City of San Francisco "Disclosures Regarding Renewable Energy" Initiative, Proposition G (November 2015)
| Voting on the Environment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
| Ballot Measures | ||||
| By state | ||||
| By year | ||||
| Not on ballot | ||||
|
An initiative defining "clean" and "renewable" energy and requiring advertisements to comply with the definition was on the ballot for voters in San Francisco, California, on November 3, 2015. It was defeated.
If approved, Proposition G would have defined “renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity" as:[1]
- electricity derived exclusively from renewable resources located in or adjacent to the California border; or
- electricity generated by the city's Hetch Hetchy facilities.
"Renewable resources" would have been defined by the initiative as "renewable energy generated from solar, wind and other eligible renewable energy resources as provided in California Public Utilities Code section 399.16(b)1." The Hetch Hetchy Water and Power system harnesses water from the Hetch Hetchy area, including the Tuolumne River, to provide drinking water and hydroelectric power. At the time of the election on Proposition G, the Hetch Hetchy power facilities provided hydroelectric power to three systems: the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, Pacific Gas & Electric Company and the city of San Francisco.[2]
This definition would not have allowed renewable-energy certificates (RECs) to be used to qualify energy as "green."[3]
Moreover, it would have required the city to make certain disclosures to all potential customers of its Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) called CleanPowerSF. The initiative would have required disclosure of what percentage of energy produced by the CleanPowerSF program was "renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity"—as defined by the initiative. The CleanPowerSF program was designed to automatically switch customers over to the new service unless they opted out. The initiative would have required the disclosures and information to be provided in at least three written notices to any potential CCA customers. It would also have dictated that the disclosures be noted in every communication with potential customers.[1][4]
Initial estimates indicated that, according to Proposition G, the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) would have been allowed to claim 54 percent of its energy as "green," while the CleanPowerSF program would have been able to label 22 percent of its power as "green."[5]
A competing measure was put on the ballot by the San Francisco board of supervisors and approved. The board of supervisors discussed the issue with IBEW 1245 and came to a compromise in Proposition H, which the PG&E union supported. This left no organized support for Proposition G as even the group behind its circulation opposed it. Proposition H was designed to invalidate Proposition G and define "clean" or "renewable" energy according to standards similar to those used by the state, thereby allowing RECs to be used to qualify some energy as "green." This competing measure allowed the city to call more of the energy produced by its CleanPowerSF program "clean." Proposition H, per the compromise with IBEW 1245, also urged the CleanPowerSF "to inform customers and potential customers of the planned percentage of types of renewable energy to be supplied in each communication." It was also designed to make "it be City policy for CleanPowerSF to use electricity generated within California and San Francisco when possible."[4][6][7]
If both measures had been approved, the one that received the most "yes" votes would have been enacted, and the other would have been abandoned. Ultimately, Proposition G was defeated, and Proposition H was approved.[4]
Election results
| San Francisco, Proposition G | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 No | 144,852 | 77.61% | ||
| Yes | 41,780 | 22.39% | ||
- Election results from San Francisco Elections Office
| Voting on Utilities | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
| Ballot Measures | ||||
| By state | ||||
| By year | ||||
| Not on ballot | ||||
|
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question for this measure appeared on the ballot:[8]
| “ |
Shall the City define ‘renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity’ to mean electricity derived exclusively from certain renewable resources located within or adjacent to the California border or electricity derived from Hetch Hetchy, except for electricity from other types of resources such as rooftop solar and other large hydroelectric facilities; require CleanPowerSF to inform customers and potential customers of the planned percentage of ‘renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity’ to be provided; and prohibit CleanPowerSF from marketing, advertising or making any public statement that its electricity is ‘clean’ or ‘green’ unless the electricity is ‘renewable, greenhouse gas-free electricity’ as defined in this measure?[9] |
” |
Ballot summary
The following ballot summary was prepared for this initiative by the office of the city attorney:
| “ |
