The chat will be led by climate scientist and CPC board member Carl Mears. He is a Senior Scientist with Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, where he specializes in satellite-measured temperature data. He has served as a contributing author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s foremost authority on global warming science. Carl will provide quick updates (not a lecture), answer questions, and lead a discussion.

Free. Refreshments will be provided.

Friday, May 25, 5:00-7:00 pm
520 Mendocino Ave. #260, Santa Rosa, CA

Greenwire by Debra Kahn – May 14, 2012

Despite pitfalls and naysayers, California’s largest and most troubled power company is plugging its latest “green” efforts.

Northern California’s Pacific Gas and Electric Co. unveiled a new “green option” last month that would allow customers to pay extra to have their electricity usage covered by renewable energy certificates, or RECs, which represent the environmental attributes of renewable energy, but not the energy itself. They are intended to generate more revenue for clean po wer production.

“We’ve been hearing from customers for a number of years that they really want an opportunity to support 100 percent renewable power, and so there’s a lot of customer support already there,” said Helen Burt, PG&E’s chief customer officer.

The company estimates the program will cost interested residential customers about $6 per month above their normal electricity bills, the equivalent of “no more than three or four cups of coffee” a month, Burt said. The utility filed a request on April 24 with the California Public Utilities Commission to start the program and is hoping to get approval by February 2013.

But PG&E has stumbled before in the voluntary green market. In 2007, it offered customers carbon offsets through its ClimateSmart option, but due to low demand, it had to dip into shareholder money to meet its goal of offsetting 1.36 million tons of carbon dioxide.

It has also had more than its share of black eyes in the pa st few years, including a 2010 natural gas pipeline leak in a Bay Area neighborhood that killed eight (E&ENews PM, April 19). Earlier this year, it became the first utility to offer an opt-out program for its “smart” electricity meters, after a small group of customers launched months of protests (Greenwire, Feb. 2). And the company spent $45 million in 2010 on a failed ballot measure that many saw as a tactic to squash competitors; it would have required local governments to get voter approval before forming public power agencies.

Companies seeking to improve their image commonly hit upon themes of choice and freedom in their messaging, a corporate public relations expert said.

“It’s a PR benefit to say, ‘We’re really being responsive, creating an opportunity for a customer to have a choice,’” said Matt Seeger, a communications professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and author of the bo ok “Communication and Organizational Crisis.” “Many organizations use choice or freedom as part of their larger image or branding. They’re trying to play into these messages of choice and freedom, and those are widely shared social values.”

This time around, PG&E is not asking the state for permission to use general customer funds for marketing or administration, as it did with ClimateSmart. That means the program won’t have to meet any specific targets and will be completely funded by voluntary customer payments.

A company spokesman said he thought the RECs would be more appealing to customers than the offsets program.

“I think it’ll be both more quickly understandable by customers and in addition not so critical how many customers sign up,” said Jonathan Marshall.

But even though it is designed specifically to avoid raising general electricity rates, it is still raising consumer advocates’ ire. One group says it won’t encourage any additiona l renewable electricity generation, no matter how many people sign up.

“There is not a single iota of difference in the Western grid based on the model PG&E has proposed,” said Matt Freedman, an attorney with the Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based nonprofit. “It’s perpetuating a type of fraud on customers to tell them you’re signing up for renewable power and you’re helping make a difference when that’s not true.”

PG&E should be making long-term commitments to spur the construction of new facilities that actually need the money, rather than buying credits generated by existing wind and solar, he said. “They’re just throwing money at people who don’t need it,” Freedman said.
Aiming at local green programs?

Some observers are even more skeptical of PG&E’s motives. The memory of the 2010 PG&E ballot initiative is fresh in their minds.

PG&E’s solicitation of letters of support from Northern California mayors is “a mov e clearly designed to discourage local governments from starting their own green power programs,” former California Public Utilities Commission administrative law Judge Steven Weissman wrote in a blog post last month.

Proponents of those green power programs, known as “community choice aggregation,” or CCA, are also suspicious. “It is clear to us that this is an effort to undercut those CCAs, which try to pitch greener energy than what PG&E currently provides,” said Al Weinrub, a coordinator for the Local Clean Energy Alliance.

Others don’t see PG&E’s program as problematic. Several of the cities that are supporting it had previously considered starting CCA programs, an arrangement permitted by a 2002 state law in which a town or county buys electricity on the open market but still uses the incumbent utility’s infrastructure to deliver it.

“At this point, it’ll provide an option that’s currently not available, at least in the near term,” said Eri k Pearson, a senior planner for the city of Hayward, whose mayor wrote a letter supporting the program. “I think it’s going to be an improvement, at least for Hayward.”

In Marin County, home to the state’s only CCA, officials are now planning to expand service to their entire jurisdiction, hoping to sign up all 95,000 homes and businesses by July. And the city of Richmond is in talks to join Marin; its City Council is scheduled to vote tomorrow on whether to add its 35,000 customers to the program.

“We’re not too worried about it,” said Marin Energy Authority spokeswoman Jamie Tuckey of PG&E’s option. “It’s a different type of program.”

San Francisco, which is also pursuing a municipal electricity program, is hoping to sign an energy procurement contract with Shell Energy North America and begin service as soon as late 2012. It plans to add local renewable energy generation as well, to create local jobs and some long-term price stability.

“It’ s always a good thing when a utility offers a green program to their customers, but it doesn’t change the fact that we are doing a local CCA and our CCA will offer tangible, local benefits that the PG&E green-pricing program will not offer,” said Charles Sheehan, a spokesman for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, a member of the Green Party, said she was still interested in joining Marin’s program even with PG&E’s new offering. “I see MEA as by far the better alternative to the large conglomerate PG&E,” she said in an email. “We are very much interested in local energy projects that offer our residents much-needed jobs as well as provide sources of renewable energy.” MEA is pursuing two solar projects of about 1 megawatt each that it hopes to bring online by 2014.

Peter Miller, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council who supports PG&E’s new program, said he did not think the new o ffering would detract from local movements, because they are fueled by more than just a desire for more renewables.

“What is it that’s really motivating communities and localities to move to community choice?” he asked. “To the extent it’s just antipathy towards PG&E, this won’t affect it at all.”

http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2012/05/14/16

April 10, 2012, the Sonoma County Water Agency Board voted unanimously to continue its evaluation of Sonoma Clean Power. Since 2011 the Sonoma County Water Agency has studied the feasibility and desirability of implementing Sonoma Clean Power, a local program that will buy and generate electricity for businesses and residents to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions.

April 24, 2012, PG&E announced it had asked permission of the California Public Utilities Commission to offer its electric ratepayers a voluntary new program to support 100 percent renewable energy. PG&E expects that residential customers who voluntarily opt in to the program will pay on average about $6.00 more per month.

What is PG&E’s Green Option?
Their proposed program will enable ratepayers to support clean energy through the purchase of renewable energy certificates, or credits (RECs).

What are Renewable Energy Credits?
RECs are credits that can be purchased to match the portion of each participating electric ratepayer’s energy that is not already qualified as certified renewable energy.

How is Sonoma Clean Power different from the PG&E “Green Option?”
The “Green Option” does not do anything for Sonoma County specifically. Sonoma Clean Power will be a local not-for-profit public agency dedicated to offering programs that help Sonoma County residents and businesses.

Are there any other differences between Sonoma Clean Power and the “Green Option?”
There is nothing about the “Green Option” that will help Sonoma County achieve its greenhouse gas emission reductions target. Sonoma Clean Power will focus on accelerating new local generation of renewable power like geothermal and solar to help us achieve our reduction target.

Of the two, which will create more new clean power sources and jobs?
Sonoma Clean Power. The plan for Sonoma Clean Power is to develop new clean energy sources and expand energy efficiency efforts. This translates into jobs in Sonoma County.

Will Sonoma Clean Power use nuclear power?
Sonoma Clean Power will not include any nuclear power or coal in its mix and will aim to minimize the percentage of natural gas to generate electricity. The “Green Option” does not include a plan to phase out nuclear and fossil fuel use by PG&E.

Which is better… Sonoma Clean Power or PG&E’s “Green Option?”
Sonoma Clean Power is better because it will create more new clean power and the source of power will be closer to where the energy is used. If the “Green Option” results in the development of new renewable energy facilities, it will almost certainly be large, distant, utility-scale solar and wind power located in the fragile desert ecosystem. This kind of development requires long distance transmission lines that further degrade the natural environment.

