEREAS, some local government agencies .might not start up or expand a publicly
owned utility into a new territory or create a CCA as a result ofthe measure's new voter
approval requirements, possibly resulting in higher electric rates for its customers... This could
affect state and local government costs, since many public agencies are themselves large
consumers o~f electricity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Petaluma
does hereby oppose Proposition 16, the "New Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Public
Electricity Providers".
ATTAC~IlVIENT 2
PROPOSITION 16
"New Two-Thirds Requirement far Local.Public Electricity Providers"
Education Information
Back ound
o Proposition t6 was entered in'lhe initiative process originaily named ``The Taxpayers Right
to Uote Act;" The San Francisco i;ocai Agency Formation Commission {LAFCO). argued
-that this title was misleading, and as a result, the Attorney General renamed the initiative to
its cui•rentaitle:
o~ Will'be on the June 8~,20f 0 ballot.
Existing-Law
o .Cities are ailowed fo complete annexations that include: he expansion of electric service by
the approval of a simple majority of voteis;in the area to be!annexed.
o An election can be held within the city's existing jurisdiction.ifirequested by 25 percent of
the city's residents or bythe area's LAFCO:
Initiative. Proposed. Changes
o Cities must obtain 2/3rds voter approval from both the existing service area and newly
annexed area if electric^service. is to be expanded.
o Any city or county pursuing Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) or the formation of a
newpublicly-owned electric utilitymuse.obtain 2/3Gds voter approval before proceeding.
o Votingtequirements only apply if thete will bean expenditure of public funds for
construction; acquisition, of ser6ices used to expand delivery'seivice.
Exemptions
o Voter approval would. not be required foi electricity expansions within the jurisdiction of the
local goverriinentarid within;the territory to be served.
o A 2/3rds vote wouldroot applyif fdnds:are used.-solely for purchasing, providing, or
supplying renewable electricity, or if electric delivery service is frir the local government's
own end use:
Major lmnacts to Existing Publicly Owned Utilities
n .Annexation of uew territories°will:require a 2/3rds vote before cities can serve those areas
-with. municipally-ov~med electricity.
o 'the intiative language is vat,'ne and it is unclear if a 2/3rds vote would also be required for
the development of nqn-renewable generation facilities or transmission lines located outside
ofalte city's jurisdiction.
o The Legislative Analysts office concluded that the initiative would create an unknown impact
to state'-and locat government costs and revenues, duexo thepotential impacts on electricity
rates and'pizblicly-owned electric utility operations.
ATTACHMENT 3
PROPOSIiIDN IMPOSES NEW TVVO-THIRDS VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT'EDR'LOCAL
PUBLIC ELECTRICITY `PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONACAMENDMENT.
OFElC191L TtTLF, AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE AT1"ORNEY GENERAL
IMPOSES. NEW TWO-THIRDS VDTEI? APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL PUBLIC ELECTRICITY
PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL;AMENDMENT.
• Requires local governments to obtai~i the approval of two-thirds of the voters before. providing
electriciry service to new customers or expanding such service to new territories using public funds or
bonds.
• Requires same two-thirds vote-to .provide electricity service through a community choice program
using public Rinds' or bonds;
• Requires the vote tc~ be in the jurisdiction of the local governmenc_and arty new territory to be served.
• Provides exceptions to the voting;requirements for a,li;nited.number of identified projects.
'Summary of I:egislative Analyst's Estimate of'Net State and Local'Governinentfiscal Impact:
• 'Unknown net,impacton.state.and local,governmentcosts~and revenues due to uncertainty as
to the measure's effects, on public, electricity providers and.on electricity rates. These effects are
unlikely to be significant-intfie-short run.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
Provision of Electricity Service,irt,California
California Electricity Providers. Californians
generally receive tEteir electriciry service from;one
of three types of providers: nvesior-owned utilities
'.(IOUs},: oval publicly owned electric utilities, or
electric service providers (ESPs).'These provide 68
percent, 24 percent, and 8 percent; respectively, of
retail-electricity service in the state.
Investor-Owned. Utilities. The IOUs are owned
try private investors and provide electriciry service
for profit:'The three largest electricity OUs in the
state are;L'acific°Gas and .Electric (PG&E),
Southern'California Edison, and Ban Diego Gas
and Electric. Each IOU has.a unique; defined
geographic service area acid is required bylaw to
serve=ctistoiners in thacarea..The California Pixblic
Utilities Commission (CPUC) :regulates thz rates
charged by ICUs and,how they provide electricity
service to [lien customers.
