I AM PROUD OF VOTING TO JOIN MARIN CLEAN ENERGY, and I signed up for its Deep Green plan (100-percent renewables) mainly because it is the right thing to do, since I have too many trees on my property to have solar panels.
I have been asked the same question about a public vote that a recent letter writer to The Herald asked: Why did we not submit this to the voters? First, a vote is very expensive and must be considered carefully. It would have cost about $340,000, and the timing would have been wrong. No other community joining MCE — none of the Marin cities or Marin County, not Richmond, El Cerrito or other community choice aggregation places such as the Sonoma cities and Sonoma County — submitted their decision to a vote. No other utility is voted on. Not Pacific Gas & Electric (1938), not Comcast, not Verizon, not AT&T, not joining the State Water Project — none. The question of a public vote is a red herring to make an issue of something that is not an issue.
I have had people come to my office and tell me they are angry because the City Council did a “backroom deal.” But that would be illegal. We don’t have illegal meetings. The next accusation, shared by the recent letter writer, is that the Council was “sneaky.”
I have asked staff for a documented chronology of the process and will ask The Herald to publish it when I get it. In the meantime, here is a narrative that makes the point of a long, public and thorough process:
• In 2010-11, the Community Sustainability Commission paid for Dominican University to conduct a certified Green Master’s of Business of Arts program in Benicia. The 12-week course covered topics such as renewable energy — where, how and who. PG&E was part of that presentation, along with MCE.
• In 2012, the CSC held public forums on various subjects including renewable energy — what is it, how does it work — and again PG&E made a presentation.
• In 2013, the CSC paid for MCE’s assessment of whether Benicia would qualify to join MCE. The funds came from the Valero-Good Neighbor Steering Committee settlement agreement over an inadequate environmental assessment of a major project at the refinery. The point is that no taxpayer money was used for this study.
• By 2014 the city had a clear picture that Benicia would qualify to join MCE. The Council approved every program listed above at public hearings. The classes are available online and there is video of the forums as well. If we were going to join MCE, we needed to adopt a resolution of intent by a certain date so MCE could buy renewable energy contracts based on Benicia demand. However, in spite of that need, MCE agreed to give Benicia more time to seek a third-party review of the assessment. I agreed with that extra caution and we took a chance that it could be done in time. Sometime in this chronology the Council conducted a full study session with panelists from the state, PG&E, MCE and others to explain community choice aggregation (CCA), renewable energy, risks and other concerns and answer questions. That was televised, as all the Council meetings are.
• Finally, we just made it under the wire with a risk analysis study (also paid for by CSC and not taxpayer money), and we voted 4-0 for joining MCE.
Sneaky? Of course not. There was plenty of opportunity to participate, attend, ask questions and express opinions. Some did.
What is a CCA? The title means that a community anywhere in the U.S. may decide to create their own utility for whatever reasons they consider in the public’s best interest. No successful CCA has an “opt in” provision because most people don’t pay a lot of attention to their utility and may not vote — thus, the “no” vote is more powerful. Many leaders across the country think utilities that are monopolies such as PG&E should have more competition, so that the public has a choice. After a few failures at getting competition for monopolistic utilities, the CCA “opt out” approach proved to be successful and is widely used.
The purpose of having a choice, according to the California legislators who authored the statute that was signed by the governor (I might add that PG&E spent millions to fight this legislation), was to accelerate the transition to renewable energy to meet Assembly Bill 32 goals sooner and have greater greenhouse gas reduction to slow climate change, or at least to make it less extreme.
Another purpose is to have a nonprofit utility that can offer lower rates than investor-owned utilities, even while buying more renewable energy. Investors expect to make money. A nonprofit utility can reinvest “profits” into creating more local renewable projects (more jobs) or reduce rates for those who are in need. In MCE’s case, Benicia has a Council member with full voting rights on the board — in other words, Benicia’s vote is equal to Marin County’s or any other city’s. I have no voting rights or access to the investors of PG&E, which may include out-of-state people who may not share California values. With MCE I have a chance to influence how much the CEO is paid and other management issues.
It has been pointed out that MCE is a “middle” broker compared to PG&E. That is exactly the same as the State Water Project — we are a member of the Solano County Water Agency and they are the contractor, not Benicia. PG&E relies on hydroelectric energy (considered nonrenewable by the Public Utilities Commission) from other states, where they produce the power and deliver it to the California grid system. By joining MCE, we won’t have to pay for the dismantling of the PG&E nuclear power plant which seems likely in the near future.
