Member since Feb 16, 2010


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “PG&E Funds Anti-Green Measure

More misinformation by the proponents of Prop 16. Yes on 16 has to get his/her/its facts straight. The section quoted above ONLY applies to a local government's using "renewable" energies for its "own end use not for electric delivery service to others". The section implies that if a local municipal energy provider wants to provide renewable energy to the local power grid, hence the public that will receive said power, it will have to be put up to a 2/3 vote.

So, sure, your local public power company can build and develop all the wind farms, solar arrays, etc. it wants to, but provide that energy to the local grid??? Not if PG&E has anything to say about it!!!

I also get the feeling the above section can be construed as only applying to projects started or approved before Prop 16 passes, not after.

Posted by surfzombo13 on 02/17/2010 at 9:04 PM

Re: “PG&E Funds Anti-Green Measure

As the author of, and "administrator" of the Facebook group in, the first comment post, I must say that has been a one stop source of information for all things Prop 16 since I learned about the initiative and started the Facebook group. It is a great website and I encourage everybody interested in learning more about the truth behind the PG&E financed Proposition 16.


Posted by surfzombo13 on 02/17/2010 at 8:06 AM

Re: “PG&E Funds Anti-Green Measure

Exactly as the article says, Prop 16 would mandate that any local community who wants to expand or upgrade their public utilities, or implement green technologies such as solar or wind, has to hold a local election and must get a 2/3 majority before moving ahead with the project. Also, say you build a house just outside of the public utilities supply area, and you would like them to be your provider, under this loosely worded initiative, just to get hooked up would have go before a community vote and get a 2/3 majority.

Here's the rub. Many municipalities in California have been doing just fine running their own public utilities. Most publicly run utilities, though cheaper than PG&E, run more efficiently, actually run at a profit, and put more cash into the localities purse, keeping that money within a community. By putting any future projects to a vote will probably cost the community in terms of time put off on the project/s to hold the special election, money spent on it, and the possibility that the local measure, which the local area may need desperately, may not pass. A 2/3 majority is not an easy majority to obtain. Matter of fact, it is arguably one of the reasons our state is in the mess it is in. To be honest, if Prop 16 mandated a simple 51% majority vote, I would probably not be as opposed as I am. And since this measure is an amendment to our states constitution, it will take another proposition to annul it.

This measure, very deceptively named "Taxpayers Right to Vote", is financed entirely by PG&E, and I have come to the conclusion that it is actually a power grab, an effort by PG&E to further monopolize our state's power grid. Please vote NO on Prop 16. This measure is bad for California, and not needed.

If you would like to learn more, please check out our little grassroots Facebook group in opposition to this initiative.

Here's a link:…

Posted by surfzombo13 on 02/16/2010 at 1:23 PM

Most Popular Stories

© 2018 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation