Features

The plan for a possible local takeover of energy decision-making is moving forward, albeit at a slower pace than the City Council had projected—and much too slowly for Paul Fenn, who wrote the legislation making possible local takeover of energy decisions. 

At issue is whether Berkeley will join with Oakland and Emeryville to establish a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), an entity that would replace PG&E as the utility that purchases energy for local consumption. PG&E would continue to own the transmission wires. 

Supporters say a CCA would be able to better pursue the goal of purchasing renewable energy than PG&E now does. And with bond financing, it could begin to produce its own “green” energy. 

Along with Emeryville and Oakland, Berkeley hired Navigant Consulting, Inc. to do a preliminary study that was completed in April 2005. Based on that, the three cities decided to move to the next step and requested a business plan from Navigant. A draft has been completed and is being peer-reviewed.  

The Navigant report, slated to go to the City Council early this year, won’t be discussed by the council until a financial and legal analysis of the report is completed and the three cities review information on costs provided by companies that provide energy services.  

Once studies are complete, the Energy Commission will hold public hearings on the CCA and then take the report to the council in November, according to Neal De Snoo, the city’s energy officer. At that point the council will decide whether it should send the concept of creating a CCA to an advisory vote in 2008. (If the city decides to establish a CCA, individual PG&E customers can opt to stay with PG&E.) 

Fenn, of Oakland-based Local Power, consults on energy matters and co-authored AB117, the 2002 legislation allowing municipalities to choose alternative power suppliers.  

In an interview with the Planet on Friday, Fenn said Berkeley should be moving much more rapidly to creating a CCA. After adoption of an implementation plan, there should be negotiations with energy suppliers and then approval of contracts, he said. A popular vote is unnecessary. (The Oakland City Council has not discussed putting the matter before its voters.) 

“If the city is serious, it should take one year,” Fenn said. “There’s a difference between talking and doing.” 

He warned that as the city goes through its lengthy review process, PG&E is building new gas-fired power plants in Antioch and Hayward.  

“PG&E says it is green, but it is not green,” Feen said, adding, PG&E is “greenwashing” its image while “upgrading its nuclear power plant.” While PG&E has a 20 percent goal of renewables by 2017, the CCA could have 51 percent, Fenn said. 

But, speaking in an interview with the Planet on Monday, De Snoo called for caution. Creating a CCA is “a big decision,” he said. “We should put a lot of thought into it before deciding to jump in with both feet.” 

One of the questions to ask is whether the power provided by the CCA would actually be greener than the PG&E power. “PG&E’s a pretty enlightened utility,” De Snoo told the Energy Commission last week. “The challenge is to do better.” 

De Snoo also cautioned the commission: “The city’s cost and liability for startup is unknown.” 

In an interview Friday, Jerry Miller, chair of the Energy Commission, pointed out that in the beginning the CCA could be in competition with PG&E for limited green resources.  

“Maybe in the beginning, we can’t be as green as we would want,” he said, noting there are other considerations, such as the nuclear energy question. 

“Do we want to buy nuclear?” he asked. 

For more information on CCA, see www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/sustainable/government/communitychoice/FAQ.CCA.html.