EcoLocalizer

I hope PG&E is not an advertiser on Green Options, because they almost certainly would want to censor this post. I feel compelled to do the post because a lot of folks in the Bay Area are concerned about PG&E’s effort to subvert California’s Community Choice Energy law (AB 117). So is the Attorney General; see the article below!

Community Choice enables cities and/or counties to pool their purchasing power and collectively bulk purchase electricity from their selected providers. It is structured as a private-public partnership in which cities do their own procurement, opting for greater quantities of renewable energy than they could with PG&E, and PG&E continues to do the transmission, distribution, metering, billing, and customer service.

• » See also: Obsessed with the Magic of Chickens
• » Get EcoLocalizer by RSS or sign up by email.

Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville are considering creating an East Bay Joint Powers Authority for Community Choice Energy to meet a target of 50% renewable power by 2017 and to offer stable, affordable rates. The Local Clean Energy Alliance advocates that any East Bay Community Choice Energy program prioritize local generation of power and equitably distribute the benefits of local clean energy. The alliance estimates that meeting 50% of the summer electricity demand of Oakland’s commercial building sector alone through local solar power would create nearly 1,000 new jobs − a significant step towards Mayor Dellums’ goal of creating 10,000 jobs for Oakland residents. The alliance is also pushing for a long term goal of 100% renewable energy in 25 years - as they say in Santa Barbara, we can be fossil fuel free by 2033.

Of California cities, San Francisco and 12 cities in San Joaquin Valley are furthest along, having developed Community Choice implementation plans. Marin county has developed a business plan and is determining to move on the implementation plan stage.

Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville are poised to publish a business plan and have been for about 6 months. Here’s one of the reasons why:

Brown-out on PG&E
By Amanda Witherell

California State Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office is investigating Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s meddling with Community Choice Aggregation, according to several sources who spoke with the Guardian. “I was contacted by their office,” said John Rizzo, who works with the Bay chapter of the Sierra Club. Rizzo was told by a deputy attorney general that the PG&E investigation was ongoing. “We had some materials we sent to them and they had material they showed us.”

The attorney general’s office did not comment on the investigation. But based on the materials Rizzo said he shared with the deputy attorney general, PG&E’s lobbying efforts against proposed CCAs may the subject of the inquiry. Assembly Bill 117, the 2001 CCA law that lets municipalities purchase wholesale electricity directly for citizens and route it through privately-owned utility lines, states that “all electrical corporations shall cooperate fully with any community choice aggregators that investigate, pursue, or implement” CCA programs.

Rizzo said he gave the deputy attorney general an April 30, 2007 letter from PG&E to ratepayers denouncing San Francisco’s CCA plan. Rizzo also gave investigators filings from the Oakland Ethics Commission showing that a lobbyist for the corporation, Wil Hardee, met twice with City Council Member Ignacio de la Fuente to “discuss pitfalls and risks” of CCA.

Similar 2007 filings exist at San Francisco’s Ethics Commission. Between April and June of 2007, as city officials were finalizing their CCA proposal, PG&E lobbyists met with a variety of supervisors, employees, and public utilities commissioners, to argue against the initiative. And when officials of the San Joaquin Valley Power Authority — an aggregation of 12 cities and counties — were looking into passing their own CCA plan last year, PG&E lobbied so aggressively against the idea that the authority filed a formal complaint with the California Public Utilities Commission. (See Their Neighborhood; 8/15/07) No final decision about the complaint has been made by the CPUC.

An staffer at the City of Berkeley told me that Berkeley’s main concern about Community Choice Energy is that PG$E has proposed tariffs for Community Choice Energy that makes the cities in the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority jointly and severally liability.

Each partner in a general partnership is also “jointly and severably” liable for debts of the business. Joint and severable liability means is that each partner is equally liable for the debts of the business, but each is also totally liable. So if a creditor can’t get what he is owed by one or more of the partners, he can collect it from another partner, even if that partner has already paid his share of the total debt. If someone sues your partnership and obtains a large judgment, and your partner doesn’t have the money to pay his share of it, you will have to pay the entire amount. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/business_and_corporate/article12.asp

That may have something to do with Fresno and Tulare County deciding not to participate in the San Joaquin Valley Power Authority (SJVPA). Fresno would have been 45% of the SJVPA’s customer base.The Kings River Conservation District which will administer the Community Choice program has filed a “complaint” with the CPUC.

Mr. Blaising reviewed an objectionable term in the Service Agreement proposing joint and several liability, which provides that each member would be individually responsible for any Joint Powers Agency (JPA) liabilities. As a JPA, the Authority is a separate entity, unique and distinct from its separate members. This objection has been communicated to the IOUs and they have been asked to remove that provision, recognizing the tariffs do include a provision whereby the CCA needs to provide reasonable assurance it can meet its financial obligations. San Joaquin Valley Power Authority Minutes, Regular Board Meeting, April 12, 2007

The CPUC may rule in April. It is doubtful that the Berkeley business report or the accompanying staff report will be released to the public before this issue is resolved. My contact says if PG&E succeeds in forcing joint and several liability into the tariffs, it could be a deal killer for Berkeley. Having a corporation call the shots doesn’t sound much like community choice to me!

[Stay tuned for a future post on why California legislators wanted to give California communities the opportunity to take control of their power procurement.]

David Room is the coordinator of the Local Clean Energy Alliance, an alliance of local nonprofits and businesses including Bay Localize, Ecology Center, KyotoUSA, Nomad Café, Pacific Environment, Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, and the Urban Alliance for Sustainability. The primary goal of the alliance is to achieve a long term goal of 100% renewable energy by 2033. Our interim goal is 50% renewable energy by 2017.

Please let me know if you want to hear more about the progress of this effort to bring clean renewable energy to the Bay Area! You and your organization or business can join the alliance.

Tweet This Post

You might also like: