|
|
|
Uploaded: Thursday, December 17, 2009, 2:49 PM
Upfront: Runaway grand jury?
Clean energy proponents hear voice of PG&E in scathing grand jury report
|
|
by Peter Seidman
The title of the recent grand jury report about Marin Clean Energy leaves little doubt as to the intentions of the grand jurors. The title: "Pull the Plug."
Far from being a rational piece of reasoned investigation, the report is neither accurate nor fair, say Marin Clean Energy proponents. County Supervisor Charles McGlashan, who also is chairman of the Marin Energy Authority board, puts it bluntly: "I'm not surprised at all. I could tell from the orientation of the members and the types of questions raised that it was going to end up being a hit job."
Ed Mainland, a member of Sustainable Novato and a longtime participant in Marin's sustainability movement, says he sees the fingerprint of PG&E. "The grand jury report is sort of a mini-scrapbook cut and paste job from PG&E talking points." Novato, Corte Madera and Larkspur are the only cities that have declined to become members of the Marin Energy Authority, a joint powers agency.
PG&E has spent serious time and money trying to quash attempts across the state to form local power agencies under a state program that allows what's called community choice aggregation. The Marin Energy Authority formed in December 2008. It isn't the first of its kind in the state.
The San Joaquin Valley Power Authority paved a trail for other entities in the state interested in creating public power agencies. When news broke that San Joaquin was suspending its efforts to break away from PG&E, opponents of public power said the experience should be a cautionary tale for Marin.
But, say Marin Clean Energy proponents, rather than act as a cautionary tale about energy markets and public power, the San Joaquin story actually is a cautionary tale about the tactics PG&E has been using to block public power plans.
After the state law passed in 2002 that allows cities and counties to form their own public power agencies, the San Joaquin agency, which comprises 12 jurisdictions in the Central Valley, was out in front of the pack.
"San Joaquin started the request for proposals process in November of 2007," says Dawn Weisz, a Marin County sustainability planner and interim director of the Marin Energy Authority, "and they had locked in a deal with one supplier in January 2008." But before it could start to provide power, PG&E pressured the agency to sign an agreement that would have allowed the cities and towns in the agency to be responsible for any debts and liabilities of the authority's programs. And that, says Weisz, "is contrary to state law."
The utility raised the issue before the California Public Utilities Commission, which resulted in a six-month delay in implementing the public power contract with an energy supplier. The utilities commission ruled in favor of the San Joaquin agency. PG&E filed an appeal, which caused another delay. By the end of that process, the energy market "had changed dramatically," says Weisz. San Joaquin, however, is taking another crack at local energy.
That kind of blocking tactic was seen in Marin when PG&E offered Novato a special deal if the city would turn its back on the Marin Clean Energy proposal and stick with PG&E. That violates state law, and PG&E had to back away from the proposal.
Those kinds of shenanigans fall in stark contrast to the grand jury report, which says the effort to pursue Marin Clean Energy should be abandoned in an attempt to work with "local foundations, federal, state and local agencies and PG&E to foster cooperation."
That seems odd to proponents of Marin Clean Energy, who tried for months to work with PG&E to arrive at a plan that would meet the clean energy requirements of the new local power agency. "We worked very closely in many meetings with PG&E to find a way that they could meet the local goals around renewable energy," says Weisz, "and they ultimately cut off those discussions in April of this year, after we had spent a lot of time trying to craft something. They were unwilling to put anything on paper that we had worked on over a four-month period. And after that, they were reprimanded by the California Public Utilities Commission for the [special offer they had put on paper" in Novato.
The suggestion that PG&E would be willing to engage in a cooperative effort with local power agencies seems even stranger in light of the ballot measure the utility company is working on.
PG&E is behind a measure aimed at the June 2010 ballot that some say would kill public power in the state if voters approve it. Originally called "The Taxpayers Right to Vote Act," it is a constitutional amendment that mandates a two-thirds vote in any jurisdiction that seeks to create a public power agency and break away from an existing utility power grid.
It also would require an agency like Marin Clean Energy to garner a two-thirds vote in a proposed new expansion area, as well as hold a separate election in the existing service area. In other words, before expanding, a public power agency would need a two-thirds vote from its entire customer base. Proponents of community choice power agencies say it is a blatant attempt to use the almost insurmountable two-thirds rule to effectively block local power.
The timing of the grand jury report comes as the Marin Energy Authority is nearing a Feb. 4 vote that will decide whether it accepts a contract with an energy wholesaler. McGlashan and others say the report was the subject of a suspicious leak. It seems PG&E had a copy of the report before the grand jury released the document.
An e-mail from a Mill Valley resident to members of the Mill Valley City Council says the resident received the report Dec. 4 from David Rubin, PG&E's director of service analysis. The report was released to the public Dec. 7, although it's dated Dec. 2. That early release by the PG&E representative is illegal. McGlashan filed a formal complaint with the county district attorney.
The allegation that the grand jury report is slanted in favor of PG&E also rests on a serious omission. Among the findings in the report is the assumption that the business plan for Marin Clean Energy, which was formulated in 2008, "is outdated and lacks sufficient detail, including current pro-forma data, updated market analysis, load projections, customer exit fees and the specified quantitative analysis."
The grand jury publishes a list of documents that it uses in analyzing an issue. A key document is missing from the list in this report. In a preliminary response to the report, the Marin Energy Authority board asserts that, contrary to the allegation in the report, the business plan "is an extremely detailed document, prepared in cooperation with energy industry experts."
