Marinwood CSD wants to raise taxes on you,too

Hours after Californians learned that the State is raising taxes on gas, water and sewer, we find out that the Marinwood CSD wants to raise taxes on you too. Come to the Marinwood CSD meeting on Tuesday, April 11th at  7:30 PM. See the agenda HERE

CA Is Heading Due Left and You Are Paying For It.

Thomas Del Beccaro ,  

 CONTRIBUTOR

I try to place politics in perspective.  

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

The 2016 election is in the books.  President Trump won the vote that counts – the Electoral College vote.  California went for Hillary and its governing politicians are fighting Trump tooth and nail. Indeed, rather than adjust to the rest of the nation, California is headed due left.  Below is a list of just how far Left it is headed and how you – yes, you - are paying for it.

Before we get to the list, we should note how uniquely Left California really is.  Plainly stated, of all the large states in America that regularly cast their Electoral College votes for Democrats, California is by far the most lopsided to the Left.

Washington State votes Democrat each Presidential Election – but it has no income tax.  That is certainly a policy of the Right not the Left.  Oregon reliably votes Left as well – but it regularly lands in the top 20% of states as a place to do business.

Even New York, quite the liberal state in most people’s eyes, is downright balanced compared to California. Not only is there a Conservative Party of New York that matters, the State Legislature is somewhat balanced.  This year, although the Democrats dominate the New York Assembly, working with independent Democrats, according to the New York Times, “has allowed [Republicans] to control the chamber.” Before that, after the 2010 elections, Republicans had outright control of the Senate chamber.

California is anything but balanced. For two decades now, the Democrats have owned both chambers of the legislature – now with supermajorities in the Senate and the Assembly. That means they can pass any law they want, including higher taxes, without a single Republican vote.

Finally, keep in mind that California government, from the city council level to the state level, is over $1.3 trillion in debt – and growing because of pension and medical care promises made by those governments. Oh, and don’t forget that California’s highest income rate is 13.3% - 50% higher than New York’s top rate – and the nation’s highest poverty rate. See article.

,

Assemblyman Fong and Gov Brown argue Gas Tax

Beware Of Latest Energy Scam: Community Choice Aggregators

WRITTEN BY: MICHAEL HOSKINSON APRIL 6, 2017

Any modern energy initiative is guaranteed to have a Technocrat planner. This story comes directly from an involved participant who is fighting against his local Community Choice Aggregator project. Be assured that this “scheme” will roll out into cities across America, where citizens will be deceived and bewildered, especially when their electricity rates unexpectedly rise.

Other names for the same scheme include: Community Choice Energy (CCE), Municipal Aggregation, Governmental Aggregation, Electricity Aggregation and Community Aggregation. As of 2014, 1,300 municipalities were directly affected.⁃ TN Editor

So what is a CCA exactly?

Essentially it is a government created and controlled middle-man that brokers energy contracts on behalf of consumers. Instead of paying Southern California Edison (SCE) directly residents would pay the Community Choice Aggregator of power (CCA). The CCA would then leverage the buying power gained by pooling consumers to purchase energy contracts. The hope is that the CCA would then use this buying power to purchase energy contracts at an affordable price from sources that provide cleaner energy than SCE would normally offer.

The choice part of a CCA is that instead of just paying the one rate afforded by SCE, consumers could choose from various cleaner options to meet their energy needs. For example, Marin Clean Energy (MCE), a CCA touted as a successful model, offers consumers three choices: Light Green (50% renewable), Deep Green (100% renewable), or Sol Shares (100% through local solar farm). As to be expected, the greener options typically would cost the consumer significantly more. In the MCE plan, the Sol Shares rates are 30% higher than the rates paid by those that choose the Deep Green option.

Claims

Proponents of CCA claim that it will bring cleaner energy to communities at more affordable rates. As a government run not-for-profit, instead of paying dividends to shareholders investor owned utilities( IOU’s), they claim the CCA will be able to reinvest profits into developing local green energy sources that could provide jobs and power to local communities.

Risks – Downsides – Facts

One of the downsides is that if the CCA is not successful that taxpayers will likely be caught holding the bag. In San Francisco a CCA was suspended
after expending $4.1 million dollars. Another report indicated that in the SF example electricity rates were set to increase by nearly 5 times.