It has been said that MCE’s claims of 50- to 100-percent renewable energy is false because they have a contract with Shell. This contract expires soon and will probably not be renewed because there are more sources of renewable energy now. But the Public Utilities Commission requires that all energy sources be verified and so the Shell source is a mix of nonrenewable energy and renewable energy, and thus the accounting must be audited by the state to only credit MCE with the verifiable renewable energy. It is like how we manage water: the State Water Project gets water from the Sacramento River and many others get their water from the river, but the SWP can only take a verifiable amount of water according to state diversion law, and so it is audited for that amount. The water in the Sacramento River is made up of public trust water, riparian water, diversion water, discharge water and federal water. We are charged for the SWP share only. Same with power: MCE is only paying for the renewable portfolio of Shell, and its other energy is bought by others.
It has been said that PG&E will soon have 50-percent renewable energy. Without sounding too cynical, it is interesting how this proposal was rolled out about the time that El Cerrito, Benicia, Sonoma and Hayward were studying the CCA option. Furthermore, the PUC must approve this proposal and they have not done so. The last time PG&E proposed something like this, it failed mostly because it was an opt-in program and way more expensive. It has also been said that PG&E currently has 28-percent renewable energy. Only the PUC can make that statement, since they are the auditors. That is why MCE compares their portfolio to the verified 2012 audits of both MCE and PG&E.
Back to choices: In addition to having the choice of 22-percent renewable (PG&E), or 50- to 100-percent renewable (MCE), we have a choice to invest with MCE what is called fee tariff. Meaning, we can use any kind of an array of solar or wind turbines (in appropriate places) and all of that energy is paid for by MCE. In other words, we can generate power here in Benicia and be paid just like they are doing in Richmond in collaboration with Chevron. I could share my neighbors’ roof for solar panels (he doesn’t have the same tree problem I have) and MCE is fine with it. PG&E isn’t.
My friends who have solar now are given the lowest rates by PG&E — off-peak rates — for the energy they produce. MCE will pay the peak rate as of this month. If one generates more energy with solar over a year’s time than they use, they will be given a cash-out over $90 at the end of the year. PG&E won’t do this.
The night the Council approved joining MCE, Council chambers were full. There were all kinds of folks. But the ones my eyes kept returning to were the nearly dozen or so high school students. They were there in support of MCE because they will be living with climate change and they wanted us to do the right thing. We did.
Elizabeth Patterson is the mayor of Benicia.
Sharing is caring!
Thanks, we’re happy to have signed up for MCE…after PG&E blew up San Bruno they proved they’re just as mediocre and derelict as any other human-based organization. Let ’em compete a little and see how less mediocre they can become…some people just like to bitch and complain.
Peter Bray, Benicia, CA
Clean energy,increasing global carbon levels climate change disruptions or more crude-by rail—which will it be, Benicia?
From the above article;
“The night the Council approved joining MCE, Council chambers were full. There were all kinds of folks. But the ones my eyes kept returning to were the nearly dozen or so high school students. They were there in support of MCE because they will be living with climate change and they wanted us to do the right thing. We did.”
From the post below: more relevant information for Mayor Patterson ,our citizenry and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
“It’s Official: Global Carbon Levels Surpassed 400 ppm for Entire Month
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says level sets new record for world’s atmosphere”
“Marking yet another grim milestone for an ever-warming planet, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration revealed on Wednesday that, for the first time in recorded history, global levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere averaged over 400 parts per million (ppm) for an entire month—in March 2015.”
“This marks the fact that humans burning fossil fuels have caused global carbon dioxide concentrations to rise more than 120 parts per million since pre-industrial times,” said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, in a press statement. “Half of that rise has occurred since 1980.”
“We first reported 400 ppm when all of our Arctic sites reached that value in the spring of 2012,” explained Tans. “In 2013 the record at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory first crossed the 400 ppm threshold.”
However, Tans said that reaching 400 ppm across the planet for an entire month is a “significant milestone.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/06/its-official-global-carbon-levels-surpassed-400-ppm-entire-month
Beyond the naysayers—- Is Benicia on the right environmental path?
Pope Francis, clean energy, climate change and Benicia…
From the above article;
“The night the Council approved joining MCE, Council chambers were full. There were all kinds of folks. But the ones my eyes kept returning to were the nearly dozen or so high school students. They were there in support of MCE because they will be living with climate change and they wanted us to do the right thing. We did.”