The response continues by saying the business plan underwent two independent peer reviews, both of which found it to be comprehensive and containing "no fatal flaws." In addition, a draft version of the implementation plan for Marin Clean Energy "was made available to the grand jury as requested and provides an even higher level of specificity and detail, as it is more current." That implementation plan was not included in the documents the grand jury perused for the report. The board of the Marin Energy Authority approved the implementation plan Dec. 3 and submitted it to the state public utilities commission Dec. 4. "The implementation plan," states the response, "is, in effect, an update to the business plan."
That kind of omission, say clean energy proponents, calls the report into serious question. In addition, the report suggests that many questions remain unanswered concerning the Marin Clean Energy proposal, questions that have been asked and answered numerous times as proponents have made the rounds of city councils and public meetings. At each step along the way, and in letters to the editor, a curious similarity in criticism crops up, which suggests PG&E talking points. And those same talking points seem to be embedded in the grand jury report.
One of the criticisms of the energy plan that turns up repeatedly, including an allegation in the grand jury report, is the assumption that the proposal will put taxpayers at serious risk in a program that's never been tried in California. In addition, the report cites a New York Times story about a power entity in Florida that promised to deliver solar power, but much of the money raised went to administrative costs. That kind of anecdotal evidence does a disservice to the grand jury because the fact that one energy agency was mismanaged in Florida proves nothing about the overall efficacy of community choice and local power.
What the report fails to give adequate attention to are the successful community choice local power agencies that already operate in Massachusetts and Ohio. The report also fails to note the fact that one in four Californians already receives electricity from local municipal utilities, not from monolithic monopoly power utilities like PG&E. And, notes the Marin Energy Authority's preliminary response to the report, those municipal utilities "generally charge their ratepayers 20 percent less than the investor-owned utilities and are governed by elected boards."
Under the Marin Clean Energy program, customers who choose not to opt out would automatically receive electricity generated from sources that are 25 percent greenhouse-gas-free. Customers who choose to pay a relatively small surcharge would receive 100 percent clean energy. The clean-energy proposal will give current PG&E customers multiple opportunities to opt out of the green program and stick with PG&E, which will continue to transmit electricity to all customers.
PG&E currently provides about 15 percent clean energy to its customers and is under state mandate to increase that to 20 percent in 2010. But the utility already has filed for and received a waiver from the state because it will not meet that target until after the deadline.
Marin Clean Energy would, out of the gate, supply its customers with a minimum of 25 percent clean energy and, notes Mainland, that the goal is to be 100 percent renewable, leapfrogging the PG&E state-mandated target.
The grand jury suggests that the county and its cities seek to improve current clean energy programs rather than embark on Marin Clean Energy. But, says Weisz, those programs cost taxpayer money that comes out of general funds. Ratepayers fund Marin Clean Energy.
In addition, the grand jury's recommendation that the county should work with PG&E to create clean energy programs rather than launch local initiatives is belied by a new report. The UCLA Environmental Law Center and the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the University of California this month released a report titled "In Our Backyard: How to Increase Renewable Energy Production on Big Buildings and Other Local Spaces."
Although Marin may not have a plethora of big buildings, and the open space it does have may pose challenges for renewable energy production, the county still has ample opportunity to promote local clean energy production by local companies. The number of solar installers currently working in the county proves the possibilities. Not to mention other forms of production.
A key finding in the UC report: "Decentralized renewable energy generation represents the single most immediate and feasible means to produce renewable energy at a broad scale without reliance on long-distance transmission lines, some of which have yet to be built."
That's what sustainability and clean energy proponents in Marin have been saying for years.
Contact the writer at peter@pseidman.com.Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Sparky Tuthill, a resident of the Kentfield neighborhood, on Dec 17, 2009 at 4:31 pm The government has no business in the electricity business. If you want green energy, then lobby the legislature to require the utilities to deliver it green, but hold on to your wallet. Remember when the Sate deregualated electricity and told us that rates would fall by 10%? Pull the plug.
|
|
Posted by CLIFTON BUCK-KAUFFMAN, a resident of another community, on Dec 17, 2009 at 7:37 pm Hey "Sparky", is your middle name Kilowatt?
|
|
Posted by Yes on MCE, a resident of another community, on Dec 17, 2009 at 9:37 pm About time we had some news report on the PG & E propoganda!
1. PG&E has consistently fallen short on its green energy promises, and is doing everything they can from stopping communities from delivering their own green power.
2. About 25% of CA residents get power from public power authorities(PPA). Customers supplied by PPAs pay, on average, ~25% less for their energy than is charged by nearby monopoly utilities.
3. PG&E will still provide and maintain the power lines and distribution network, and do the billing and collection. MCE will just be a buyer for the power.
4.Ratepayers are not obligated to pay for energy they do not
use. Revenue bonds are secured by the sale of the power from the asset. The bonds that would be issued for building a new project would be covered by ratepayers in the normal course of business, just as is now the case with the incumbent utility. But to take it a step further, it is actually the revenue from the newly created asset that will secure payback on the bonds. So, for example, if a solar field is built using a bond issuance, the energy being created from that asset
is sold to repay the bond over time. In the normal course of business the ratepayers would be covering that debt by paying for the energy generated each month. If MEA failed, however, or ratepayers were not available to cover the cost, then the power would be sold elsewhere and revenue from that sale would cover the bond repayment. Rate payers are only obligated to pay for the electricity they purchase from MEA, and rates will include debt service on any bond issuances as is now the case with the current utility. Under no scenario would ratepayers be obligated to help pay for energy they do not use or to “bail
out” MEA in the unlikely event of an organizational default.
|
|
Posted by Bobby, a member of the Marin Academy community, on Dec 17, 2009 at 9:38 pm WELL....So much for "objective journalism"!