State law allows local governments such as San Francisco to develop Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs, in which local governments may purchase energy to sell to residential and business customers in their jurisdiction. Under state law, local governments implementing a CCA program must give potential customers the choice to opt out. San Francisco has created its own CCA program called CleanPowerSF, which the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) will administer. The City, through its SFPUC, generates hydroelectric power at its Hetch Hetchy facilities in Tuolumne County. The City currently uses this power to meet its municipal power needs and does not sell electricity to most San Francisco residents or businesses. CleanPowerSF has not commenced buying energy to sell to customers. Until CleanPowerSF begins doing so, most San Francisco residents and businesses must purchase their power from a private company. State law requires all retail electricity suppliers, including CCAs, to disclose the sources of power being provided from various categories, including from eligible renewable energy resources. This measure would require the City to inform customers and potential customers of its CCA program of the percentage of “renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity,” as defined in the measure. The City would have to include this percentage in each communication sent to customers regarding its CCA program. This measure would also require the City to disclose this percentage in at least three written notices to each potential CCA customer before enrolling the customer in the CCA program. This measure defines “renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity” to mean:
This measure would also prohibit the City from engaging in any form of advertising or marketing, or from making any public statement, that the electricity it is supplying or will supply in a CCA program is “clean,” “green,” or any similar term, unless the electricity is “renewable, greenhouse gas-free electricity” under the measure.[9] |
” |
| —Joshua S. White, deputy city attorney[1] | ||
Full text
The full text of the initiative is available here.
Support
Initially, IBEW 1245, a PG&E employee union, funded the signature gathering campaign for this initiative. The union, however, discussed the issues of RECs and renewable energy advertising with the board of supervisors. Ultimately, a compromise was reached, and Proposition H was amended to satisfy the requirements of both the board of supervisors and IBEW 1245. This left the union opposing their own initiative, Proposition G, and supporting the competing Proposition H. Hunter Stern, the union representative responsible for Proposition G and the compromise with the board of supervisors said, "We like our initiative, but we like Proposition H better."[10][11]
Opposition
Opponents
A campaign called No Dirty Energy Scam was started to oppose this initiative.[12]
A group called Livable SF backed the opposition campaign.[12]
The Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and IBEW 1245, a union that represents many PG&E employees, funded the signature collection for this initiative. Later, however, the union compromised with the board of supervisors to result in a competing measure, Proposition H, supported by both the board and IBEW 1245.[4][10]
The city council referred a competing measure to the ballot in an effort to keep this initiative from taking effect.
Other opponents of the initiative included:[12]
- The San Francisco chapter of the Sierra Club
- 350 San Francisco
- The San Francisco Labor Council[13]
Arguments against
Opponents of this measure argued that it was designed by PG&E and a PG&E union to try to keep CleanPowerSF from competing with its monopoly on the energy industry.[12]
Michelle Myers, director of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, said, “Voters have seen through previous attempts to preserve California’s dirty energy monopoly, just as they will see through this disingenuous measure."[5]
Jess Dervin-Ackerman, conservation manager for the Sierra Club chapter, said, “Community Choice energy programs continue to grow and provide customers with cheaper, cleaner energy than what PG&E provides. This success may pose a threat to the dirty energy monopoly and its shareholders, but it’s an unambiguous good for San Franciscans.”[12]
Melanie Nutter, former director of the San Francisco Department of the Environment, said, "This deceptive measure would restrict consumer choice and undermines San Francisco’s ability to access cleaner and greener energy."[12]
Jed Holtzman, co-coordinator of 350 San Francisco, said, "This so called ‘Truth in Advertising’ measure enables PG&E to deceive energy customers and claim its dirty fossil fuel and nuclear power is just as ‘clean’ and ‘green’ as the far more renewable CleanPowerSF program."[12]
Bruce Wolfe, a member of the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council, said, “For more than a decade we have repeatedly fought and defeated PG&E’s cynical ballot measures and legislative attacks against cleaner and lower-cost community-based energy. Now this monopoly is outrageously seeking to set up special rules that would allow it to pretend its dirty nuclear and fossil fuel energy is as clean as wind and solar power? Give me a break!”[12]
