News

Simitian's green-energy bill clears Legislature

Senator's proposal would require utilities to draw 33 percent of energy from renewable sources by 2020

A proposal by Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, to require California utilities to obtain a greater share of their electricity from renewable sources is now one signature away from becoming the law of the land.

Simitian's proposal, known as Senate Bill 2X, passed the Assembly Tuesday (March 29) 55-19 and is now heading to Gov. Jerry Brown for final approval. The bill cleared the state Senate in February.

Simitian's bill would require utilities to obtain 33 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind or geothermal technology by 2020. Currently, the utilities are required to meet a 20 percent target for renewable energy by 2020.

"This bill establishes California as the national leader in clean energy, improving the environment and stimulating the economy, while protecting ratepayers from excessive costs," Simitian said in a prepared statement after the Assembly vote.

Simitian has tried to raise the renewable-energy standards in the past only to see his bill vetoed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The new bill would also allow utilities to get exemptions from the California Public Utility Commission if the costs of acquiring renewable energy or plugging into the state's power grid prove too steep.

The new law would apply to both investor-owned utilities such as PG&E and to municipal utilities like Palo Alto's. The city already has a goal of getting 33 percent of its electric load from renewable sources by 2015.

In his statement, Simitian expressed optimism that the rising costs of fossil fuels and the growing demand for energy would continue to make renewable sources more viable. He also said the new mandate will encourage green energy providers to come to California.

"Senate Bill 2X sends a signal to renewable energy providers that California wants them here," Simitian said. "They will respond, as they have in the past, with billions of dollars in investments that will provide jobs and tax revenues."

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by safe energy
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 29, 2011 at 5:29 pm

Has a windmill or solar panel ever caused a disaster like the Exxon oil spill in Alaska or the BP oil spill in the Gulf or the Japanese nuclear problem? Safety is reason enough to switch to wind and solar power.


Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 29, 2011 at 5:40 pm

Simple question: What is "green energy"...or, by another name, "renewable energy"?


Like this comment
Posted by More-Bad-Simitian-Law
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 29, 2011 at 6:43 pm

This is nuts. We need a long think about just how much power our legislature should have. Simitian is more interested in political power and moving up the political pecking order than promoting laws that are achievable, and not destructive to our energy industry, and our way of life.


Like this comment
Posted by safe energy
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 29, 2011 at 7:44 pm

The bill passed the State Senate and the State Assembly by overwhelming majority votes. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 29, 2011 at 8:42 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Safe energy means no energy.


Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2011 at 7:00 am

"Has a windmill or solar panel ever caused a disaster like the Exxon oil spill in Alaska or the BP oil spill in the Gulf or the Japanese nuclear problem? Safety is reason enough to switch to wind and solar power."

People that make statements like this display a high degree of ignorance when it comes to our energy needs, and unfortunately, this ignorance is pervasive in government. Wind and solar currently provide between 1% - 2% of our energy needs. The "green, clean," energy proponents refuse to understand the scale of this country's (and the world's) energy needs. Our needs cannot be met by unreliable, inefficient, and expensive energy sources such as solar or wind power. These sources can supplement our energy portfolio, but they will never replace energy-dense fossil fuels or nuclear energy.


Like this comment
Posted by anon62
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2011 at 10:33 am

I'm sorry, but the comment by ten18 is the ignorant one... The reason that solar and wind power is (in ten18's words) "inefficient" and "expensive" is that our country has not put it enough resources behind these sources of energy. The more we research and use these cleaner sources of energy, the better we will be at using them and the more efficient they will become. Fossil fuels were also expensive, unreliable, and inefficient in their early days. If solar and wind power were backed by billions of dollars, the way fossil fuels are, these would become efficient and inexpensive as well.