Publicly Owned `Utilities. Publicly owned
electric utilities are publicentities that provide
electriciry service to residents and businesses in
their local-area. Whilenot regulated by CPUC,
publicly owned electric utilities are governed by
locally elected boards which set their own terms of
service, including the rates charged to their
customers: Electricity°service is currently provided
by local goverrimerits'through several different
governmental structures authorized under state
.law, including:
• Utility depai•trnents oF¢ities, such: as the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power.
• Municipal utility districts, such as the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMIJp):
• Publicutility districts; such as-the Truckee
Donner Public Utiliry.District.
• Irrigation districts, such as the Imperial'.
Irrigation District.
26 ~ Tit/c and Summary / Arralytis
PROP INIPOSES'NEW TWO=THIRDS=VOTER ARPROVAL:REQUIREMENT FDR"LOCAL
PUOCIC ELECTRICITY-PROVIDERS. INITIpTIUE CONSTITUTIDNAL AMENDMENT.
ANALYSIS BY THEfiEGISLATIVE'ANALYST
Electric Servii'e Providers.. The ESPs provide
electricity to customers who ha~~e.chosen not to
receive electricity from t1e:IQ,LJ or°publidy'owned
utility that wotild:ocherwise serve their geographic
area. Under this aliproach,.an electricity.customer
enters into whax is termed a "direct access"
contract with an ESI? that>deliverselectriciiy to the
customer through die local uti.lity's transmission
and distribution system.
The Creationand Expansion of~Putificly Provided
Electrii:ity Services
Community Choice Aggregation: In addinon• to
the ESP arrangements discirssed.above; state law
allows a city or a. county, ora,cnmbinatlionofrhe
two, ro arrange to provide electricity within their
jurisdiction through a contracrwith an electricity
provider ocher than the IOU that-would',otherwise
serve that local. area. This is referred to as
"community choice aggreganon," Although only
one community choice aggregatgr:(CCtC)
currently exists to provide electricity in California,
several communities are exploring this option. A
CCA could get its electricity from an ESP, using
the transmission. and distribution system of the
IOU serving chat local area. Electricity customers
within, that area would automatically get their
electricity-from the CCA unless they elected to
continue to receive service fruit .the lOU.
Prop~skls to Create and Ex~iand Public
Electricity Providers. In recent years, a lrnted
number oflocal-governments inahe stare. have
explored zhe:idea of creating ne~y public providers
of electricity or expanding publicly owned utilities
into.new territory currently served;by an IOU. For
example; the City and Gounry,of San Traneisco
has considered creating;a C;CA that would.include
#erritory currently served by PG&E.,As another
example, Polo-:County explored having SMUU
provide electricity service to eerritory within' the
county curreitrlyserved by PG&F: In some cases;
these proposals have been put before the voters for
their approval; under~proyisions ofstate law
discussed: below.
Fnr text of PFoporition 16, .tee page 75.
CONTINUED
Voter Approval Require~rzeszts far Publicly
Owned Electricity Providers: As noted above,
publicly owned utilities can ,be organized under
several different types of government structures.
Each type°of local government entity tharis
autlicirir_ed to provide electricity-service,, and that is
considering-.either the start-up of electricity service
or the expansion of existing service beyond its
current service'area,'is subject to certain state
requirements.
Various stafiites specify ;whether voter approval is
required for the start-up of electricity service by
authorized local governmenc.entities. Under state
law, if a local;government;rtfends to expand'its
electricity service into anew territory, drat new
area must be annexed and, in certain cases; a
majority of the voters in the area proposed for
annexatiorr must approve the expansion. In such
.cases, however; no gore of the public is generally
required withii4 rlie.existingsei-vice territory of the
local governmental entity that is proposing the,
expansion. {In some cases, a local commission
recjuires such a vote as a condition of approving
.the annexation.) In contrast, Deal agency action to
create and begin implementation+ofa CCA may be
undertaken upon a vote of the.local agency
.governing. boarii' and does not require local voter
approval.
PROPOSAL
The meastire places new voter approval
requirements on local governments before they
caii use `ptililicfunds"-defined broadly itt the
measure cp~~ndudc tax rcvcnues,warious forms of
debt, and ratepayer'funds-to start up electricity
service, expand;electricity~service irtEo a new
territory, or implement a CCA:
• First; before anyauthorized local government
entity can start upelectriciry,serviee, it must
receive approval by two-thirds of t$e voters
in the area proposed to be served.
