Since angry customers can't just walk away from PG&E, it's up to state lawmakers to ensure ratepayers' money is never again used against them. Leno's proposal would do just that.

Mark Toney of TURN, Jim Metropulos of the Sierra Club and Assemblymember Pedro Nava and Senator Mark Leno discuss how PG&E's anti-clean energy campaign raised the profile of alternatives to PG&E.

"PG&E's whole campaign for Prop. 16 was based on lies, and the biggest lie of all was that ratepayers didn't pay for it," said Mindy Spatt of the consumer advocacy group TURN. "They did." Senator Leno's bill would address that.

A spokeswoman for TURN noted, PG&E "lost bigger in counties where they actually serve customers. It sort of highlights the corporate excess that PG&E is becoming known for."

Props to California voters. They are smarter than most pundits and political consultants give them credit for being, as evidenced by two failed attempts to buy their votes in Tuesday's election. PG&E doubtless thought it could overcome initial distaste to Prop 16 by pouring $46 million into the campaign, but even the shiniest paint job can't make a Yugo look like a Bentley.

Despite spending $46 million to win passage – more than 575 times the amount raised by opponents - PG&E's Prop 16 is defeated.

David slew Goliath. The voters turned down the giant for-profit utility's one-sided measure despite its outspending the "No on 16" camp 550 to 1. The answer to my question was yes! And my faith in the public was restored.

Opponents, led by TURN, said Proposition 16 simply allowed PG&E to block locals’ attempts to own and operate their own utilities, and despite being outspent $575 to 1, the message stuck.

If Tuesday's election results are any indication, public anger at PG&E — particularly among its 15 million customers — may be at an all-time high.

PG&E Corp. had the biggest decline of electricity utility companies in the S&P 500 after California voters rejected a measure that would have required two-thirds voter approval for local governments to enter the electricity business.

Despite spending more than $45 million, PG&E Corp. lost on a ballot question Tuesday that would have limited growth of municipal utilities in California.

Despite PG&E's record-breaking campaign expenses, California voters rejected their power grab.

California voters sent a resounding message to PG&E yesterday that their constitution is not for sale.

TURN tells the British newspaper that Prop 16 is PG&E's attempt to hijack democracy for financial benefit.

Poll finds Proposition 16 too close to call.

PG&E wastes billions of customer dollars on their mistakes and malfeasance, and now they want to change the California constitution to lock in high rates and lock out public power.

The “Taxpayers’ Right to be Conned and Manipulated” is a better title for Prop. 16 because it tries to fool ecologically aware residents, who care about SOAR initiatives, greenbelts, open space, less oil drilling and more energy efficiency, into handing over power to a major conglomerate.

This insidious measure is the epitome of what ails California's initiative system.

Sacramento ratepayers have benefited from lower rates offered by a well-run public utility.In addition to making it more difficult for cities to establish municipal utilities, there was concern that the proposition would interfere with efforts to develop alternative energy projects.

Although there are certainly some serious contenders, we can't remember a more cynical and manipulative state ballot initiative campaign than the one for Proposition 16.

Voters really need to register a strong "no" on Proposition 16 to make sure that next time we don't have a host of other corporations dictating ways they can improve their bottom line at the taxpayers' expense. It makes a two-thirds vote mandatory for any new publicly owned utility.

When it comes to political metaphors, "David vs. Goliath" doesn't really serve to describe the power imbalance in the contest for Prop. 16, the public-energy initiative on the California ballot Tuesday.

Whatever one’s skin color, the pandering is not only offensive, it’s insulting. To protect your pocketbook, as well as your sense of decency, I urge you to vote no on Prop 16.

Whether it is good policy is a question with an objective answer: NO. This is the answer from good government groups, editorial boards, progressive organizations, and non-partisan groups. It is a policy that's great for PG&E, terrible for the state and its ratepayers.

This is one of the sleaziest initiatives I've seen in a long time. Even if there's nothing else on the June ballot you care about, you should make sure to get to your polling place just to vote against Prop 16. Ditto for your family and friends. Your enemies too. Liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter: everyone should vote against Prop 16.

Local communities should be able to establish their own priorities about what kind of energy they pay for and what the price should be, without having to run PG&E's gauntlet.

Don't be fooled by PG&E's deceptive ad campaign. A huge grassroots coalition opposes the company's cynical attempt to amend the California constitution, while PG&E has little support.

Sacramento Chamber of Commerce opposes Prop 16 "because the two-thirds threshold is too high and would limit competition; because it is poorly written and an abuse of the initiative process; and because SMUD and other public utilities offer significantly lower rates that allow local businesses to hire more employees."

One thing that's clear about PG&E's campaign is where it got the $45 million for all those ads. From you. Unless you're lucky enough to live in a PG&E-free city like Santa Clara. Exercise your right to vote on Proposition 16: Say no. Tell PG&E to stop spending your money to thwart your best interests — and to stop lying.