Like this comment
Posted by coooper
a resident of another community
on Mar 30, 2011 at 10:48 am

Well said, ten18. I would ask Simitian, what's the emergency that we should enact this massive capital enterprise in just 9 years? Is the goal to import billions of dollars in solar panels from China, while simultaneously idling natural-gas power generation so as to up the percentage to 33%? Will consumers get used to brownouts when the wind dies off? Why not make incentives to use more of California's own oil and gas? Was this truly an "overwhelming" legislative decision, or was it yet another example of politically charged dysfunction?


Like this comment
Posted by Arch Conservative
a resident of Menlo Park
on Mar 30, 2011 at 10:52 am

The state is facing a $25 billion defict and the State Senator is touting "Green Energy". Do what we are payiing you for- Balance the D _ _ _ budget!


Like this comment
Posted by Emily Renzel
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 30, 2011 at 10:55 am

Wind and solar power may be "green" in the sense that they are not carbon producing, but they have many harmful effects on wildlife -- particularly wind turbines which regularly chop up migrating raptors.


Like this comment
Posted by Judith
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Mar 30, 2011 at 11:26 am

In answer to Craig's question: "renewable" energy comes from sources that you can't use up, like sunlight, wind, waves, geothermal,etc. and unlike oil, gas and coal. That's the "renewable" part. The "green" part describes the lack of carbon-containing emissions that contribute to global climate change.

Emily - I think there are some newer wind technologies that cause far less damage to birds. I have yet to hear of solar panels causing harmful effects on wildlife. Certainly, climate change is causing far more damage - to polar bears, for example.


Like this comment
Posted by I love Walter
a resident of Green Acres
on Mar 30, 2011 at 11:42 am

I can always count on Walter for the perfect pithy response.

He is correct. The safest energy is no energy at all.

Gosh, someone died from installing solar panels. Web Link Better forbid solar panels.

Others died building wind turbines Web Link Better outlaw wind turbines.

Deaths per industry: Scroll down and read bottom chart.
Web Link

Nuclear is by far the safest, and most reliable, of all energy sources

But, hey, taxpayers want to make a few wind and solar companies really rich on tax dollar dime, go for it! Even the most severe communist countries have super rich folks, and this is why. The marriage of government and private enterprise is very dangerous for most, but great for a few.


Like this comment
Posted by carlito waysman
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 30, 2011 at 11:44 am

Green Energy? What a Sham! . For the foreseeable future the costs for implementing "green energy" will be pushed down the throats of the common taxpayer, otherwise the few ones that use "green energy" would not be able to afford it. Unless you are making a buck out of "green energy" you will support it, otherwise you are a moron.


Like this comment
Posted by coooper
a resident of another community
on Mar 30, 2011 at 11:51 am

1. This bill would cost ratepayers "tens of billions" (CPUC) in capital costs over the next 9 years. This on top of high-speed rail, state bailouts, education, etc.
2. CA already gets 56% of its energy from nat-gas, a fairly clean fuel. Just 1% comes from coal. By comparison, 48% of the rest of the country's power comes from coal. (Simitian report) So this effort might be worthwhile in Pennsylvania, but in California is meaningless in terms of climate change.


Like this comment
Posted by James Hoosac
a resident of another community
on Mar 30, 2011 at 12:23 pm

There is another blatant bill, SB48, that is going way too far to the left.

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by James Hoosac
a resident of another community
on Mar 30, 2011 at 12:24 pm

This is the right link:

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2011 at 12:53 pm

No anon62, I deal in facts, not greenie dreams. Here's a fact: all of those wind turbines in the Altamont generate an average output of 125 megawatts (576 megawatts peak, and about 20-25 percent efficiency). San Onofre nuclear power plant on the other hand, generates 2200 megawatts of energy, 24 hours per day, rain or shine, so using simple math, that means it would take more than 17 Altamonts to replace ONE nuclear plant. This country has more than 100 nuke plants. Where are going to put all of these turbines? Newer turbines are a bit more efficient, but there are real limits as to how efficient these things can ever be.

Solar is even more ridiculous, in terms of the space needed to place the panels. There is apparently a very high-tech solar project (steam, not photovoltaic) nearing completion in Arizona that covers three square miles, and will produce 280 megawatts (when the sun is shining of course). Again, about 1/8 of the output of one of our older nuke plants. Fine - if you have lots of open space that nobody cares about, build a solar plant - how many of those places are there?

