Comments on: PG&E Moves to Subvert Community Choice Energy

By: The Dave Room

The Dave Room — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:37:57 +0000

I should also mention that Public Power companies throughout the United States and in the Bay Area provide solid reliable electricity service at lower rates than investor owned utilities. Nearby, Alameda Power & Telecom, Palo Alto Utilities, and Silicon Valley Power all offer lower business and residential rates than PG&E. Amazingly, Palo Alto Utilities offers a 100% green option (97.5% wind and 2.5% solar) that is lower than PG&E's rates (14% eligible renewable). None of these public utilities had rate spikes or rolling blackouts during the California Electricity Crisis of 2001-2002. None of them needed to be bailed out of bankruptcy with tax-payer dollars as PG&E did. You are quite right that Community Choice is not simple. Fortunately, there are companies like Local Power that have the expertise and partnerships to not only procure green power but also build local clean energy generating capacity.

By: The Dave Room

The Dave Room — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:08:54 +0000

Hi Gene

Thanks for your comment. I took a look at your site.

I appreciate that you are tackling a complex issue, and are attempting to be fair.

My intention is not to make CCAs seem simple but more so alert people that PG&E is trying to undermine the abilities of cities and counties throughout California to control the procurement of their power. Cities are investigating the possibility of controlling their power procurement so that they can reach a much higher renewable energy component that will be achievable with PG&E.

California’s Community Choice Energy Law AB117 gives communities the right to do this. Ironically, PG&E is trying to wrest the choice away from communities through potentially illegal means.

One thing I think your analysis is missing is that staying with PG&E is economically imprudent. The price of natural gas generated electricity is estimated to increase by almost 100% in the next two decades and nuclear electricity about 50%. These could be conservative. It is only prudent to begin transitioning in earnest to renewable energy and building more local clean energy. PG&E seems oblivious to the future costs of natural gas and is planning to build more natural gas generating capacity.

Why is it that you do not account for likely rises in future fossil fuel electricity costs in your analysis?

I see this as a key reason for moving aggressively towards a very high percentage of renewables in our power mix. Community Choice is a key policy tool to do this that can reinforce and support other policy tools (e.g., energy efficiency programs, solar financing programs).

By: Gene Dyer

Gene Dyer — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:31:09 +0000

Your comments make CCAs too simple.
Go to http://www.GreenMarin.org to review a more independent analysis of the pros and cons of CCAs – including some of the hidden costs, such as:

Solar still requires back-up peaking power since, by definition, it is derived from power sources that are only used during peak power needs times.

The requirement to Buy-Out the existing un-amortised generation facilities – which were produced for you and were to be paid off by your regular bill payment – no longer being done under a CCA. The lawyers will be the only ones who will win on this one.