Week after week it's disheartening to see the uninformed and propagandistic opinion pieces about community choice energy (CCE) in New Times.
Roberta Fonzi's piece ("More questions than answers," Aug. 15) was full of pregnant questions whose answers lie a few clicks away, indicating the poor knowledge base behind this elected official's opposition to CCE.
Michael Mullen spins a fantasy CCE that is going to steal funds from schools ("Enslaving the future," Aug. 22). It will have no impact on school funding. He apparently doesn't understand that CCE is only about electricity, which doesn't contribute to school funds. All taxable physical facilities PG&E owns will remain PG&E's.
On the other side is Andrew Christie's repetitive hype that CCE represents the Second Coming and will save the earth. That's propaganda. CCE as planned could well lead to exterminating many endangered species because the renewable energy path its leaders have chosen appropriates ever greater quantities of habitat lands.
I remain a friendly skeptic of CCE. It may have benefits, but we really don't know that much. Our city's lack of honest talk doesn't help. We're only four months out from CCE's arrival, and we still don't know much about it. Why?
For readers interested in a more nuanced critique of CCE, see my two lengthy pieces in CalCoastNews, which gives commentators the space they need to explore their subjects.
San Luis Obispo