Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for March 6, 2026
Clean-energy provider faces competitive, intricate process
As a former Marin County supervisor, as well as a past member and chair on the MCE Board of Directors, I’ve been reflecting on the agency formerly known as Marin Clean Energy, its nearly 16-year journey and the role it has played in our communities.
When MCE first launched, it was a small, uncertain effort driven by a simple idea: Local communities can have a greater voice in their energy future. What began with just a handful of Marin communities and about 8,000 customer accounts has grown into a public agency serving hundreds of thousands across multiple counties.
Over the years, I saw firsthand how MCE focused not only on cleaner energy, but also on local investment — supporting renewable projects in Marin and the Bay Area and customer programs that help lower bills, as well as initiatives that prioritize equity and environmental responsibility.
Like any public agency, MCE faces complex challenges and important decisions. But its core mission has remained consistent: Serve the long-term interests of the communities while helping address the very real impacts of climate change.
The energy industry is complicated. It’s easy to try and distill these concepts into sound bites that cloud the intricacy and competing factors MCE must weigh when purchasing power and serving customers. I encourage those paying attention to not be too quick to criticize and instead approach with curiosity. Ask questions of MCE’s staff — they have a wealth of knowledge and experience, and will welcome your interest.
Having been part of its early years, I remain proud of what local collaboration made possible and hopeful about the role community-driven solutions can continue to play in the future.
— Kate Sears, Sausalito
California’s ‘billionaire tax’ will lead to more opportunity
The billionaires, having seen the handwriting on the wall, will continue to move their money out of California regardless of the outcome of the wealth tax referendum. If it qualifies for the November ballot, I will be voting for it — not out of envy, anger or to close a budget gap, but because it is a first step toward wealth redistribution.
According to a recent report by the Federal Reserve, the top 1% of U.S. wealth holders own 31.7% of all U.S. assets and the top 0.1% own about 14%. I think these groups will radically increase their proportion of national wealth because they are trending to replace human intellectual capital with artificial intelligence and human physical capital with robots.
I suspect it’s happening because they have the wealth to do it and, if they get to keep all their money, we will make permanent a two-class society with a huge gap in between.
If biotechnology makes human enhancement and life extension possible, it will be their children that will benefit. I believe the vast majority do not want that sort of society.
We should remember that the bulk of the billionaires created their innovations well before they were rich and now mostly make money because they have money. Steve Jobs (Apple) was an orphan. Sergei Brin (Google) was a refugee. Others, given similar or greater opportunities, will do as much or more.
We lose little or nothing by decreasing the wealth of billionaires and spreading it around through scholarships, infrastructure and health care. Instead, we create many more opportunities for others to become multi-millionaires while easing life for everyone else.
— Chet Seligman, Point Reyes Station
Condition of democracy in US puts spotlight on November
History and literature are two great teachers. Patriots who fought 250 years ago to throw off the yoke of a king laid the groundwork for our democracy, and author George Orwell warned us more than 75 years ago to watch out for tyrannical rulers.
At this moment, we all need to act like patriots and truthfully call out what we see. We see free speech, free press and dissent under attack, like in Orwell’s story, “1984,” and we see openly corrupt acts like in the story “Animal Farm.” Many seem to think the words king, authoritarian or dictator are too harsh, but current “leaders” appear to be moving back to rule by king.
Consider two examples: Citizens are being detained and asked to show their papers, and America is being rebranded through a campaign to rename buildings, airports and build new edifices. Is this not indicative of a king, authoritarian or dictator?
Our Democracy has faced crossroads before. I hope this 250-year-old experiment in self-governance is not coming to an end. May the election in November 2026 send a resounding message to let freedom ring and say enough of this authoritarian slide.
— Dennis Kostecki, Sausalito