THE SINGLE BIGGEST STEP BENICIA CAN TAKE RIGHT NOW that will put money in our pockets AND reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to become a clean energy subscriber to Marin Clean Energy. That moment of community action will be decided by the City Council on Nov. 4 at 8 p.m.
At the last Council meeting, the Council wisely asked for a second opinion on the proposal put forth by MCE to ensure the city’s fiscal responsibility and the viability of the energy choice being offered to us. We will hear the findings of that report and the Council’s decision on Nov. 4.
This initiative for clean energy has been under consideration for years. Since Benicia’s Climate Action Plan was adopted by the city in 2008, the Community Sustainability Commission has been aware that a significant expenditure for all sectors of our community — residential, commercial and industrial — is for energy. Energy is also a major factor in greenhouse gas emissions for Benicia.
In 2012, the CSC held a series of four symposia on energy so the community could learn more about production and existing and emerging energy solutions. Dominican University of California assisted in putting together expert panelists from the spectrum of energy sources, covering areas from nuclear, conventional and renewable energy generation. The PG&E panelist, for example, provided a substantive and comprehensive overview of energy saving and upgrade initiatives. We heard about commercial wind turbines and the state of tidal-generated energy (it’s not ready yet for the Carquinez Strait). And we learned about community choice aggregation (CCA), where communities become certified and provide clean energy alternatives without local massive purchases of wind or solar power equipment, all using existing electrical transmission and billing infrastructure.
For Benicia to become its own CCA was really too big of a lift to achieve, but now we have the opportunity to join an existing CCA through Marin Clean Energy. Pursuing a clean energy option then became a major goal of the CSC that was presented to the city and recommended for funding through the commission’s grant process, and subsequently approved by the Council.
In March of this year we held a public community forum to learn more about clean energy, and in September the city had a special meeting with a balanced panel of experts presenting information about community choice and clean energy.
Nov. 4 is the turning point for offering Benicia a choice in electricity providers, and it boils down to the fact that joining MCE will immediately provide 50-percent renewable energy with an option to subscribe to 100-percent renewable energy. Those who want to stay with PG&E have that option.
But if the Council doesn’t approve joining MCE, we must stay with PG&E — we will have no option for another energy provider unless we become our own generator of electricity through solar panel installation.
Let’s see the money
If I read correctly the city’s analysis of membership (and with all puns intended), the city of Benicia’s annual windfall for joining Marin Clean Energy would be a reduction in costs of $42,334 and an additional $59,742.81 for the 10 city solar sites via Net Energy metering. The benefits:
• Net metering checks issued to the city each year
• $.01 per kilowatt hour more than PG&E
• Excess credits roll over month after month and never zero out
• Excess credits over $100 can be cashed out annually for full retail value rather than PG&E’s wholesale compensation rate
Meanwhile, “PG&E does not allow solar customers to cash out their bill credits unless they are a surplus generator; MCE allows customers to receive a check if they have $100 or more of credits regardless if they are a surplus generator.”
Assuming the average 80-percent community participation rate, the combined residential and commercial savings is estimated at $1,555,043. The majority of the savings will go to commercial enterprises because of the amount of electricity they use. It seems to me that Benicia Unified School District would have the potential to save substantially as well.
If we join Marin Clean Energy, there will be all of this money in our pockets, and, with the “light green” electricity option, we also will see an annual reduction of 6,804 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in greenhouse gases. Economists say that for every dollar that is saved in a community, at least a $1.50 comes back locally in spending! Wouldn’t $1.5 million in savings be a nice boon for our city and residents?
I pulled the following quote from the MCE analysis of whether Benicia was a good candidate for joining them:
“In general, the quantitative analysis indicated that rate benefits would likely accrue to existing MCE customers following the addition of prospective CCA accounts located within the city of Benicia. The additional customer base within Benicia would likely result in an approximate 3-percent rate reduction for MCE customers, including all existing and prospective accounts. The analysis also indicated that including Benicia in MCE’s membership would increase the amount of renewable energy being used in California’s energy market by approximately 55,000 MWh (megawatt hours) per year while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 15 million pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.”
I find it especially interesting that if we become a member of MCE, there would be an additional rate reduction of 3 percent for all customers (italicized by me above). So if Benicia joins MCE, rates will further decrease. See the “-3% costs” in the charts below: the first is for residential and the second for commercial.