Editorials
The San Francisco Examiner editorial board endorsed a "No" vote on Proposition G. The board argued that Proposition H was a superior policy, since Proposition G would block rooftop solar from inclusion in green energy. The board wrote:[14]
| “ |
Prop. G, now abandoned by the PG&E union that proposed it after reaching a compromise with the other side, would define green energy as only that with which is entirely greenhouse-gas free. The move would block CleanPowerSF from advertising rooftop solar as part of its green platform and limit its ability to compete in the marketplace. If both measures pass, the one with the most votes becomes law.[9] |
” |
| —San Francisco Examiner editorial board[14] | ||
The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board also endorsed a "No" vote on Proposition G. The board argued that the proposition set a too-narrow definition of green energy, which would place an undue burden on a growing industry. The board wrote:[15]
| “ |
Prop. G imposes an unduly narrow definition of renewables, so tough that it would bar rooftop solar panels from counting. It would also require multiple notices to would-be consumers detailing the degree of green power, a requirement clearly aimed at chasing away suppliers that didn’t conform to the union’s goal of in-state power sources. These requirements won’t kill the city plans to sell power, but they would restrict San Francisco’s options. It implants an unfair obligation, especially in a growing industry that needs a degree of flexibility in supplying electrons to homes and businesses.[9] |
” |
| —San Francisco Chronicle editorial board[15] | ||
Competing measure
Supervisors London Breed, John Avalos, Scott Wiener and Julie Christensen introduced a measure to compete with this initiative. The new measure was intended to invalidate this initiative and define "clean" or "renewable" energy according to standards similar to those used by the state, thereby allowing RECs to be used to qualify some energy as "green." This competing measure was designed to allow the city to call more of the energy produced by its CleanPowerSF program "clean." Proposition H, per a compromise with IBEW 1245, also urged the CleanPowerSF "to inform customers and potential customers of the planned percentage of types of renewable energy to be supplied in each communication." It was also designed to make "it be City policy for CleanPowerSF to use electricity generated within California and San Francisco when possible."[4][6]
If both measures had been approved, the one that received the most "yes" votes would have been enacted, and the other would have been abandoned. Ultimately, the other measure, Proposition H, was approved and Proposition G was defeated.[4]
Background
Renewable-energy certificates
- See also: Renewable Portfolio Standard
Reports and analysis
Ballot simplification digest
The following summary of the measure was provided by the San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee:
| “ |
The Way It Is Now: San Francisco and other local governments are allowed by state law to purchase and generate electricity to sell to residential and business customers. San Francisco has created CleanPowerSF, a program to purchase, generate and sell electricity. CleanPowerSF has not yet begun to sell electricity to customers, so most San Francisco residents and businesses currently purchase their electricity from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), a private company. San Francisco residents and businesses will be able to choose whether to purchase electricity from PG&E or CleanPowerSF. The City generates hydroelectric power at its Hetch Hetchy facilities in Tuolumne County and uses this power to meet most of its municipal power needs. The City does not sell this electricity to most San Francisco residents or businesses. State law requires all retail electricity suppliers to disclose to customers the sources of power being provided, including renewable energy resources. Renewable resources include biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, and tidal current. Current City law does not define “renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity.” The State requires that a certain percentage of the electricity provided to customers must come from “eligible renewable energy resources,” which include renewable resources located in the Western United States, Canada, and Mexico. San Francisco is allowed to use power from its Hetch Hetchy facilities to meet its required renewable resource percentage. Under State law, “eligible renewable energy resources” are classified into three different categories, depending primarily on when and where the electricity is generated. The Proposal: Proposition G would define “renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity” as electricity from only one of the three categories of “eligible renewable energy resources.” “Renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity” would be:
