In this email:
- TAKE ACTION TODAY: Send an email to San Francisco about Community Choice
- VIDEO: Berkeley City Councilor Kriss Worthington on the PG&E Power Grab
- VOLUNTEER: stop the PG&E Power Grab
- CCA JOB OPPORTUNITY: Community Liaison with Clean Power SF
- NEWS: Marin Clean Energy Makes Big Progress
- SAVE THE DATE: November 18th - Community Convergence for Climate Action
1. TAKE ACTION TODAY: Send an email to San Francisco about Community Choice
There is a key hearing on Community Choice in San Francisco on Friday. Eric Brooks (San Francisco Green
Party and Coordinator of Our City
) is asking for folks to send emails encouraging the San Francisco to adopt a RFP with
local renewables and efficiency mandates that conform to the
original project Implementation Plan passed in 2007.
Please use this form to send SF this message:
http://our-city.org/events/contactsfcityhall.html
2. VIDEO: Berkeley City Councilor Kriss Worthington on the PG&E Power Grab
At the last Local Clean Energy Alliance meeting, Berkeley City Councilor Kriss Worthington spoke about the PG&E Power Grab. PG&E is the sole financier at this point of a ballot initiative to that will require local governments to get a 2/3 vote before they can use their revenue bond authority to finance local electricity generation. This affects Community Choice as well as Public Power communities. Kriss explains the initiative and why it is undemocratic. He also talks about signature gathering, getting free media, and how a grassroots movement could beat the initiative.
http://www.youtube.com/baylocalize#p/c/74D319BC26369C5C/0/xChAa8WSy7U[Note: It appears that PG&E's initiative will qualify for the June ballot]
3. VOLUNTEER: Stop the PG&E Power Grab
If you are interested in working on the counter campaign to the PG&E Power Grab, please send an email to
je...@baylocalize.org. Their will be many potential roles including outreach, organizing, op-ed writing, blogging, and social marketing.
4. CCA JOB OPPORTUNITY: Community Liaison with Clean Power SF
Make a living while advancing Community Choice in San Francisco.
The City and County of San Francisco is looking for an
energetic, engaging, and self-motivated individual with a passion for
clean, renewable energy. This individual will serve as a Community
Development Assistant to the Senior Program Officer charged with
monitoring the implementation of Clean Power SF, which will provide a
reliable, affordable and renewable energy supply for San Francisco
ratepayers. For more info:
http://www.jobaps.com/sf/sup/BulPreview.asp?R1=PEX&R2=9770&R3=055932
5. NEWS: Marin Clean Energy Makes Big Progress
This article talks about some very important milestones for Community Choice in Marin:
- They have selected Shell Energy North America as a first-position bidder
- Their light green option (25% renewable now and 50% in five years) will be at or less than PG&E rates
- Marin intends to be at 100% renewable energy by 2020
- They expect to save $50 million in what it woudl have cost the county to meet AB 32 requirements
http://www.localcleanenergy.org/node/192
The news swept over the world of energy conservation like a tidal wave.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) released a statement
Sept. 24 that it had approved a record-setting $3.1 billion for 2010
through 2012 for energy efficiency programs in the state, which "is the
largest commitment ever made by a state to energy efficiency and
further confirms California's leadership."
But watchdog groups have been questioning whether the state's energy
efficiency program really is efficient and exactly how and where energy
efficiency dollars get spent--and perhaps most important, who gets to
decide where the money goes.
The Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) is an independent consumer
advocacy division of the CPUC. The day after the CPUC released the news
about passing its energy efficiency budget, the DRA raised some
troubling questions, questions consumer advocates have been asking for
years without, they say, getting adequate answers.
The DRA praised the passage of the energy efficiency budget, but in a
distinctly backhanded way, saying that while the commitment to energy
efficiency represented a significant step, details in the CPUC decision
highlighted a need for "stronger mechanisms to ensure transparency and
accountability in the utilities' use of the billions of dollars of
ratepayer money that is at stake."
Ratepayers contribute to the state's energy efficiency programs through
a "public goods charge" on utility bills. The money goes to the state,
which then sets energy efficiency budgets in cycles. The CPUC sets the
budget.
The problem, says Dana Appling, director of DRA, is that in the
record-setting energy efficiency budget, "We are close to doubling
budgets for utility-managed programs while dramatically reducing energy
savings targets. California needs to ramp up energy savings to address
climate change, and we need to be wary of ratepayer cost increases
[that] are not expected to help the state meet its energy goals."
The DRA is particularly concerned that the state is failing to
adequately monitor administrative costs for energy efficiency programs.
