Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for Nov. 2, 2025

Supporting ‘green’ power goals of MCE is important for future

IJ reporter Steven Rosenfeld’s four-part series titled “Friction at MCE,” published from Oct. 26 through Oct. 30, certainly was noteworthy. I especially appreciated coverage of the cost-to-customer points made by Dawn Weisz, the dedicated CEO of MCE (formerly Marin Clean Energy), our local “community choice aggregation” energy alternative.

Many credit Weisz, along with former Marin County Supervisor Charles McGlashan, for playing a key role in guiding MCE’s launch and development (with a nod to Rebekah Collins, co-founder of Sustainable Fairfax).

As early and enthusiastic customers of MCE, my husband and I understood from the very beginning that we would likely be paying more than we paid for electricity from the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. We were always clear on the options — we liked that we could choose between “light” and “dark.” And, to this day, we are still glad to pay a bit extra to support the development of environmentally “green” power.

Everything in life isn’t about cost. Cost is a consideration but not the most important one here. What about health? What about societal values? Sure, our electricity needs to be as affordable as possible, but – like Weisz and the thousands of forward-thinking supporters and customers of MCE – we know that producing electricity as much as possible from energy sources that are naturally replenished (while not generating climate-changing greenhouse gases) has to be our first and best choice.

For just a few extra dollars, we feel that we are buying into insurance for the health of our planet – and of our children and grandchildren.

Electricity is one of our most valuable yet under-appreciated commodities. With each passing year, technology demands more and more power – and so do we. It’s up to us to choose which energy sources we use to generate that power. I applaud MCE for offering us that choice.

— Marilyn Nemzer, Tiburon

MCE appears to duplicate many of PG&E’s services

I am writing in regard to the IJ’s four-part series that began Oct. 26. Entitled “Friction at MCE,” it details issues with Marin’s “community choice aggregation” energy alternative to Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

From what I can tell, there is nothing MCE does that PG&E can’t do. MCE does not generate power, it does not deliver power and it does not maintain the power delivery system. Additionally, I am able to request and pay PG&E directly for whatever combination of “green” power sources I desire.

Of course, once the power goes into the grid, it appears that everyone gets the same mix. There doesn’t seem to be a way to separate the power into a variety of sources as it is delivered to one’s home. It seems to me that a lot of money is being spent on an unnecessary duplication of effort.

— Victor Reizman, San Rafael

Neighbors need time to discuss plan with city

I am writing in response to the article published Oct. 16 with the headline “San Rafael, Marin County to provide small dwellings for homeless.” The plan appears to call for lockable cabins to provide shelter for those interested residents currently residing in the sanctioned Mahon Creek encampment. The tiny homes are planned for 350 Merrydale Road.

On the surface, any program for the homeless that provides housing, even temporarily, is a step above the usual and should be applauded. However, this project is not without issues and detractors. The local neighborhood where this project is slated is represented by the Rafael Meadows homeowners association, of which I am a member. Most of us were blindsided by the news of this project. By Oct. 20, our HOA had mobilized, holding a well-attended meeting at the local pizzeria.

By the next evening at the scheduled San Rafael City Council meeting, about 12 of my neighbors got up to comment on the issue. They were all vehemently against the project. Problems cited included the site being close to where children play and close to daycare centers. There are concerns about sanitation, as well as worries about issues related to drug usage and mental illness.

I think this blindsiding was deliberate. It seems to be an attempt to ram the project through before local residents have a chance to organize and explain their opposition.

I feel the time frame for this project needs to be delayed so that both sides can more fully explore and explain their positions to each other. Who knows? Maybe we can come up with a plan both sides can agree on.

— Bernie Samet, San Rafael