WTF@$%&#...

[zengar]

I'm one of those people who actually tries to be familiar with the proposals on the ballot before hand, especially since one Maine question a few years back regarding gay couple's rights was so artfully written that "yes" meant no and "no" meant yes. (I can't recall whether the question was for or against)

I've been having some real problems doing this with the San Francisco Clean Energy Act. I can find no indications of what the actual wording is or what it will actually do, merely endless variations and repetitions on the material from the proponent's website or the opposition's page. Not only do these two sites sound like they are talking about almost completely different bills, neither of them provides any sort of external support for their interpretation. At the bottom of the clean energy act site's "about" page there is a section of text in a [blockquote] format that looks like it may be the text of the act, but nowhere does it say so or even that it is actually a quote from somewhere else.

Anyone know where I can find out whether PG&E is using scare tactics to maintain a monopoly or whether the board members are trying to use dislike of PG&E to grant themselves powers we would be wise to keep away from them? I have a sneaking suspicion that the answer is "yes" to both.

Comments

the problem is...

[njudah.livejournal.com]

The problem is that the proponents keep using the banner of "Clean Energy", which let's face it no one is going to be against at the start, but they put front-loaded language in the measure to try and force public power through.

if they want to have a vote up or down on the concept of a publicly owned electric and gas utility, then that is what they should do. As it stands they're just "hoping" PG and E can't meet their standards so they can take over the utility. But here's the catch - they'd replace enforceable state standards with unenforceable local standards. That is, they could force out PG and E with a bond issue, take it over, but then decide it's easier to pay back the billions in assumed debt with coal, nuclear, or hydro power.

I used to live in Seattle which had public power, but the situation up there is much different. Yes they have had public power since forever, but they also get subsidized hydro from the Bonneville Power Administration, and they paid off their capital costs decades ago.

And for true public power fun, check out the record of WUPPS - the Washington public power system that built three mile island reactors all over the state!