Editorial: Don't be fooled by PG&E's ads for Prop. 16
Millions of voters have to be wondering just how many California cities have been led down the road to financial ruin by "local government politicians" who recklessly created municipal utilities to supply the citizenry with electric power. Surely a few.
That's one conclusion voters might reach from PG&E's $44 million, ratepayer-funded ad campaign in support of Proposition 16: Without proper protections, the ad blitz suggests, elected officials can bankrupt cities on a whim.
So, how many have done so? "None I've ever heard of," says David J. Reichman of RKS Research & Consulting, a New York-based firm that, among other things, conducts customer satisfaction surveys for the California Municipal Utilities Association. "Customers of California munis (ratepayer-owned utilities) are very happy. Otherwise they'd be trying to get out from under the yoke of their muni. We have never, ever seen that."
In fact, the most recent CMUA survey, taken in 2008, found that 70 percent of residential customers served by California municipal electric utilities were "very satisfied" with their service.
But PG&E has tapped into the recent surge in dissatisfaction with Big Government to chip away at public opinion -- despite the fact that munis are the essence of small government, with easily accessible, monthly board-of-directors meetings that feel more like school board meetings than bloated bureaucracy. And, fact is, almost all of the state's dozen-plus munis boast rates lower than PG&E's -- often more than 20 percent lower. When was the last time a private company failed to outperform a "government" entity? Never, you say? It happens routinely in the electricity marketplace.
So, why haven't we heard much about it? "Because, as public agencies, the municipal utility community is prohibited from advocating," said Kate Hora of the Modesto Irrigation District, which serves 112,000 customers. "Literally, we are trying to educate the public about this bad proposition with one hand tied behind our back."
The Californian urges a "no" vote on Prop. 16. But give PG&E credit: The company that rolled out SmartMeters in an operation so totally botched, it will be studied in business schools for decades, has put together an effective campaign. They clearly farmed it out.
As for The Californian's other recommendations on the June 8 ballot:
Yes on Prop. 14: Things are polarized in Sacramento because we keep sending far-right and far-left representatives to the Legislature, where they refuse to budge on anything. An open primary that pits the two top finishers against each other in the general election would produce more middle-of the-road politicians and fewer stalemates.
Yes on Prop. 15: Political campaigns have become ridiculously expensive, and politicians increasingly beholden to campaign donors. Contributors get the tax breaks and the beneficial legislation, indirectly (and sometimes directly) costing the rest of us. It's time to step back from the madness and authorize public financing of elections. For now, only the Secretary of State's race would be publicly financed (with a fee on lobbyists). But we can only observe that test case if we change the law.
No on Prop. 17: In another enhance-our-own-profits move, Liberty Insurance wants to amend state law to allow portable continuous-coverage auto insurance discounts. Problem is, it's likely to mean surcharges for students, the military and others who have perfectly legitimate reasons for suspending coverage, and it will dissuade the uninsured from coming on board. Military groups oppose the initiative.
