LAFCo To Deal With "Standard Power Play" To Move SF Toward Sustainable Energy Sources

"The more energy they provide to the community aggregation body, the less PG&E would provide," says John Rizzo, the Executive Committee Chair of the Sierra Club's Bay Area Chapter. "We'll get cheaper energy rates for various reasons... mostly because PG&E isn't involved."

Although the city would continue to use PG&E's power grid to deliver this power, the community choice aggregation (CCA) plan would permit the city to contract with ESPs to construct non-fossil-fuel power sources--solar sources in particular. The city could transition to renewable energy for as much as 1/3 of its energy needs, forming the largest renewable-energy dependence network in the country, advocates say.

Delivering these changes hasn't been all smooth sailing, however. According to activist Paul Fenn, who has played an active role in the city's consideration of the CCA project, resistance has come primarily from the city's Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and, naturally, from PG&E itself.

"Utilities don't want it--it's like asking a water utility to develop conservation strategies," he says of PG&E's opposition to the plan. Nearly ten years of energy policy in California have brought the city--and its primary electricity utility--to its current situation, Fenn says.

According to Fenn, late-90s energy deregulation inclined California utilities--which rely primarily on fossil-fuel and nuclear-based power--to sell their monopolies on production and distribution. Although the deregulation was supposed to promote the use of alternative power providers, he says, 95% of customers were unable to find satisfactory alternatives. When the utilities offered their services, they were offered limited-term contracts designed to keep them from rocking the energy market.

Now, Fenn says, utilities are proposing longer-term energy contracts that would enable them to reclaim their monopolies--and since CCA would emphasize non-fossil-fuel sources, PG&E opposes it. "For a monopoly, that's death," Fenn says.

Both Rizzo and Fenn claim that the Public Utilities Commission has resisted the CCA project by stalling. By firing staff most knowledgeable about the issue, hiring non-experts, and failing to cooperate with the Board of Supervisors' request for an implementation plan, Fenn says, the PUC has shown itself to be using a "standard power play."

Fenn says that more and more cities are recognizing the benefits of CCA projects in Ohio and Massachusetts--increased use of renewable energy sources without a higher cost of service. "From a municipal point of view, it's kind of a no-brainer," he says. Without the burden of buying fuel, cities can pay one time for the transition: "From that point of view, the savings are incalculable."

Fenn warns, however, that choosing CCA does come with a deadline. If the municipal government does not begin implementation of CCA projects in the coming months, he says, the old utility companies will begin to charge more for customers to choose other energy providers.

The battle is expected to continue at least through the end of summer, due to Supervisor absences, the Board's recess, and the ratification of relevant amendments.