SF Supes Vote to Leave PG&E

San Francisco Supervisors Approve Plan to Leave PG&E Power System;
Prepare To Launch Long-Awaited Innovative, Local Green Energy Plan

S.F. to build 50% renewable energy by 2017 —
Community Choice Aggregation gaining momentum statewide

June 18, 2007 - If you thought the Governor's passage of a state climate change plan was big California energy and environmental news, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors' decision to adopt a Community Choice Energy Implementation Plan and become the second locality in California to become a "Community Choice Aggregator" (CCA) should stop every press in the state.

In a surprisingly unheralded decision made just blocks away from corporate headquarters of the state's largest for-profit, investor-owned utility (PG&E), the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to organize a local customer base, leave the big utility, and begin to significantly "green" California's energy production locally. The Board’s June 12th vote was the “first reading” of the ordinances; a final vote is expected at the next meeting, June 19.

The Board voted 9-2 on ordinances researched and advanced for more than two years by San Francisco Supervisors Tom Ammiano and Ross Mirkarimi, making San Francisco a leader among dozens of California cities and counties that have formally expressed interest in or are actively working to become Community Choice energy Aggregators (CCAs). As Community Choice Energy gains momentum, and communities like San Francisco succeed in assuming local control of energy production, they can green the state, help avert climate change, and ensure both local energy security and reliably low energy costs for ratepayers. The San Francisco Board's decision this week, with its veto-proof 9-2 majority, demonstrates that local governments are taking the lead to ensure a clean, safe environment and affordable energy.

California cities and counties, frustrated with the exorbitant costs and weak environmental performance of the State’s three large, investor-owned for-profit utilities, are seizing the opportunity to gain local control of energy purchasing by taking advantage of a 2002 state law called Community Choice Aggregation (AB 117, Carole Migden). The law enables localities to leave the utilities, assemble their own, local customer bases (i.e. “aggregate”), and build their own, largely local, and much cleaner energy systems. The City and County of San Francisco will likely be the second locality to file its Notice of Intent to leave PG&E (San Joaquin Valley Power Authority recently served its CCA Notice of Intent to the California Public Utilities Commission).

San Francisco's Community Choice Implementation Plan (IP), authored by Paul Fenn and Robert Freehling (with input from SFPUC) and approved by the Board June 12, includes building 360 megawatts of clean, renewable energy (1/3 of San Francisco's peak load) and local management of innovative energy efficiency programs.

The “Solar Bonds” measure passed by San Francisco voters in 2001, would be used to fund the construction of the new renewable energy infrastructure. An energy service provider, to be selected by the City in coming months, will share construction costs and assume all the risks; when the system is paid off, San Francisco will buy out the private energy partner. As a CCA, San Francisco can offer lower rates than PG&E from day one, because of its superior municipal financing capabilities and elimination of PG&E’s exorbitant executive salaries and profits.

The slow pace of California’s investor-owned utilities to deliver affordable clean, renewable power, and lackluster performance in energy efficiency programs (despite all their greenwashing) — coupled with their waste of ratepayer funds — led consumer and environmental organizations to support Community Choice Aggregation. Sierra Club, Local Power, Greenpeace, Pacific Environment, Our City, Community First Coalition, Green Guerrillas, Women's Energy Matters, and many others have urged cities and counties to move expeditiously to become CCAs before the profit-seeking investor-owned utilities can further expand their fossil fuel and nuclear power plant construction and pin the cost on all consumers.

Nearly all San Francisco's Supervisors helped advance the Community Choice Aggregation decision and contributed to the development of its Energy Plan. The final reading/vote on the San Francisco Community Choice Implementation Plan and Community Choice Governance Plan is scheduled for June 19th.

For more information, please see http://www.womensenergymatters.org or contact Barbara George @ (510) 915-6215 or bgwem [at] igc.org Ms. George is the founder and Executive Director of Women’s Energy Matters and serves as an official party “intervenor” (public interest representative) at the California Public Utilities Commission.