I'm not discounting wind and solar, but it is and always will be a minor player. Anyone who thinks we can replace all of our fossil fuel consumption with these two technologies is delusional.

And as for those billions - I don't want to pay for it - let the market decide. I don't want my behavior determined by those who "think" they know better.


Like this comment
Posted by JT
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 30, 2011 at 3:00 pm

I'm not an "arch conservative" (see above), but as a Democrat, I'm wondering why Simitian spent so much time on this legislation (this is his third year attempting to get this into law) when our state is in so much financial trouble. The budget needs to take priority over things like this. I'm not saying that the environment is important, but I think Joe should have made the state budget his priority. Joe is one of the smartest local officials we have, so to see him sidetracked on an issue like this while the state goes down the drain is ... disappointing.


Like this comment
Posted by tjw
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 30, 2011 at 3:07 pm

Wow. Some of these comments. My first reaction is, some people clearly have a failure of imagination. Second, these people can't possibly be part of Silicon Valley. That can't-do attitude is the antithesis to everything we believe in here.

Every criticism leveled at green energy is true of any new technology. You could have told the Wright Brothers that the idea of everyone moving around the country in one of their contraptions was ludicrous. Early automobiles, too. Go back to the 70s and tell Steve Jobs that putting a computer in every home would bankrupt the country. All of these statements would have been true by the standards of anti-green conservatives today.

We can do this, and we must do this. Our atmosphere has gone from 280ppm CO2, to 390ppm CO2, and projected to top 1000ppm by the end of the century on our present course. If you don't believe those numbers, or if you don't believe in CO2's heat trapping properties, or if you simply don't believe that changing the atmosphere could have any detrimental effects, then I understand your opposition. It's always cheaper to do nothing. I'm asking the opponents of green energy: Try to look at it from the perspective of someone who actually believes the science. If you believed the science too, what would you propose doing?

Until you can answer that, continue to tell me CO2 levels can't or shouldn't be measured. Tell me coal is harmless. Tell me sustainable energy is useless. Tell me what we want to do is impossible.

This is Silicon Valley. We do the impossible every day. Stand back and watch.


Like this comment
Posted by James Hoosac
a resident of another community
on Mar 30, 2011 at 3:15 pm

Renewable Energy/Climate Change is the koolaid that we, the developed countries, are trying to convince the developing countries, e.g. China, to drink. It is like Ronald Regan convinced the Soviets to waste money on tanks and missiles with his famous head fake - the Star War initiative.

We want the Chinese to waste money in expensive windmills and solar panels, and to reduce the competition for natural resources. We want them to set up an expensive infrastructure that will boggle them down in the coming years. It is like we are convincing a perfectly normal person that it is better for him to use crutches to walk.

But in order to convince them, some of us must become the willing collateral.


Like this comment
Posted by anon62
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2011 at 3:40 pm

I am amazed at how many anti-progress and anti-change individuals we have in our city!


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2011 at 4:55 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

This is so reminiscent of Mao's Backyard Steel Mills.


Like this comment
Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 30, 2011 at 5:17 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

RE: Judith on solar panels not causing damage to wildlife: The installation of solar panels on the scale envisioned involves "paving over" vast tracts of land, much of it critical habitat. The manufacturing of solar panels can be quite "brown", and given existing practices in China, it probably will be. And don't forget all the GHGases from construction: cement is a very, very "brown" product: The cement industry is a top consumer of natural gas.

To Anon65 and TJW: Do you actually participate in the entrepreneurial culture? Edison defined genius as "one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration." Companies that have the attitude that you espouse--everything follows easily from inspiration--invariably fail. Entrepreneurship is about hard-headed analysis and being prepared for a multitude of setbacks and outright failures.


Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 30, 2011 at 6:30 pm

Still waiting for an answer:

Simple question: What is "green energy"...or, by another name, "renewable energy"?


