Proposition 9 | Rebuttal to Argument in Favor | Proposition 9 | Rebuttal to Argument Against |
Electric Utilities. Assessments. Bonds.
Initiative Statute.
Argument against Proposition 9
Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Proposition 9 is bad for California--bad for consumers, for taxpayers, for our economy, for our schools, for our environment and for our communities.

Vote No on Proposition 9 because it would hit taxpayers with liability for over $6 billion in bond payments.

Vote No on Proposition 9 because it would undermine California's stable, affordable competitive electric system, eliminating consumer choice and driving "clean energy" electric service providers out of California.

Vote No on Proposition 9 because it would ultimately force higher electric rates on consumers and businesses.

Vote No on Proposition 9 because it would cut funding for our schools by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Vote No on Proposition 9 because it would threaten California's economy by jeopardizing state and local bond ratings.

Proposition 9 can't deliver on its promises. Proponents focused on only part of a very complex program to bring new competition to California's electricity marketplace. Proposition 9 is so poorly written that it would cost taxpayers millions of dollars in useless bureaucratic red tape, attorney fees and lawsuits.

Many of your fellow Californians are voting No on Proposition 9 because it won't work and is too costly.

The California Schools Boards Association warns: "California schools can't afford a hit on the state budget. Kids and our schools will be hurt by this Proposition. Our kids deserve better."

Jerry Meral, Executive Director of The Planning and Conservation League, says: "Proposition 9 would deal a serious blow to clean, environmentally safe power and energy conservation. Protect the California environment by voting NO."

The California Taxpayers Association says: "Proposition 9 would make taxpayers liable for $6 billion in bond debts, creating a gaping hole in the state budget and raising the serious threat of tax increases. VOTE NO."

The State Department of Finance warns: "Planning for a budget contingency of potentially [$6] billion could directly affect every program in the state budget . . ."

Betty Jo Toccoli, Chair of the California Small Business Roundtable says: "Small businesses want to be able to lower their utility costs by choosing the lowest-cost electric company. Proposition 9 will force us back to monopoly suppliers and significantly higher electric bills."

The real savings for Californians will come when true competition reduces electric rates. But Proposition 9 would pull the plug on competition just as it is getting underway in California.

Proposition 9 promises too much, too fast and forces taxpayers to pay for its mistakes.

When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Proposition 9 was written to sound appealing, but it is a serious mistake we cannot afford.

Vote No on Proposition 9.

LARRY McCARTHY
President, California Taxpayers Association

JERRY MERAL
Executive Director, Planning & Conservation League

ALLAN ZAREMBERG
President, California Chamber of Commerce

Proposition 9 | Rebuttal to Argument in Favor | Proposition 9 | Rebuttal to Argument Against |