In announcing the energy efficiency budget, the CPUC said the programs
envisioned will create savings "equivalent of three 500-megawatt power
plants."
But, says the DRA, letting utility companies administer energy
efficiency programs without more stringent oversight would create a
situation that "would only serve to create the illusion of greater
energy efficiency portfolio cost-effectiveness than actually exists and
would waste ratepayer dollars that could otherwise be used to save
energy."
The issue of how and where the state spends ratepayer-generated money
for energy efficiency programs has been on the agenda of a local
organization that's been a stubborn watchdog at CPUC proceedings.
Barbara George, executive director of Women's Energy Matters, says San
Francisco and an organization called the Local Government Sustainable
Energy Coalition (including Marin representation) has asked the CPUC
"multiple times" to release energy efficiency funds directly to local
agencies rather than to utility company coffers.
Although the utilities are required to keep strict accounting of where
the energy efficiency money comes from and on which accounts it's kept,
George and other watchdog groups say it's often difficult to track the
energy efficiency trail.
The funds come from a variety of sources, including federal stimulus
money. The state's energy efficiency programs are set up, says George,
to enable the utilities to act as "monopoly administrators of energy
efficiency funds."
In what George calls "a complicated web" of source money and energy
efficiency administration practice, the utilities have what amounts to
control over where and how much of the energy efficiency money gets
spent in California.
And how the utilities spend energy efficiency money should disturb people, say George and others.
"What the utilities are doing with energy efficiency money is coming
into [local] building departments and drafting codes and standards. Do
we want utilities writing our legislation? How do we know what the
cities would write on their own?"
Even though cities have the responsibility to enact codes and standards
that move energy efficiency forward, "The utilities are in charge of
the energy efficiency program," says George. "They run the show."
That represents a clear conflict of interest, she adds, because the
codes and standards have a clear financial effect on the utilities. The
utilities also write energy curriculum in schools, says George.
The issue of how utilities use energy efficiency money surfaced in
Marin, when PG&E mounted an effort to offer its own green energy
program to market against Marin Clean Energy. In a recorded public
meeting in Novato, a PG&E spokesman said the company was prepared
to put on the table an offer Novato couldn't refuse. George says
embedded in that offer was an implied expenditure of energy efficiency
funds, an inappropriate use. PG&E says its offer to Novato contains
no special deal, but George remains unconvinced. She and other PG&E
critics brought their concerns to the CPUC during a meeting in July.
In the Sept. meeting at which the CPUC set the energy efficiency
budget, the CPUC acknowledged that Women's Energy Matters and other
organizations "have expressed concern about PG&E's use of energy
efficiency funds to lobby against forming Community Choice Aggregators
[local power agencies like Marin Clean Energy]. While we have no clear
evidence in the record on this point, we will require utilities not to
use energy efficiency funds in any way which would discourage or
interfere with a local government's efforts to consider or to become a
Community Choice Aggregator."
The CPUC also acknowledged the organizations' discomfort over allowing
the utilities to administer "some or all local government
partnerships." But the CPUC reiterated an earlier position and stated,
"California's investor-owned utilities will continue to fulfill their
key role as administrators of ratepayer-funded programs..."
That's a glass half-empty and half-full.
The utilities commission did, after all, acknowledge the discomfort
with which organizations view how the utilities may be spending energy
efficiency money to market against community choice energy programs.
But while the CPUC underlined a strict prohibition against using energy
efficiency money toward that end, the agency refused to put any teeth
in the admonition.
That prohibition has particular importance in Marin, where PG&E
mounted its anti-Marin Clean Energy campaign, which will only get
hotter in the coming months.
The Marin Energy Authority is a joint powers agency formed in December
2008. The ability to form the agency is the result of state legislation
that allows communities to create their own energy agencies and
purchase power--including green power--from any source.
The county and every city in Marin except Larkspur, Corte Madera and
Novato joined the Energy Authority, which sent out requests for
proposals to 130 energy suppliers to provide electricity to about
80,000 customers who would be served by a new energy agency, Marin
Clean Energy.
The criteria in the Marin Clean Energy plan call for companies to
provide electricity in a "light green" rate structure that is at or
below PG&E rates. Customers
in the light green plan would receive 25 percent of their electricity
from green sources when Marin Clean Energy starts to provide power,
which would still flow through PG&E lines. The aim is to increase
that 25 percent to 50 percent green in five years, and to 100 percent
green by 2020. Customers who choose a "dark green" option would
receive 100 percent of their electricity right away from green sources
at a cost 8 to 10 percent above PG&E rates.
