PG&E’s Prop 16 Ads Hits the Trifecta: Lies, Half-Truths and Deception

PG&E, the Proposition 16 backers, leave a lot of information out of their slick new TV ad. Let’s go through it (transcript over the flip.

Let’s go over it, claim by claim. First, read the fine print

PAID FOR BY YES ON 16/CALIFORNIANS TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO VOTE, MAJOR FUNDING FROM PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, A COALITION OF TAXPAYERS, BUSINESS AND LABOR

Of course, it only flashes on the screen for 4 seconds, so you can’t really read it in the ad. But if you could read it, you wouldn’t even know that 100%, not “major,” funding comes from PG&E. Every penny comes from the electrical utility, who has a lot to gain in their attempt to actually limit the people’s choice, and even limit their voting. By the way, PG&E ins’t a coalition of anything, especially labor. No labor organization that I know of supports this measure.

“But in the end, it’s really government run electric service.”

This is technically true, but they leave a few convenient facts out. Government or municipal electric service is accountable to the voters through board elections and consumer choice.  PG&E is beholden to its management and stockholders to make them money. Operators at public power agencies cannot be paid multi-million dollar corporate bonuses like the $10 million a year compensation package PG&E’s CEO, Peter Darbee is getting. (That’s paid for with ratepayer funds.)

Furthermore, government or municipal electric utilities cannot spend one dime of your ratepayer money for a political campaign like Prop. 16.  But PG&E, a for-profit utility, has contributed $25 million in ratepayer funds to pass Prop. 16 which will limit consumer choice and give PG&E a virtual monopoly.

Under current law, local government can spend unlimited public funds to go into the electricity business, and we don’t even have the right to vote on it.

This is absurd. Local governments are made up of elected officials – County Supervisors, Mayors and City Council members. They and their actions are highly accountable to voters. It’s the way we decide every other spending decision, apparently PG&E wants special privileges. Anyway, local public agencies cannot put taxpayer resources at risk without a vote of the people under existing law.

Requires voter approval before local governments can spend public funds to take over electric service.

Of course, what it doesn’t mention is that it isn’t just a simple up and down vote. Proposition 16 requires that two-thirds of the electorate has to approve a new municipal power system – giving PG&E a clearly unfair advantage. This is a rarely achieved supermajority that a deep-pocketed for-profit business like PG&E will use to ensure consumers have no choice in power providers.

Whether government run electricity is a good idea or not, voters should have the final say, because we’re paying the bills.

Today, voters have NO say in the high rates and poor service that PG&E provides. Prop. 16 locks that in. Virtually every municipal or government run power system in California charge lower rates than PG&E, some by 25% or more.

Transcript:

Image- power lines

Woman narrating: “It goes by different names”

Text Images on the screen: “public power” “local public electricity providers” “community choice aggregation”

Women narrating: “But in the end, it’s really government run electric service.”

Women on screen: “under current law, local government can spend unlimited public funds to go into the electricity business, and we don’t even have the right to vote on it.”

Image and spoken by women: “Proposition 16, The Taxpayers Right to Vote Act”

Highlighted text on screen read by women: “Requires voter approval before local governments can spend public funds to take over electric service.”

Woman back on screen: Whether government run electricity is a good idea or not, voters should have the final say, because we’re paying the bills. Vote Yes on Proposition 16, the taxpayers right to vote act.”

12 thoughts on “PG&E’s Prop 16 Ads Hits the Trifecta: Lies, Half-Truths and Deception”

  1. This is a rarely achieved supermajority that a deep-pocketed for-profit business like PG&E will use to ensure consumers have no choice in power providers.

    My understanding is in most parts of California there is only one provider of  power, and its usually government.

    So how does “choice” play into this. If there is a government utility established where pge currently is, that will supersede them as the only option

  2. You might be wondering why there’s no audio disclosure about who’s paying for this $35 million propaganda effort.  That’s because that difficult-to-read written blur at the beginning of the ad is on the air for 5 seconds, rather than the minimum requirement of 4.  As explained on page 4-8 of the FPPC’s Campaign Manual 3:

    “Video: both displayed in writing and spoken

    either at the beginning or at the end of the

    communication. The written statement must

    be readily legible to an average viewer and

    be displayed for not less than four seconds.

    However, if the disclosure statement is

    displayed for at least five seconds of a

    broadcast of 30 seconds or less or 10

    seconds of a 60 second broadcast, a spoken

    disclosure statement is not required.”

    Is this a great state or what?

  3. Prop 16 would, for the first time in the State of California, require a 2/3 vote for a Revenue Bond.  As everyone knows, general obligation bonds already require a 2/3 vote of the voters.  This sets a horribly bad precedent for local governments. That’s why the Calif. League of Cities is against Prop. 16.  

    At a time when we should be moving toward simple majority votes for revenue and budget matters, this constitutional amendment takes us in the wrong direction.  IF the ballot proposition only required a simple majority vote, there would be much less controversy.

    I’m joining with former energy commissioner John Geesman, and the Calif. League of Conservation Voters in voting NO on 16.

    Take a look at Geesman’s testimony:



  4. I’m interested in organizing some voter information sessions on prop 16 in Marin county &/or the greater Bay Area. Any recommendations for existing efforts I can coordinate with? Any pols leading on this one?

Comments are closed.