Like this comment
Posted by tjw
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 30, 2011 at 7:09 pm

Douglas, entrepreneurship is often about people telling you it can't be done, and people being as discouraging as they possibly can because they become personally invested in your failure. You quickly learn to ignore those people and get on with the 99% perspiration.

I don't know where people get the idea that the green energy industry is comprised of lazy dreamers. Nobody has said it would be easy. Nobody is kidding themselves here.

The difference is between someone who attempts something so difficult, and someone who doesn't.

When someone says let the market forces decide, that's where I see laziness. Let the market do the work, while we choose the cheapest solution right now, and our problems will be solved like magic. I wish it were that easy.

If you are going to argue against putting resources into solving this problem - or maybe it isn't a problem at all - then fine, you can make that argument. My position is that we need lot of people working very hard to make truly sustainable energy a reality. We need more investment in this, not less. There are many areas of research right now into energy production which is much "greener" than coal and other fossil fuels. Yes, construction is a part of the impact and must be taken into consideration. Yes there are big problems to solve right now. I can name a dozen or so off the top of my head. That doesn't mean stop. The worst thing we can do is give up.

If you don't think 33% renewable is possible, or wise, or if you oppose it on principle, you can take that stand, but the most useless thing you can do is do nothing and telling everyone they will fail (of course, if you are actively engaged in R&D, then looking for faults is very useful and I doubt you'd be wasting your time here telling us how pointless your research is).

I'm proud to be part of this, as a resident of Palo Alto. I'm also happy to let the haters and nay-sayers go back to their lives smug in the belief that what we attempt cannot be done. I look forward to the day when they will take what we do for granted, and forget that they ever doubted us. New technology, same old story.


Like this comment
Posted by tjw
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 30, 2011 at 7:17 pm

Here is an excellent article about one study on how renewables can be implemented in a big way. It also includes a discussion on the points brought up here and many more.

Web Link

There are similar studies happening at Stanford. Lots more information here:

Web Link

Dreamers who think it will easily follow from inspiration? Hardly. Real stuff. Real smart. Going to happen.

Don't be afraid of the future. It's lots of work, but worth it.


Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 30, 2011 at 7:20 pm

"If you don't think 33% renewable is possible"

tjw,

Please define "renewable". Then explain how this "renewable" provides a stable, base load of electrical generation. Then explain the environmental consequences of your 'solution'.

Thank you.

Craig


Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2011 at 9:23 pm

I don't think there's anyone here who's anti-progress, but some of us see the reality of these "green dreams." The real problem is that green energy proponents want the government to force changes in people's behavior - I have a real problem with that! If this country is to remain prosperous, we need cheap, plentiful energy - if it comes from windmills and solar panels - fine - but right now, it doesn't. If entrepreneurs and dreamers want to work on green energy, more power to them. The VC's will be knocking down their doors. References have been made to the Wright brothers and Steve Jobs - I don't recall that they had the luxury of goverment subsidies. If green/sustainable/renewable energy is going to make it, it should make it on its own. If I see it's going to work, I'll invest in it myself. But so far, so Solyndra.

And I agree with some of the other posters that this bill is completely irrelevant given the current budget disaster that this state faces.


Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 30, 2011 at 10:30 pm

And follow the money.

Silicon Valley VCs are heavily invested in green. And that's no small factor in getting bills like this passed.


Like this comment
Posted by James Hoosac
a resident of another community
on Mar 30, 2011 at 10:35 pm

Is global warming really that bad? Sure, we may lose a few islands. But think about the vast Siberia and Yukon Territory that will become more habitable and productive. The benefit will far outweigh the loss of these few islands.

Is coal evil? No, if it is clean. That is, if it does not generate pollutants. CO2 is NOT pollutants. We breathe CO2. Pretty much every living thing on earth breathe out (or in) CO2. If we invest in R&D, we can make coal clean.


Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 31, 2011 at 8:43 am

Paging Jeffery Immelt! The government doesn't pick winners and losers - no way!


