[Sustain] Source Material For Letters To Editor

[Eric Brooks]

Hi all,

Here's the basic info you'll need for letters to the editor and op-ed 
writing.

For basics about Community Choice go to: http://communitychoiceenergy.com/

Next, the Examiner editorial; see

http://www.examiner.com/printa-743393~Voters_left_out_of_the_loop_on_Community_Choice_Aggregation.html

The author is not an Examiner journalist, but a corporate activist 
submitting his commentary --- so this gives us space to critique the 
argument (as using the exact language of PG&E's press release) without 
critiquing the Examiner and forever loosing them as a potential media ally.

Next, see the original email that PG&E sent out weeks -before- the Examiner editorial came out. Here is the text:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s position on
SF Local Power’s proposed CCA Plan

PG&E strongly supports increasing the level of clean, renewable power
available to our customers, and we would be pleased to partner with the
City on a workable plan to do just that.  In fact, over 50% of the
energy we deliver to our customers is free of greenhouse gas emissions;
In other words, the emissions from the electricity we deliver to 5% of
the customers in the United States accounts for only 1% of total green
house gases which is from among the cleanest portfolio in the nation.
Twelve percent of energy delivered to our customers is from California
qualified renewable sources (geothermal, solar, wind, biogas, and small
hydro); an additional 20% of the energy is from large hydro resources.
The company is on track to reach 20% of its renewable energy portfolio
by 2010/2011. In contrast, almost none of the power that the City owns
meets the renewable standard, so any increase would be a good thing.

Furthermore, PG&E has supported Community Choice Aggregation since its
inception – we supported the legislation creating it in California, and
have worked cooperatively at the CPUC to develop regulations to allow
cities to implement it.  We would be happy to help our customers and the
City understand CCA including the potential opportunities and risks.

However, the proposed CCA plan announced by Supervisors Mirkarimi and
Ammiano appears to be only slightly revised from the version presented
over two years ago, which has languished largely because it is
unworkable, and poses huge risks to customers, taxpayers, and the City.
The City will be committing to multi billion dollar energy contracts
that call for issuing Revenue Bonds. These include the very real dangers
of higher rates, reduced reliability, and multi-billion-dollar threats
to City finances.

Perhaps most disappointingly, the proposed CCA plan offers the false
promise of much more renewable power, but only a fraction of its “360 MW
pledge” would actually qualify as renewable power under state law.  Even
though the City intends to impose the renewable requirement on the
Energy Provider, the cost of renewable energy is higher that power from
traditional generation. This CCA plan cannot possibly come anywhere
close to its renewable power claims without forcing much higher costs on
the residents and businesses who choose to participate in the program.

What is CCA: Community Choice Aggregation is a program available within
the service territories of investor-owned utilities such as PG&E, which
allows cities, counties (or cities and counties acting jointly) to
become the “default” electric energy providers for residents and
businesses within their boundaries.