Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is spending $28 million dollars to convince California voters throughout the state that we don't have a right to vote when it comes to municipal electricity generation, and that Proposition 16 will give us that right to vote at a two-thirds majority threshold.

In San Diego, we actually can vote on municipal electricity generation with a simple majority to approve, according to language already found in our 1970 electricity franchise agreement (see link below).

If Proposition 16 passes this June as a constitutional amendment, it will be a good thing for utility holding company shareholders of Sempra Energy stock to have San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) protected from municipal condemnation by eminent domain, like SDG&E was a Proposition 13-protected residence shielded against state tax increases.

It could be a bad thing for consumers and other ratepayers when wildfires pump up our electricity bills to cover the WEBA legal costs of SDG&E not putting overhead power lines underground, since Proposition 16 will pretty much eliminate the threat of irate voters who no longer want to feed the Sempra Energy beast at the public feeding trough.

The "every day" cost to SDG&E ratepayers of this blog: zero dollars.

The value of getting the truth from a Reader blog: priceless.


Robert Johnston April 29, 2010 @ 3:49 p.m.

That PG&E (an out-of-area utility, serving California north of the grapevine, btw) is daring to impose their will on the rest of the state--let alone their ratepayers--is arrogance beyond belief.

Both 16 and 17 are boutique propsitions, bought-and-paid for by corporations to give the finger to the electoral process, even as try to bamboozle the voters into approving something that only benefits the corporation-in-question, rather than the voters. (Prop 17 is totally funded by Mercury Insurance, btw).

We had our dose of corporate kleptocracy from 2001-2008 under Bush II. We need not have to swallow any more of this brown-and-lumpy offering from PG&E (or from Mercury, as well). Instead, we should tell them we have no desire to have an out-of-town utility setting the voting rules here in San Diego County to merely benefit that utility's bottom line!

Tell PG&E to get-and-stay out of our affairs! Vote "NO!" on BOTH 16 and 17! NO MORE BOUTIQUE PROPSITIONS!



a2zresource May 20, 2010 @ 11:09 a.m.

RE #1:

"Corporate arrogance" was a phrase used by the federal prosecutor on her closing arguments, before guilty verdicts were returned in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SDG&E.

Corporate arrogance seems to have figured a lot in both the Crash of 2008 and this year's 2010 Flash Crash I (yes, I expect to see more of that later this year.)


Sign in to comment