• Second, before an existing publicly owned
utility can expand its electric delivery service
Analyri.r ~ 27
6
PRDP IMPDSESHEWTWO-THIRDSVDTER"APPROVAL REQUIREMENTFDR-LOCAL
PUBEIC ELECTRICITY ARDYIDEAS:lNITIATIVECDNSTITU110NAL AMENDMENT:
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
into a.;;new territory; is-,must receive approval
by two-thuds of the voters in the area
currentlyservedby•ght utility and.two-thirds
of the voters in the new area proposed.to be
served:
r Third; the measure regiires,two-thirds.voter
approval for a Iocal government to
implemenC a CCA.
.The measure provides three exempeions to local
governments~from these voter approval
requirements:
• If the use of public~funds,has been previously
approved by the voters both within-the
existing local jurisdiction and the territory
proposed~~ for. expansion.
• If the public funds'would be used solely o
purchase, provide, of supply specified-types
of electriciry from renewable sources, such as
wind or solar,power:
• If the pthlic funds would,be used only to .
provide electric dzliyery service for. the local
govermnent's own use.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Local'Administrative .Costs for Elections:
Because dais measure requires voter approval„for
specified,local,governmeiir actions chat can.
currently~be accomplished without such ,votes, it
wotild result.in additioital.elections,costs. These
costs wotiid~rimarily be relatedao°prepariii~:and
rnatlin~~~election-"elate ritaterials.!In most eases,
the alhttng~cquld be consolidated`with•already'
scheduled elections. As a result, the increased
election related costs due to this measure would
probably be,minor.
CONTINUED
Potentialhnpaet on State anti Local
Government Costs lzntl.Xevenues. This measure
could affect local governmenrcosts and revenues
due to its .potential effects oit the operation of
publicly owned utilities end CCAs. Ircould also
affect the finances of stare and local government
agencies inaCalifornia because of its potential
impact on electricity rates. These effects wotild
largely-depend upon future actions.of voters and
Iocal governments.. We discuss these potential
effects•iit.more detail;below:
First,•the new public voter<approval
requ.rements.:for2heararc-up or expansion of
publicly owned utilities or the implementation of
CCAs could restilt in public. disapproval of such
changes. Also, the cxistence.of these.new voter
approval requirements could deter some local
goyernmenr;agencies from- proceeding with such
plans. To the extent that this occurred; these local
government~agencies would besomewhat smaller
in size and have fewer customers than would
otherwise be the ease..As a result, they would-have
lower total revenues and costs.
Second, the enactment o'f this measure could
also,affeet the finances ofstateand local
governmc:nt:agencics in California due to its
pgtential.rnpact on electriciry rates: tls.noted
above,some local ggvernmenragencies might not
startup or expand a publicly owned utility into a
new,territoryor implement a CCA. as a.result of
thetmeasu"re's. new voter approval requremenrs.'In
this event, the;rates.:paid by electriciry customers
in that and neighboi-ingjurisdictions could be
higlicror lower Cha~a would otherwise have been
the case. For'example; ifrhis measure prevented
la ~ A6alyrzr
PRbP 'IMPOSES NEW=TWO-TNIROS VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT fOR LOCAL
Pl18CIC FLECTRICITY>PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONALAMENDMENT.
ANALYSIS BY TNf LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
the expansion ~f publicly provided electrical
service that depended upon the c~nstrueton of
new:energy infrastructure, rates might be held
lowci than might otherwise gccur.,On the'other
hand, lf,this measure lessened the competitive
pressureson private electricity providers by
reducingahe,opportunities for expansion of
publicly provided electrical service;. the races
charged to electricity euscptners might evenru.ally
6e higher than otlieiwise. These impacts could'
affect state.arcd local governtnenr costs, since many
liublicagences are themselves large consumers of
electriciry.'To the extenti"iliac changes iii electricity
Fortcxt ofY'ropositiom I'6;,tee pdge 75.
CONitNUEf)
rates affect business.. profits, sales, and taxable
income, these factors could also affect state and
local tax revenues.
In the short tun,'the net fiscal effect of all of
these factors•on the~~nances of state and Local
government'agencies is `unlikely to be significant
on a statewide'basis. This is diie;to the relatively
limited nuiiiber ofaocal government agencies
considering the start-up or expansion of electricity
services into""new territory. In the long run, the net
fiseal;effcct of the measure is unknown and would
depend on fiitiue actions of localgovernmentsand
ygters.