More news and information for Mayor Patterson our citizenry and our appointed and elected officials to seriously consider…
From the post below:
“Converting the Fossil-Fuel Fundamentalists”
“Pope Francis is redefining the ongoing transition to greener energy as a moral and spiritual obligation.”
“Kicking humanity’s addiction to oil, gas, and coal before those industries render the planet uninhabitable may take a miracle. So it’s a good thing that the climate movement found a patron saint.”
“I’m talking about Pope Francis, of course. Before an upcoming encyclical makes the Vatican’s stance official, he’s already spreading the gospel of a fossil-free future.”
The ever-accelerating burning of fossil fuels that powers our economic engine is disrupting the Earth’s delicate ecological balance on an almost unfathomable scale,” warned Cardinal Peter Turkson, the Ghanaian cardinal who is taking a leading role in drafting the climate encyclical. “Corporations and financial investors must learn to put long-term sustainability over short-term profit.”
Pope Francis will address Congress in September.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/05/08/converting-fossil-fuel-fundamentalists
Beyond the naysayers—- Is Benicia on the right environmental path?
As we read for the most part the nonsense in this comment thread. It is important to remember the basis for this kind of mindless-backward thinking.
Below more information and news for Mayor Patterson, our citizenry and our appointed and elected officials to seriously contemplate…
“Anti-Science GOP ‘Eviscerates’ NASA Spending on Climate Change Research”
“NASA administrator says proposal ‘guts’ crucial Earth science program and ‘threatens to set back generations worth of progress in better understanding our changing climate”
A clip from the article below:
“Reinforcing the GOP’s reputation as anti-science, Republicans in the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on Thursday voted to slash NASA spending on the branch that studies climate change issues. ”
“According to news reports, the NASA authorization proposal, passed along party lines, would cut between $300-500 million in funding to NASA’s Earth Sciences division, which researches the planet’s natural systems and processes—including climate change, severe weather, and glaciers. The bill will now go to the full House for a vote.”
“When you vote for people who publicly and loudly spout nonsense about science, and go against the overwhelming 97 percent consensus among climate scientists, what do you expect?”
—Phil Plait, Slate
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/01/anti-science-gop-eviscerates-nasa-spending-climate-change-research
The Mayor does not tell the whole story. I have written a Letter To The Editor on this subject. I am not sure when it will be in the local paper. But briefly the mayors 100% will never make it to her house. Mayor Patterson just how do you influence the pay of MCE CEO? You did not or did you? She just got an increase in salary and is now at about $260,000 plus a 10% contribution of base salary to her 401K, plus about $9600 toward benefits. All verified. If you have a chance to influence how much the CEO is paid did you approve of her raise in salary? You have all this influence so I assumed you approved of that CEO salary. Tell us the meeting you attended to show your influence on that salary. We would like that info. Did you know or are you even aware of that salary.. The MCE folks are paid very well. I know you will read MY Letter To The Editor when printed. It addtress most of what you are saying. Read it Mayor Patterson it will explain both 27/28% and the 50% renewable energy that PG&E is aggressively moving forward on. Also please tell the whole story on Chevron and Richmond on the $1 a year lease. All part of the millions Richmond got from Chevron and a funny thing MCE got a piece of that action. Huge benefit to MCE and not the infrastructure needs in Richmond. I would stay away from that one if I were you.
Mayor Patterson –
Why didn’t you simply cut down your trees, install solar panels on your roof and leave my electricity alone? The fact that the law had to be changed to an opt-out rather than an opt-in shows that people either don’t want to change to a CCA or they are too busy to follow this issue. For those that want to remain with PG&E opting out is easy. Have your current PG&E bill handy and in five minutes you’ll be done.
http://www.mcecleanenergy.org/opt-out/
Regarding the spending of the Valero-Good Neighbor funds. You may be technically correct that this is not tax-payer money per se. However, those funds belong to the people of Benicia. The CSC has done nothing but waste it!
Excellent comment Tom. Others are also catching on to the Mayor and CSC small group of her followers. I know more about CCA’s/MCE than the Mayor and CSC combined.. But the Mayor is the one that does control the CEO salary of MCE. Does she really think that? If so we do have a big issue. I wonder what Counil member Schartzman would say to the Mayor on that issue. I do believe he is the representative to MCE and also on the board. Now there may have been a change or the Mayor thinks she has more power than Alan. We shall see in 2016..