What’s happening elsewhere?
The following states have clean energy communities through community choice aggregation:
• Ohio — 250 communities have switched to both gas and electricity. Cincinnati customers have achieved a 23-percent rate saving in 2012;
• New Jersey — four communities;
• Massachusetts — 26 communities;
• Rhode Island — 37 municipalities and four school districts;
• Illinois — 650 communities (80 percent of residential market). Average customer rate savings of 25-30 percent on electricity;
• California — Marin County, cities of Richmond, Sonoma, Santa Rosa. CCAs under way in Monterey Bay (Monterey and Santa Cruz); Alameda, San Diego and Yolo counties are exploring CCAs.
Now is the time
The time has come for Benicia to realize the benefits of American competition. In the industry that I love, telecommunications, competition has opened opportunity, spurred innovation and given us, as consumers, choices we never dreamed possible. It’s time for energy to become competitive as well. Competition and choice are definitely part and parcel of America’s strength.
Please plan to attend the Nov. 4 City Council meeting.
Learn more
• City of Benicia Clean Energy documents: benicia.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=488&doctype=agenda&itemid=16617
• Special September 2014 City Council Study session: youtu.be/EfHn4La4FKs?list=PL4CEB0F984F43D37D
• Community Choice Panel, March 2014: youtu.be/IKPrGqAjGbM?list=PL4CEB0F984F43D37D
• Benicia 2012 Energy Symposium #4 fast forward to 1:31: youtu.be/oBSDsvk0ipc?list=PL4CEB0F984F43D37D
Constance Beutel is the chair of Benicia’s Community Sustainability Commission. She is a university professor and videographer and holds a doctorate from the University of San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
I do believe we all have seen this type of stuff in the past. Try the solar project. Not at all doing as was intended. Constance rememberr your graph on the solar project. Did not turn as you said. So why should anyone take this info as accurate. They should not. So all this info could very well be a waste of time. Constance you are basing your info on an 80% group. We do not know if the industrial park, Valero or how many residence will take part in this. Please give me the info on how much GHG will be reduced by the city being part of MCE. I do hope all the readers do understand that they will not get what they buy. It just goes into the grid and does help a 1/70th rate. Can you believe that. A smidgen is all it will help. Not even a blip. Prices are not guarenteed. This may be a non-profit but it pays like a baseball team to its players on the team. At 1/70th of PG&E the leaders salary and benefits are at close to $300,000 a year. Not bad for a 125,000 member group that does not want to go beyound Benicia and El Cerrito in the near future. Make sure we know what they want to be. A broker or a wholesaler. I do not get all touchy feely about this project at all. This company must be clearly vetted. We must have more info before rushing into this project. Please not another solar project. I ask the city council to get more info before making this leap on behalf of the residents. Again remember the solar project. Lots of emotion and terrible results. It also appears the CSC is not getting the results that they are taking responsibility for. You get no points at this point. The chair said the next report will not be a good one. So as the Mayor said without MCE we will not make our 2020 goal. Now in her opinon the 2020 goal all hinges on one thing. Joining MCE. Very short sided and not at all with facts to back it up. Show us the facs not emotion..
Constance:
Can you elaborate on this, I am having difficulty seeing the financial benefits from the table (perhaps it is wrong or I am misinterpreting it). From the table, there is a small benefit if folks join at the 50% rate (about 2 or 3 dollars compared to PG&E rates). Are these in average or typical bill per month? On the other hand, even with the 3% savings, the 100% levels cost a lot more with MCE compared to PG&E according to the table, $114 with MCE compared to 86 for residential. How is the savings calculated?
You say that the annual savings for Benicia is $1.5 million, but it is mostly for commercial as they use most of the electricity. Is that because it is assumed Valero (the biggest power user around, and the source of a great deal of revenue to the City through the Utility Tax) would be joining? How much of that $1.5 million of “money in our pockets” goes to Valero under this plan.