Analyr:t ~ 29.
8
PROP IMPOSES'NEW TWO-THIRDS~YOTER`APPROYRI REQUIREMENT FOR„LOCAL
PUBLIC ELECTRICITY BROVIDERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONALAMENDMENT.
Vote YES on Proposition IG, the Taxpayers Right w Ueite
Act.
Pr~posirii>n 1'6, the Taxpayers, Right to Vore,Act; does .
one simple thing; Irrequires voter approvahb'efore,local
governments'can spend pyibhc+money orincur public debt
co get into the electricity business. And like mosclocaI
special tax and bb+fd decisions in Califixna„two-thirds eater
approval will be^required.
In tough ecogomic'timeslike'these, local voters have every
right co have the final say on an issue as important as who
provides Sherri with local electric service, and,how much it
will cost.
Twci-thirds voter approval is our best ptoteciion,against
cgsdy:and risky government schemes to>rake,over local
elecn`ic servicx:
Several local governments tit California are trying'to
take ever private electric businesses-ofcrn using gniinent .
dgmain-and`are refusing torlet local voters have the,final
sayin chedecision, because'stateaaw-doesn't requite it. This
measure establishes clear vo~er'approval'requirements before
local governments canapend public money or incur,public
debt to go intoihe local-electricity business.
'These da~:s, with government spending our of control and
mounting govcciin,encdebt-the best financia] saFeguard' fnr
taxpayers is ro;live voters the final say in these decisions.
:Supporters of P_ropositign :16, theTaxpayers Right to
Vote`Act, indudrig the Calfgrnia Taxpayers' Association,
the CaliforniaiChamber oF'Comtnerce and Pacific Gasand
Electric:Gompany,.believertharahe votcrsshould decide. it`#is
oucelectnc service 'our puhlic money and, in the end, it is
everyone's problemcif a governmentrrun electricity business
(ails. We, the vorers;;dese:i-vc the right tv have the final sae
about how our money-is spent.
Vote YES.on I?rop~sition T6; rheTaxpayers Right co Vote
Act.
www. taxpayersrigh tto vgte.:cttm
TERESA CASAZZA, President
Californr~t Taxpayers Association
ALLAN ZAREMBER6, President
California Chamber of Commerce
VoteNo~on-Prciposition 16tgstop the worst case-yet. qfa
big special interest=tkiis rime it's PG&E; the gianq for-profit
private tttliry_-misusing the init+ative;grocess.
Don't let PCatStE foolryou..Pioposition 4.6 doesn't touch
your taxrs,one wayor the other; hs a1ls;aboutPGtkE
mainrainirig its,monopply and eliminaing:its cgmpetition.
Tharcoutd'mean higher electtio-bills and poorer service for all
Galiforniatts-regardless of cohere you live.
17C'&E is making up a threat rhat:doesn'rexisrwdistract
you What's really bothering PGL4CE"is many communities
.... .,.
prices We fiehese that residents should be;aDow - o'have
choice,o oven e ec~riaty'at 'ower costiwithoue_re uirin
a.213 su Derma or+rv vole. ?,uct far c}ioice is wf3t U&E
designed`Proposit+on 1 co~stop.
So when yen ee TV ads for~Proposie_ion 16, re,rt?ember that
most okthe-money foreach one came from peoples utility
bills. The Utility Reform Network says; "lr's just wrong for
P,GLtE to take':money from families; and then spend ie on a
pvliticalcampaign w ~enefio-itself." Especially considering
that PG&E recently paid big bonuses tp its executives after
going bankrupt-just like'Wall Street..
The;I:eague of'Women Vptcrs oPCalifornia urges you tg
Vote NO, joining AARP,;every newspaper tliiit's reviewed`rr,
and grqups _representing,Galiforniasconsumers, taxpayers,.
environmentdli'srs'an8 farmers. Vote NO to give local,
nonprofit utilities-the chance to compete for your service-
wirhaow cost; rencwaole energy.
MICHAEL BOCCADORO, Exeattive:Director
Agricultural.'Energy;Consumers Association
LENNY 60LDBERG; Executiv"r Director
GaliforniaTax Reform Association
JANIS`R. HIRDHAMA,:President
League;pfWomen Voters oECalifornia:
30 ~ Argumtntr Argument printed nn"tbu page arc tfie'apiniaai fehe antharx and bave not Gem cberkedfor a~rrrrary by any anal agency
PROP IMPOSES.NEW IWO-iHIROS VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL
1 PUBLIC ELECTRICITY PROVIDERS: INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
I?roposition 16 does two things:
hirsc, it drastically limits your choices on who provides you
with electricity.