No other utility is voted on. Not Pacific Gas & Electric (1938), not Comcast, not Verizon, not AT&T, not joining the State Water Project — none. The question of a public vote is a red herring to make an issue of something that is not an issue.
Mayor Patterson, Thank you for expressing your viewpoint in this forum. A few comments if I may:
PGE (1938) – One has to go back further than 1938, back to the Donahue Brothers in the 1850’s to get a complete picture of PG&E’s history. You may recall that the city of SF obligated the company formed by the Donahue brothers to supply gas to all residents, at a controlled rate, not just specific customers (the city of SF) as was the original intent of the brothers. Thus a synergy, at the earliest stages of what later became PG&E, was formed. An early example of government dictating both pricing policy and service needs. This system actually worked very well for over 100 years.
Comcast vs. Verizon – Actually we ‘vote’ on that every time we pay a bill for one or the other as we can switch companies whenever we want, or cancel them and rely on other options. The use of one over the other was not mandated (with an ‘opt out’) by the city.
public vote is a red herring – That is a troubling statement in several regards. But a reality as a result of the fact that Benicia is an area where politically 60-65 percent are all on the same page and can dictate to everyone that which they feel is best. Thus the vote of the minority is meaningless.
As for me, I opted out on my property, primarily because I adamantly disagree with the ‘opt out’ policy (opt in would have been fair and reasonable).
A decision by the City to use MCE Deep Green for all City paid energy, to set an example for the city would have been perfectly acceptable and reasonable. Those who support that plan could opt in.
But it is unreasonable for a government to mandate to others the service they are going to use, as has been done in this case, opt out notwithstanding.
How is the CSC funded?
I do not know the intricacies of the CSC funding by heart. I’m sure that others will weigh in.
When Exxon took over Mobil, there were several conditions placed upon Exxon that resulted in the formation of the Good Neighbor Steering Committee. Exxon paid about $14 million to resolve the suits.
http://www.examiner.com/article/benicia-council-approves-14-million-deal-with-valero-energy-corp
Then, in approximately 2008, Valero received Benicia’s approval to construct a new project at the refinery. A number of entities, including Dana Dean and the Good Neighbor Steering Committee sued Valero, and the CSC was created and funded as a result.
Google “Exxon Benicia Sale”, “Valero Good Neighbor Steering Committee” and “Benicia CSC” and you’ll get plenty of hits, such as:
http://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/vertical/Sites/%7B3436CBED-6A58-4FEF-BFDF-5F9331215932%7D/uploads/%7B3E2D8EC2-D007-4C2F-89E8-00B85B09677E%7D.PDF
Bottom line, the city of Benicia and others have taken millions from “deep pockets” to fund
the CSC. Every individual can decide if that is “fair”. The CSC has spent millions. Every individual can decide if those expenditures were “good investments”.
For me, I have to ask what do we expect to achieve from making it more expensive (difficult) to do business in Benicia? If we forcefully extract additional millions from our biggest employer and largest tax payer at multiple opportunities can we really expect businesses to migrate to Benicia?
I say make it easier to do business in Benicia and eliminate counterproductive Government entities such as the CSC, Benicia Historic Preservation Review Commission and the Bay Preservation and Review Commission. Then we won’t need the Benicia Economic Development Board that recently extracted $80,000 from downtown businesses for year-round Christmas lights.
Yes, being a business owner in Benicia is dealing with a toxic environment. On one hand they complain about lack of revenue and then make it nearly impossible to start a business. Can’t have it both ways. Regarding the Valero funds etc. those dollars were meant for the benefit of the citizens not the pleasures of government. The funds for CSC may not be direct tas payer dollars but in the words of Billary, “what difference does it make”? In either case it’s a cluster
Valero Good Neighbor funds could have been used much effectively on something else. Why do we have to opt-out of MCE? Nice spin piece mayor.
The whole notion of sustainability seems sensible at the outset until you dig a little deeper and discover that it had nothing to do with the sustainability of humans and is really all about sustaining the planet and diminishing man and our effect on the planet through population control and concentrating all human life into small pockets of tight congestion to minimize the impact in the planet. It is NOT about sustaining us!
Her continued statement that she “can’t have solar because of her trees” is nauseating. Excuses, excuses.
Sustainability is based on a simple principle that everything we need for our survival and well-being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment. The conditions under which humans and nature can co-exist can be created and maintained utilizing concepts of sustainability. These concepts permit the fulfillment of social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations. Focus on examining the interactions between human, environmental, and engineered systems to understand and contribute to solutions for complex challenges that threaten the future of humanity and the integrity of the life support systems of the planet, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution and land and water degradation, are all part of the broad and well developed field of sustainability.
