Bob Finkelstein, executive director of the consumer watchdog group The Utility Reform Network, started his legal career on a Navajo reservation in northern Arizona, fighting consumer battles for reservation residents.

It's not exactly the straightest path to electricity policy, a wonkish world of independent energy producers, regulated utilities, investment banks and official gadflies -- like him. San Francisco-based TURN acts as a consumer advocate before the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates utilities like PG&E.

But Finkelstein says it's all part of the same path.

"It's still very much focused on doing public interest work,'' he said. "At TURN, it's an ongoing effort on behalf of all residential consumers. It's still consistent: The goal of doing what's right for the little guy -- or gal.''

Finkelstein and TURN are now proposing to change the rules of the electricity market through Proposition 80, which they've placed on the November ballot.

All sides agree that California suffers from a lack of investment in power plants and transmission lines. Proposition 80 proposes to stimulate investment by only allowing regulated utilities to sell electricity. The measure has come under heavy criticism, particularly from independent energy producers like San Jose's Calpine, which would be barred from selling electricity to companies unless they already have a contract in place now. Independent energy producers would be able to sell only to utilities.

TURN believes regulated utilities are undermined and power-plant investment stifled by free-market sales by electric service providers.

Critics argue that Proposition 80 will stunt investment by independent energy producers, who provide needed competition to the utilities and help drive down costs.

The Mercury News recently talked with Finkelstein about California's electricity market and Proposition 80.

Q So what type of person would be interested in electricity policy, which can be incredibly arcane, complicated and bureaucratic?

A You have to be something of a wonk to do this kind of work -- a utility nerd, a regulatory nerd. For better or worse, that label fits pretty well.

Q You're the public advocate at the Public Utilities Commission, but the topics are something the public has a tough time understanding. Is there a disconnect between what you do and what the public actually understands?

A Sure, there's an ongoing challenge for anybody doing this kind of work to get the public to understand how critical it is. And it's kind of funny that that's the case, given that in today's society, electricity and telephone service are both these absolute essentials. You can't have a functioning household that is a part of the community without those things. At the same time, people take it very much for granted -- except when things go bad.

Q Proposition 80 is very selective on what elements of deregulation it targets. If deregulation is the issue, why not choose to repeal the whole 1996 electricity deregulation law itself?

A There are two reasons. The core element of deregulation was this thing that they called "direct access'' -- the ability to choose somebody other than the utility to obtain your generation service. The initiative makes it very clear there won't be more of that. And as a result, there won't be the ongoing uncertainty that direct access has caused over the years.

The other more practical element of it is, much of what got done to implement deregulation in the first instance is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. There was a huge ceding of power from California to the federal government. I'm not sure how you undo that.

Q You were surprised at the harsh reaction the independent energy producers, like Calpine, had toward the initiative. Explain that.

A There's been this backlash where some of the generators have made it very, very clear that they want to be able to engage in some sort of retail transactions. That frankly took us by surprise. I don't know if they're driven by this absolute anti-regulatory dogma.

Q But look at the quandary Calpine is in. Their Metcalf and Pastoria plants are absolutely essential to providing power to the state. Metcalf in South San Jose supplies Silicon Valley, which remains an importer of electricity. Pastoria, in Southern California, is helping keep Southern California away from blackouts. Yet the utilities don't sign them up for vital long-term contracts. Why not?

A I don't know. it's puzzling to me that they've not signed them up. But I guess I come at it from a different angle, which is, I think those are the last plants we're likely to see built in California without a long-term contract being entered into before steel is put in the ground. Those are plants that are largely borne of that brief window where it looked like prices were going to keep escalating or at least stay at extremely high levels.

So once those started to come down, we haven't seen any other plants that are proposed to get built just based on "Hey, we'll build it and the customers will come.''

Q The proposition limits "direct access,'' the ability of independent energy producers to sell power on a free market to big business users. That's clearly a way they'd lose money under Proposition 80.

A My understanding of how direct access has worked in the past is that there just weren't that many sales where a generator was selling directly to a retail customer. My sense is that it's not out there.

Q Calpine does sell directly.

A I wasn't aware of that. It may well be that Calpine has a complaint that this would hamper some of those marketing efforts. But to the extent that they're looking for ways to make money selling their output, I continue to be puzzled by that opposition. I continue to wait for a clear argument as to why this would limit those opportunities -- given what we perceive to be much greater certainty for the long-term conditions for the market.