HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-31-2015 B3 Distributed by Gordon MullinCOUNCIL MEETING:, 5
ITEM NO.:_
`.1
I oppose the Community Choice Aggregation concept per se and let me tell you
why.
First, let me suggest how this proposal could be structured. Today, in Texas, one
can choose to buy electricity from literally dozens of suppliers. You can go online
today, google "buy electricity Houston" and you'll find a long list of providers
from which residents can voluntarily choose. All the details are right there; it is
easy to compare; there are lots of choices- and no one forces you to do anything.
The reward and risk are all in private hands and no government entity beyond the
State Power commission, as regulator, plays any part. Hence, no taxpayer dollars
at risk.
Further all suppliers can comment freely on the details of their competitor's
plans.
Freedom of speech and a free market prevail. I can support that.
Now let's contrast that situation with the one before us.
The CCA mandates that local government entities assist in the financing which will
put taxpayers at risk. Why should government play any part, other than
legitimate regulation, in the distribution of what is a private good? Today, you
can freely choose to buy your phone services, both land line and cellular, from a
variety of private companies, and government does not get involved in either
financing, marketing or distribution. This CCA structure is an unneeded risk for
San Luis City taxpayers.
For those who claim that taxpayers will not be at risk, then I say- If there is no risk,
why ask for government support?
Moreover, why can the CCA entity force all existing ratepayers into the new
supplier? And please do not say that "well, any ratepayer can opt out," for we
know that there will be many, especially the elderly, who will not take the
initiative to change back. Many won't even know of the change. Ask yourself, do
you remember anything about the piece of paper that accompanied your last
electricity bill? I don't.
Where is there any other example of citizens being forced to change their buying
preferences other than through government coercion of this sort.
Further. Why only two entities? Why does the CCA mandate only one alternative
to PG &E? Why not open the floodgates and let any entity offer electricity- just
like todays phone market?
Frankly, I don't know. The legislature in Sacramento made this decision some
time back and it would be hubris on my part to guess as to why they wanted us to
only have one option to PG &E, force us to change providers and encourage local
government to assist in the funding.
However, this does remind me of a quote from one of my favorite Presidents -
Calvin Coolidge. He said - "it is more important to kill bad bills than support good
ones." This would be an excellent occasion to remember that well considered
sentiment.
Gin :31hu nc cmmn mmv haves nntirarl Pr A P is not hres to rnmmant %A/h%/ nt Tha
......r, . ..w7 ... ,. , . — ._ __ __ ,
..._
answer is that the California Public Utilities Commission has put a muzzle on PG &E
to keep them from commenting on the pros and cons of this ill- conceived
proposal. The first amendment rights of the principle player in this process has
been infringed so that the scales of judgement could be tilted in favor of the CCA
entity.
In my view, yet another reason to reject this proposal.
So I ask, please, say no tonight, before taxpayers' dollars and staff time gets
invested into this and it gains an inertia of its own.
Please, just say no.
Respectfully,
Gordon Mullin