Reads more like a job application for a position with the new MEA. Peter, really, how stupid do you think the people of Marin County are?
|
|
Posted by sally, a resident of the Fairfax neighborhood, on Dec 17, 2009 at 9:55 pm Actually, this is the best report I've seen to date. PG & E spends a lot of ad dollars with the newspapers and thus the reporting on MCE has been slanted towards PG & E until now. Thank you for courageously telling us the truth about this greedy monopoly.
|
|
Posted by Paul Helliker, a resident of the Corte Madera neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 6:50 am Thank you, Peter Seidman, for providing a thorough analysis of the issues associated with Marin Energy Authority. One that you didn't cover, which is a central complaint of the Grand Jury report, is their erroneous allegation that MEA poses a risk to taxpayers in Marin County. This is another theme that PG&E has been sounding at City Council meetings for the past year, in an unsuccessful attempt to obfuscate the truth. State law allows joint powers authorities like MEA to limit any liability for expenses to the authority, and not assign it to the organizations that are members. What this means is that any bills that MEA incurs will be paid for from energy sales to ratepayers, not from the general funds of its member agencies. PG&E tried to get the Public Utilities Commission to overrule state law on this issue and make Marin cities and towns liable, but the PUC refused (and didn't have the authority to do so, in the first place, anyway).
The fact is, the main questions that were at issue when the cities and towns in Marin opted to give Marin ratepayers a choice of electricity supplies have now been answered. The concern was whether or not Marin could find well-established energy providers who could offer a competitive price for 25% and 100% renewable power. The results of MEA's solicitation process have shown that it is a robust market. MEA will be able to deliver 25% renewable power for a price at or below PG&E's current and future rates, and Marin customers will be able to buy 100% renewable power for only a few cents more per kilowatt-hour. We need this option to address the greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity use in Marin.
|
|
Posted by Sea, a resident of another community, on Dec 18, 2009 at 7:39 am The fact is that most of these annoying questions have never been answered Paul. Just fluffy green buzz words that filter back. It is doubtful that you understand the problems that accompany this proposed de-regulation. Its great that the Marin Civil Grand Jury came to this conclusion. Thankyou.
|
|
Posted by Bernie Stephan, a resident of the Pt. Reyes neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 8:02 am MCE is not about deregulation nor green washing. MCE is about pushing for locally sited, distributed, small scale energy renewables while PG&E was and continues to be organized for centralized, monopoly-protected, large scale power generation. Marin is 1% of PG&E's load. What is too samll for PG&E can be just right for Marin. PG&E does fear Marin Energy Authority and California's CCA law and the beginning of a new competitive era of clean enery production.
|
|
Posted by Bones, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 9:57 am I heard MCE is asking the county and some other agencies to guarantee their debt. Is that true? If it is, that would mean the taxpayer IS at risk contrary to what some have said.
|
|
Posted by Jesse Devereaux, a resident of the Greenbrae neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 9:58 am It never ceases to amaze me how many folks will side with monopolistic companies over their own best interests and the interests of their communities and family... all in the name of the Republican party.
|
|
Posted by Ken Kitchens, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 10:33 am Jesse how can you make this a Republican issue?
This is a "pocket book" issue with most realizing the County and the MEA will most likely mismanage this boondoggle and we don't want to be stuck with the tab.
Do you you have insider knowledge that the Grand Jury was made up of Republicans? There are 19 members on the jury and since this County votes 82% Democrat I would state that is probably the makeup of the Grand Jury.
Why is it that everything the MEA spouts is beyond reproach and everything that anyone else concludes is wrong?
Once again I am not willing to pick up your tab for this experiment. If it is a sound benefit I would opt-in not be forced to opt-out.
Kenny
|
|
Posted by Mill Valley Clean Energy Advocate, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 10:50 am Peter,
Thank you for this excellent piece of reasoned journalism on Marin Clean Energy, and particularly for examining the shortcomings of the Grand Jury Report, as well as its all too obvious links to the PG&E anti-localization "Talking Points" we've been hearing at meeting after meeting these last few years.
Marin Clean Energy, small as we may be in the larger world of electrical power, is our county's best opportunity to lead the way out of denial about the rapidly increasing consequences of climate change and global warming. We're all going to need local distributed electrical power soon.
MCE is not just a wake up call, but a practical, self-funding program, that, once established, will provide a successful model for other California communities who know what they need to do, but aren't yet sure about how to make the move to local, distributed clean energy systems.
