Organizing for Success at the Berkeley Energy Commission

Community Choice was on the agenda for the September 24th Berkeley Energy Commission meeting, with Dawn Weisz of Marin Clean Energy and Dave Room of the Local Clean Energy Alliance as scheduled speakers.  The commission invited Dawn to do a presentation on the progress of Community Choice in Marin County.  The Berkeley Energy Commission usually has a handful of people in the audience. 

On the September meeting, at least 27 people attended the meeting and 25 of them showed up for Community Choice as evidenced by their "I support Community Choice" stickers.  Bay Localize's Jan Cox Golvich with assistance from Bay Localize's Kirsten Schwind got folks outfitted with stickers as they approached the building. Despite protestations by other commissioners that they couldn't wear a sticker because they needed to be impartial, local TV host and commissioner Josh Kornbluth proudly wore the Community Choice sticker.

Noting that there were so many Community Choice supporters and the Bus Rapid Transit item had some time constraints, commission chair Scott Murtishaw put public comments on Community Choice after the BRT item and before the Community Choice presentation.  In the beginning of the BRT talk, Len Conley noted that the Friends of BRT and the Sierra Club support Community Choice as well.  After the BRT talk, public comment on Community Choice began in the front of the room and proceeded through to the back.

Over the next 30 minutes, 18 people spoke, all in favor of Community Choice.  

• Loni Gray. Berkeley is a leader and pioneer across-the-board, from seat belt laws to recycling to climate change. Berkeley should embrace its role as a leader and pioneer in clean energy purchasing as well.
• Kirsten Schwind. Berkeley resident and Program Director of Bay Localize, here representing Local Clean Energy Alliance of the East Bay, which is made up of Bay Localize, Sierra Club, Pacific Environment, Berkeley Ecology Center, Kyoto USA, and many other local organizations, businesses, and community leaders. See www.localcleanenergy.org for a complete list. The goal of the Alliance is to maximize energy efficiency and renewable energy in the East Bay eventually leading to a 100% renewable mix. We support Community Choice Energy as a powerful tool to make this happen. We're impressed by the success of small cities in energy purchasing on the California market, including Alameda, where consumers enjoy greener energy at rates 22% lower than PG&E.
• Aaron Lehmer. Berkeley renter who would like a choice in where he buys his energy, since he has no control over whether solar panels are installed on his roof. Would like to be able to be a part of a program that moves 100% renewable energy. The Navigant feasibility study found that he was feasible for Berkeley to move to 50% renewable energy by 2017, and encourages the city to go ahead and make that happen.
• Christopher Pease. Does business in Berkeley as a landscape designer.  Berkeley states that it is a nuclear free city, yet it imports 23% of its electricity from nuclear energy. Urges Berkeley to move ahead with community choice as a way to be true to its commitments as a nuclear free city.
• Erica Ettelson. Member of Berkeley Oil Independent Task Force. Natural gas prices are predicted to be increasingly volatile and subject to price spikes. Given this volatile market and the essential nature of energy to any economy, energy mix decisions should be in the hands of the public sector, not the private sector.
• Ingrid Severson. Operates a massage therapy practice in Berkeley. Afforadable rate. Will benefit businesses and homes.
• Rory Cox. California Program Director for Pacific Environment.  At this point, North America has been able to rely on its own natural gas reserves. However, several ports are now looking to export liquefied natural gas, for example to the Japanese market where utilities pay twice the North American price. If this happens natural gas in North America will become a global commodity will rise in price closer to what consumers are paying in Tokyo: $22/Btu, compared to $11/Btu in California.
• Greg Fisher.  Works at a Berkeley green tech business, and encourages the city to move ahead with community choice energy, as it could open up business opportunities for Berkeley's local green tech sector.
• Chris Keyser. Berkeley resident and energy reporter.  Before the California energy crisis the state had a surplus, but state got fleeced during the crisis.  We need greater rate security into the future, encourages Berkeley to move ahead with community choice to secure rate stability.
• Tom Kelly. With Kyoto USA, supports community choice energy as a mechanism to increase investment in solar in Berkeley.
• Jane Kelly. With Kyoto USA, very concerned about climate change and encourages Berkeley to move ahead with community choice in order to do as much as possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Jason Meggs. Berkeley resident and grad student studying urban planning and transportation systems.  Encourages Berkeley to move ahead with community choice as an investment in its economic development and the future of its transportation system, which may increasingly be powered by electricity.
• Abraham Kneisely.   Berkeley has the ability to move ahead on community choice, which has been stalled for a long time. The city should move ahead in its implementation.
• Jackie Dragon. Director of an ocean conservation organization.  Climate change is bigger than Berkeley, it affects the whole world it is already having troubling effects on our oceans. We need to move ahead doing everything we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Encourages Berkeley to move ahead with community choice in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation as quickly as possible.
• Ven Kasireddy. Berkeley resident, works as a product designer in Berkeley. Encourages the city to move ahead with community choice and explore the potential of collaborative buying, perhaps forming a local purchasing cooperative that it could be a part of a larger purchasing cooperative.
• Arthur Boone. On the board of the local Sierra Club, also involved in a recycling business.  Encourages the city to move ahead with community choice.
• Jessica Bell. Berkeley resident and works in Berkeley.  PG&E has not met its state-mandated targets under the renewable portfolio standard law, and has in fact decreased the portion of renewables in its portfolio since the law went into effect in 2003. PG&E has publicly stated that it is not on track to meet the state-mandated target of 20% renewable by 2010.  PG&E is not a reliable actor in meeting renewable goals. With this record Berkeley cannot rely PG&E to help meet its emissions reductions goals, and needs to move ahead independently.
• Jan Cox Golovich. PG&E works in its corporate self interest, not in the interest of the City of Berkeley, its residents, or the environment. If you are trying to partner with PG&E to reduce greenhouse gas emissions "you can talk until you are as blue as their little trucks" but it won't change that fact. Hope that this turnout has shown you that there is a lot of support in the community for Community Choice.