With our current power model, we supposedly have government regulators working on our behalf to ensure entities like SCE are not behaving badly. Whether those regulators are doing a good job is definitely a question up for debate, but with a CCA it is not clear what regulation, if any, they would have. Rates under a CCA would not be regulated by a government agency; instead they would be set by the CCA’s Board of Directors (or City Council) – which typically is comprised of locally elected officials. In addition, how are we to know whether the energy purchased by a CCA is actually cleaner? And who’s to keep the CCA from paying their directors and consultants outlandish salaries and benefits?

Those are exactly the concerns raised by one energy expert with regard to the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) CCA. In startling allegations, energy expert Jim Phelps has claimed that MCE has actually cost consumers more while providing energy that is less clean than PG&E (the local IOU) was providing. According to his analysis, the primary beneficiaries of MCE, which has 22 employees according to the City staff report, appears to be the directors and consultants of the organization that are bilking taxpayers out of millions of dollars a year.

MCE, which consists of the county of Marin, all 11 of Marin’s municipalities and the city of Richmond, serves as the retail electricity provider for 124,000 customers. The county of Napa and the cities of Albany and San Pablo have asked permission to join the authority, which could add another 27,000 customers. And a group of San Francisco supervisors has expressed interested in having the city, with its 475,000 residential and nonresidential electricity accounts, join the Marin agency.
The authority, which competes with the investor-owned Pacific Gas and Electric Co., was founded primarily to reduce greenhouse gas production by boosting the use of renewable energy sources. Fifty percent of the authority’s energy comes from renewable sources, while renewable sources account for 20 percent of PG&E’s energy.

Green Washing

Phelps focused his critique on MCE’s use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). RECs are tradable commodities that certify that 1 megawatt-hour of electricity has been generated from an eligible renewable energy resource.

“These are just like going to the store buying a loaf of bread and getting a receipt,” Phelps said.

He added, “Lots of big companies buy certificates because they feel like it helps the environment. They don’t really know what is going on, that’s just their own visceral sensibility.”

Phelps asserted that clean-energy agencies, such as MCE, purchased RECs to cloak their use of “system power.” He said system power, the mainstay of the electrical grid, consists mainly of energy generated by burning natural gas and coal. That is important because coal and gas produce greenhouse gas emissions, while renewable energy sources don’t.

“What happens is they buy a REC, and it is pasted on the front of this brown power,” Phelps said. “Then they report to you, the consumers, that this is clean energy; but it’s not.” This is known as “green washing”.

Phelps analyzed the MCE’s power mix substituting system power, which has an emission rate of 944 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, for all of the authority’s RECs. From that he concluded that MCE is producing more greenhouse gas emissions than PG&E.
Phelps also criticized the authority for waiting more than a year to purchase 10,500 RECs that reduced its greenhouse gas emission rates in 2011.

Phelps said, “What had happened was MCE’s emission rate was higher than PG&E’s so they went in the market afterwards and they bought those 10,500 instruments so they could undercut PG&E” in a contrived green washing scheme.

With an uncertain economy, a strained City budget, and roads still in disrepair now is not the time to embark upon a risky government run enterprise that strays so far from core government service.

Here’s how [CCA] works. Local government agencies form a new, semi- invisible government agency to purchase and sell electricity. The local utility company, such as PG&E, provides transmission, distribution, and customer billing services for a fee paid by the new agency’s customers. All people who live and do business in the area become customers of the new agency unless they ask to “opt out.”

The new agency must compete with the local utility company for customers. Government can make everyone their customer for a moment, but then they have to keep them. So what’s their pitch? Is the energy they’re selling greener than, say, PG&E? Is it cheaper? Is it managed by superior experts in the energy industry?

At the end of the day, Community Choice Agencies offer nothing to consumers. They simply cannot compete, long-term, with local utility companies. Facts don’t deter special interest groups that worship at the altar of Climate Change, profit from government contracts and urge government expansion with tireless zeal. Good sense demands that public officials resist the temptation to jump on this bandwagon.
Energy is a long-term business. Procurement contracts are non-cancellable and can span 30-40 years into the future. Cities that join CCAs are on the hook for large, long-term financial obligations. When things turn south (as they surely will), member agencies are stuck because they cannot afford to exit the program.