There is nothing at all dishonorable about being first to do something right. Leadership is great. Let's continue to lead.
|
|
Posted by Jesse, a resident of the Greenbrae neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 12:05 pm Ken, I didn't mean to imply the grand jury is filled with conservatives, I meant the knee-jerk opposition to anything government run (aside from the fire department, police department, military, and all the other things government run that conservatives champion) is a typical Republican-talking-point reaction. Typical example: despite the above post by Paul Hellicker, you still think that citizens will be left to "pick up the tab" for having a choice in their energy purchases. They won't. It is against state law.
|
|
Posted by Sea, a resident of another community, on Dec 18, 2009 at 12:08 pm Bernie, a thoughtful post. But just a few more annoying questions. Locally Sited, you did'nt mean in Marin, did you? Locally distributed, you mean via facilities and structures owned by PG&E? Small scale energy renewables. Who and where are they? Finally Bernie why don't they talk about conservation while taking this wild leap into the un-known? I sense its because it is about future BIG business, which isn't consistant with conservation. No conservation is not a list topper.
|
|
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Kentfield neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 1:50 pm It is funny that conservatives say things like "the government doesn't belong in the energy business". The government, responsive to local interests, not corporate profits, can contract with the private sector to meet local needs.
The government contracts with private contractors for military defense, maintaining roads, providing medicare (a popular government program that no republican wants to cut for fear of being voted out), spying on our enemies, etc. Why can't they contract with the private sector for energy purchases? Of course they can, and they should. Right now we have a private monopoly that is earned a guaranteed return on their capital - is that the free market at work??
|
|
Posted by Edward Mainland, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 2:36 pm The reality-based community knows that a quarter of California's electricity is provided by municipal public power -- like Sacramento Municipal Utility District. "Government" supplies renewable power and cheaper power than investor-owned utilities. "Anti-government" arguments are groundless in the face of California facts.
The East Bay flirtation with PG&E has amounted to very little, in the opinion of those closest to the situation. And after eight months of wasting staff time and money on its own "PG&E alternative", Novato has also come up with no credible alternative to MCE. This was made clear at a November City Council working session when Pat Eklund, an MCE skeptic, remarked, "Maybe we made a mistake [seeking a PG&E "alternative"]". (Look it up, it's on tape.) AB 811 is a useful supplement but clearly no substitute for CCA. It can't scale up massively enough and quickly enough. And MCE and MEA can actually get AB 811 in Marin set up better and faster. MCE far outstrips all other potential means of carbon reduction over time.
The grand jury's hit piece is deeply flawed. The jury didn't draw from Marin's pool of available citizen renewable energy experts and seems to have been befuddled by PG&E talking points. Please read MEA's response (MEA website). The truly risky option -- from the standpoint of carbon reduction and rate stability -- is PG&E, the cumbersome behemoth that keeps raising our rates but still hasn't been able to meet state targets for renewable power and energy efficiency.
|
|
Posted by Todd, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 3:46 pm Local Renewable Plan for Marin Clean Energy will likely be:
* Geothermal from Sonoma County
* Solar panels on shade tents over parking lots like Marin Civic Center
* Increased residential and commercial solar incentives (schools, homes, businesses)
* Reactivating the wind farm currently closed in East Bay
* Plug in stations for electric/hybrid vehicles throughout Marin County
* Biomass from Agricultural farms in Marin/Sonoma
Local Control of our clean energy future, local jobs, improved economy.
|
|
Posted by Ken Kitchens, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 4:07 pm Edward you state that the Grand Jury didn't draw from the available pool of citizen renewable energy experts. How do you know this? Where you a member of this Grand Jury? If you were not how can you be so certain that "due diligence" was not performed by your fellow citizens? Do you know the intellectual background of this particular Grand Jury? If not how do you conclude that these citizens were befuddled?
The Grand Jury always interviews citizen experts before reaching their conclusions.
You like to state the rebuttal from the MEA website giving them a "halo effect" yet rebuke anything suggested by PG&E. This appears to me as a complete bias against anyone who does not share your view point.
When you look at how the County and the various city governments cannot manage their own budgets how do you conclude they will do any better with managing energy?
Kenny
|
|
Posted by Pam Hartwell-Herrero, a resident of the Fairfax neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 4:08 pm Local renewables also include:
*Methane capture from the Redwood Landfill and potentially Marin Sanitary Service Composting facility
*Homes that choose to purchase larger than load solar systems and want to sell into the grid
*There has been some testing of wave power under the bay
*Public or private solar grids on downtown areas all over Marin
All of these options would be maintained by owner and power would be piped into the PG&E grid. A large percentage of power is lost in transfer and the most efficient power is the closest to the user.
Also MCE has been very clear that once we have some profits, projected within the first year, PG&E has certainly made lots of money buying and selling power, it will be investing in Energy Efficiency programs so that our power demand will also be reduced. Thereby being very conservative, in it's true sense of the word.
|
|
Posted by gary, a resident of the Fairfax neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 5:15 pm can anyone answere the fllowing questions
1-why does mce need $6 million startup costs?
2-who exactly will be getting that 6 million
3-where will that 6 million come from?
4 what will annual cost be to run this show?
i bet not one council member who is pushing this plan knows the answere to these questions. the are not competent enough to enter the enery field. no expertise. no experience.
we already know SMART has already busted their budget with false unfounded projections about income and expenses.the taxpayers were fooled by the SMART "experts" SMART is and will be the greatest marin boondoggle ever.the politicians who lead that parade down that road are involved here.
they had no expertise in transportation and they have no expertise in energy. way over their heads again!
local town council members are not quaified to foist this plan on us. they all have bigger fish to fry to balance their budgets,fix the potholes and maybe,just maybe, someday deal with all their unfunded pension and health care obligatons.
finally some posters here claim the grand jury findings were influenced by pge. a claim made with NO PROOF. we should run as fast as we can away from what these clowns are selling as they outright lie to us.
|
|
Posted by Bobby, a member of the Marin Academy community, on Dec 18, 2009 at 5:27 pm Right On Gary!