Dawn Weisz's presentation on the Marin Clean Energy plan followed.  Notably, she indicated that of all the policy measures they investigated, Community Choice gave the largest CO2 reductions by far and that these large reductions would be paid for through electricity rates. It was a similar but condensed version of the presentation that John Corcoran gave at the September Local Clean Energy Alliance meeting.   After Dawn's presentation and a several minutes of questions and answers, chair Scott Murtishaw asserted that Community Choice would not provide GHG emission reductions since electricity generation is included in the Western Climate Initiative's (WCI) Cap and Trade system in which California will participate.

The WCI plan covers the six major greenhouse gases (GHG) including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The plan covers electricity generation (including electricity imported from outside the regional jurisdiction), certain industrial and commercial facilities, the refining industry and transportation fuel combustion. The threshold for coverage is 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents annually. The chairs point is that if for example Marin Clean Energy activities reduced GHG emissions by 350,000 tons in 2019, other companies such as PG&E or Chevron would buy up the emissions credits so they could increase their emissions by 350,000 tons. 

Neal De Snoo suggested that Community Choice programs could retire credits rather than sell them, and Murtishaw noted that would be forgoing money that could be used for other valuable things such as energy efficiency.  Another possibility is that Community Choice programs could sell additional emission credits and use the funds for GHG reducing projects outside the cap and trade system (e.g., less than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents annually).  Such possibilities will need further investigation.   

Dave Room subsequently gave brief remarks with a large sign focusing on PG&E's violation of California RPS law which mandates the Investor Owned Utilities deliver 20% eligible renewable energy by 2010 and that they increase their renewable portion by 1% per year.

After other items, the commission discussed Community Choice, and speculation that Oakland may not want to move forward.  Commissioner Kornbluth suggested that Berkeley might join Marin's JPA.  The commission decided to form a sub committee to investigate how they might move forward with Community Choice and potentially how they could act as an advocate with the Berkeley and Oakland city councils.  The subcommittee includes Commissioners Brooke Lee, Josh Kornbluth, and another commissioner.