For example, as of March 31, 2015 Marin Clean Energy had outstanding non-cancelable power purchase commitments of approximately $886.5 million for energy and related services through October 31, 2041. This equates to more than $52 million for each of MCE’s 17 members, which include the Contra Costa cities of El Cerrito, Richmond, and San Pablo. As of June 30, 2015, Sonoma Clean Power had non-cancelable power purchase related commitments of approximately $505.3 million for energy that has not yet been provided under power purchase agreements that continue to December 31, 2026. This equates to more than $56 million for each of SCP’s 9 member agencies.

Once a county or city government gets into the energy business they can’t get out, short of losing their shirts and abandoning the enterprise altogether, as happened in Hercules, CA. CCAs are destined to become just another government money pit that will increase the burden of
government debt our children and grandchildren must pay for such obligations as Contra Costa County’s $1.7 billion in unfunded pension and retiree healthcare promises.

Most of MCE’s Deep Green energy is based on a paper trading scheme, known as a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC). Each REC is produced by a renewable energy resource, such as a windfarm in Washington or an industrial scale solar farm somewhere in the US.

One REC represents one megawatt- hour (MWh) of energy from the windfarm. In the case of MCE, Washington keeps the wind energy and
MCE buys its inexpensive RECs, giving MCE the right to tell everyone it is the one that’s green — not the wind farm.

But since MCE still needs to deliver actual electricity to its Marin customers, it purchases cheap gas-fired power, then reports that REC to governing agencies. Voila — “clean” gas-fired energy! And it’s all perfectly legal.

Legal, yes. But not particularly ethical or responsible to MCE customers, some of whom, thanks to MCE’s misleading marketing tactics, still believe they get “green electricity” through their light sockets.

Worse still, by using RECs, something bad and BIG has indeed changed – – greenhouse gas emissions are not decreasing, as the agency claims, but actually increasing because MCE is adding to the demand for gas-fired power plants. The more RECs it buys, the more demand it creates for gas- fired power — and the more emissions it produces.

The inherent fallacy of RECs is that they don’t clean anything. And at $2.50 each, they do not stimulate the construction of more renewables, as MCE claims. The real winners in the REC scheme are the regions around that Washington windfarm or out-of-county (or even out- of-state) industrial solar farm.

Those regions are the ones who get the truly clean energy — from their “steel-in-ground,” locally generated renewable resource. And those regions aren’t emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) either, — as with MCE’s version of “clean power.” They also benefit from Marin’s money from the REC purchases.

So much for the “local benefits” of Deep Green.

The solution is for MCE to deliver renewable power to its Marin customers while also purchasing the RECs – – a transaction technically known as “Category 1 renewable energy” (or “Bucket 1”). It’s more expensive than
MCE’s “clean” gas-fired model, but it better conforms to MCE’s representations of “renewable energy” and it eliminates shell games.

---

Jim Phelps is a life-long Marin resident. He is fluent in electricity pricing and rate structures, and owns one of the largest residential photovoltaic systems in Marin County.

Will SMART be buried in a landslide or just debt?

A really revealing report about the landslide in San Rafael that SMART wanted to keep secret. Thanks to alert citizens and Channel 4, we now have decent information on the slide that could cost taxpayers millions and threaten the future of SMART.

Landslide smaller than the one in San Rafael, derails a freight train

Gas Taxes

Senate OKs 12-cent gas tax hike for road fixes

By Katy Murphy, Bay Area News Group

POSTED: 04/06/17, 8:55 PM PDT | UPDATED: 35 SECS AGO

0 COMMENTS

SACRAMENTO >> With one Republican vote, the California Senate narrowly mustered the support it needed to pass a $52 billion transportation package with a two-thirds vote, a proposal to fix California’s pothole-ridden roads and unstable bridges by hiking gas taxes and vehicle license fees.

It passed 27-11, and moved to the Assembly, where it also was expected to pass narrowly.