Pretty clear that you drank the koolaid Thomas. How does it taste?
What does Christianity have to do with it, Jeff?
You are not making any sense
Mr. Petersen,
Your comments sound wonderful and magical. One small problem … Economics and the sustainability of human existence. The Green movement sounds wonderful if you don’t consider reality:
People must live in a world they can afford. Food, fuel, and goods cost money. The utopia you describe is expensive. Much of humanity lives on fixed income. The government controlled economy you desire is an economy of fixed income. Yet you profess a solution for energy that raises costs. The net result is human suffering as people must make a choice between energy and food.
Reality intervenes. People will suffer in your utopian vision.
I see our local “Research Citizen Reporter” is searching the internet for something to report on. A good read for you Will is Fenton Moles fine research on fossil fuel. and climate change/global warming. Please read that report and then give us a complete report on his writing. You will find the report very complete and it will open your eyes Will. Looking forward to your report on the Fenton Mole research. Feel free to link the report.
Thank you Mayor Patterson. Deep Green for me! And try as you might to explain opt-out, those who don’t want to hear it aren’t going to listen. The lizard brain strikes again!
Deep Green enrollment is at a earth shattering 1%. So as we see just a very few folks have trees like the Mayor.. They will never see that 100% Deep Green renewable energy. More than likely will receive exactly what PG&E is providing. About 28%. Even by now PG&E may be providing over thirty percent. They are hot on the trail for clean renewable energy. I know the mayor will challenge the 28%. That is good. It will just show that she is not at all in tune,.
All these people who are against choice, I wonder what their real agenda is? Some of them, I don’t wonder at all. Just kind of pathetic they let their prejudices lead them into such un-American behavior.
I’m not against choice at all. I’m no fan of PG&E. What I am against is being automatically enrolled in it. IF this had been arranged so that I would have to opt-in to MCE I would have no issue with it.
Truth be told they want to enroll everyone and just hope that most people don’t notice and/or don’t question it. Deceitful practice if you ask me.
JLB stated: Truth be told they want to enroll everyone and just hope that most people don’t notice and/or don’t question it.
BINGO!
George Miller tried the same deception with his failed “Card Check”, which was simply a payoff to the Unions.
Miller was one of the few Dems I respected until he did that.
This “Opt Out” is the same garbage.
JLB,
The ‘Opt –Out’ option may need to be reconsidered, since it is only such a minor inconvenience to those effected, and really is not that big of a deal. Right?
Let’s consider this: Republican’s control both houses and have more than a reasonable chance of getting the White House next year.
The R’s should then do this:
Mandate that DMV voter registration be automated with all participants being registered to a specific party. There are numerous choices for party affiliation, beyond just R or D, but the default would be Republican. Those not wishing to be registered as an R, can simply make the choice to go on-line and opt out. No big deal right? It just gives them a choice.
Also, federal financing of elections would be based on party affiliation. Those not opting out would increase total registration of R’s on the books and would increase financing of their elections. But that is just a minor point and people are free to opt-out.
This plan would potentially serve to increase public participation in elections. Who could object to that? And since opt-out is not a big deal, how could the opposition object?
After all, Opt-out is their idea.
Only when it serves them well. The very second that it does not all bets are off. Sort of like the way Harry Reid changes the senate rules. Now that we have the power those rules are
No longer good.
Now Dennis there you go making sense again.
“Republican’s control both houses and have more than a reasonable chance of getting the White House next year.” No chance. And you know it. Enjoy the Ben Carson shadow government.
Currently PG&E has about 28% of its energy as renewable but for ideological reasons hydropower and nuclear power are excluded from the official accounting. When they are included pg&e is over 50% renewable. If the default MCE option is taken the result is over 75% renewable since half is MCE and half is PG&E. As PG&E increases renewable the percentage will increase. For those who think they will get a better deal with PG&E, as more people put in solar and wind turbines, PG&E rates will rise because of their huge overhead fixed costs that will be spread over fewer customers and those remaking will get to pick up those costs. MCE overhead is low and they are more flexible. We have seen this play out over and over: Xerox, National Cash Register, IBM, U.S. Steel….they all got overrun by those who were smaller, more flexible and could change. We live in a world where change comes on fast and dinosaurs who resist or deny it go extinct.
