Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
California Proposition 80, Regulation of Electric Service Providers Initiative (2005)
| California Proposition 80 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2005 | |
| Topic Energy and Business regulation | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 80 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 8, 2005. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported placing electric service providers under the regulation of the Public Utilities Commission; restricting customers' ability to switch from investor owned utilities to other electricity providers; and requiring public and private electric service providers to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010. |
A "no" vote opposed placing electric service providers under the regulation of the Public Utilities Commission; restricting customers' ability to switch from investor owned utilities to other electricity providers; and requiring public and private electric service providers to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 80 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,580,536 | 34.40% | ||
|
|
4,920,679 | 65.60% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 80 would have given regulatory authority over electric service providers to the California Public Utilities Commission; restricted electricity customers' ability to switch from private utilities to other providers; and required public and private electric service providers to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010.
- See Energy policy in California for a full explanation of energy policy across the state.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 80 was as follows:
| “ | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission. • Imposes restrictions on electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers. • Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers’ consent to regulation. • Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017. • Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
Support
Supporters
- Robert Finkelstein, executive director of the Utility Reform Network (TURN)[1]
- Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California[1]
- Nan Brasmer, president of the California Alliance of Retired Americans[1]
- Mike Mowrey, international vice-president, 9th District International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO[1]
- Henry "Hank" Lacayo, state president, Congress of California Seniors[1]
- Steve Blackledge, policy director, California Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG)[1]
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 80 were signed by Robert Finkelstein, executive director of the Utility Reform Network (TURN); Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California; and Nan Brasmer, president of the California Alliance of Retired Americans:[1]
| “ |
Five years ago, California was devastated by an electricity crisis. Enron and other energy traders held Californians hostage, extorting tens of billions of dollars from us. They manipulated the electricity market, driving up wholesale prices 1000%. Californians faced rolling blackouts and untold economic damage. Audiotapes released by the U.S. Justice Department revealed Enron energy traders boasting of 'making buckets of money' by creating power shortages. One trader laughed about 'all the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California,' while another ordered a power plant worker to 'just go ahead and shut her down.' California’s failed experiment in electric deregulation cost our people and businesses billions of dollars. We learned many lessons from that disaster. The state has taken some positive steps to clean up the mess—but not nearly enough. Amazingly, legislation to require sufficient supplies of electricity was vetoed by the Governor last year. That’s why Proposition 80—the Repeal of Deregulation and Blackout Prevention Act—is on the ballot. It provides critical reforms to make sure our deregulation nightmare never returns. It provides the stability necessary to ensure long-term investment in new, clean electricity supplies. Here’s how Proposition 80 accomplishes these goals: Lower rates. It requires independent generators and utilities to compete against each other to give ratepayers the best deal on new power plants. Adequate supplies. It requires all electricity providers to have enough power and reserves to keep the lights on. That simple requirement—critical to ending market manipulation and keeping the system stable—was vetoed last year. Market stability. It makes sure that utilities know how many customers they will have to serve, so they can make long-term investments in new supplies. Amazingly, deregulation advocates have pushed legislation that would create more uncertainty and destabilize the market. Regulation. It ensures that all electricity providers are subject to regulation and control, so that traders cannot manipulate the system. Renewables and energy efficiency. It speeds up the shift to renewable energy, and gives first priority to energy efficiency programs. Ratepayer protection. It prevents small ratepayers from being forced onto potentially expensive time-of-use rates without their consent—especially important in hot climates. Proposition 80 was carefully drafted by the state’s foremost consumer advocates and legal