Monday, November 07, 2005

vote it up

From Amelie, here's the website to find where to vote tomorrow. I'm voting yes on 79 and 80 and no on the rest cuz that's what Brew told me to do.


Anonymous said...

vote no on 80 as well, that is, unless you want to fuck over small communities in norcal.

Anonymous said...

You're going to have to explain a little further if you're going to convince anyone anonymous. Is that because small communities might have to pay higher rates if their direct access untility companies are regulated by the PUC?

Alice said...

i get some insider news at my job on this stuff and i guess prop 80 is considered redundant at the CPUC cause a lot of those regulations are being developed and implemented through their own hearing process right now and don't need to be enforced by a public initiative. but, i guess it never really hurts to double up on it. that said, i don't really understand the issue well enough to endorse one way or the other. despite the fact that i've been reading this shit for the past year, it's still a foreign language to me.

Alice said...

ok. don't listen to what i wrote above. i put splenda in my earl grey tea and i think i was hallucinating. btw, that stuff is disgusting and i don't recommend it to anyone.

i just talked to my boss who deals a tad with energy issues and he helped me tease apart my bizarre misunderstanding (i was actually thinking of an initiative that didn't make it on the ballot in the above post).

so yeah, if you vote yes on prop 80 you'll basically be making it so that everyone in cali (including businesses) will have to get their energy through the electricity service providers which are regulated by the california public utilities commission (unless you get your electricity through a municipality that is not state-governed like SMUD). apparently, the CPUC is a bit inept at managing rates and resources so some of the big names in the energy industry aren't even taking a position on this prop (southern california edison stands to gain business by a 'yes' vote on this but they don't like the CPUC so they haven't taken a position).

however, if you vote 'yes', that also means that certain businesses will have to revert to retail energy when their direct access (basically a wholesale way of getting your watts) contracts expire. this will not affect your average joe on the street. the effects of certain large businesses having to pay more for electricity isn't probably going to up the cost of your veggies or your doctor visits. but, it will affect the stock market a bit.

the only reason to vote 'no' that i can think of is if you have stocks or you just really believe in the right of certain large users to get their energy at a reduced rate and think the california public utilities commission is bad at managing things. if you vote 'yes' it means that large customers won't be able to exit the retail market. one of the reasons folks don't want them to exit the retail market is because of concern over "stranded costs"--the rest of us having to make up the revenue requirement as ok'd by the CPUC with our monthly electricity payments. But again, it won't make much of a difference if you only have SMUD cause they don't even operate in the same system as PG&E, SDG&E and SCE--it's really complicated, dudez.

so, there's the run down. personally, i might vote 'no' cause everyone that i know who studies this shit for a living can't exactly figure out any real benefits (other than rhetorical) for the prop and it gives a governor-appointed and semi-inept board a lot of power over our energy prices. the folks that know a lot about the market don't think this will save small customers any money and think it will just result in a power grab that could bite us in the ass later down the line. but, who's to say.

well. . .that's all i gotta say on the matter and you probably won't read it before you vote.

Anonymous said...

"the only reason to vote 'no' that i can think of is if you have stocks or you just really believe in the right of certain large users to get their energy at a reduced rate"

but there's more to it than that: for example, 'certain large users' include hospitals, universities and community colleges. and if we limit their ability to negotiate providers, the extra costs incurred by the aforementioned institutions likely will be passed on to the taxpayers.

furthermore, all this talk of establishing standards for renewable energy is a complete fallacy. any conservation/environmental regulations would have to be approved by 2/3 of the state legislature. at this juncture, that seems unlikely.

energy is not black and white. i'm voting "NO" and hoping that future public forums will address all sides and all interested parties in the energy debate. as with PROP 77, let's not try to solve a problem with ostensibly haphazard solutions.