Frequently Asked Questions

WHAT IS CCA? CCA is a means of getting more renewable power and energy
efficiency while cutting greenhouse gas emissions faster through

greater local control over our energy supply portfolio and at the same
time financing more locally generated clean electricity. Under a Marin
Power Authority CCA, county and cities could opt for a much cleaner
energy supply. MPA would be another a joint powers authority (JPA),
like Marin's two-dozen other JPAs which already routinely handle many
joint County-city functions. PG&E would continue to handle billing and

transmission as before. Electricity would come from mostly low-carbon
sources, more than PG&E offers. Large providers and equity partners
would assume risks and finance more supply at favorable municipal rates

as Marin scales up local generation during a contract period of a
decade or more, Carbon emissions would be cut substantially, helping
Marin and California meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets.

You can find complete Marin CCA information at Marin County's web site,

www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/comdev/advance/sustainability/Energy/
cca/CCA.cfm.

WHERE MARIN CCA STANDS. The last few months have seen real progress.

Marin County and city officials have been working over Navigant
Consultants's draft CCA business plan, released September, 2007. CCA
Local Government Task Force meetings of elected and appointed County
and city officials, a stakeholders' advisory group and CCA workshops

have all lent momentum., In October, representatives of the energy
industry and financiers testified that CCAs in Marin and elsewhere will
have plenty of available renewable energy to purchase and provide to
residents. Consultants outlined a dramatic option for "going completely
green" with a 100-percent renewable power option for those willing to
pay a bit more beyond normal rates. County officials foresee completion

of the CCA business plan by March, 2008. Assent by cities would be
required, followed by filing of an implementation plan with
California's Public Utilities Commission, selection of a services
provider, other technical steps in 2008, then final decisions about

"going on line" starting in 2009.

THE "DEEP GREEN OPTION". Support among electeds has gathered around
leading with a 100-percent renewable option. An idea first floated by a
representative from Ross and advocated by Marin Supervisor Charles

McGlashan (see Marin IJ article,
http://www.marinij.com/ci_7893850?source=most_viewed), this option
would have CCA offer 100-percent renewable power right away for

slightly more than PG&E rates. Ratepayers could also choose to stick
with the original business plan's start-up at 25-percent renewable
power building to more than 40 percent during the first five years. At

present PG&E offers only 12-percent renewable power and is unlikely to
top 20 percent for years to come. Navigant Consultants, having analyzed
the "deep green" idea, say that, depending on how fast future PG&E

rates go up, CCA could sell 100-percent renewable power for about $5 a
month more for the first four-five years, on average, after which the
differential would rapidly fall, leaving 100-percent green power
actually cheaper than PG&E over the long haul.

CONSUMER POLL FAVORABLE. Consumer research reveals that many or most
Marinites would lean toward paying a "deep green" premium. (Those who
don't would still be able to choose getting the a still-high "light

green" renewable option at PG&E rate levels (or opt out entirely and
stay with PG&E). A contract pollster found "incredible support" (74
percent) for local government becoming a provider of more renewable

energy that PG&E currently offers. 69 percent of those polled said they
would pay 5 percent more for renewable power. (See attachment, below,
pp. 64-69 for complete CCA poll results.) This polling offers the

strongest possible indication that local elected officials have the
public with them on a "deep green" option.

SHOULD CITIES VOTE ON CCA? At year's end, there is still a possibility
that some Marin city councils may be tempted to hold an advisory ballot

among residents before opting to join CCA. But Bob Spofford,
Sustainable San Rafael, says "Everyone recognizes that would be an
enormous opportunity for PG&E to sow misinformation and work to turn
out the people who just vote 'no' on anything. There may be some

electeds who just don't feel politically willing to make a decision on
their own." A ballot measure, in addition to unnecessary expense to
taxpayers, would be superfluous: Paul Helliker, Marin Municipal Water

District manager, told electeds that all Marinites already have a
"vote" in their ability to opt-out and remain a customer of PG&E. As
Helliker points out, the only real question on the table in any

advisory vote would be "do I want to deny my neighbors the opportunity
to buy greener power and fight global warming". By rejecting CCA,
officials or voters would be denying Marinites the "choice" in

"community choice". At year's end, CCA Local Government Task Force was
discussing more aggressive public outreach. Separately, a
public-private Marin Climate Protection Campaign aimed primarily at CCA

public education was being formed and funded. CCA can enter operation
with 50 percent of Marin's load, meaning the County and either San
Rafael or Novato assenting.

