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@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_Communi...
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.