How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Opinion
I read with interest Jim Steele's opinion piece in LakeCoNews ( Steele: Community power choice aggregation is here, Sunday, May 24: http://bit.ly/1RipHFL ) and agree particularly with these points.
First, as a matter of course, decisions of magnitude should never be fast-tracked and the public should be encouraged to be involved in the vetting, especially when the county hasn't the resources or expertise to do so.
Second, while the $2 million inducement sounds wonderful ($500,000/quarter), is it guaranteed and is it competitive with what is offered elsewhere?
Thirdly, to rely on a required analysis that is generated by the benefactor of the contract would be incredibly naive, if not criminal.
I'm all for this initiative and choice in power and source production, I don't know if we can do any better than what's offered, but chances are – neither do you.
In engaging a competitive market place the usual course of action would be to put out a request for proposals so that you have a competitive process (as required by law), otherwise it appears some backroom deal was struck and now we're just going through the formalities.
I'm not saying that's happened, ever. But it can have that appearance and appearances, as with smoke, often indicate something is amiss. The community's confidence in the board suffers and then too does the progress the board can make.
To deal with these important issues the board needs the full community's support. Please begin to rebuild our trust in our elective officials and this institution.
Tim Williams lives in Clearlake, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Tim Williams
At Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors’ meeting an information item was presented by California Clean Power, a private company seeking a sole source contract from the county.
This is an important change in the way electrical power is delivered to Lake County customers.
You will have a choice of power suppliers that will provide electrical service over the existing Pacific Gas and Electric lines, and PG&E continues to provide all other electrical functions and charges.
This is called community choice aggregation (CCA) and was provided by California Assembly Bill 117 (2002 Stats., ch. 838).
CCA could bring the following benefits to a community: competitive, sometimes cheaper rates; consumer energy choice; environmentally friendlier electric supply; additional county revenue and programming designed for a community.
Wow, as one board member said, “This is a no brainer.”
I agree, on the surface this can be a game changer. A competitive choice of power is big.
What bothered me at the meeting and the reason that I argued not to forward this to the next meeting was the lack of community engagement before bringing such an item of countywide significance to a vote.
There is essentially one meeting to introduce the item, the next meeting to OK a sole source contract and an additional meeting for a second reading.
The same process took several years in Marin and Sonoma counties, where the program cut its teeth and we can benefit from hearing from their experience before launching this in Lake County. I love the idea, but you know about the devil and details.
The quick process of vetting this idea and voting on a 10-year obligation without a robust staff analysis available for public review may leave important unanswered questions.
I get that we don’t have technical staff resources for such an analysis but a community engagement process, where many eyes are on the topic, would serve as well.
In the meantime, this is on a fast track so I’d like to offer some questions and hope to hear back from folks before the next vote.
First, a feasibility analysis is required by law but this was provided by the company that stood to gain from the 10-year contract. This seemed a conflict to me and questions the objectivity of the analysis, particularly whether we can use power generated locally.
One board member wanted to use power from The Geysers, but we may not be able to afford that source or any other than the same suppliers to PG&E.
This is a competitive business. California law requires a 33-percent renewable source mix which may go to 50 percent under some legislative proposals so these sources can be an expensive bid. Our mix of outside to local power supply might not change.
Second, the sole source company will guarantee that total electrical rates will remain 2 percent below PG&E. But the company also indicated that there is so much room between the power cost to them and the PG&E rate that they can guarantee this. Perhaps we should negotiate the guarantee at 4 percent or even 10 percent.
I don’t know, I’m not an expert – none are on staff either – and we only have a glowing one-sided presentation so far.
The 2-percent per person will be a $750,000 per year savings to the people of Lake County; imagine the swing in savings for each percent increase.
Third, the company forecasts a public benefit payment to the county of $500,000 quarterly which really is a compelling reason to sign this deal.
But it reminds me of the deal offered on TV that promises a large cut in price for the first 10 callers. It makes you wonder what the final price really is if they can offer such a huge cut in price. So are $1 million payments to Lake County possible? Maybe not, but we will have to take that on faith.
My challenge to the public is to become involved in your government process, review this proposal online, check the details and help your supervisors make the best choices on your behalf.
This looks like a really good deal, is it?
Jim Steele represents District 3 on the Lake County Board of Supervisors. He lives in Clearlake Oaks. He can be reached via email at
- Details
- Written by: Jim Steele
On Tuesday, May 12, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors heard a presentation from “State of Jefferson” proponents that managed to be even more fanciful than the similar sales pitch made in Lake County last winter.
It included the usual litany of complaints – Northern California is somehow “unrepresented” in Sacramento, environmental regulations are destroying the economy, the state is wallowing in a morass of debt and taxes and crime, individuals and businesses are leaving in droves, etc.
Several speakers also made a passionate though equally delusional appeal for an unspecified form of “liberty” that seems to boil down to the elimination of any restrictions on their capacity to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible by any means possible, and as usual abundant patriotic rhetorical flourishes were accompanied by verbal assaults on both the state and the federal governments and by rampant confusion regarding our nation’s history.
But there were a few novelties this time, such as testimony by a self-styled “constitutional expert” from Santa Barbara (an “expert” with no academic or professional credentials) who spent more time arguing that what the state really needs is more state legislators than in opposing the one person/one vote principle of equal representation that has become the chief target of SOJ proponents.
The fantasy that elections are controlled by government employees who make up “50 percent or more of the electorate” also struck an inventive note.
Likely to be of particular interest to Lake County was the assertion by chief spokesman Mark Baird that “eight county governments” agree with the proposal to split the state – an outright falsehood uttered just seconds before his promise to “tell the absolute truth.”
Actually only six counties have endorsed secession: Glenn, Modoc, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama and Yuba. The total of eight is arrived at by including Lake and Lassen, whose Boards of Supervisors voted instead to put the issue on the 2016 ballot for the people to indicate their preference.
The effrontery of the SOJ proponents in listing these counties among their supporters demonstrates almost as much arrogance as it does deceptiveness.
For more information about the complex issues surrounding this proposal and a link to the video of the meeting visit www.KeepItCalifornia.org .
Victoria Brandon lives in Lower Lake, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Victoria Brandon
DJ’s Pizza parlor in Lower Lake hosted the April 29 pizza party fundraiser for the Adult Day Center in Clearlake.
On behalf of the ADC team and clients of the ADC Clearlake program, we wish to thank Kyle Fehr and his staff for another fantastic fund raiser.
The food and service were the best. All of the people who attended had a great time.
We raised enough money to provide scholarships for 52 two days of program time for our clients and provide the same number of days of respite for caregivers.
Thank you again.
Jenny Johnson is program director for the Adult Day Center in Clearlake, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Jenny Johnson