[Sustain] One More Helpful Article

[Eric Brooks]

Also, it is very educational to see the San Francisco Bay Guardian's 
report on the PG&E statement which also has a link to the PG&E statement 
in pdf format with truth revealing clarifications written into it in 
italics. See:

http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=3584

sustainability at sfgreens.org wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>