By Christopher Metoyer, Staff Writer
& Lauren Pinnella, Politics Editor

The City of Hayward is officially opposed to Proposition 16, a proposed amendment to the state constitution of California.
Ernest Pacheco of Citizens against Pollution raised the issue of opposition to Prop 16 at the May 5 City Council Sustainability Committee Meeting, only to be informed that the city had already reached an oppositional stance.

Currently, any city may choose to enter into the retail power business through establishment of a Community Choice Aggregation Program (CCAP). This program pools the resources of the city and uses them to invest in establishments of city owned power plants. However, these city-owned power plants would be in direct competition with current Bay Area power giant PG&E.

Proposition 16 would also require a town seeking to establish a CCAP to acquire a two-thirds vote in favor by the residents. The proposition is being touted as “The Taxpayers Right to Vote Act”.

Proponents argue that in a time of economic instability it is irresponsible for government to be able to engage in spending of tax money without the expressed consent of the populace. The proposition is receiving a majority of its funding, excess of $34 million according to campaign finance reports, from Pacific Gas & Electric.

“The Taxpayers Right to Vote Act ensures that there will be vigorous discussion of any promises made by advocates of government expansion into the electricity business,” said Teresa Casazza, President of the California Taxpayers’ Association, “Remember, the success of a local government program to deliver electricity is far from guaranteed. What happens if the program fails? How will our communities get their electricity then, and at what cost to taxpayers? These questions should be answered before taxpayers’ money is spent, not after.”

Opponents list Proposition 16 as a special interest bid to keep competition out of the power industry which they are calling a “power grab”. Opponents claim the ballot measure is a smokescreen intended to clog up the process of creating a municipal power supply.

“Prop 16 is about a monopoly seeking to expand its fossil empire based on captive customers who have no alternative but to pay for it,” said an official statement posted on the powergrab.info website, “PG&E doesn’t want Californians being able to find other power suppliers that might reduce local need for PG&E’s fuel import business. Prop 16 would strategically threaten California’s energy security by eroding local control over energy and climate planning – the very ability of local governments to govern themselves. It is, in short, a trick on the voters. In effect, PG&E’s proposed constitutional amendment would recreate PG&E’s monopoly by making all California customers captive to monopolies again – after paying them billions in state-sanctioned bailouts for the right to power choice in 1996.”

The Hayward City Council previously adopted the resolution opposing Proposition 16 during their April 20 meeting after a presentation from the City Council Sustainability Committee. The committee concluded that “in general restricting any local government action by requiring a two-thirds vote results in a loss of flexibility and may limit the City’s ability to take innovative steps in a timely manner to address fiscal and sustainability issues.”

Furthermore, Prop 16 is in direct opposition of Hayward’s Climate Action Plan, which calls CCAP into consideration as a means of reducing Hayward’s carbon footprint.

Hayward’s resolution will be sent to the state legislature to indicate the city’s position. The cities of Berkeley, San Francisco, and Marin County have all taken similar stances on the issue.