Posted by SF Uses Tax$ for Politics, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2010 at 11:52 am
The real story is why a city council, such as Pleasanton's, can use tax dollars for political purposes. These people should use their own $$ if they want to wage in political lawsuits. (By the way, why is P.W. writing stories about S.F. matters in the first place?)
As far as the initiative itself, let the people vote on it and decide. Pleasanton Weekly could better use their editorial space by providing some research (work on their part) regarding the pros and cons of the issue the proposition raises. I don't care about PG&E's motives, I care about whether this constitutional amendment is a good idea or not.
Posted by joanna, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Apr 8, 2010 at 10:25 am
Why is PG and E pouring millions of dollars into a television advertising campaign to pass Propositiion 16? Because Community Choice Aggregation allows localities (i.e. Marin Clean Energy Web Link produce their own power systems based on renewable energy sources. The rates are the same or less than PG and E. Consumers DO have the right to opt out of a CCA--no one is forced to purchase their energy from the CCA--there is no penalty to continue buying from PG and E. Several other California cities are studying the feasability of forming their own systems, so P G and E sees the writing on the wall and are trying to kill it through Prop 16. I will vote no on 16 and urge others to do the same.
Posted by Pleasanton Parent, a resident of the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 11, 2010 at 10:49 pm
I suggest you research the issue with a little more detail before making your decision. The issue isn't whether a city has the ability to change from PG&E provided power to a municipality, its what vote is required to do so.
Additional food for thought. PG&E does not dictate pricing, the California Public Utilities Comission does. This government entity decides what PG&E is allowed to charge customers for usage. Municipalities also avoid additional regulatory taxes that PG&E pays (and essentially passes onto the customer). If enough cities convert away from PG&E do you think the state won't eventually wise up and start impossing the same taxes?
Additionally, any city that converts does get hit with a large fee from PG&E as PG&E has entered into contracts with energy providers to provide that city with power for the upcoming year - granted this is a one time cost that can be considered part of the "investment" in a new system going forward, but it shouldn't be overlooked in the cost.