Prop 16 lawsuit

The Sacramento Bee is reporting on a lawsuit, filed by a consortium of public utilities and led by Sacramento MUD, that is alleging PG&E intends to choke off electric utility competition in California. I'd say that's implicitly true, what with their $34.5 million campaign for Proposition 16, but the plaintiffs are alleging that Peter Darbee, the Chairman of Pacific Gas and Electric Corp., has acknowledged this goal as the monopoly's explicit motivation behind the June 8 ballot proposition. This is fairly dubious. Robert Cruickshank of Calitics hits the nail on the head, writing "Prop 16's practical effect would be to choke off competition and protect PG&E's existing monopoly across much of Northern California...making it very difficult for a majority of voters to create a public power district or community choice aggregation that can help deliver renewable power to localities." Even more dubious is that PG&E is financing their campaign for Prop 16 with ratepayer funds, and while others are free to disagree with me, I see this as using Californians' money against them.

I can't help but draw the analogy to private health insurance companies and their vendetta against the public option last year. Both campaigns demand that their private-sector, monopolistic (or oligopolistic, as with health insurance) practices are superior to anything the public sector could offer. So why should they be afraid of a little competition? Of course the answer is to protect shareholder profits, no evil motivation by any stretch. But power--like health insurance--is a public good, and PG&E's ratepayers are also citizens of California and thus deserve the choice of renewable, local power if they want it.

We'll find out about the outcome of the lawsuit. Hopefully it will prevent me from having to vote no on Prop 16 by removing it from the ballot completely. Until then, I will continue my own small campaign for more choice and competition in California.

CA Dems on Prop 16

BTW, the California Democratic Convention officially opposed Prop 16 over the weekend. Cool.

Update: PG&E chipped another $6 million into their campaign to fund Prop 16, bringing their total contribution to $34.5 million. All this to impose a law that would require a 2/3 majority for a local government to institute a public power plan, though Prop 16 would only require a simple majority to pass.

Energetics Cliff Notes - Tuesday Edition

• Governor Schwarzenegger defends AB 32, calling the Texas oil companies bank-rolling its repeal effort "greedy."
• NPR comments on Obama's shifting priorities, as the administration moves forward with financial reform and energy policy.
• Pioneer environmentalist Stewart Brand supports nuclear power and geoengineering.
• A Newsweek segment on how very little oil there is off the Atlantic coast.
• Despite sizable donations from PG&E, the LA County Democratic voted unanimously against Prop 16.
• Another influential voice supporting nuclear power - George Will shows there is cross-party appeal to comprehensive energy legislation.
• Now that baseball season is in full swing, the folks at Climate Central talk about how climate change is to weather what steroids are to baseball (go Giants).
• Simon Donner at the Energy Collective discusses why US environmentalists should support offshore drilling.
• Mayor Gavin Newsom touted GreenFinanceSF this week, a city program aimed at residential energy efficiency.
• Edward Burtynsky photographs the culture of oil.

Energetics Cliff Notes - Friday Edition

The week that was: oil spills, mine explosions, Paul Krugman and Larry Summers.

• India's finance minister recently proposed a coal tax to fund clean tech innovation.
• Daily Kos blogger Meteor Blades discusses the link between wind energy and industrial policy.
• The California Public Utilities Commission goes after PG&E for its opposition to community choice aggregation and public utilities.
• Chinese HSR technology and expertise are being imported for California transit projects.
• Al Gore comes out against Obama on energy policy for the first time, criticizing his plans for offshore.
• The Atlantic summarizes Paul Krugman's recent lengthy article on climate economics.
• Despite months of Republican opposition, AB 32 remains very popular (more on that from the East Bay Express).
• The Economist takes on geoengineering policy following the Asilomar Conference.
• The Breakthrough Blog touches on a recent study on imperfect information and individual conservation efforts.
• A recent poll shows overwhelming support for mass transit.

Energetics Cliff Notes - Tuesday Edition

• More on yesterday's coal mine explosion from HuffPost.
• Mother Jones calls for more transit investment from any climate/energy bill.
• Mostly by way of CO₂ emissions' impact on ocean acidification, the EPA is considering regulating those emissions through the Clean Water Act.
• This infographic map shows apparent correlation between mountaintop removal sites and poverty rate.
• Wired has a piece on the potential of offshore wind to power the entire Atlantic seaboard.
• Two Prop 16 stories: one op-ed on why PG&E is so afraid of public power; and another on the massive amount of money PG&E is throwing behind the ballot initiative.
• A subject for a future post: positive signs from the ashes of Copenhagen.
• Check out @googlepubpolicy on #dctalks over consumer energy use/data.
• Yet more loaded language attached to energy-climate discourse: DoD calls climate change an "instability accelerant."

Energetics quote-of-the-week:

"By giving people the ability to monitor and manage their energy consumption, for instance, via computers, phones or other devices, we can unleash the forces of innovation in homes and businesses."

- letter to the Obama administration signed by Google, AT&T, Intel and others

Prop 16 Update

From Calitics:

The CA State Association of Counties said NO to Prop 16, the PG&E Hidden Agendas Scheme. The law would require a 2/3 vote of the people to allow a community to start a community choice aggregation (CCA) programs. They're planning on spending $35 million to pass the measure.