pages: CityCouncil/2010-03-02.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-03-02 | 4 | Not adopted. Councilmember Tam stated that she would recuse herself from the item. Acting Mayor Matarrese moved approval of continuing the item to the March 16, 2010 Council meeting. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated that she would still like to hear an explanation of the proposition tonight and again at the next meeting. The Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager gave a brief presentation. Acting Mayor Matarrese inquired whether voter approval would be needed from people within transmission line areas if Alameda procures power that has to go through [new] transmission lines. The AMP General Manager responded voter approval would be needed to build new transmission lines; stated load is growing; eventually, public power systems will need to build new transmission lines; Alameda should be fine serving Alameda Point within the existing service territory; however, not everyone is taking the same viewpoint; some people think that [Proposition 16's impact on] service within a city is unclear. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the proposition is directed to municipal power companies. The AMP General Manager responded the proposition is not only directed to existing municipal power companies who may be entrusted in expanding service territories but also include entities such as Marin County, which has undertaken efforts to create a community choice aggregation system. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the proposition would make things more difficult for government entities to either make it in business or expand, to which the AMP General Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the proposition would not place any restraints on investor-owned companies such as Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), to which the AMP General Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether competing with entities such as PG&E would be harder for municipalities and government-owned power companies [if Proposition 16 passes]. The AMP General Manager responded in the affirmative; stated AMP does not compete head-to-head; annexations occur at green field site areas and would be a place for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 March 2, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-03-02.pdf |