GILLETTE, J.
In this original proceeding, petitioners challenge the explanatory statement for Ballot Measure 90 (2000). See ORS 251.205 (providing for creation and manner of selection of committee of five citizens to prepare explanatory statement for initiated and referred measures); ORS 251.215 (providing for preparation and filing of explanatory statement by committee). The measure, which was passed by the legislature and referred by the people, would amend present statutory law relating to the ability of public utility and telecommunications companies to obtain a return of and a return on property that has been retired from service.
After a majority of the explanatory statement committee prepared and filed an explanatory statement for the measure, ORS 251.215(1), the Secretary of State held a hearing to receive comments on the statement. Following the hearing, the committee majority filed a revised explanatory statement with the Secretary of State. ORS 251.215(2), (3). Petitioners1 offered suggestions for changes to the explanatory statement at that hearing; they are entitled to seek a different explanatory statement in this court. ORS 251.235; see also Homuth v. Keisling, 314 Or. 214, 218-19, 837 P.2d 532 (1992)
(ORS 251.235 authorizes Supreme Court review of explanatory statement when any suggestions were offered at Secretary of State's hearing).
The committee is directed by statute to prepare an explanatory statement that is an "impartial, simple and understandable statement explaining the measure." ORS 251.215(1). This court's task is to determine whether the explanatory statement contains a sufficient and clear statement explaining the measure. See Sizemore v. Myers, 327 Or. 456, 459, 964 P.2d 255 (1998)
(so stating); ORS 251.235 (authorizing court to consider challenges to explanatory statement on grounds that statement is "insufficient or unclear").
Petitioners who challenge an explanatory statement bear the burden of demonstrating that the statement is insufficient or unclear. June v. Roberts, 310 Or. 244, 248, 797 P.2d 357 (1990). That burden is a significant one. This court has stated:
"The statutes call for the committee to be composed of two proponents of the measure, two opponents of the measure, and a fifth member chosen by the other four (presumably a tie-breaker). See ORS 251.205. The scheme brings the opposing political forces to bear in the development of a statement, on the implicit assumption that this will result in an acceptably politically balanced statement for the voters. * * *
"The explanatory statement procedures thus differ markedly from the procedures devised for providing a ballot title. See ORS chapter 250. The legislature has provided for a process by which opposing viewpoints are brought to bear on the statement's drafting, and has provided for a hearing process to allow other interested people to participate. By design, the process is both legislative and political. The court, in its review, should defer to those processes unless the inadequacy of the statement is clear. In reviewing the explanatory statement, the court should not invalidate or modify it unless its insufficiency is beyond reasonable argument."
Teledyne Wah Chang Albany v. Powell, 301 Or. 590, 592-93, 724 P.2d 319 (1986) (emphasis supplied). With the foregoing standards in mind, we turn to the referred measure and its explanatory statement that are before us in this case.
For the convenience of the reader, we here set out both the referred measure and the explanatory statement respecting the measure that was prepared by a majority of the citizens' committee appointed to perform that task. The referred measure provides:
"Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
"SECTION 1. ORS 757.140 is amended to read:
"757.140. (1) Every public utility shall carry a proper and adequate depreciation account. The Public Utility Commission shall ascertain and determine the proper and adequate rates of depreciation of the several classes of property of each public utility. The rates shall be such as will provide the amounts required over and above the expenses of maintenance, to keep such property in a state of efficiency corresponding to the progress of the industry. Each public utility shall conform its depreciation accounts to the rates so ascertained and determined by the commission. The commission may make changes in such rates of depreciation from time to time as the commission may find to be necessary.
"(2) Notwithstanding ORS 757.355, in the following cases the commission may allow in rates, directly or indirectly, the return of and a return on amounts on the utility's books of account which the commission finds represent undepreciated investment in [a] utility [plant, including that which] property that has been retired from service:
"(a) When the retirement is due to ordinary wear and tear, casualties, acts of God, acts of governmental authority; or
"(b) When the commission finds that the retirement is in the public interest.
"SECTION 2. ORS 759.135 is amended to read:
"759.135. (1) Every telecommunications utility shall carry a proper and adequate depreciation account. The Public Utility Commission shall ascertain and determine the proper and adequate rates of depreciation of the several classes of property of each telecommunications utility. The rates shall be such as will provide the amounts required over and above the expenses of maintenance, to keep such property in a state of efficiency corresponding to the progress of the industry. Each telecommunications utility shall conform its depreciation accounts to the rates so ascertained and determined by the commission. The commission may make changes in such rates of depreciation from time to time as the commission may find to be necessary.
"(2) Notwithstanding ORS 757.355, in the following cases the commission may allow in rates, directly or indirectly, the return of and a return on amounts on the utility's books of account which the commission finds represent undepreciated investment in [a] utility [plant, including that which] property that has been retired from service:
"(a) When the retirement is due to ordinary wear and tear, casualties, acts of God, acts of governmental authority; or
"(b) When the commission finds that the retirement is in the public interest.
"SECTION 3. The amendments to ORS 757.140 and 759.135 by sections 1 and 2 of this 1999 Act apply to public utility and telecommunications utility property retired from service before, on or after the effective date of this 1999 Act.
"SECTION 4. The amendments to ORS 757.140 and 759.135 by section 1 and 2 of this 1999 Act apply to orders of the Public Utility Commission entered before, on or after the effective date of this 1999 Act."
(Bold denotes new material; bracketed and italicized material is deleted.)
The majority of the citizens' committee certified the following explanatory statement for the referred measure:
"Measure 90 would change Oregon law to allow regulated utilities (electric, phone, gas, water) to charge rates high enough to give the utilities profits on `retired' plants and property no longer providing service, including plants that have stopped working. The Measure is retroactive and would allow rates giving utilities profits on the Trojan nuclear plant, which shut down permanently in 1992.
"Measure 90 would have these effects:
"1. It would reinstate a 1995 order of the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (Commission) giving Portland General Electric Co. (PGE) profits on the closed Trojan nuclear plant by allowing PGE to charge ratepayers approximately $304 million for `return on investment' or profit on Trojan.
"2. It would nullify the decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals that present law (enacted by voters by initiative in 1978) prohibits utilities from charging rates giving them profits for retired plants, including Trojan.
"3. It would allow utilities to charge rates high enough to receive, at the same time, profits on retired plants and also profits on the plants the utilities build to replace them.
"Measure 90 would apply to all public utilities regulated by the Oregon Commission.
"Measure 90 seeks to bypass, as to retired plants, the existing statute, enacted by Oregon voters in 1978, which states:
"No public utility shall, directly or indirectly, by any device, charge, demand, collect or receive from any customer rates which are derived from a rate base which includes within it any construction, building, installation or real or personal property not presently used for providing utility service to the customer.
"Measure 90, however, would authorize the Oregon Commission to allow utilities to receive profits on plants, including those which have stopped working or are otherwise retired before the end of their expected lives.
"Measure 90 is retroactive and would apply to all utility plants and property retired in the past. The Trojan nuclear plant was permanently closed in 1992, 19 years before the end of its expected life. In 1995, the Oregon Commission allowed PGE to charge ratepayers approximately $304 million to give PGE stockholders a `return on investment' or profit on Trojan. (This assumes no future change to the rate of return the Oregon Commission approved for PGE.)
"By the end of 1999, PGE ratepayers had paid approximately $150 million to PGE for Trojan profits.
"In 1998,
...
