SUMMARY CONSIDERATIONS

City Council members, and individuals considering joining the CCA, should carefully consider the following factors:

The creation of a CCA will likely result in a faster, and "Greener" power supply system than PG&E thinks it can or should accomplish.

That does not mean that it will not happen with PG&E, which does have a plan and an implementation schedule.

Additionally, since the CCA enabling legislation was passed, California has enacted at the State-wide basis (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

However, as a society, we should be looking for methods to reduce our dependence on foreign oil as well as reducing CO2 emissions. This might result in a new set of definitions of "Green" - running from Red to Green depending upon the degree which each technology accomplishes our overall goals.

Any exuberance about the rate at which this change-over should be accomplished needs to be tempered by the BUY IN and BUY OUT costs that are inevitably incurred when you change from one system (that has already made an investment orentered into long term contracts on your behalf of each residence) to another which requires new investment. Those who wish a very rapid change must be willing to pay the price. Certainly, the price should not be paid by those who do not make the change.

The CCA cost comparisons should not be taken as Gospel. A more appropriate long range perspective on relative costs is to carefully consider why either CCA or PG&E should be able to bring about the required new systems at a lower cost.

In that regard, there appear to be only three factors potentially involved: No Profit Component, Use of Tax-Free Bonds, and Temporary Government Subsidies of Green Power Technologies.

The lack of a Profit component in the costs for CCA power should be balanced against the risk - inherent in all activities. In effect, the CCA cost projections should include the equivalent of profit as a contingency against this risk.

The use of tax-free bonds provides a local advantage over communities that do not make use of it but has No Net Societal Benefit since the taxes that are not paid on such bonds must be paid by the general community if we are to retain the same level of government funding.

While the government should, and does to a limited extent, provide subsidies to help establish new Green Power systems, the creation of a CCA is a long term commitment which will very likely go beyond the time table for these subsidies. Accordingly, any cost benefits should be determined without including the effects of temporary subsidies.

There are also legal considerations in that the creation of a system with two suppliers and two user groups using a single line distribution system will inevitably lead to litigation over which system was at fault for not supplying enough power when there is a brownout or rolling blackout.

Lastly, you may have "taxation without representation" if the Board of Directors of the new CCA are appointed in lieu of being elected. Alternatively, an election of the directors by only those who are members would be a difficult administrative task unless it were held by mail to the members only.

Since you will not be allowed to vote on this issue, click here to find a list of the Board of Supervisors and City Council Members so that you can contact them with your opinion on this subject.

Also, tell your friends that they need to become familiar with this subject, refer them to this site for information, and have them also contact their Board of Supervisors and City Council members who will be voting for them.

Comments about the facts and opinions expressed on this web site are welcomed.

Express your opinions publicly on http://marinpowerfacts.blogspot.com/ or

Send a private e-mail to GeneDyer@InBox.com.