experts. It allows for amendments by the Legislature consistent with its purposes, to adjust to changing times. Proposition 80 is a common-sense measure that achieves a clear goal: Never again will California be taken to the cleaners by greedy energy traders. Never again will we be subject to rolling blackouts and skyrocketing electricity prices because of power shortages and market manipulation. Instead, Proposition 80 means that Californians can look forward to getting the cleanest, greenest energy at the lowest possible prices. Proposition 80 means that Californians can expect a stable electricity future, with sensible long-term investment in cost-effective energy solutions. That’s why consumers, seniors, environmentalists, business groups, labor organizations, minority groups, and people from all walks of life support Proposition 80.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
- Les Nelson, president, California Solar Energy Industries Association[1]
- Karl Gawell, Executive Director, Geothermal Energy Association[1]
- James Sweeney, co-director of the Energy, Natural Resources and the Environment Program at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research[1]
- Dorothy Rothrock, co-chair, Californians for Reliable Electricity[1]
- Tony Valenzuela, association vice-president, Facilities, Development and Operations at San Jose State University[1]
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 80 were signed by Les Nelson, president, California Solar Energy Industries Association; Karl Gawell, executive director, Geothermal Energy Association; and James Sweeney, co-director of the Energy, Natural Resources and the Environment Program at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research:[1]
| “ |
Proposition 80 is a high-risk approach that could hurt consumers, the environment and the state’s economy. This deeply flawed measure will undermine the security of state energy supplies, undercut the availability of affordable electricity and undercut the construction of environmentally-friendly renewable energy generation from wind, solar, and geothermal resources. It will sharply restrict consumer choice about who we buy our electricity from and how much we pay for services. It could well lead us down the road toward another serious energy crisis. That’s because Proposition 80 is the wrong way to make energy policy for California. Reinventing California’s energy system through the initiative process, without public hearings is too great a risk to take. Instead, this critical issue should be addressed carefully through public hearings that involve all affected parties, including the state Utility and Energy Commissions, consumer groups, and small business associations. Because Proposition 80 takes away energy choices and price competition, energy cost savings will be limited or lost for many of California’s vital institutions such as community colleges, the University of California and the State University systems, local school districts, hospitals, and city and county governments. Taxpayers, students, teachers, and patients will ultimately pay for these higher energy costs. PROPOSITION 80 TAKES AWAY THE RIGHT OF CONSUMERS AND BUSINESSES TO CHOOSE AN ENERGY SUPPLIER THAT CAN SAVE MONEY. Just when California needs more jobs and investments in our infrastructure to help our economy, Proposition 80 sends the wrong signal of uncertainty and risk. Proposition 80 takes away an energy choice that often attracts high paying jobs and new investment. Proposition 80 would make it extremely difficult to improve the State’s standards for generating electricity from renewable sources, which could seriously undermine adoption of wind, solar, and geothermal technologies. Growth of California’s green businesses could be placed at risk. Electricity regulation is too risky to be addressed through the initiative process. Flaws in this measure will be very difficult or impossible to fix. Proposition 80 is bad policy because it:
Proposition 80 IS A HIGH RISK PROPOSITION THAT WILL HURT CONSUMERS AND THE ENVIRONMENT. Vote NO on Proposition 80[2] |
” |
Donors
Yes on 80
Some donors to the "Yes on 80" group included:[3]
- California Teachers Association, $3,701,530
- Alliance for a Better California: $395,000
No on 80
Some donors to the "No on 80" committee included:[4]
- Constellation Energy: $1.2 million
- Other utility companies, including Sempra, Mirant Corporation and Centerpoint Energy.
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2005, at least 373,816 valid signatures were required.
Supporters of the initiative paid Kimball Petition Management $4,839,466 to qualify the measure for the ballot.[5]
See also
External links
- Official California Voter Guide
- Full text of Proposition 80
- Proposition 80 on the Smart Voter Guide
- Guide to Proposition 80 from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against 80 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 80 from Follow The Money
- Official election results
Supporters:
Opponents:
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed April 2, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Contribution detail of large donors to Prop 80," accessed April 1, 2021
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Contributors to 'No on 80'," accessed April 1, 2021
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Expenditure detail for Yes on 80," accessed April 2, 2021