For Immediate Release:                         Contact: Woody Hastings, Climate Protection Campaign
April 10, 2010, 12:00 noon                                   707-525-1665, ext. 117

Santa Rosa, CA—Today the Sonoma County Water Agency Board voted unanimously to move forward on six fronts with the prospective local electricity provider known as Sonoma Clean Power.

“Our county supervisors are demonstrating true leadership,” said Ann Hancock, Executive Director of the Climate Protection Campaign. “The world is indeed watching on this one.”

Two of the six items are legally required steps in the process of establishing Sonoma Clean Power. First is the drafting of an Implementation Plan that will constitute the program’s business plan. It will also serve as the legal filing with the California Public Utilities Commission to establish a new power provider. Second is a directive to establish the management structure to run the program, a Joint Powers Authority between the County of Sonoma and some or all of the cities within the county.

One of the stated goals of Sonoma Clean Power is to capitalize on local renewable energy resources. The Community Climate Action Plan found that renewable energy could constitute as much as 67 percent of the program’s electricity sources by 2020, twice as much as from the regional utility. This would also create jobs as people’s utility dollars are invested in energy facilities within the county.

Sonoma Clean Power is an example of Community Choice Aggregation, a public-private partnership that gives consumers another option of where to get their power. The Climate Protection Campaign is a member of the Sonoma Clean Power Steering Committee set up by the Water Agency in early 2011 to help guide the process.

“This could be the biggest thing the county can do to expand our use of clean, renewable energy, but the details will matter a lot,” said Hancock.

“This is the right program at the right time, but the program must include new local renewable energy,” said Dick Dowd, a local businessman and Chair of the Santa Rosa Board of Public Utilities. “That’s the only way you benefit the local economy – by creating new jobs and opportunities for business. Let’s move forward.”

In addition to the Implementation Plan and Joint Powers Authority, the Board voted to:

• Accept the results of a survey of Sonoma County residents and businesses relating to possible implementation of the Sonoma Clean Power and to authorize a further detailed study of large business customers.
• Approve the goals for Sonoma Clean Power.
• Direct Water Agency staff to hold study sessions about Sonoma Clean Power for the eligible cities in the County.
• Direct Water Agency staff to investigate possible sources of start-up funding for Sonoma Clean Power.

Santa Rosa, CA – Congresman Mike Thompson took the inaugural ride today of an innovative carpooling technique known as “real-time ride-sharing.” The ride marked the kick-off by the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) of WeGo Sonoma, a program that will be launched for the public later this month. The first of its kind, WeGo Sonoma uses new software and smart phone apps to link people into carpools. A number of partners are currently preparing to take advantage of this great project, including the County of Sonoma, the City of Santa Rosa and the Santa Rosa Junior College.

“This project provides short term relief to our over-crowded highways, while helping working families reduce their transportation costs,” Congressman Thompson said. “This is an easy, accessible and effective technology for the folks of Sonoma County to safely and quickly find a carpool in real-time – using only a smart phone or web browser.”

WeGo Sonoma will be launched this month for people looking to share rides between Petaluma and Santa Rosa along the 101 corridor. After that route gets established, it will be expanded to other transportation corridors.

“This program will help people get around at the same time that it reduces our greenhouse gas emissions,” said Valerie Brown, Chair of the SCTA. “It’s exciting to be part of such a cutting-edge project.”

SCTA is managing the $1.5 million federal grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Climate Initiative Grant Program. The Transportation Authority of Marin and Contra Costa Transportation Authority are also partners in the three‐county effort. The project is expected to take two years to complete. The Climate Protection Campaign is managing the Sonoma County portion.

Sonoma County is one of a handful of areas in the country rolling out this technology from Avego Corporation, giving local commuters a flexible way to beat congestion and offset high gas prices. Select employees of the County of Sonoma and City of Santa Rosa are currently part of a preliminary beta to test the system ahead of a larger launch on Earth Day (April 22).

The technology, called Avego Driver, is available free by download from the Apple app store or by accessing the WeGo Sonoma website at www.WeGoSonoma.com. Other areas rolling out similar projects include Santa Barbara CA, Seattle WA, and the U.S. Navy operations in Fairfax, VA.

“The potential for this software is huge,” said Paul Steinberg of Avego. “Sonoma County is a great place to pioneer the effort, and it is our hope that it gradually expands worldwide.”