Second, it makes it easier for the for-profit utilities in
Cali{ornia to raise your electricity rates.
]t's-cleverly written, brcause the backers of Proposition
l6 want to fool the vnters.'Pheysay c{ijs measure is about
protecting taxpayers. But what it teally protects is the
monopoly enjoyed by a giant,.for,profie elecuic utility.
You should be :dlowed to have more choices in who
provides your electricity, if chose choices would give you lower
cost and better service. Vote No on Proposition 16.
Most people would agree that if a local nonprofit
organization wants to buy green powet at wholesale rates,
atSd sell it to communities ar an affordable cost, it should
be allowed to do so. But Proposition 16 makes it just about
impossible.
Severelylimiting your choice in the source of your
electricity. No lower cost green energy. Fewer choices and
higher costs. Thars what Proposition 16 does to you.
Who's the role sponsor of Proposition 16?
PG&E, the largest for-profit utility in the state. When this
argument was written, PG&E had contributed $6.5 million
ro the "yes' campaign and signaled they're prepared to spend
tens of millions more. PG&E was the,only contributor ro put
this proposition on the ballot.
Why? Again, PG&E wants to protect its monopoly.
Proposition 16 isn't about protecring taxpayers-it's about
protecting PG&E's for-proftt monopoly on electricity.
JtLSt read die hallos title and summary, and you'll see.
As the Fresno Bee pacts, "The PG&E ballot measure
(Proposition 1G) is another example ofthe initiative process
goingawry'in California, of a powerful special interest seizing
the initiative process for its own nan'ow benefit."
Why are the opponents of Proposition lG:afraid to give
taxpayersche right to vote? Voting gives you the ultimate
choice on bow government spends your money. Opponents
of Proposition 16 want to,deny you that right.
Opponents of Proposition ]6 are nortrlling the truth. Leis
be clear:
• Proposition 16 dots NOT affect electric rates.
• 1?roposition l6 does NOTxhreatep green power.
Yes on Proposition I6 simply gives taxpayers the right to
vote.before local governments spend your money or go deeper
into debt rq get into the retail electricity business.
Therlasctirnegovernment thought they knrw more about
thr electricity business than the electric utility wmpanies,
AARP urges No on Proposition 16 because srrictina
com}}etirion, Proposition 16 could mean higher electricuy
costs for' ou: A No vote protects you against the potential for
rtpp mg rate ikes.
In fact, PG&E and oth r f rv rofir uti i ' ~ e
hi her a t munici al non ro t utilities. And now they
want to increase rates another$5 bil ion.
The Consumer Federazion of California-says VOTE NO
because Like Wall`Street, PG&E paid huge bonuses co its
executives, even afrec it went bankrupt and ratepayers bailed
icout. Vow 1'GtkEwanes to lock-in its monopoly once and
for all-so smaller, local nonprofit utilities are not allowed ro
compete.
Sierra Club says VOTE NO because Proposition 16
requires a 2/3 supermajority vote before communities can
purchase clean power and other power at competitive prices.
These community choice programs are voluntary and do not
raise taxes.
Proposition 16 "is a dagger aimed directly at a movement
to enable municipalities to offer renewable green power to
their residents in competition with private utilities,° said
Michael Hilaik, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times.
Say NOao.,another wasteful initiative that says one
thing but really doessomething very different. Votr No on
Proposition 16 to keep money in your pocket and to protect
your utility choices.
IEANNINE ENGLISH, California State President
AARP
ANDY KATZ, Chair
Sierra Club California
RICHARD HOCOBER, Executive Director
Consumer Federation of California
we had the 2001 energy crisis. Rates skyrocketed and we had
rolling blackouts. The:cost ro consumers was devastating and
it orated chaos throughout California.
Yes on 1?tgpositioq I6. Voter approval is everyone's best
protection against cosily and risky local government schemes
to get,into rtSe retail electririty business.
www. taxpayersrighaovote.com
TERESA CASAZZA, President
California Taxpayers' Association
ALLAN ZAREMBERG,1'resident
California Chamber oFCommcrcr
ArgusnennprinrrA on rhirpage art rGe opinions of'the curl orr and~bave not G'een ~herkedfnr accuracy by any ~cial agenry. ~ Argum rntr 31
10