Town Square

Post a New Topic

San Francisco joins other cities in effort to remove Prop 16 from ballot

Original post made on Apr 6, 2010

San Francisco has joined a group of other California cities
and public utilities in a lawsuit to remove a statewide ballot measure they say misleads voters about its true intentions to doom public power.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 7:58 AM

Comments (3)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by SF Uses Tax$ for Politics
a resident of Another Pleasanton 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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joanna
a resident of Foothill High School
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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Apr 11, 2010 at 10:49 pm

Joanna,
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.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 30 comments | 2,168 views

Prop 47: not perfect, just preferable.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 865 views

The Vranesh situation heads to court
By Tim Hunt | 7 comments | 676 views