I am not opposed to the MCE, it sounds like it could be promising, but the table numbers just don’t work with what you state in the article and I am trying to understand it. Thanks
Greg
Constance: I just looked up the documents from the Council meeting that you referenced and yes indeed most of the money (almost 60%) goes to Valero (assuming they don’t opt out) according to the staff report. In order for the rest of the savings to be accounted for, they must have assumed everyone goes in at the 50% level, otherwise it would be costing more, not less. Is that what you understand?
Greg
“But if the Council doesn’t approve joining MCE, we must stay with PG&E — we will have no option for another energy provider unless we become our own generator of electricity through solar panel installation”.
Dr. Beutel, with all due respect, this statement is incorrect. It’s no secret that certain elected officials do not support wind turbines on our open space properties North of Lake Herman Road. Wind turbines are a major component of the Climate Action Plan Energy Production section. Last month we saw an agenda item on the consent calendar to partner with Exelon Wind LLC for the purpose of installing meteorological equipment on those properties to quantify the extent of wind resources and environmental impacts. It was pulled for some reason.
This area is a designated Wind Resource Area of Solano County. I am aware of the present SC moratorium on commercial renewable energy projects in the unincorporated area of the county, but I do not expect an outright ban to develop and exceptions can be made on a case basis, as was recently done. Here is a current article regarding the moratorium.
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2014/10/08/solano-countys-solar-wind-moratorium-continues/
We do not have the land for a utility scale solar project, so a project of this scale would have to be an aggregate system on roofs and over parking lots, a very costly proposition . From a land use perspective alone, wind turbines are a more efficient deployment.
AB2145 died in the state senate this past August. It would have pinched off more CCA’s. The bill was very similar in intent to Prop 16 of 2010 that would have not allowed CCAs at all. As you know, more CCAs are coming into the California energy markets. Sonoma Clean Power is in growth mode and I fully expect others in the future now that 2145 is dead. SCP is giving their members a 4% savings. They sponsored a conference today to discuss state energy initiatives and strategies, including their future expansion strategy.
So we will have options beyond MCE, and we have more than just solar to consider as a local renewable project. Then there is the 51 megawatt combined cycle gas turbine plant that Valero has for dedicated off-grid power. If they pull out, will they shut down the generator or continue to operate it on natural gas to sell the electricity? Who knows. MCE buys electricity from Shell Energy, they operate natural gas turbines as well. Would we turn away from cheap energy produced locally because it is not fully green? That would just not be prudent, and besides, if Valero stopped generating GHGs from refining, the change to our GHG reduction goals would be galactic, plus we would gain huge amounts of water.
The question council should ask is what happens if we decide to not join under their deadline? Will they take a hard line and tell us now or never? They need us more than we need them, in my opinion, and are fully aware of the potential for competition now that 2145 has died. Another consideration is that if we joined a CCA, any power from the expansion of renewable projects in the city would be booked through the CCA, with added fees. I doubt any CCA would allow us to generate and buy power direct locally and shrink their profit margin.
Another question I would like to see answered is what happened to Exelon Wind LLC? Did the plug get pulled on that deal because of MCE?
In summary, we may not have another option right now, and we have both solar and wind resources to consider in the future.
If things go south with MCE will the City bail us out?
This article acknowledges the trend of other CCAs in early stages. For this reason alone, we should exercise restraint to jump in with MCE right now. They were the only game in town when we started talking about CCA membership. What will happen if we develop a local utility-scale renewable project in the future while a member of MCE, or another CCA for that matter? Can we buy the electricity direct via a PPA with the developer? I don’t think so. The output would have to be booked through the CCA and sold back to us with added fees..
Here is PG&E’s web page about CCAs:
http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/customerservice/energychoice/communitychoiceaggregation/index.page
“Sonoma Clean Power plans to expand its enrollment to additional customers in the future”.
SCP is a big supporter of the arts and local artists, an affinity shared by our artist-rich community.
https://sonomacleanpower.org/artscp/
Good job Stan. We need more folks like you to get the truth out. Not out dated and inaccurate info that some are putting out. Thank you.
My biggest question is, why would I join this? After reviewing MCEs web site and some of the information published, it does not appear that there is a cost savings of any significance. If it is to just get power from a “clean” source provider, I have to wonder, why the rush and are the benefits really there? At the end of the day, I think most residents just want to turn on a light switch and have reliable power.