This definition would apply only to San Francisco’s CleanPowerSF program; other sellers of electricity in San Francisco would continue to follow the State definition. Proposition G would require the City to inform customers and potential customers of CleanPowerSF of the planned percentage of types of “renewable, greenhouse-gas free electricity” to be provided in every communication sent to customers and potential customers. CleanPowerSF would not be allowed to market, advertise or make any public statement that its electricity is “clean” or “green” unless the electricity is “renewable, greenhouse gas-free electricity” as defined in this measure. A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to:
A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want to impose these regulations.[9] |
” |
| —San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee[16] | ||
Controller analysis
The following estimate of the fiscal impact of this measure on the city's budget was prepared by the city controller and appeared on the ballot:[8]
| “ |
Should the proposed measure be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would increase the cost of government by up to $385,000 annually. This increase in cost is contingent upon future development of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program, wherein the City provides electricity to residents who choose to enroll. The proposed ordinance requires that the City, upon implementation of a CCA, notify potential customers in writing on at least three occasions of the actual percentage of renewable, greenhouse gas-free energy provided through that program. There are various means by which the City could implement this requirement, such as by including the notice within other mailings to potential customers, which could potentially lower the cost to the City. However, if the City sends an independent mailing, the first notification would cost approximately $135,000 and subsequent mailings would cost $125,000 each for postage, materials and staff time.[9] |
” |
| —San Francisco Controller[17] | ||
Path to the ballot
Petitioners needed to collect and submit at least 9,700 valid signatures by July 7, 2015, in order to qualify this initiative for the election on November 3, 2015. On July 6, 2015, proponents submitted 17,623 signatures to the city elections office, which had until August 5, 2015, to verify the submitted signatures. On July 22, 2015, the elections office announced that it had verified enough submitted signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot.[5][7]
Related measures
Other elections
Mayoral election
Mayor Ed Lee was the incumbent candidate in the city's 2015 mayoral race. Mayor Lee was re-elected on November 3, 2015.[18]
Board of supervisors
The consolidated city-county's District 3 board of supervisors position was up for election on November 3, 2015. Aaron Peskin defeated incumbent Julie Christensen.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Francisco renewable energy Proposition G. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- Local environment on the ballot
- San Francisco City and County, California ballot measures
- November 3, 2015 ballot measures in California
- San Francisco, California municipal elections, 2015
- Local electrical aggregation on the ballot
- Renewable Portfolio Standard
External links
Opposition
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 San Francisco Elections Office, "Ballot Title and Summary for Initiative," accessed June 18, 2015
- ↑ Tuolumne County Historical Society, "Hetch Hetchy Water and Power System," accessed July 22, 2015
- ↑ Truth in Energy, "Home," accessed July 10, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 San Francisco Chronicle, "Voters may decide in November what clean energy really means," June 16, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 KQED, "PG&E Union, San Francisco Duel Over Definition of ‘Green’ Energy," July 7, 2015
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 IBEW 1245, "Press Release: SF Supervisors Withdraw Energy Measure," July 17, 2015
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 San Francisco Elections Office, "Local Ballot Measures Status," accessed July 20, 2015
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 San Francisco Elections Office, “Ballot Question text,” accessed August 25, 2015
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Ballotpedia staff writer Josh Altic, "Email correspondence with Hunter Stern," September 30, 2015
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff writer Josh Altic, "Telephone correspondence with Hunter Stern," September 30, 2015
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 No Dirty Energy Scam, "Home," accessed July 10, 2015
- ↑ San Francisco Labor Council, "Endorsements," accessed August 27, 2015
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 San Francisco Examiner, "San Francisco Examiner’s 2015 Endorsements," October 15, 2015
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 San Francisco Chronicle, "Editorial: Green haze on the city ballot," September 23, 2015
- ↑ San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee, "Final digest," accessed August 26, 2015
- ↑ San Francisco Elections Office, "Controller Analysis of Proposition G," accessed August 26, 2015
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedArticle
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