Very well stated.
Thank you.
|
|
Posted by David Schonbrunn, a resident of the Sausalito neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 5:28 pm Thank you, Peter, for an excellent article.
The thing that constantly amazes me about the MCE critics is how short their memories are. Don't they remember that it was PG&E that went bankrupt (after transferring billions to its corporate parent)? This is who you want to rely on? We paid a hell of a price for their greed.
Let's not forget who pushed deregulation. The energy companies led the pack in opposing Ralph Nader's Proposition 9, which would have repealed deregulation. Look at the disaster they brought down on us.
Public power works perfectly well in this state, and it's cheaper to boot. If we here in Marin want to have a higher renewable content in our power than PG&E is willing to arrange for, then fine. Let's take back the business of generating our power.
The state gave PG&E the power of a monopoly, but has limited that power by authorizing Community Choice Aggregation. Let's make sure that PG&E's monopoly power is kept in check. Even though it doesn't often look like it, in our nation, sovereignty still rests in the people, not in corporations.
|
|
Posted by Chuck, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 5:44 pm I'm, by far not an expert on energy, as I'm sure most of those on both sides of the argument appear to be, but whenever it comes to the Government running something I cringe with fear. Contrary to some out there this is not a question of Republican or Democrat, but rather one of competency in running an enterprise.
The Government established the U.S. Postal service, it's broke; Social Security. it's broke; Fannie Mae, it's broke; The War on Poverty, spends apporximately $1 trillion annually, it's not working; Medicare and Medicaid, they're broke; Freddie Mac, it's broke; Cash for Clunkers, the Japanese benefited....Without thinking too hard I'm sure most people can come up with more examples of how our Great Leaders have helped us get to where we are today. It's time to wake up and realize the Government does not solve problems, it is THE PROBLEM
|
|
Posted by Todd, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 5:47 pm I can answer the Grand Jury question....they were contacted by PG & E and led through the process. Energy experts who could have corrected their misinformation but were not contacted includes:
Paul Fenn - who cowrote the legislation that allows these community choice aggregates to be formed and helped both Ohio and Massachusetts create their highly successful versions of Marin Clean Energy (NOPEC and Cape Cod Light) He lives in the Bay Area.
Anyone from either of the successful CCA's
Anyone from Sustainable Marin or any of the Sustainable city organizations
Ed Mainland- State Energy Chair for Sierra Club and resident of Novato
Any of the MEA technical energy advisers
Anyone from the MEA Board
PG & E pulled the same stunt in SF as they are working on their version of MCE. The PG & E president commissioned a "nonprofit" to put out a report on it. It turns out he did that while on the Board o the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. In Marin, the report was leaked by PG & E even before it was released by Grand Jury...tells you who is running the show doesn't it?
Doug
|
|
Posted by Ken Kitchens, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 5:54 pm The title of this thread does a great dis-service to the Grand Jury members. If you knew how the Jury was selected you would know that no one is allowed to have an agenda.
Each Grand Jury member is interviewed by a Marin County judge. Out of 90 prosepective members 30 are selected. The 30 names are then draw at random to select the 19 members. There is no way that PG&E could "stack the deck" with their own jurors.
The Grand Jury calls in experts in the fields that they are investigating. They asked the same questions of PG&E and the MEA and then evaluated their answers. The Grand Jury has a higher level of education than the average person in this county. The Grand Jury was not befuddled or confused by the differences between PG&E and the MEA.
The County and the cities have no experience producing or delivering electrical power. County Supervisors can have an agenda, not the Grand Jury.
The posters who insult the Grand Jury must be taken "with a large grain of salt", they are angry because the Grand Jury did not agree with their position.
Kenny
|
|
Posted by Nan, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2009 at 11:23 pm Not saying they are green, but such communities as Palo Alto and Glendale have their own
energy companies. It's not unheard of.
|
|
Posted by gary, a resident of the Fairfax neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2009 at 6:13 pm hey todd of novato.
i can tell how much you want this energy plan but please play fair.
you try to make your case by listing the experts not called.that is a huge ruse unless you list the experts that were called so we can judge whether they were qualified.
i find your approach devious!
to all posters who claim the grand jury was influenced by PGE MAKE YOUR CASE NOW! show us the evidence . tell us the details. give us the facts.
i challange anyone to prove the gand jury was tainted and influenced by PGE.
UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE IT IS THAT NOT LIBEL?
let me start with a very simple question todd. do you know what evidence the grand jury did consider to reach their conclusion to ditch this energy plan?
if you dont know then your opinions are not based on all the facts but just the ones you know and suit your position.
await response.
|
|
Posted by James C, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Dec 20, 2009 at 10:17 pm The title for this thread is very a propos. This Grand Jury did an abysmal job of reporting on Marin Clean Energy. As noted in their own report, they didn't even review the most recent documents, and then complained that the business plan is out of date. How careless can you be on a topic of such importance? Read the New York Times article about MCE today - it is much more balanced.
The way that this report merely parrots the scare tactics that PG&E has been promoting for months - using "facts" that have all been refuted by many different industry experts - and the suspicious way that it was released (why was David Rubin of PG&E distributing copies almost a week before it was formally released?) indicate a strong bias on the Grand Jury to promoting PG&E's prevarications. We will likely never know exactly what the conversations were in the Grand Jury meetings, but you don't have to have a transcript to know that this report is fatally flawed and a worthless contribution to the debate.