See below: ENERGY FACTS: Community Choice Energy vs. PG&E

As California utilities, especially PG&E, step up spending on greenwashing and seek to discourage customers from joining Community Choice energy plans, Women’s Energy Matters provides the following noteworthy energy facts:

June 18, 2007
ENERGY FACTS
Community Choice Energy vs. PG&E

As California utilities, especially PG&E, step up spending on greenwashing and seek to discourage customers from joining Community Choice localities, Women’s Energy Matters provides the following noteworthy energy information:

RENEWABLE ENERGY
PG&E's filings with the California Public Utilities Commission:
• Concede they will not meet California’s requirement: 20% renewables by 2010;
• Argue against the state’s proposed target of 33% renewables by 2020.
• Indicate it seeks to spend a total of $30 Million on "Emerging Renewables", ALL of which is to be allocated for 2 years of STUDIES, NONE of which is to fund any IMPLEMENTATION;

PG&E is:
0% solar
2% wind
98% hot air
(23% nuclear)

Source: PG&E’s Power Content Label
Interpreted by Green Guerrillas Against Greenwashing

WEM IS CURRENTLY INTERVENING IN THE STATE’S ENERGY PLANNING/PROCUREMENT PROCEEDINGS, TO DIVERT PG&E’S INSATIABLE HUNGER FOR NEW FOSSIL FUEL
PG&E says it needs (and needs to bill ratepayers for) more than six new fossil fuel power plants and more nuclear power to meet “peak” demand. It also wants to build a pipeline to bring Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from a proposed terminal in a little town on the coast of Oregon.

WHAT IS PG&E REALLY DOING WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY?
The Public Goods Charge is a surcharge paid by all ratepayers on their PG&E bill for:
• Energy Efficiency (EE)
• Renewables
• Low Income programs

Ratepayers are paying $800 million for PG&E’s 3-year energy efficiency programs.

Unfortunately, these programs do not reduce peak demand very much:
• 85% of PG&E’s residential EE program is for lighting; only 5% is for efficient air conditioning —
• But air conditioning, not lighting, causes CA peak demand
(Source: PG&E”s Program Review Group Report 6-7-06)

The California Public Utilities Commissioners (CPUC) think they can encourage utilities to overcome their conflict of interest between selling energy and saving energy.

They allow utilities to make huge profits on questionable EE programs
• California utilities, including PG&E, made ½ billion dollars profit on 1994-2001 EE program budgets (30% return on program funds)
• They’re demanding ½ billion more profit on 2006-08 programs!

Alternatives to utility control of Energy Efficiency
• California had a 4-year experiment with independent programs (2002-2005)
• Independent businesses & non-profits competed for $50 million/year (20% of the program funds)
• Utilities received $200 million (80%)

The results?
Independent Energy Efficiency (EE) programs vs. Utility programs:
– Residential: 49 out of 50 independent programs saved more energy per dollar than utility programs
– Non-Residential: independents saved as much as utilities, in their very first year

The Community Choice Law, AB117, allows cities and counties to run their own energy efficiency programs using the surcharges their
ratepayers paid into the Public Goods Charge.

• But state regulators proposed to let utilities run energy efficiency
programs for Community Choice cities

• Women’s Energy Matters had to go to Court to preserve the rights of Community Choice cities to control their own energy efficiency funds.

CPUC Decision 0501055 left the door ajar for Community Choice EE
• CPUC: “We reiterate our interpretation of “administer” for purposes of AB117 as meaning ‘any entity implementing an energy efficiency program’ [under utility administrators]…
• “At the same time, we have recognized that ‘we may ultimately find that CCAs are appropriately independent agencies that should have considerable deference to use Section 381 funds’…
• “Nothing in this decision prevents us from modifying the process for allocating PGC funds to CCAs in the future.”

Surprisingly, Texas demonstrates the opportunity to offer better energy efficiency programs than PG&E. It has the most cost-effective EE system in the US
• Bans utilities from designing or implementing energy efficiency programs
• Saves 40% more energy per dollar than California
• Provides greater peak savings
• Produces much greater local economic development
• Compared to California, Texas has 7 times more small businesses/ non profits involved in running energy efficiency programs

Clearly, Community Choice cities can combine renewable energy with effective energy efficiency programs to maximize clean, safe energy at less cost than PG&E!

For more information, see http://www.womensenergymatters.org