Constance you are using out dated data. Most are using the 27/28% figure for PG&E renewable energy not your 22%. In fact if the council were to give this a go the PG&E renewable energy when this goes in effect would be over 30% and by the end of 2015 it could be over 33%. Your PG%E fees for MCE also could go up. MCE cannot guarantee its buys on renewable energy. So your attempt at comparision is not valid. This is the same type of exercise you did on the solar project. Guess what that over $80,000 surplus per year is not happening. It could appear that you are trying to convince the Benicia residents on this MCE project with a little fuzzy info. I suggest you redo your info and bring it up to date. This is not good coming from the Chair of CSC.
“If we join Marin Clean Energy, …….. with the “light green” electricity option, we will see an annual reduction of 6,804 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in greenhouse gases.”
Constance, Crude by Rail is estimated to save 33 times (226,000 tons) the carbon as MCE. What is your and BCSC positions on Crude by Rail?.
Brian her group the CSC is for MCE and against Valero’s Crude Bt RAIl. On your way to the Farmers Market that group has members handing out info against Crude By Rail. This whole group is anti fossil fuel. That is one reason they are big on MCE. Just what them do their thing. Constance is just repeating info that she was given. No research to see if it is correct or what will happen. Her figures are not correct any way. So I just hammer her and comment back. It really is a waste of time. The real problem is some folks in this city just my believe she is giving out correct info. That is why it is very important to stay on top of these folks.
Here are fairly recent excerpts from one of many critics of MCE:
“What’s behind the (MCE) green curtain?” asked Jim Phelps of Novato, who has worked as a consultant to the electric and petrochemical industries. “Lots of renewable energy certificates, lots of dirty power.”
Phelps said, “What had happened was MCE’s emission rate was higher than PG&E’s so they went in the market afterwards and they bought those 10,500 (financial) instruments (RECs) so they could undercut PG&E.”
Weisz responded to that issue when Phelps first raised it in December with Marin Supervisor Kathrin Sears, who is on Marin Clean Energy’s board.
In a letter, Weisz wrote, “In the simplest of terms, MCE made a commitment to deliver a lower emission factor than PG&E, and that commitment was honored.”
Complete corporate gobbledygook from MCE. I believe they misrepresented their GHG reduction inventory with RECs in initial and ongoing discussions with Benicia staff/elected officials. As stated previously, MCE was the only game in town when the push to join a CCA was launched.
As I see it now, they have signed PPAs to buy huge amounts of electricity and need us to buy it from them to show a profit on the deal/s..
As far as I’m concerned, MCEs presentations in the future will be as a carnival barker trying to get us to come into the tent. Keep in mind more CCAs are coming into the markets with the defeat of AB2145 this past August. What would be the compelling rationale to join MCE right now, instead of waiting a year or so to see what develops with other possible options?
Now Stsn you know better. The Mayor says without MCE the city will not meet its Climate Action Goal. Mayor Patterson this run is open and you love open comment. So just give us the facts why we must have MCE. You said it so back it up. This is an open comment run.. Maybe some of the CSC members will take a stab AT it being that the Chair of CSC failed in her attempt to give correct info. A low information comment from the CSC will only hurt them more. Well as we all see they will not make it to their cioal. So there is no need for a low information comment. . As I have said from the out set MCE is a very bad deal. The rest of the residents are now seeing the light. I f this moves forward I would not want to be an elected official in 2016.
From your writings I understand that your are not in concurrence with the approach of MCE Clean Energy of providing electrical power to residents. I live in Benicia and as you may know also Benicia residents are being “trapped” to have MCE Clean Energy provide electrical power rather than PG & E. I have forwarded an email message to the Mayor and all Council Members of city of Benicia with my objections. I list hereunder my objections to this MCE program. Many of these objections were transmitted to the Mayor and Council.
We received a letter from MCE Clean Energy in which letter they advised that the average home electric consumer could save annually $17.28 on electrical consumption by switching from PG & E to MCE. Actually the MCE program would be in my opinion an excellent advertisement for Companies that sell and install Photopholtaic Solar Systems for the following reasons;
1) The market value of the home will increase, probably by the approximate cost of the Solar System and if the system is purchased, not leased, the home might be easier sold than a similar home without solar. Of course a Real Estate Broker can advise you better on this
2) The California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 73 which state a PV System is not subject to property Taxes. When I had in 2001 a PV system installed this Taxation Code was applicable. Of course I do not know if this code is still in effect but a CPA would be able to advise further on this.
