A 'yes' on Measure E

• A new waste-to-energy facility would keep the city from trucking its yard trimmings and food waste to San Jose and Gilroy, thereby reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

• The new facility would generate electricity, boosting the city's renewable-energy portfolio.

• The city would not be obligated to build the waste-to-energy facility at the park site, though it would have the option of doing so if the facility were to prove economically and environmentally feasible, based on required environmental studies.

• The plant might be cheaper than the cost of hauling waste to San Jose and Gilroy -- provided the facility is built by a private entity or the city builds it but receives grants.

• A plant could allow the city to centralize three waste streams -- yard trimmings, food waste and sewage sludge -- in one location, producing operational efficiencies.

A 'no' on Measure E

• Defeating Measure E would preserve the 10-acre site as dedicated parkland and reduce the footprint of waste facilities at Byxbee Park.

• The technology of the proposed waste-to-energy facility has not been decided upon and -- if using dry anaerobic digestion to process food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids -- remains largely untested.

• Palo Alto already pays to have its solid waste shipped to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer (SMaRT) Station, which sorts it and forwards unsalvageable materials to landfills.

• Proponents' best economic projections assume the project will either be privately owned or city-owned and receiving state and/or federal grants, which may not happen.

• While the city's consultants found that a dry anaerobic digester could be a cheaper option than exporting waste if certain conditions are met, they also found that all other alternatives for the facility could be more expensive than using the SMaRT Station.