Like this comment
Posted by Nucular
a resident of Menlo Park
on Mar 31, 2011 at 12:25 pm

"Nuclear is by far the safest, and most reliable, of all energy sources"

The most expensive, requiring huge bailouts from Big Government. I always found it interesting that "small govt libertarians" support nukes. Obama wants to use your taxes to subsidize GE and the nuke industry.

And when it goes wrong, it goes TERRIBLY wrong, as opposed to renewables.

A billion to close down a plant WITHOUT any problems. TEPCO will likely ask the Japanese government to take over their plant. First estimates are for a cleanup cost of $12 billion US. Take a decade or longer.

That is, when and if they ever get it under control. It's still spewing without cooling systems, just everyone got bored with reading about it.

Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. When will taxpayers learn? Maybe y'all can tell me what GE paid in US taxes on 15 billion in profit, 5 billion in the US, in 2010.

Anyone?

But let's subsidize some more plants at the tax payers expense.

Hail Big Government!!


Like this comment
Posted by Nucular
a resident of Menlo Park
on Mar 31, 2011 at 12:34 pm

"Sure, we may lose a few islands. "

No problem. What do the folks on TI or Alameda say about that? You want your taxes to build levies to keep the Bayshore open? 101 near the 'stick? Beautiful Milpitas? Hey, at least your taxes will give day laborers jobs in the building trades!

"CO2 is NOT pollutants. We breathe CO2."

No oversimplification there, eh? Care to put yourself in a room of PURE, clean, wonderful, CO2.

Clean coal is a marketing term. They sold you, and you bought it. It doesn't exist.


Like this comment
Posted by Nucular
a resident of Menlo Park
on Mar 31, 2011 at 12:39 pm

"If entrepreneurs and dreamers want to work on green energy, more power to them. References have been made to the Wright brothers and Steve Jobs - I don't recall that they had the luxury of goverment subsidies. If green/sustainable/renewable energy is going to make it, it should make it on its own."

Like Nuclear did all by it's widdle self? Are ya kidding?

Nukes wouldn't exist without government research and development, and wouldn't be built without government subsidies and guarantees. And doesn't get cleaned up without your tax dollars.

Know any private insurance companies that insure nukes?


Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 31, 2011 at 5:37 pm

"In answer to Craig's question: "renewable" energy comes from sources that you can't use up, like sunlight, wind, waves, geothermal,etc. and unlike oil, gas and coal. That's the "renewable" part. The "green" part describes the lack of carbon-containing emissions that contribute to global climate change."

Judith,

That is a reasonable answer, but simplistic, IMO. Leaving aside absolutist arguments, such as that the Sun is being "used up", as we speak, and that energy is neither created nor destroyed...just turned into less usefull stuff (low grade heat), we are left with what we can economically exploit on this planet. The key word is "economically". Fossil fuels are stored solar energy, and they are very density rich in economically useful energy, but they are finite and they release greenhouse gases, when combusted; it is even worse, when they are released into the atmosphere, and not combusted, such as in landfills. Waves are a result of winds, which are caused by uneven heating of the Earth's surface, primarily from the sun. Geothermal is a complex heat source, resulting from plantetary collisions/creation forces, and radioactive decay. Geothermal can easily be "used up", when it is pumped too hard. Nuclear fission is readily available, and very economical, and it is relatively safe, although current events in Japan make people think otherwise.

OK, so you want to use "solar" (to include wind and waves). What happens when the sun does not shine? What happens when the winds do not blow? What happens when the oceans are calm? How does this make "solar" economical as a primary forcing agent of electrical generation? You need to answer that question, Judith.

I have an alternative partial solution: Mine our landfill sites as a source of finite, but prolonged, energy. Return these sites to their pre-exisitig natural state. Do it all with a reduction in greenhouse gases, compared to alternative approaches. How? Plasma arc. And it doesn't require paving our natural deserts with solar panels, nor does it force us to industrialize our natural mountain ridges with ugly, bird-killing technology.