Democrats have Sen. Anthony Cannella to thank. The Republican from Ceres See MARIN IJ

"Swing Vote" Lawmakers Now Stand to Gain Millions For Their Districts In Last-minute AB-1 Deal-Making

"Swing Vote" Lawmakers Now Stand to Gain Millions For Their Districts In Last-minute AB-1 Deal-Making Outrageous.  The Sacramento Bee reports today (Thurs. 4/6/17) that Gov. Brown and Legislative Leaders began striking last-minute $$$$$ big bucks deals with "swing-vote" politicians to pass AB-1, the unpopular gas and diesel tax bill that would raise gas and diesel taxes in perpetuity, and would also set a $100 DMV fees for electric cars.  Faced with faltering votes in the State Assembly for gas tax bill AB-1, Brown and other legislative leaders are striking "deals giving nearly $1 Billion in road project funding to the districts of wavering lawmakers."(Sacramento Bee, 4/6/17) AB-1 (also called SB-1) would increase gas and diesel taxes the first year and then, beginning in 2020, adjust every year with inflation in perpetuity - forever.  There is no sunset - no timeline like other taxes of 5 or 10 years allowing the public to audit and vet how their transportation dollars have been spent. AB-1 is forever. It includes a $100 DMV fee for  electric cars. The public does not get to vote on it. AB-1 is decided by politicians in Sacramento. Meanwhile, the billions we already pay in transportation fees have been funneled into the General Fund and diverted. The result? AB-1. Polls show AB-1 is very unpopular with the public, and that's why its passage was wavering in the assembly today.  If AB-1 now passes because of favors curried to swing vote politicians, I do not believe it will not go over well with Californian voters, especially lower income and middle class Californians who will feel the most pain from AB-1. Tell Sacramento NO to swing-vote deal-making. Contact our Representative Marc Levine, using the contact information below.    Read the article -- Click HERE or copy and paste this link: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article143222444.html

TAKE ACTION NOW: CALL Assembly Member Marc Levine and tell him to vote NO on AB-1. Marin -- 415-479-4920 Sacramento - 916-319-2010 Email:  assemblymember.levine@assembly.ca.gov

America's Socialist Origins

What's wrong with Socialism?

Stockholm Syndrome, The Rape Capital of Europe.

SMART construction crews shoring up Landslide in San Rafael 4/3/2017

Tons of Soil slide onto SMART train tracks in January 2017 and SMART officials kept the disaster hid from the public until it was reported by the Marin IJ on 4/3/2017 based on a tip from the neighbor.  The SMART train has had disaster,  technical problems with Signalling,  Train Engine defects and more.  This latest cover up is no surprise to Citizen watchdogs.  The next fiasco involves moving the San Rafael bus terminal and extending the track to Larkspur.  The cost over runs have been enormous and the plans have been scaled back from the project voted for.  If a referendum were taken today,  SMART would lose.

Abandoning the Left for Libertarian ideas.

COVER UP!: SMART train halted by Landslide for Several Week!

The SMART train has not been operating for several weeks due to a landslide at Lincoln Hill.

What is other problems is SMART trying to hide?  Funding shortfalls?  Mechanical failures? Budget Overruns?   Can we TRUST the SMART Management and BOARD to tell us the TRUTH?

The "SMART" train is looking very dumb

Shake it Off: Obama Version

Will you have to make your Home Accessible for Section 8?

If you rent a room to a person on Section 8,  will you have to make your Home Accessible?

The Marin County Board of Supervisors made it far more risky to rent a room in your home on March 21, 2017.  They created an ordinance that makes it illegal to "income discriminate" against Section 8 tenants.   While the supervisors claim that no one is required to rent to any individual, it sets a legal trap for a potential landlord if he does not strictly follow the HUD guidelines.  It will be a gift for litigation attorneys but will hurt homeowners and small landlords the most.

If you accept Section 8, you will be required to for HUD rule Section 504.    There are a bunch of regulations aimed at the professional landlord and management company which you should read before renting your home.   

Will you have to remodel your home to be "accessible"?  Will you have to accommodate mentally handicapped individuals?   I think the answer is "yes" but I am not an attorney.  

This ordinance is so wrong because people rent rooms to assist in expenses and NOT to take on more debt and legal liability.  It is moderate income homeowners that are hurt the most.