No on Proposition 16
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has taken a position on one state ballot proposition for the June 8, 2010 election in California. UCS recommends a NO vote on Proposition 16, which would require a two-third vote by the public to enact or expand a publicly owned utility. After researching both sides of this issue, we decided to oppose this constitutional amendment for the following reasons:
- The proposed two-thirds vote requirement sets a bad precedent for a community’s desire to raise and spend funds for an approved purpose, and would effectively prevent local communities from having a choice as to who they purchase their electricity from. Today, this choice, or the threat of such a choice, could have a positive impact on the behavior of the regulated investor-owned utilities in a number of areas, including increasing investments in local sources of renewable energy.
- Moreover, UCS and many of our environmental allies in California have said that we need to move away from the two-thirds majority vote toward a simple majority vote on state budget and related revenue matters.* This proposed constitutional amendment goes in the opposite direction by severely restricting local governments’ ability to issue revenue bonds.**
UCS notes that the local jurisdictions that have been promoting the community choice electricity option have made renewable energy a top priority. Of course, these commitments don’t guarantee that more renewable energy will be produced, but we do like to encourage every utility to increase its percentage of renewable energy as much as possible, and these local elected leaders have expressed a strong desire to create portfolios of energy that have a high percentage of renewables. Encouraging elected leaders at all levels of government to promote more renewables is a positive strategy.
For these reasons, we urge a NO vote on Prop. 16 on June 8, 2010.
* Under California’s requirement for a two-thirds majority vote on budget and revenue matters, opponents of the state’s environmental and public health policies have managed to hold legislative negotiations hostage, demanding that such policies---which are entirely unrelated to the budget or revenue matters---be weakened or repealed in exchange for their vote. Such tactics, for instance, were central to a 2009 vote on the state budget, which resulted in weakened public health protections on toxic air pollution from the exhaust of off-road diesel construction equipment.
** Unlike local general obligation bonds, which already require a two-thirds majority vote and are paid back by increases in taxes, revenue bonds are not paid back using taxes or tax increases. Instead, they are a unique type of bond with a guaranteed stream of revenue from sources such as a toll on a bridge or toll road, or in this case, rates from a publicly owned utility.