Local officials say a ballot measure backed by one of the state's largest utility companies is a power grab disguised as a push for voters' rights.

Assembly Member Mariko Yamada & SMUD Director Nancy Bui eloquently lay out why Prop 16 is bad for business, bad for consumers and bad for California. In their words, "Let’s send PG&E a message and let them know California is not for sale, stop PG&E’s power grab and vote NO on June 8th."

A short history of Proposition 16 illustrates the reality behind PG&E's contention that the company has placed it on the ballot to protect taxpayers in the name of democracy and the "right to vote." For PG&E to keep talking about risks of public-power plans is absurd. No public-power entity has received a dime in bailout money, yet PG&E received $9 billion.

"It's really David versus Goliath, but David doesn't even have a slingshot," said Bob Stern, co-director of the Center for Governmental Studies.

The mere fact that PG&E plans to spend up to $45 million in support of Prop. 16 tells us that for all of the language about voter choice, this is a ballot measure about maintaining PG&E's monopoly. When was the last time PG&E spent $35 million to $45 million on behalf of the voters? PG&E would argue Prop. 16 is about fairness. Fairness for who? PG&E shareholders?

When an investor-owned utility tries to convey the impression that its multimillion-dollar Prop. 16 campaign is all about civic duty, I find myself repeating the reporter's response: Really?

Proposition 16 is a sham designed to stop any changes to the current system and maintain control of the price we pay for power/energy and to minimize alternative energy suppliers.

Solano County joins the No on Proposition 16 coalition, with Supervisor Barbara Kondylis stating, "We are supportive of communities having options, not obstacles."

TURN attorney Marcel Hawiger says Proposition 16 is a pure power play by PG&E to prevent even minimum competition.

Prop. 16 doesn't deal with taxes nor does it enfranchise anyone. PG&E's real intent is to prevent competition by making it virtually impossible for local governments to enter the electric power field.

Article points out that Californians have the right to vote on elected officials and to recall them or to hold a referendum on their votes, but have no say in rate hikes approved by the unelected CPUC.

Voters won’t be able to say “yea” or “nay” to any PG&E proposal to extend electric service into new territory or expanding its system to serve additional customers should the measure the for-profit utility authored on the June 8 ballot - Proposition 16 - pass.

Any plans for obtaining new sources of energy or expanding AMP's current grid could be put on hold pending an election. Alameda City council has already passed a resolution opposing the proposition. A city staff report issued to the council, prior to its nay vote, criticizes the proposition's vague ballot language.

Orange County professors tell the OC Register the editorial board was wrong, and that for PG&E to put its monopoly protection measure on the ballot as a Taxpayer's Right To Vote Act, disguising the two-thirds supermajority mandate, is an intentional deception, and a gross misuse of the initiative process.

Propositions 16 and 17 on the June 8 ballot might be compared to the sound of glass breaking at 3 a.m. on a dark night. The outcome isn’t entirely predictable, but it’s more likely to be bad than good for you...The warning signs are evident with Propositions 16 and 17. We recommend voting no on both.

Politics makes strange bedfellows—and in the case of Proposition 16, almost nobody is being swayed by PG&E's efforts to woo voters. One of the largest coalitions in memory against a ballot proposition has been forged to oppose the utility giant's efforts, uniting business, labor, consumer, seniors, and environmental groups opposed to the measure.

It's inconceivable that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would voluntarily give PG&E an even greater stranglehold on competition...Bottom line: If PG&E wants it so bad, it can't be good for us.

Prop 16 is unfair, deceptive and anti-competition. Additionally, PG&E is asking to raise rates, while spending millions on a ballot initiative and paying their CEO close to $10 million.

San Luis Obispo county votes to oppose Prop 16, calling it undemocratic, a corruption of the initiative process, and asking if PG&E trusts the public it should require a two-thirds vote of its customers the next time it tries to raise rates. The resolution itself calls Prop 16 “against the public interest, and a potential setback for renewable energy production.”

PG&E temporarily lowers rates for its largest users, while asking for a $4 billion rate hike that would raise bills by 30%.

PG&E is seeking a huge increase on your bills, and you can tell them what you think of it, as well as their smart meter programs, customer service and the Prop 16 power grab.

Vote a resounding “NO” on Proposition 16. This is essentially a proposition, planned, designed, managed, run, and paid for by PG&E.

Prop 16 is the cynical, dishonest, hypocritical $44 million effort by PG&E to eliminate competition from municipal electric companies, which often provide greener, cheaper and more reliable electricity to their customers than PG&E does.

PG&E and its supporters want us to believe that Prop 16 simply insures that voters have the final say in their public power choice. It seems an odd use of our initiative process. Should say, Starbucks follow suit, and require a vote to determine our public coffee choice?

Pacific Gas and Electric Company has pumped an additional $9.5 million over the past five days into its campaign to pass Proposition 16, suggesting that passage is uncertain.

San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Jim Patterson pushes for a No on Prop 16 position on the central coast.

