PG&E's "Monopoly Protection Act" (rejected by voters, 2010) would have ended traditional local control over energy in California - and replace majority rule with a rule of the minority - all to prop up PG&E as a monopoly

PG&E;'s Proposed Constitutional Amendment was written, circulated and paid for by energy giant PG&E; to prevent local governments from legally negotiating with competitors to provide electricity services under existing California law. Specifically, the 2/3 voter approval requirement would block major efforts to reduce greenhouse gases throughout California. Why? Because PG&E; regards these "Community Choice Aggregation" programs as a threat to its profits. Currently, numerous communities, including San Joaquin, San Francisco, Marin County, the East Bay, Sonoma County, Kings River Conservation District, San Luis Obispo, Gilroy and others are seeking competitive energy suppliers under the state's Community Choice (CCA) law, AB117. In addition, a number of communities like South San Joaquin Irrigation District, Kern County and Yolo County have sought or are seeking to municipalize services, or have irrigation districts provide services to PG&E; customers. PG&E; wrote and funded Prop 16 to block this competition, not protect taxpayers.

Read About PG&E;'s Efforts to Block Green Power

PG&E;'s "Monpoly Protection Act" would have placed supermajority 2/3 voter approval requirements on any local government retail electricity programs - even those that do not expose local General Funds or impact property taxpayers. Prop 16 was about monopoly and crushing customer choice, not taxpayer protection. In fact, Prop 16 was about propping up a bailed out, deregulated utility and make it effectively a monopoly again. Significantly, PG&E;'s two major ratepayer bailouts of the past decade approach $20 Billion - the same amount as the State of California's entire $20 Billion deficit. In truth, PG&E; is the nation's "Too Big to Fail" trendsetter.

Read About PG&E;'s Monopoly Strategy

Prop 16 would have locked California power customers into the largest rate increase request in history - PG&E; has reqested a 30% increase over the next three years, or $5 Billion - in order to pay for its recent bad investments in fossil fuel power plant infrastructure. Formerly claiming to support "choice" by its cusomters, PG&E now rebrands choice as a "takeover" of "our customers" and views choice as a threat to its Wall Street stock price. PG&E; is the nation's nuclear revivalist. The energy giant has attempted to make California's power plants dependent upon overseas imported fuels for the first time in history. PG&E; is rushing to build a new Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal to import overseas natural gas to Coos Bay, Oregon and recently won federal regulatory approval for a 240-mile gas pipeline over the border to fuel a fleet of new Northern California gas-fired power plants PG&E; and its partners have built - all in the middle of a mounting decade-long fossil fuel crisis. Meanwhile, PG&E; has never complied with state minimums for renewable energy since 2002 when the law was passed, and is widely criticized for mismanagement and squandering of ratepayer energy efficiency funds and spoiling California's smart meter initiative. PG&E;'s failure to change for the better after its bankruptcy bailout has resulted in PG&E;'s largest rate increase proposal to regulators in its history as well as a squashing of California's formerly progressive customer rate tiering system - some of which which is still before the California Public Utilities Commission.

Read About PG&E;'s Rate Increases

Prop 16 is about a monopoly seeking to expand its fossil and nuclear empire based on captive customers who have no alternative but to pay for it. PG&E; doesn't want Californians being able to find other power suppliers that might reduce local need for PG&E;'s fuel import business. Prop 16 would strategically threaten California's energy security by eroding local control over energy and climate planning - the very ability of local governments to govern themselves - all so that PG&E; can reclaim the fossil-nuclear monopoly it collected $ Billions from ratepayers to give up for ever in the legislative deregulation bailout athorization of 1996 (AB1890). Prop 16 was, in short, a trick on the voters. In effect, PG&E;'s proposed constitutional amendment would have recreated PG&E;'s monpoly by making all California customers captive to monopolies again - after paying them $ billions in state-sanctioned bailouts for the right to power choice in 1996. With these bailouts now approved, PG&E;, Sempra and Edison would have received their monopolies crown back again - for free.

Read Statements on PG&E;'s Anti-competitive Strategy by Consumer and Environmental Groups

Prop 16 is just the latest chapter of a prolonged raid on California's wealth by one of the world's largest global energy corporations. PG&E; raised business rates by 40% following its bankruptcy bailout, and continues to collect the customer bailout funds each month from a nonbypassable charge on customer bills. While today PG&E; continues to fail to meet minimum state renewable energy laws, the gas and power mega-utility has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in billboard, bus, radio, newsprint and television and PR to sell its nuclear and hydro power as "carbon free" so and promote to a gullible media that PG&E; is already green. In the meantime, PG&E; has spent many tens of millions of dollars in recent years blocking communities implementing energy independence, and ultimately spent $67M on Prop 16. Help us stop this outrage of bailout and monopoly against local control and energy independence.

Read About PG&E;'s Impacts on California's Economy

- No on 16 - Stop the PG&E; Power Grab (powergrab.info) Fact Sheet

- The Utility Reform Network (TURN) Prop 16 Factsheet

- Approved Sample Northern California City Council (Berkeley) Resolution Opposing Prop 16

- Official Sample Southern California City Council (Riverside) Memo opposing Prop 16

- Approved Sample Municipally Owned Utility (Roseland) Resolution Opposing Prop 16

- Approved Sample Local Agency Formation Commission (SFLAFCO) Resolution Opposing Prop 16

- Approved County Board of Supervisors (Marin County) Resolution Opposing Prop 16