Yuku free message boards

OTOH, revenue bonds must be *sold*, which means they have to have some way to get paid back (traditionally, revenue from cash flow). Prop H proponents suggest that w/o PGEs profits, exec salaries, and $8.2M dropped on elections like this, that there will be plenty of revenue both to lower rates and "green" sourcing, but also pay back those bonds.

OTOH, what I don't like about Prop H is its deceptively called a plan to 'green' energy sources. There are no guarentees the City will ever do that, and thats about as spurious as saying PGE will never green its sources.. What it silently does (well, in the fine print) is allow the City to buy up PGE and run it themselves. Whats doubtful is exactly how much consideration will be needed to give consent.

Have no doubt, there will be costs to this. PGE will move its HQ out of town, along with its employees and contractors and secondary suppliers's biz. We will also lose charitable donations the corp makes. Theres also the possibility of loses to Retirement Fund from potential drops in PGE stock price. And, of course, the tax base for all those buildings and license fees PGE now pays. I won't mention the literally tens of millions that will get spent on the lawyers. (Sometimes the 'cost of doing business' is enuf to put one out-of-business.)

Whether its worth it in terms of the possible 'profit' and 'salary' savings is a good question. If employee costs can be contained or reduced (one's a fat chance, the others a slim chance) -- things that hopefully would come out in a "study" -- AND cheap reliable sources of power can be procured (like Alameda, LA and Palo Alto), then we might actually see a good deal possible. However, one has got to wonder with the crew that drew up this prop if a realistic review will ever happen (at least befroe its too late). And the suspected savings aren't subsumed into other City agencies, in order to keep the proponents/backers of this potential pitfall *lookin good*.

Of course, the elimination on voting for those bonds is jsut another chink in the pie. After a realistic study, the public may jsut decide they would rather not hassle for a minimal return. But the pols will have their hands all over it by that time, and rationality will be as slippery to grasp as a hot hockey mom on a free Neimans spending spree.
-P