3) Even considering the present low mortgage interest rates, one would probably better of to take out a mortgage or additional mortgage. The mortgage interest is tax deductible and I would think for most people the tax benefit will be better that the annual savings of $17.28 for the average home as suggested by MCE in their recent letter
I did contact MCE by phone and informed them that I have had a Photopholtaic Solar System as well as Water Solar since 2001 and that I paid PG & E a $5.00 monthly charge to remain on the grit as a back-up, and annually a minimal amount for electrical use usage. I furthermore advised MCE that as a “Solar Customer” their letter to Benicia residents did not advise how MCE would benefit Solar Customers. Furthermore, MCE would be obligated to also fully inform solar customers. I was advised I could research their web site. Furthermore that a letter to Solar customers was forthcoming. The Mayor of Benicia had forwarded my email message to MCE and MCE thereon replied to me via email. This reply was not very helpful. MCE but made reference to their “NEM” program. The final statement in our phone conversation with MCE was; “Not everyone is as savvy as you”. Which an insinuating observation of this MCE employee, suggesting that the population of Benicia is not smart enough to see through this.
It is very apparent that MCE does not understand that home owners who have a Photopholtaic Solar System installed do this for their own consumption only and not to become a business to generate electricity for PG & E or MCE. These Solar home owners will have annually only a small credit or debit. MCE advises that they, in their NEM program, will compensate Solar Customers if they generate more than what they use. I have not consulted my CPA on this. However, I am of the opinion that the Internal Revenue Service and Franchise Tax Board will be very interested in this as it probably would be considered additional taxable income for the Solar home owner. Of course MCE is will be obligated to advise these details to the IRS and Tax Board and in January each year forward the Solar Owners the appropriate Forms of income they received from MCE in the previous tax year. Let us pray that the City of Benicia does not see these Solar owners as businesses and requires annually a business licenses (business tax) as well.
We also should realize there have been days and there will be many more, that consumption of electrical energy in California is higher that what is generated in California. PG & E and of also MCE have to go to “out of state” providers. Of course no one will know if those providers, who have excess energy available, are “Clean Providers”
I have not been a great fan of PG & E but we have to consider the fact that when PG & E started their operation at a time that the only known methods of generating electricity was by way of coal and oil fired power plants. Subsequently cleaner methods of generating electricity were developed. It is known that PG & E is on a course of converting to generating clean energy but one can not expect that they will be able to do this over night. They simply can not tear down their remaining “dirty” power plants and have them replaced the next day with Clean Energy Plants. It is my understanding that better than 30% of electric energy provided by P G & E is already “Clean Energy”. MCE started their operation when generating clean energy was already developed and made available. It was PG & E who with their costs for research, labor and materials developed and build power plants , the grit, etc. MCE is now using much of these PG & E research and investments to their benefit. It seems to me that we have now a group of people employed and paid by MCE who are actually “milking” PG & E and also by all residences who are “Opting In” . Unfortunately the city of Benicia and several other cities in the San Francisco Bay area “Jumped to Conclusions”, did not “Think Outside the Box” by providing their population with something they did not ask for. Furthermore those residents that do not want to make the switch to MCE have actually to tell MCE they don’t want them to be their electric provider.
Finally it should be known that “SolarCity “is making the latest advancements in battery technologies for the Solar home owner through their partnership with Tesla Motors. The SolarCity’s home backup system uses technology engineered by Tesla, Leveraging their expertise in developing battery technologies for electric vehicles. Tesla’s history of research and development has enabled a cost-effective a wall-mounted storage appliance that is small, powerful and covered by a full 10 year warranty. The actual battery unit is about the size of a Solar Power Inverter, and can be mounted on the wall of your garage or near the electrical panel. It is my understanding that this Back-Up System will be available on the market sometime this year. I have recently forwarded an email to SolarCity requesting further details of this back-up system.
At present I have a small Generator that I can activate during power outages after sundown and prior to sunrise. If the SolarCity Home Back-Up System would be an efficient replacement I certainly would consider this.
In conclusion it is obvious that I “Opted Out”