Greg electrons cannot be tracted. PG&E has 8 mil customers and MCE will have about 170 thou. In benicia there may well be about 10 thou customers. The minor amount that MCE contributes to the grid snd is spread out can barely even make it past 1% and even much less than that. Now if MCE would be forced to contribute to the PG&E infrastructure, maintanence etc. the whole game changes. This whole thing was set up starting back in about 2002 by Enviro Greenies to benefit CCA”s not anyone else but a CCA which MCE is. Not one MCE customer can tell you how much of that 50/100 renewable energy they will get. What they will get is exactly what every Benicia PG&E customer getsd in renewable energy and no more.. Changes are coming.
Bob. Your argument about electrons is 100% meaningless. On pays MCE to purchase what one uses in renewable energy. Where an electron ends up is of no importance whatsoever.
The combined effort of MCE and all those who buy solar panels or other renewable energy is terrifying PG&E and other energy companies because toes folks no longer pay the fixed costs of the energy generation. Yes MCE and others pay for the grid they use as they should but the big expensive power plant costs are going to those who stay with PG&E. Good luck to you. PG&E stuck us all with the cost of the energy debacle a decade ago when the mother ship took the profits from the energy market scam but excluded themselves from the liability with laws they lobbied for when the bubble burst. You and I paid for that. When I go to MCE, you will continue to pay for that scam. Not me.
Wrong. If you cannot track them how do you know where they are going. They go onto the grid and will benefit all PG&E customers. Talk about a benefit to PG&E customers. Yes the MCE purchase does replace PG&E purchases but to what effect. Very little if any at all. Try customers of MCE170,000 t0 8 mil at PG&E Has no major impact at all and will do little to change. GHG in Benicia. If you think saving less than $18.00 a year for so called 50% or paying $60/$100 for 100 percent there is the scam. You are being mislead and being charged for something you will never get.. Believe me PG&E will be at over 50% renewable by 2020 not the 33% mandate. If I were you I also would look into the MCE Richmond solar project a little deeper. Start with Chevron and then the present mayor first. Sorry Greg the scam is on you and not me. Ask MCE why the did not support the Assembly bill to change the wording from OPT OUT to OPT IN. Simple it would have put them close to out of business. I do hope you care about the consumer like I do.
“Believe me PG&E will be at over 50% renewable by 2020 not the 33% mandate.” You are being misled. How will you take advantage of this great advance by PG&E? You’ll hardly be in position to do so.
Bob your argument means that if I transfer money from my account to another account how can I know the other account got my money? It doesn’t matter whether they got my money or someone else’s. It just matters that the accounts add up at the end of the day. That is how modern banking and the stock market work every day. But of course for the crazies who think the bank must have a pile of gold in the vault and must move it from one cabinet to another to transfer money, modern banking and energy generation is a mystery to be feared and stopped. Good luck with that.
It is very simple. You get a return on what you put in not others. You do not get the interest from the person with 10 times the amout you have. Only what you put in. Very easy.
As I guessed, you understand nothing of modern banking, finance and energy generation.
Was my answer too difficult for you.?
Bob. Your argument about electrons is 100% meaningless. On pays MCE to purchase what one uses in renewable energy. Where an electron ends up is of no importance whatsoever.
The combined effort of MCE and all those who buy solar panels or other renewable energy is terrifying PG&E and other energy companies because those folks no longer pay the fixed costs of the energy generation. Yes MCE and others pay for the grid they use as they should but the big expensive power plant costs are going to those who stay with PG&E. Good luck to you. PG&E stuck us all with the cost of the energy debacle a decade ago when the mother ship took the profits from the energy market scam but excluded themselves from the liability with laws they lobbied for when the bubble burst. You and I paid for that. When I go to MCE, you will continue to pay for that scam. Not me.
Greg a couple of things you may want to look at. One is Enron and two in non-profit taxes. The public is paying the MCE head $300,000 a year salary.. Yes tax payers ARE paying for that. So as you can see you pay federal and state taxes to support MCE. Now is that not a sweet deal.. Look at solar credits. Where do they come from? You know, your tax dollars. You want solar pay for it without my tax dollars. I do not like paying for something twice. These taxes we are paying are all around us. Bridge tolls and far too many motre to even talk about. The public is not going to stand for it ANY longer. . Long live free enterprise.
