[Sustain] Fwd: PG&E Attacks Green Energy / Community Choice
I would add to John's note below that almost all of the rest of that supposedly clean electricity from PG&E is from large scale hydro-electric dams, with a tiny 4% from wind, and -none- from solar. Eric jrizzo@sprintmail.com wrote: PG&E is sending this around to customers. It attacks Community Choice Aggregation. It attacks Ross and Tom Ammiano, and is full of false and misleading claims. (The 50% of non-greenhouse energy that PG&E claims is largely nuclear.) John --------- 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. _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
PG&E has done nothing to increase its percentage of renewable power. A decade ago, 12% of its power was renewable. Today 12% is renewable. These folks have a terrible record on the environment and toward their community. Don't listen to what they say, but focus on what they do and try to do. On Thu, 03 May 2007 17:11:42 -0700, Eric Brooks <brookse32@aim.com> wrote:
I would add to John's note below that almost all of the rest of that supposedly clean electricity from PG&E is from large scale hydro-electric dams, with a tiny 4% from wind, and -none- from solar.
Eric
jrizzo@sprintmail.com wrote:
PG&E is sending this around to customers. It attacks Community Choice Aggregation. It attacks Ross and Tom Ammiano, and is full of false and misleading claims. (The 50% of non-greenhouse energy that PG&E claims is largely nuclear.)
John
--------- 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.
_______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active _______________________________________________ Sustainability mailing list Sustainability@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
participants (2)
-
David Fairley -
Eric Brooks