Power Utilities and the Democratic Process
I’m aware that the vast majority of those reading this do not live in the state of California, USA – and thus have no reason to want to understand “Proposition 16” as it exists on our June ballot. Why then would I burden readers with something that does not directly affect them? Because it illustrates exactly how power utilities can abuse the democratic process, and use huge sums of money (derived, of course, from the consumers themselves) along with deliberately misleading advertising to wrangle positions of even greater monopoly — while thwarting the adoption of renewables.
Pacific Gas and Electric is the sole sponsor of Prop 16. The measure exists on the ballot solely because PG&E spent $35 million getting it there. And the reason for the proposition is singular: if passed, the bill would further strengthen the stanglehold PG&E has over its customers, by changing the State Constitution to require a two-thirds majority from any community wishing to look elsewhere for electric power — making that possibility practically impossible to achieve. As PG&E CEO Peter A. Darbee proudly told investors on a recent conference call, Prop 16 would discourage communities within its massive jurisdiction from any attempt to buy power from a competitor – this is the one and only consequence of the referendum.
Outside of the media purchased with PG&E’s money, Prop 16 has been roundly jeered – largely for the sheer brazenness of the attempt to buy a constitutional amendment with only real beneficiary: PG&E itself.
According to a white paper from UC Berkeley School of Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment:
An independent analysis of Proposition 16 finds that it would protect the monopoly status of investor-owned energy utilities and block the development of publicly owned electric power companies, if passed by California voters. At the same time, the initiative could conceivably slow the development of renewable energy.
I also have to say that this is the wrong state to try something like this. The proposition is broadly opposed by every group associated not only with environmentalism and sustainability – but also with basic fairness and belief in the democratic process. I’ll be very surprised if their $35 million buys PG&E anything more than the public loathing it so richly deserves.
My fine friend and 2GreenEnergy associate Terry Ribb did a long and productive stint at Deloitte Consulting, and thus I tend to put special value on the reports I get from that esteemed organization. But when it comes to market research, they seem to have made the same critical mistake that most people do: survey the wrong people. Here’s their recent report on the 
I want to call readers’ attention to 2GreenEnergy Associates Bill Paul’s report: 
The other day, I wrote a short post on Renewable Energy World extolling the virtues of concentrated solar power, and predicting that CSP would someday (probably in my grandchildren’s lifetimes) dominate the landscape of world energy production. Almost immediately, someone asked me why I held that belief, and I realized that I should have provided a bit of my reasoning. In brief, here it is:
I wrote a blog post on “
When I was back East earlier in the week, I had the opportunity to speak with Bill Paul on a great number of interesting topics related to our renewable energy field. I happened to mention that the public attitude that surrounds global climate change is a moving target, and I speculated that I knew the essential cause: people tend to react more violently to immediate, close-to-home crises (e.g., their personal financial scene) than they do to those that are more distant — either in space (foreign wars) or in time (global climate change). “Yes,” Bill agreed, “No one has the bandwidth to watch a slow-motion train wreck.” What a good metaphor that is.
