Prop 16 - VOTE NO! on California's June, 2010 Ballot - Official Opposition Website - Taxpayers Against the PG&E Power Grab

Prop 16 Would Block Some of The Nation's Leading Green Power and Climate Protection Efforts: Recent Articles

Sonoma County is investigating Climate Protection measures. Marin and San Francisco want to go green. South San Joaquin wants energy independence. From 51% renewable by 2017 to 100% green by 2020, California towns, cities and counties are being aggressively blocked by PG&E with hundreds of millions of dollars in ratepayer bailout windfall-funded lobbying and slick flag-waving public relations campaigns. Today PG&E paints itself green based on its nuclear plants and a bunch of old hydropower dams. To greenwash itself, PG&E has spent incredible sums in television, radio, billboard and direct mail to persuade the public that it is leading the very green power movement that it is working so hard to block. In the meantime, PG&E has aggressively invested in more gas-fired power plant infrastructure, and is seeking a $5 B rate increase from state regulators over the next three years to pay for a new generation of fossil power plants powered on imported Liquefied Natural Gas from a PG&E-sponsored importation terminal on the Oregon border.

In short, PG&E is making bad fossil investments that it wants its customers captive to pay for in coming decades. Moreover, PG&E is the nation's nuclear cheerleader, promoting a rebranded nuclear power as "carbon-free" - and has petitioned federal regulators to allow its old nukes to keep running. While failing to meet California's mandated green power minimums since they day they were approved by the legislature in 2002, PG&E has spent nearly as much money blocking communities from implementing local green energy programs that offer consumers an alternative to PG&E supply. From South San Joaquin to San Francisco, Marin to San Luis Obispo, PG&E is seeking to raise rates to pay for its fossil nuclear future.

"Vote no on Proposition 16 - PG&E's attack on competition," Sierra Club Yodeler article by John Rizzo (March 6, 2010)

"California Voters to Choose: PG&E and Refineries or Clean Energy and the Climate," Huffington Post article by Mike Sandler (March 5, 2010)

"Former president of coalition opposing Marin Clean Energy says he supports local initiative," Marin Independent Journal article by Richard Halstead (March 5 2010)

"Scientists Confirm Mismanagement by PG&E is Killing Two Northern California Rivers and Degrading Salmon Habitat; Friends of the Eel River Takes Legal Action," PR Newswire article by Richard Halstead (March 1, 2010)

"PG&E Funds Anti-Green Measure," East Bay Express article by Robert Gammon (February 16, 2010)

"The Uncertainty Factor Does a New Fault Line Discovery Put Diablo Canyon Power Plant in Jeopardy?," Santa Barbara Independent article by Nick Welsh (March 4, 2010)

"Be smart about energy sources," Lompoc Record article by Bess Christensen (February 17, 2010)

"New Group Seeks to Bring Greener Power to Marin:"New York Times article by Katharine Mieszkowski (Dec 22, 2009)

"PG&E spending millions to block local utilities," San Jose Mercury News article by Dana Hull (January 31, 2010)

"Large Marin energy users face choice: PG&E or more renewable energy," Contra Costa Times article by Richard Halstead (February 8, 2010)

"PG&E Scores More Fossil Fuels: The utility's $2.3 billion project to import liquid natural gas from overseas would increase greenhouse gas emissions and destroy habitat.," East Bay Express article by Robert Gammon (December 23, 2009)

"Paul Fenn vs. PG&E - Activist-turned-entrepreneur Paul Fenn's effort to bring affordable sustainable energy to California could be revolutionary -- and electricity giant PG&E isn't happy about it at all." Fast Company feature article by Pulitzer-nominated Author Anya Kamenetz