Prop 16 does not protect taxpayers, only PG&E's monopoly.

CPUC President Michael Peevey writes, " In the interests of good government, fairness, and equity, Proposition 16 should be soundly defeated."

Mark Toney tells the Herald, "Our primary concern with Prop. 16 is that we want consumers to have a choice of public power, which offers lower rates than for-profit utilities like PG&E. Prop. 16 will benefit only one corporation, PG&E, which is why PG&E is the sole funder of Prop 16."

Prop. 16 would limit consumer choice and allow for-profit utilities to protect their monopoly by eliminating competition.

Lodi city council members call the implications of Proposition 16 nightmarish for Lodi's General Plan for economic growth, and say PG&E's ads are misleading.

The Big Lie in Prop 16 – that taxpayers should vote by a two-thirds approval on new or expanding public power initiatives because taxpayers and tax dollars are at risk. No taxpayer has ever been harmed by public power in this state, and taxes are not used to pay for public power. Public power systems earn their money through the sale of electricity to their customers. The argument that taxpayers should vote is a smokescreen for the real goal of monopolist PG&E – elimination of competition and the public's right to choose its electricity supplier.

A professor of public interest law offers many reasons to vote NO on Prop 16 including: First may be avoiding the displacement from incredibly sloppy drafting. Second is the insult to our intelligence from spending millions of our money to tell us that democracy means governance by a minority. Third is who is sponsoring it and why.

A southern California writer says that Prop 16 would further reward bad behavior by electric companies, especially disasters like the San Diego wild fires.

This isn't a right-to-vote act, it's a PG&E keep-their-monopoly act. It will curtail resident choices by adding the burden of super-majority approval. PG&E should stop trying to corrupt the state initiative process enjoyed by Californians for nearly 100 years by bringing its internal issues before the voters. Don't fall for this scheme. Vote "no" on Proposition 16.

Business columnist writes that Prop 16 is anti-competitive and unfair, and will let PG&E keep their high rates and high profit.

San Francisco officials criticize PG&E's tactics against CleanPowerSF following the CPUC's admonishment of PG&E's anti CCA campaign tactics.

The Mercury News writes that PG&E's Prop 16 is anti-democratic and would discourage renewable energy and customer choice, while locking customers into high rates.

Vote “No” on Prop. 16. It’s raw money power perverting California’s initiative process...it doesn’t give us the right to vote on PG&E rate increases.

We are concerned that requiring two-thirds voter approval would have a chilling effect on potential projects that could provide cheaper energy alternatives to the behemoths of PG&E and Edison...Vote no on Proposition 16.

PG&E has bankrolled Prop 16 with $35 million of rate payers' money to benefit themselves, not the people.

Logic so clearly weighs against these propositions that they hardly seem worth worrying about. But the potential is great for well-financed ad campaigns that will mislead and confuse the voters into voting against their own interests.

Proposition 16 was paid for by PG&E to benefit PG&E. Proposition 17 was paid for by Mercury Insurance Co. to benefit Mercury Insurance Co. We can think of no better reason to vote no on each of them.

Concord Councilman writes, "If ever there were a poster child for the abuse and misuse of the seriously flawed California initiative process, Proposition 16, the so-called "consumers right to vote" would be it."

Following an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle accusing PG&E of “straight-faced audacity,” and the San Jose Mercury News assailing PG&E’s “cynical intent” and declaring the California Constitution “should not be for sale,” PG&E vice president for corporate affairs compares the company's image to Darth Vader.

The rich and corporate are abusing CA's initiative process to enforce their profits through the state's constitution.

On principle, we support "protecting the right to vote." However, we're also smart enough to see the true effect of Prop 16. The two-thirds threshold makes it bad law, and casting it as a constitutional amendment only makes it worse.

PG&E’s brass will do whatever it takes to protect their multi-million dollar compensation packages whether it is breaking laws, distorting the truth, or leading an effort to amend the California Constitution to shore up their monopoly.

Two of the statewide measures on the June 2010 ballot are prime examples of the cynical abuse of California’s initiative process. In our view, voters should reject both Proposition 16 and Proposition 17.

This isn't a right-to-vote act, it's a PG&E keep-its-monopoly act. Vote "no" on Prop. 16

Letter to the editor points out that Prop 16 would mean higher rates and no choice, all in all a bad deal for consumers.

Letter to the editor points out that Prop 16 would mean higher rates and no choice.

Proposition 16 is an easy call for us. The measure is being bankrolled by PG&E, whose chairman told stockholders that the purpose of the ballot measure was to freeze out the competition. We oppose Prop. 16 on that basis alone. We also oppose the concept of a simple majority of voters imposing a two-thirds requirement on the electorate. That is unfair and illogical.

If Prop. 16 passes, energy competition would be dead in the water in many counties—as getting two-thirds of voters to do anything is often impossible.

The Vacaville Reporter says vote NO on Prop 16 because it is undemocratic and will stifle competition and renewable energy.