Judith, does this qualify as "green" or "renewable" or economically realistic to you?


Like this comment
Posted by Nucular
a resident of Menlo Park
on Mar 31, 2011 at 6:03 pm

* "Nuclear fission is readily available, and very economical..."

Available, sort of, after massive construction projects, often with huge overruns.

Economical? Not so much. Remember when we were told nuclear would be so cheap they wouldn't bother with a meter? Great sales job.

Now it takes massive government subsidies to build, then decommission, then store waste.

Not to mention the bailout and damage if something goes wrong. Ask Japanese taxpayers how they feel about the first estimate of 12 billion USD.

Sure to climb.

Anyway, look at the costs for PLENTIFUL CHEAP energy from Diablo Canyon:

"The Diablo Canyon reactors were originally estimated to cost just over $300 million when PG&E was first given permission to construct the facility. When finally opened in 1985, construction costs were $5.8 billion and financing costs nearly an additional $7 billion. After the 1981 blueprint mirror image mistake was discovered, the reactor's construction costs stood at $2.1 billion. PG&E permission to go ahead with operation was reversed by the NRC and the company was required to go through a major review and rebuild. PG&E was unable to find further financing from any source to continue construction, until president Ronald Reagan ordered the United States Environmental Protection Agency to give the company nearly $2.5 billion in loans.

The controversy did not come to a close until December 1988 when the California Public Utilities Commission gave PG&E a $54 billion 30-year, cost plus rate contract to operate Diablo Canyon Power Plant."

That's some CHEAP stuff, eh?

btw: who insures DC? A free market, for profit insurance company? Near two faults?!? Not a chance would they touch a deal like that.

(time for Walter to come in and blame the costs on Greens who prefer not to be bathed in radiation....)


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 31, 2011 at 8:27 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Greens who prefer to not be bathed in radiation are SOL. Neither Greens nor any other color can avoid that bath, since by far the largest source of radiation is nature.


Like this comment
Posted by Nucular
a resident of Menlo Park
on Mar 31, 2011 at 8:32 pm

Walter:

Thanks. Didn't think you would bother to defend the expense of nuclear, especially to taxpayers.


Like this comment
Posted by James Hoosac
a resident of another community
on Mar 31, 2011 at 10:07 pm

Centuries ago, Greenland had large settlements of Nordic population. They practiced farming to grow food. Scientists have concluded that this is possible because the earth was a warmer, even warmer than today. These settlements disappeared afterwards, probably due to a global cooling.

See, global warming is not a threat. It happened before. Greenland may become more hospitable again. Why is that so bad?

There will be adjustments for island populations and cities around coast. But they are not unmanageable catastrophes. They are simply trade-offs.

CO2 is not a pollutant. We are not talking about the earth atmosphere filled with CO2. That will never happen even in tens of thousands of years. A bit loss of Oxygen? Ask people living in Denver. Is it a problem for them? Not really.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2011 at 2:46 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

If Simitian is a true believer, why stop at 33%? Go for the gold. Go for 100% in 5 years. That should be enough lead time for manufacturing to move to Nevada.


Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 1, 2011 at 8:01 am

Nucular - I'll concede your point on government subsidies for nuclear power - and yes, it is a byproduct of government research and development of the A-bomb.

The numbers you cite for Diablo Canyon are certainly large, but what does that translate into in terms of cost per kilowatt-hour? That's what really matters and that's how the cost of different energy alternatives need to be compared - over the life of the plant.


Like this comment
Posted by fireman aj
a resident of another community
on Apr 1, 2011 at 12:11 pm

Stop Joe the Joke, Vote NO next time he runs..


JOE MUST GO>>>>>>>>>Joe must GO!

The only green he knows is TAXPAYERS BUCKS IN HIS POCKET... Joe must go!!!!


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Post-election reflections -- and sponges
By Diana Diamond | 13 comments | 1,607 views

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 10 comments | 1,589 views

Couples: Philosophy of Love
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,250 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 768 views