After winnowing the
bids from a dozen companies interested in providing green energy in
Marin, the Marin Energy Authority has chosen a "first-position bidder."
Shell Energy North America came in with the best bid.
It may even be better than the initial estimates. Shell Energy's bid
includes a proposal that offers the totally green option at rates 6 to
7 percent above PG&E's. In general, says Dawn Weisz, a county
planner and interim director of the Marin Energy Authority, "Prices
came in just as we expected." Weisz is.
In addition, Shell Energy's bid for the light green option could be
slightly less than PG&E. Exact numbers will be determined when the
contract gets signed, in much the same way a mortgage contract sets
rates the day of signing. One thing is certain: Shell Energy must provide the initial light green option at a rate no higher than current PG&E rates.
Marin Clean Energy currently is taking a draft of the contract with
Shell Energy to Marin Energy Authority members for review and comments.
The members still can "take an off-ramp." A final contract will go to
the Marin Energy Authority board Nov. 4. The final contract will then
recirculate among members for final review, a process that should be
complete by February. A final off-ramp will be offered in the last part
of the process. If everyone signs on the dotted line, customers in the
Marin Clean Energy jurisdiction still will be able to opt out and stick
with PG&E.
Shell Energy's proposal represents a major milestone in Marin Clean
Energy's market battle with PG&E, which claimed it wasn't possible
for the Marin agency to offer green electricity and still match or beat
the utility's rates.
Weisz says the battle is far from over, and as Marin Clean Energy makes
the rounds of city councils, representatives from PG&E aren't far
behind. "PG&E is circling."
The Shell Energy bid "is really good news," says Supervisor Charles
McGlashan, chairman of the Marin Energy Authority board. It shows,
among other things, that Marin Clean Energy can best the state mandate
for green energy, by a lot. The
state is moving toward a mandate that calls for the utilities to supply
just 33 percent green energy by 2020. By then, Marin Clean Energy will
be at 100 percent green.
Among the arguments in its arsenal, Marin Clean Energy has another
potent item of persuasion: The clean energy created by the power agency
will take Marin two-thirds of the way toward meeting the requirements
of AB 32, the state law that requires local governments and businesses
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the journey will cost the
ratepayers virtually nothing.
"We know as a
community in Marin, it would cost the public and private sector $50
million to meet the large reductions required by AB 32," says
McGlashan. "This avoids the cost we would all have to pony up
otherwise."
McGlashan adds that Marin Clean Energy is just one of a handful of
initiatives "that will help our local economy" while at the same time
pushing "our green vision" in this county. The initiatives include
local investment in power generation, implementing an AB 811 solar
financing district and providing local rate structures that take into
account the high cost of living in Marin. With the opportunity to
adjust rates based on the cost of living here, rather than across the
broad PG&E service area, Marin Clean Energy could, for example,
offer low-income seniors rates less than PG&E charges.
And Marin Clean Energy offers the opportunity to request that the state
send those energy efficiency funds directly to Marin and not on a route
that takes them through PG&E bookkeeping. Marin will be able to
control use of its own energy efficiency funds.
It would be a first. No community choice aggregator has ever requested
a direct deposit, so to speak, of energy efficiency funds. That's
because no other community choice aggregator in the state has become
operational.
Marin Clean Energy would be the first.
6. SAVE THE DATE: November 18th - Community Convergence for Climate Action
Celebrate Community Solutions in Oakland!
Rather than have its regularly scheduled meeting in November, the Local Clean Energy Alliance will have its meeting in conjunction with Community Convergence for Climate Action event. Please plan to join us there.
In
Oakland, we're taking a stand to demand climate solutions that clean
our air, create green-collar jobs, save us money, and improve public
health.
Join the Oakland Climate Action Coalition in celebrating
and supporting community-based solutions we're calling for in Oakland's
emerging Energy and Climate Action Plan.
| WHEN: |
November 18, 2009, 6 - 8 pm
|
| WHERE: |
Laney College Theater 900 Fallon St. @ 9th St., Oakland
|
Don't miss
this inspiring evening of live performances, free food, and community
as we showcase the solutions that will make Oakland a model green city.
Convened by the Ella Baker Center, the Oakland Climate Action Coalition
is a cross-sector coalition of community-based social justice
organizations, environmental experts and advocates, labor unions, and
green businesses working for an equitable and just Energy and Climate
Action Plan for Oakland.
The Local Clean
Energy Alliance is a proud member of the Coalition. We serve on the
Steering Committee, and play leading roles on these subcommittees:
Building and Energy Use, Climate Adaptation Planning, Media and
Communications, and the Port of Oakland.