Bob if you like free enterprise then you must be in favor of competition. Until recently PG&E was a monopoly and they used the PUC to ensure they got their profits while leaving the customers with debt from the energy scandal that brought down Enron. PG&E went bankrupt and the mothership indemnified themselves from the losses so the customers were stuck with the bill. That would be you if you stick with them. Along with the bill for blowing up houses on the peninsula and the lawsuits against them and all the assets and fixed cost overhead they took on because they could rely on the PUC to pass the costs to customers without question. So go ahead and defend them and keep paying. Not me.
Just where have you been Greg. Anyone knows that issues can be resolved and will be worked out to everyones advantage. So you think that $18.00 a year you are saving is changing your life. Well take a look at your water bill, cable bill, car insurance, house insurance, life insurance etc. I think you will find that you are paying for someone elses issues. With PG&E it is a very minor cost. Without PG&E there is no MCE. Try that one on for size. PG&E did the work and the government let MCE take advantage of their work. Your thinking is a l;ittle out of sound judgement. Yes Greg PG&E will reach 50%+ renewable energy and MCE will struggle to keep pace. CCA’s future is bleak at best.
Oh of course they will be worked out to be everyone’s advantage. PG&E is always looking out for their customers. That’s why they ripped us off for $600 million and indemnified themselves from the resulting bankruptcy that cost us all a 40% rate increase. The fine for blowing up San Mateo (PG&E negligence) runs about $500 per connection. Plus lawsuits. Diablo canyon nuclear plant we are all still paying for cost more than twice the engineers estimate but since the PUC allows PG&E to profit on capital expenditures that just meant more costs for us more profits for them. Yep. It will all work out for the best.
The contra costa times just revealed the scandal of the PUC working for PG&E instead of protecting the public. Now they finally have competition in Benicia and we have a choice. And if we don’t like how it works out we can change provider. But you, you are against that. No you want “free” enterprise as long as the enterprise gets the freedom and their customers get screwed with a monopoly.
Better go back and take a long look how that all happened. Very anti big businerss responce. Bl;AME the corporation.. If I follow your logic I will assume you think it was the Democrats fault. That I could buy into.After all they do control the state.
Well actually the energy scandal was a joint effort, reps and dems. But the latest PUC scandal, that was mostly jerry brown’s doing although the previous governator had a hand in some PUC members.
Greg’ now you are making sense. Even include Grey Davis who got recalled. This whole CCA issue goes back to 2002 by the SF city State Assembly person Carole Midgdon I believe was her name. Set up to favor the Enviro Greenies agenda. Now comes the Mayor and her greatest accomplishment the CSC.; You know that group who has a member that calls residents ignorant. There is great fear not by PG&E but CCA’s. As Elon Musk moves toward working with public utiliters it will take away the presence of a CCA. The grid is controlled by the public utiliies not the CCA’s. Has anyone looked into how MCE is going to fund the Solar Farm in Richmond. Keep your eye on their move toward super green which at present is lucky to get 2% of MCE business. They will be moving toward that super green generated locally maybe and watch out their prices will go thru the roof and PG&E will be at over 70 plus renewable energy. plus large hydro and nuclear and less expensive. So Greg as you see MCE is putting themselves out of business and PG&E is just following mandates and going beyound the mandates. It is vert easy to understand. Why the Mayor and council could not figure it out is beyound me. Also keep your eye on the Enviro Greenie politicians they will be trying to put legislation forward to protect CCA’s and hurt PG&e. It will not work.
More on Free Enterprise—
Public servant or corporate criminal?
Beyond the apologists and sychophants for corporate power.
A deeper more profound look at PG&E’s environmental/criminal justice record for Mayor Patterson, our citizenry and our appointed and elected officials to seriously consider…
“PG&E, corporate criminal”
“The utility likes to pretend it’s a good corporate citizen – but the record shows otherwise.”