PG&E'S STANCE TOWARD CCA. California law instructs PG&E and other

utilities to support CCAs once they are operating. Nevertheless, PG&E
is waging a "soft" campaign against CCA state-wide that claims PG&E is
better. While PG&E asserts that it's power will be cleaner, Marin

County officials have challenged PG&E to prove it and so far they have
not been able to. Months ago, PG&E submitted a critique of Navigant's
draft business plan and Navigant responded, contesting PG&E's

assertions (see both attached, below). PG&E's "plan" appears to be
largely a tabulation of what California state authorities will in any
case be compelling utilities to provide. Occasionally PG&E has resorted

to rougher lobbying tactics which, for example, led to a formal
complaint to CPUC by San Joaquin Valley's CCA (see
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Published/proceedings/C0706025.htm
). PG&E
reportedly threatened several Tulare County supervisors with a lawsuit,
leading them to back out of a CCA commitment. Consultants and industry
experts believe closely regulated PG&E would not be able to withhold

power or raise transmission costs prohibitively once CCA started up.
PG&E cannot treat CCA customers any differently than customers in
other regions.

ENOUGH RENEWABLE POWER? Doubts that Marin's CCA won't be able to find

enough renewable power were cleared up at an October CCA workshop.
Outside industry experts and financial analysts testified there is
plenty of renewable power from many sources. Experts point out that a
Marin CCA -- being smaller and more agile than sprawling, bureaucratic

PG&E -- will be able take advantage of many new, smaller sources of
power just now coming on line and old contracts ending. And many
independent producers don't want to deal with cumbersome utilities,
preferring to work with a CCA that can set its rates independently
without going to the CPUC. Experts discounted concerns that PG&E would
"get there first" to new suppliers. Marin's renewable needs are

relatively modest, 250 MW, while PG&E's load is on a vaster scale so
procuring and incorporating renewables in such a system is much more
complex. CCA will be able to line up firm commitments and assurances

from suppliers well before any final deals are struck. Meanwhile, a
consultant has reported that Marin's longer-term potential for locally
generated renewable power -- solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, biomass --

is enough to eventually cover most or all of Marin's entire electricity
needs. The consultant noted that many local solar initiatives
(neighborhood solar trusts, buying cooperatives, assessment districts,
local bank loans) could be facilitated, expanded and accelerated under
CCA. (See link to workshop report and renewable report

http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/comdev/advance/Sustainability/
Energy/cca/CCA_lgc_workshop

.cfm.)

HOW ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY? California's CCA law (2002) directs CPUC
to set up procedures by which CCAs may become administrators of state

energy efficiency program funds collected as a "public goods charge"
from ratepayers' bills. CPUC has dodged doing so, has assigned
administration of these funds to big utilities, and it appears that

CPUC will only take action if and when CCAs assert their legal right to
control energy efficiency within their terriitories. Energy efficiency
is demonstrably the cleanest, quickest and least expensive source of

"new" energy ("negawatts"), making it an essential part of any CCA's
"integrated resource plan". CCA control of energy efficiency means
lower rates for CCA customers, immediately stronger balance sheets,

and, potentially, a wealth of economic development for the community.
Economical energy efficiency balances the higher up-front costs of
renewable energy and enables a CCA to move more quickly to 50 percent
or more renewables. A County consultant's study of CCA energy

efficiency modalities is in preparation.

HOW ABOUT RISKS? The bottom line from consultants, advisors and County
officials, after months of detailed study, is that all CCA risks are
manageable and are no greater than the status quo. Major vendors, as in

San Joaquin Valley's CCA, will provide guarantees that absorb all CCA
fiscal risk. In particular, industry experts discount concerns that
so-called exit fees from PG&E -- to compensate PG&E for contracts

already concluded which include power for PG&E's previous Marin
customer base such as DWR bonds and contracts -- could be higher than
anticipated; these are easily predictable, experts say, and largely
fixed. The requirement for utilities to have excess "peaking power"
available if needed would also be handled routinely for the CCA by a
vendor. Greater reliance on stable renewable power and a smaller, more

agile portfolio actually lessens risk posed by highly volatile natural
gas pricing, problematic nuclear power and PG&E rate increases that
have historically averaged four percent annually. County studies have,

if anything, highlighted the risks of doing nothing or sticking with
the status quo.

WHAT ABOUT CARBON EMISSIONS? Depending on how a CCA's portfolio is
constructed, experts say a CCA can quite dramatically outperform PG&E's

carbon footprint, despite the utility's heavy reliance on large hydro
and allegedly low-carbon nuclear power. One reason: CCA's expanded use
of renewable power reduces PG&E's need for natural gas, a fossil fuel

half as dirty as coal. Also, inclusion of co-generation sources
(combined heat and power) could further cut natural gas use and carbon
emissions. Properly assembled CCA portfolios could eventually mean a
70-percent advantage over PG&E's current carbon footprint, according to

some experts. County planners say the reduction in Marin's overall GHG
emissions would be between 17 and 24%.