We should all just put this report right up there on the shelf and ignore it and get back to the real business of making sure that Marin residents actually have a choice of energy providers, rather than having to rely on the local monopoly. Why would anyone be opposed to that (unless they stand to lose money, as PG&E does)?
|
|
Posted by Ken Kitchens, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 21, 2009 at 9:20 am James your comments are pure conjecture on your part. You have no facts to back up your assertions just your personal feelings.
It amazes me that you would trust a writer from the New York Times over your own fellow citizens whom you seem to view with suspicion. Once again the Grand Jury cannot be stacked as the 19 members are randomly selected after all (90) have been vetted by a Marin County judge.
Both the MCE and PG&E were asked the same questions. After hearing and evaluating the answers of both sides and consulting with experts the Grand Jury concluded that it was too risky to have this forced upon us.
Kenny
|
|
Posted by Ken Kitchens, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 21, 2009 at 9:45 am A few additional comments:
The New York Times article does not make any statements or claims that the Grand Jury used PG&E's talking points and it does not cast any suspicion on the motives of the Grand Jury as James does.
There are numerous statements about whether MCE "if" successful can lower green house gasses.
The article is a good read but does not support the position staked out by James in any way!
Kenny
|
|
Posted by James C, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Dec 21, 2009 at 3:44 pm Kenny - this is getting tedious, leading you to the details of the problems with the Grand Jury report. Rather than defend them with no basis for doing so, you should read the report, and then read the MEA analysis of it. Then, you can go back and read the MRW report, and the various independent analyses that have been done of the business plan and implementation plan.
Once you become familiar with the information, we can then have an intelligent discussion. I have been noting the flaws in the Grand Jury report that many others have also noted (including Peter Seidman) - these are "facts" that they have relied on, and that many have refuted. They also happen to be the exact same "facts" that PG&E uses in their attacks on MEA, which so far have not resonated with any of the thoughtful city and town councils in Marin. Thus the quite appropriate conclusion that the Grand Jury merely wanted to promote PG&E's fallacious fearmongering.
Novato decided not to approve membership in MEA because of their fear about liability. The same is true with Larkspur. However, as is shown quite clearly in the filings with the PUC (and in State law), the cities and towns have NO liability for any expenses incurred by MEA. So, those two towns are refusing to let their citizens have a choice in power purchases, all because they believed PG&E's lies. Corte Madera decided not to join because the neanderthals on their town council don't even think global warming is happening, much less that we should do anything about it. This, despite the fact that Marin's carbon footprint is one of the biggest boots on the planet (up there with Texas and Saudi Arabia, not company that most Marinites would appreciate).
|
|
Posted by Brant, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Dec 21, 2009 at 5:54 pm Seidman's article makes one thing very clear: hatred of PG&E is a core driver of MCE. I would add that hatred of nuclear power and distrust of large business also plays a role.
PG&E has provided me with decent service, sells me electricity generation for about $0.05/kwh, and is an extensively regulated devil I know. Nuclear power is green and is needed as a part of our effort to move off of fossil fuels. Personally I distrust large government. It so very often turns out to be incompetent. And MCE, with its virtually unlimited rate setting authority, is an especially worrisome version of large government. That authority is a much greater risk to the people of Marin than the items focused upon by the Grand Jury.
So, there you have it. The basis of choice. I can do without MCE.
|
|
Posted by L White, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 21, 2009 at 7:32 pm I haven't seen this much activity on the forum since the SMART train boondoggle and the story about Madison and his brother running around that Mill Valley restaurant annoying the rest of the patrons, while mom just read on...........
I did have one comment about a great suggestion about something that I do know about and don't have to have an arguable "opinion" -
"Solar panels on shade tents over parking lots like Marin Civic Center". Good suggestion -
Unfortunately, cheap(ish) solar panels aren't light enough yet, and the "tents" would have to be minor "buildings" with engineering studies, and incredible cost. (but would that stop the Supervisors?)
Maybe in 10-15 years, they will have a tough, photovoltaic canvas-like fabric and that might work in some areas. I can see it now - parking your US made Chevy Volt under your solar celled carport, plugging it in to top up the charge for the ride home. Bliss! :-)
Merry Christmas - I'll unplug a light or two to save energy.
LW
"Prius. The New Volvo, but quieter"
|
|
Posted by Ken Kitchens, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2009 at 10:47 am James this is becoming tedious for me because you appear to be "blinded" by your own enthusiasm for Green Power.
Reading the MEA response to the Grand Jury report is akin to having the student grade his own homework. On KQED this morning, between 0900 and 1000, there was an open forum on the MEA and PG&E with many in depth questions about this new energy provider. Ms. Dawn Weis was gently but in her place with assertions about the ability to provide cheaper green energy by Mr. Severin Borenstein from the Engergy Institute in Berkely, Haas School of Business. None of the experts stated that you could obtain cheaper or equivilent energy cost using the MEA. Most were concerned about the pricing not being locked in and the fact that the MEA cannot, at this time, identify where this renewable power will come from.
The Grand Jury report was addressed by Ms. Weis but only about the timing of it's release not it's validity.
And James resorting to fear mongering appears to be in your "bag of tricks" not PG&E's. In a prior post you stated "Marin's carbon footprint is one of the biggest boots on the planet (up there with Texas and Saudia Arabia, not company that most Marinites would appreciate)". Well either you have a problem with numbers/math and/ or truthfulness. The Marin footprint is 2.6 million tons while Saudi Arabia is 381,564,000 million tons with Texas at 670,220,000 million tons. The state of California's footprint is 388,950,000 million tons.