Consider:
�” In 1997 PG&E was tried and convicted in criminal court for endangering the lives and property of gold country residents by failing to trim tree branches near electrical wires frequently enough to prevent major fires. Evidence showed that PG&E executives had diverted tree-trimming money to fatten profits and salaries of top corporate executives. ”
�” The story of the company’s poisoning of community water supplies in Hinkley became a major Hollywood movie called Erin Brockovich, and a similar environmental disaster is still underway just south of San Francisco. Meanwhile, residents of the Bayview-Hunters Point district in San Francisco are suffering from alarmingly high rates of asthma and other illnesses that they link to PG&E’s dirty power plant in the neighborhood (see “Poison Power,” 1/28/98). In addition, the nearby Potrero power plant, which PG&E sold to Mirant Corp. in 1998, is scheduled for expansion. ”
� “PG&E stole nearly $200,000 from San Francisco by illegally running its power lines to the Presidio, according to a 1995 lawsuit the city filed against the company. Indeed, PG&E’s service to San Francisco residents is illegal, according to the terms of the 1913 Raker Act, which requires the city to operate a public power system. The company’s monopoly has led to decades of structural corruption at City Hall (see “How PG&E Wires the City,” page 26). ”
�” In 1998 a major blackout hit the city – leaving nearly half a million San Francisco residents without electricity (see “Still in the Dark,” 12/16/98). Officials determined that a failure to make a key backup safety check at a San Mateo substation caused the outage. For several years the company had been cutting back on maintenance staff to fatten profits. ”
�” In 2001, after lobbying for the 1996 bill that deregulated part of the state’s electricity industry, PG&E shuffled off more than $600 million in profits to its holding company, gave its top brass $50 million in bonuses and raises, and declared bankruptcy. Since spring 2001, rates have soared 40 percent and customer service for everything from hook-ups to billing problems has worsened (see “Feeling the Crunch,” 9/4/02)”.
�” Under its proposed plan to get out of bankruptcy, PG&E wants to free itself of the last vestiges of state regulation while at the same time making a very anti-free market demand: ratepayers must protect its shareholders and CEOs from any potential future losses (see “‘ PG&E has a long record of harassing internal whistle-blowers and reporters who dare to take on the giant company. ”
Read the rest of the article below for a wake-up call, if you dare!
http://www.sfbg.com/37/03/cover_criminal.html
Will where is your report on GM,?
PG&E and MCE should compete in the open market. May the best competitor win.
What I don’t like is being slammed by the city. Benicia should be given an even choice. Not slammed into MCE and then having to “opt out”. That is coercion and the mayor knows it.
Why not send each citizen a card … Pick a utility. Simple. But no … The choice is made by the city and a citizen needs to opt out if they don’t agree with the city.
I opted out based on the ethics. MCE will not get a dime from me. I will not support a city council person who voted for this ponzi scheme.
I share your opinion COMPLETELY. I resented being slammed into MCE and am staying with PG&E because of that. If given the CHOICE I probably would have gone with MCE. This was handled terribly by the City.
My thoughts exactly. It is amazing to consider that they are clueless to human nature. Back a badger into a corner and they are going to be coming at you hard!
People don’t like be told what to do but are very bendable and amenable when given a choice. They crapped in their own bed!
I recently had a local official tell me, as the mayor has stated in her article … We had to commit everyone in the city to MCE as a method to offer fairness. According to the official it is not coercion because we all have a way to opt out.
My answer … The city should force everyone to register Republican. But you can opt out. Not coercion?
Right …
There was once a company that didn’t generate any power, promised better rates, sold green energy to cities and towns, promised to break the monopoly of utilities and to deliver reliable energy. The name of that company was Enron.
Well put.
Good Reminder!
Let’s not forget that Enron was advised by the NYT’s resident economic expert: Paul Krugman
http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/enron.html
From the posted link:
“I served briefly on an Enron advisory board in 1999” – Paul Krugman
If there was a big hurry to join MCE and their timetable would not allow for an election. Tell the residernts the timetable. This was MCE timetable not Benicia timetable. We could have waited had an election and then joined if it passed. Why did we have to pay for the feasibiluity terst {CSC funds}.? Why did we have to pay for anything to join. Just another public entity fallicy. No need for any of that. If MCE was offering Benicia the oportunity to join then they do the homework which apparently they had done already. Remember Mayor Patterson the first cost for the test was $35,000 which then went to $18,000. Now Mayor Patterson tell the public how that happened? The voters may have liked the MCE proposal but again they may not have. This whole CCA issue was set up by Enviro Greenies to drive their agenda. Not meant to have the public vote on it or have the OPT IN option. The residents in this city are not ignorant Mayor Patterson. You may not like the language they use to describe politics which means you are not paying attenton to politics,. The language is not new. So all your comments are meaningless. The packed council chamber was set up to be packed by CSC followers and otherr Enviro Greenies. You know who shows up for council meetings. The all set on one side every meeting. You do not understand the rersidents you supposidly represent. That is one reason you will never hold a voter office again in the Benicia area. Get use to it.
If Mayor Patterson quit today and never served this city in another capacity she would already be remembered as one of the great mayors this city has ever had. This city is in the terrific shape it’s in largely through her leadership. Thank you Mayor Patterson!