"How do you think PG&E funds opening a new coal-fired plant, resource exploration projects, or deals with increasing coal and gas prices? Out-of-pocket spending to spare the Bay Area residents? Don't think so. That is a direct increase in rates for the ratepayers."
The increase in price would be minimal, basically pennies, because PG&E has a bigger costumer base to draw funds from. Much bigger than anything San Francisco could draw from. PG&E doesn't just provide for San Francisco, it provides utilities to much of Central and Northern California. More customers means more money, San Francisco just doesn't have that option and will put it's "customers" in the poor house long before what they provide is affordable.
"Although an immediate price-hike may not be as dramatic as the one proposed by CleanPower SF, it is significantly greater than $6.52 over the last decades, and will only continue increasing in the future as coal and gas become more expensive. CleanPower SF might cost citizens more in the short-run, but eventually will become cheaper than PG&E rates."
Mostly because of legislation, that's the only way San Francisco could be the viable option. San Francisco and Sacramento would have to legislate PG&E and any other energy company out of existence.
"Plus, would you rather be giving your dollars to an investor-owned utility who has to be loyal to its shareholders, or a municipal government who has to be loyal to its constituents?"
That's a fantastic question. I read it as - Would you like to be shot in the foot or shot in the chest? Shoot me in the foot, I would like to give my dollars to an investor-owned utility who has to be loyal to its shareholders. They have to make money, in order to do so they have to keep prices low to be competitive with other utility providers. Everyone likes more affordable prices and will go with the company that provides it,
Howard, you are so correct. There is nothing government can do or provide that would be competitive with private companies providing the same product. This article already says that 100,000 people will be charged $6.50 more than what they would be charged if they were to stick with PG&E, then they go on to say you can purchase an offset to make the price the city provides the customer more competitive to PG&E. No one didn't stop and just laugh their rear ends off at that? So I have to spend money on something provided by the government in order to bring down the cost of something provided by the government. Does that make sense to anyone? The cost doesn't go down at all, heck, it probably causes it to be even more expensive. I feel bad for those 100,000 being forced into this program. Have they figured out what the credits would be? I hope it's something really intelligent. PG&E already provides discounts if you have a solar panel on your roof and even pays the costumer if they were energy neutral enough to provide energy back to the company. Best of luck competing with that San Francisco.
The San Francisco Examiner
Website powered by Foundation