If you can't tell the truth at least don't tell the "big lie". I will state the Grand Jury's report is far more accurate than you own.
Kenny
|
|
Posted by James C, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2009 at 2:27 pm Sorry, Ken - you're out of luck with respect to the Grand Jury process. The GJ requires agencies that they write about to respond, so claiming that doing so is akin to students grading their own homework is ill-informed, at best.
And today's Forum was hardly a critique of MEA. The only thing that Severin Borenstein had concerns about is that customers be told the price their energy will be. That is one of the requirements of the CCA process, and after February 4, customers will get 4 notices - e.g. four votes - on their ability to opt out. Those notices will describe what the rates will be for both of the proposed tariffs (25% renewable and 100% renewable). MEA has never said that 100% renewable will be cheaper than PG&E's gas-fired power, in fact they have been clear that it will come at a price premium. But it won't cost the 25% more that PG&E predicted - Shell will sell it for only 6% more or thereabouts. And that's on the generation cost component, so the overall cost will be just 3% more (the rest of the transmission and distribution cost will be the same as PG&E, and composes 50% of the total electricity bill).
And Dawn Weisz was very clear today that MEA has many disputes with the Grand Jury report, which she did not have time to cover on Krasny's show. She directed people to the MEA website, if they want to read it. You really ought to do so - you might learn something. And David Rubin from PG&E himself noted that the Grand Jury merely regurgitated PG&E's critiques of MEA - all of which have been refuted by MRW and other outside experts. You ought to read their reports, too. Accuracy is not something that the Grand Jury report has much of, other than in reporting PG&E's fearful and fallacious tales. You never did answer my question - if PG&E is so certain that MEA will fail, why are they fighting it so hard?
As for the carbon footprint, Marin weighs in at 11 tonnes of CO2 per person, Saudi Arabia at 16 and Texas at 24. France and Sweden only spew out 6 tonnes per person, Argentina 4 and Costa Rica 2.
|
|
Posted by Ken Kitchens, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2009 at 3:54 pm James first of all I am not a PG&E employee so I cannot speak to their (PG&E's) motives. I am a taxpayer who resents the government spending my money to start up an unproven enterprise. The experts stated this morning that green power cannot be cheaply delivered because that technology is not developed yet including wind power.
I resent your attacks on your fellow citizen volunteers, the Grand Jurors and the Town Councils who do not support your position. They have done their own "due diligence" and they do not agree with you.
As for our carbon footprint it is .00681% of Saudi Arabia's and .00387% of the state of Texas. We are all trying harder to reduce this but it is not the gross distortion which you are trying to represent.
Kenny
|
|
Posted by James C, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2009 at 4:58 pm Ken - apparently, you don't even read my comments, much less the Grand Jury report or the MEA response. I have not attacked the Grand Jury members - I have criticized their report. They are undoubtedly fine people, and volunteered to deliberate on various issues. Unfortunately, they are not experts, nor does their report indicate that they did their homework very well. And the report is certainly not dispassionate, so the stridency of their tone does raise questions about their motives.
You're right, I don't find much value in the Grand Jury report. But when the report is self-admittedly flawed (for example, the issue of their criticism of the "outdated" business plan), I do have little patience with its poor quality, and certainly with anyone who thinks it has merit. As I have said - read the report and the MEA analysis and then we can have an informed debate. Until then, you are merely espousing an opinion.
The experts did not say that renewable power is not developed yet. Solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, geothermal, wind and other technologies are all well-developed. With the exception of wind and geothermal, they currently cost more than fossil-fueled power. But, as Severin Borenstein said this morning, if the externalities (pollution, CO2 emissions, war, terrorism, etc.) are factored into the cost of the oil and gas, the equation becomes much more attractive for renewables. That's why he advocated a carbon tax.
As for PG&E's motives, take a look at their corporate investment strategy. They plan to make money by owning and operating gas- and nuclear-powered facilities. Losing customers in Marin does not further that strategy, which is why they are so adamantly opposed to any CCA becoming viable. They waged a similar campaign in Yolo County, to oppose a shift to public power there.
And with respect to the carbon footprint, if you don't compare per capita emissions, your points don't make much sense. Marin does not have a lot of residents, but those who do live here generate a lot more CO2 per person that does most of the rest of the world (with the exception of a few places like Texas, Saudi Arabia, and sadly, Wyoming). If we pride ourselves on being so environmentally-conscious, we need to take some drastic actions to reduce our carbon footprint.
|
|
Posted by gary, a resident of the Fairfax neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2009 at 5:59 pm lets see. 500 tickets at $500 is $250,000 in a month. only 3%($7500) goes to san rafeal?
thats a lot of extra tickets that san rafeal will be writing and bringing in some serious extra money like $3,000,000 a year?
someone please tell me where all this money will go? who gets it and why?
|
|
Posted by gary, a resident of the Fairfax neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2009 at 6:39 pm sorry everyone. that was suposed to be posted on another board.
however this issue may interest the many heavyweights who post on this board. is anyone else interested that because san rafeal has 500 extra tickets a month because of new cameras and can now produce new revenue of $3million a year and only 3% of it goes to san rafeal?
where does the rest of that money go? anyone know?
