The Marin Energy Authority this week locked in the wholesale price that it will pay Shell Energy North America over the next five years for the electricity that it will sell to its Marin customers.
At the price Shell is charging, the authority will be able to fulfill it promise to offer customers electricity that comes from 25 percent renewable sources for the same amount that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is currently charging, said Dawn Weisz, the authority's interim director
To understand what's wrong with California's initiative process, all you need to do is look at Proposition 16 on the June 8 ballot. This outrageous measure is funded by more than $25 million from PG&E, and its sole purpose is to protect PG&E profits.
Richard Halstead, Marin IJ
The Marin Board of Supervisors on Tuesday rejected most of the findings contained in a civil grand jury report that recommended pulling the plug on the Marin Clean Energy initiative.
The initiative, a program of the Marin Energy Authority, aims at reducing greenhouse gases by offering Marin residents the opportunity to purchase electricity generated from a higher percentage of renewable sources than offered by Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
The CSAC Board of Directors voted today to oppose Prop. 16, the initiative that would limit local government’s ability to expand local energy programs. While the board was presented with both sides of the argument, their decision was relatively quick and easy. CSAC’s Agriculture & Natural Resources Policy Committee and Executive Committee had both already recommended an “oppose” position.
It was an unhappy anniversary that passed without public fanfare. But nine years ago last week, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., ravaged by the energy crisis, plunged into bankruptcy.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/11/2668460/dan-morain-pge-flips-the-switch.html#ixzz0kttFHqCa
The lead sentence in last Friday's San Francisco Chroniclearticle (headline: "PG&E Must Stop Threats To Public Power Agencies") hints at the dilemma Peter Darbee's political recklessness has created for his company and its heretofore guardian angels, the California Public Utilities Commission:
California energy regulators delivered a rare rebuke to Pacific Gas and Electric Co. on Thursday, banning some of thehardball tactics the utility has used in its efforts to derail Marin County's new public power agency.
Sacramento-area voters, responding to a Sacramento Bee-led crusade, voted in 1923 to divorce themselves from On Monday night the Belvedere City Council voted 4-1 in favor of moving the City to 100% Deep Green with Marin Clean Energy. In doing so, the Council made a statement that this is an important issue. Belvedere became the second municipality in Marin to go 100% Deep Green as part of its ratepayer choice.
On average, SMUD rates are nearly 30% lower than PG&E – in the medium commercial rate structure, SMUD rates are nearly 36% lower
SMUD has guaranteed an immediate 2% rate reduction during the time that the acquisition costs are recovered – anticipated to be five to ten years
Ed Mainland -
I was chatting with a nice Marin lady at Joe Nation's PG&E-funded "Common Sense Coalition" February 27. She doesn't believe all this global warming stuff. "There's always been carbon dioxide in the air," she said. She knows what she knows and doesn't want to know more.
Peter Darbee's Dog of an Initiative: 3 Tapeworms Eating Away at the Internal Logic of Prop. 16
On February 25, I had the privilege of testifying on Proposition 16 before the joint hearing of the California Senate Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee and the California Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee. This is what I said:
<<>>Play >Stop
Home
Welcome to Marin Energy Freedom
PG&E has no friends
Written by Tim Redmond
Wednesday, 26 May 2010 15:25
The full-page ad on the back of the front section of today's San Francisco Chronicle shows exactly how far PG&E has fallen in its political fortunes.
The Yes on 16 ad lists all endorsers of this godawful ballot measure -- and other than the Chamber of Commerce, there's not one San Francisco politician, community group, or organization on the list. Not one.
In fact, there's not one statewide elected official. Nobody wants to carry PG&E's water any more (unless you count the California Republican Party and the San Bernadino County Tea Party, two listed endorsers who will no doubt sway a lot of votes in the Bay Area).
Jen & Eva on Prop 16 PG&E and Funnel Cake - Funny and True
Written by Ben Zolno
Wednesday, 26 May 2010 10:30
The voters are getting education one voter, maybe two, at a time, spread the word, Vote NO On Prop 16
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 26 May 2010 10:36 )
Proposition 16 Part Two: Is two-thirds too high a bar?
Written by Alan Marsden
Wednesday, 26 May 2010 08:42
(watch news report top right of the page) "You gotta beat 16 or what do you get, another day older and deeper in debt, saint peter don't you call me cuz I ain't free. I owe my soul to PG&E."
Why would something with such an in-offensive name as "The Tax Payer's Right to Vote Act" meet such bitter opposition? Prop 16 would impose a new two-thirds voter approval requirement before local governments could spend public money to get into the electricity business. But editorials in newspapers around the state have come out against the ballot measure saying it would actually give customers less say about where their electricity comes from.
The California Public Utilities Commission was created nearly 100 years ago as a constitutional agency to protect consumers from the abuses of monopoly power.
Having observed firsthand the undue influence of Sacramento's hordes of railroad and other lobbyists in the state Capitol, Gov. Hiram Johnson placed the Railroad Commission, as it was originally named, in relatively distant San Francisco.