|
|
Posted by gary, a resident of the Fairfax neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2009 at 7:02 pm one more thing
it woul be prudent if that extra $3 milion would go to pay down our unfunded health and pension liabilities which are on the way to driving our small towns and county into bankruptcy while nero plays the fiddle!
incredible the siren failed to sound the alarm over ten years ago.
to assume the county can run an energy business when it cant balance its own books is folly.
also understand no matter what any of the posters say noone can know the numbers on expenses and noone can tell you the income because noone knows who will opt out. how can you even think of moving forward in a business like fashion when you dont know the numbers? its the type of things many well meaning small town no energy business experience council and board of supes members do all the time.and at the economic peril of the taxpayers.
|
|
Posted by Ken Kitchens, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2009 at 8:49 pm James it was your point on carbon footprints which did not make sense. You stated Marin was in the same status as Saudi Arabia and Texas and I corrected you. If we in Marin, on a per capita basis had the same carbon footprint as Costa Rica, an undeveloped country, it would make little difference in the grand sceme of things, but it would make us all feel better. The problem is I am not willing to pay to make you "feel" better. Until China and India sign on to contolling their carbon emissions what we in Marin do will only make you feel better.
I stand corrected on your comments on the Grand Jury as it was Edward Mainland who stated the Grand Jury was befuddled. Your post on December 21st at 3:44 pm stated "Corte Madera decided not to join because neanderthals on their town council don't even think global warming is happening, much less that we should do anything about it." So you only insulted the Corte Madera town council because they disagreed with you.
Kenny
|
|
Posted by Tim, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Dec 23, 2009 at 12:46 pm I would like to see an investigation of the Grand Jury and an explanation from them about how they worked with PG&E and why they leaked an advance copy of the report to PG&E before it was made available to the public. Sure sounds like PG&E may have had access to the contents and maybe effectively played a part in drafting it. Sounds similar to other tactics they have used around the state and it sounds like the Grand Jury fell for their spin.
A substantial number of California communities already have municipal utilities, controlled by local people and responsible to the community, in place and their average costs are lower than in areas that rely on big private utilities like PG&E and Southern California Edison. Big corporations and their overwhelming power aren't the solution to our problems in this country, they're a big part of the problem.
|
|
Posted by Jim Potter, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 23, 2009 at 7:40 pm Tim this is just more dis-information from the MEA. If you go on the Marin County website and check on the Grand Jury reports you will see it was released on December 2, 2010. PG&E received it's copy from Juliette Anthony on December 4, 2010.
This is a "smokescreen" from Dawn Weis to distract the casual reader from what was in the report.
Merry Christmas to all the posters!
Jim Potter
|
|
Posted by Irwin, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 23, 2009 at 9:47 pm I have tried to enlighten myself about the MEA issue and i'm still undecided. However, I found the Grand Jury report to be obviously biased in favor of PGE, with too little research, poorly written and therefore of little help to someone searching for objective information. Regrettably, many of the grand jury reports of late have the same defectsand I wonder whether that has anything to do with the make up of its participants.The Grand Jury seems overloaded with people from Tiburon and Belvedere, who, while they are perfectly fine folks, do generally represent the conservative "wing" of the Marin community. As a consequence one might expect that this socio-economic makeup of the tiburon peninsula gets overly represented in the opinions of the grand jury. The previous opinions regarding the Marin Healthcare District are other instances of this bias.
|
|
Posted by Tim, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Dec 28, 2009 at 9:06 am Irwin's comment is right on. The Grand Jury, while well meaning, is a collection of people selected by Marin judges. Most Marin judges have been appointed by Republican Governors (given that's what we have had for decades except for a short period of Gray Davis) and so tend to be much more conservative than Marin as a whole. They also tend to be older. While they sometimes provide a useful service, they don't represent the mainstream thinking of Marin and would likely be overly enamored with big corporations, whether PG&E, Sutter Health or other places run by other old wealthy guys in suits.
|
|
Posted by Jim Potter, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 28, 2009 at 12:52 pm Tim,
The Grand Jury is not picked by a Marin County judge. Approximately 90 citizens are interviewed by a judge to make sure they have no agendas. 30 names are then selected and 19 are then randomly drawn to serve.
The Grand Jury report was not leaked early. It was released on December 2nd (you can check this on the Marin County website)Juliette Anthony delivered a copy to PG&E on December 4th. This early release rumor is pure dis-information from the MEA.
Jim Potter
|
|
Posted by Tim, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Dec 29, 2009 at 8:57 am Jim,
Read your own post. "The Grand Jury is not picked by a Marin County judge. Approximately 90 citizens are interviewed by a judge to make sure they have no agendas. 30 names are then selected..." The second sentence contradicts the first. One or more judges interviews every candidate. The final pool is selected from among those screened by judges. "Agenda" means personal agenda but probably also means "sees need for reform that conflicts with the judge's views." The judges are probably well meaning but their own biases have to play a big part in who they block and who they clear for the final "random" selection. The final civil panel is made up of people who local judges think should be investigating government.
|
|
Posted by Jim Potter, a resident of the San Anselmo neighborhood, on Dec 29, 2009 at 12:01 pm Tim,
The judge is not selecting the jurors he/she is vetting to make sure there are no pre-existing agendas. Who would you rather have do this Mother Teresa? At some point we must believe that people are basically honest and if not a judge who?
The 19 jurors are then randomly selected from the 30 remaining candidates. Unless you believe in conspiracies this is the best way to get a neutral jury pool.
Are all citizen jurors under your personal cloud of suspicion?
Jim Potter
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
