BENICIA’S CITY COUNCIL RECENTLY ADOPTED a resolution to join Marin Clean Energy (MCE), a community choice aggregation program, by a 4-0 vote, with Councilmember Mark Hughes recusing himself. Did the Council’s decision to join MCE violate business owners’ and homeowners’ liberty and freedom? You decide!
Liberty and freedom to act are as American as mom and apple pie. Unfortunately, processes put in place by government entities — from local cities to the federal government — continually work to erode both. In my opinion, Benicia has a select few environmentally focused ideological zealots in positions of power who are forcing their beliefs on everyone else. These individuals are not receptive to differing opinions, and they force their ideology on everyone because they can — and because they believe most Benicians either don’t pay attention or are too dumb to know what is best for them and the environment.
The announcement that the city made the MCE decision seems harmless until we peel the onion back a few layers and see what it really means. I believe the decision allows the city to place its hand firmly inside each business and household’s pocketbook and remove their freedom to decide what company to contract with and pay for electricity. City staff, the Community Sustainability Commission and the Council decided MCE was a better deal for everyone from a perspective of reduced carbon emissions and cost. They rationalized that it was OK to move your source of electricity generation to another provider without your knowledge or permission, because there is a provision wherein those in disagreement with the decision may disenroll (opt out) in the first 60 days of enrollment.
Government at all levels has systematically established an environment of making social change, like deciding who can provide your electricity, by passing a number of rules (laws) that stack the deck against the individual business or household and in favor of a “collective” ideological goal.
The first rule: Rather than try to convince people to join a program or opt in, they simply force everyone into the new program and then let those who may become aware or resent the intrusion to opt out. They know most if not all programs would fail without this provision, so a requirement is passed that all members of a community must move to community choice aggregation. Once all are moved, those wishing to move back must complete the necessary steps.
The second rule is to stack the deck against a fair comparison of power generation sources. MCE’s stated commitment is to generate more carbon-free clean energy than PG&E. I found this statement questionable since the comparison used is clearly apples to oranges. MCE is allowed to include all power-generating sources while PG&E is prohibited by RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standards) from including hydroelectric and nuclear sources, on the basis that they are not “necessarily” renewable. Yet MCE is allowed to include hydroelectric. If we include hydroelectric and nuclear sources in PG&E’s portfolio, then the carbon footprint comparisons are 393 (MCE) to 373 (PG&E) pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour (MWh). The difference is negligible — hardly something to compel the city to support a change as significant as violating citizens’ trust.
The third rule affects MCE’s commitment to 100-percent green energy — no CO2. MCE’s literature barely mentions the use of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to achieve this goal. But energy consultant Jim Pehlps provides significant evidence that MCE uses RECs to “cloak” the fact they use “system power,” mostly natural gas or coal. The reality of this practice is the generation of 944 pounds of CO2 per MWh, far in excess of PG&E’s carbon footprint. Again, the deck is stacked in favor of the collective.
The Council, city staff and city commissions have a responsibility to protect the citizens of Benicia by considering all sides of a proposal. Most importantly, their analysis of potential risks must err on the side of conservatism, as the city’s and our funds are finite. To their credit, the Council ordered a risk analysis regarding this proposal (before deciding the risk was minor to justify adoption of the proposal). I read the analysis and saw just the opposite — in fact, the city’s alter ego, Berkley, decided the risk was too great to join MCE. The analysis identified a number of risks not experienced by current PG&E customers:
• PG&E is publicly traded and is wholly liable for any and all risk. MCE is a member-supported organization and, as such, shares all risks with their members — including the city of Benicia.
• Competitive costs: A number of unknown variables impact MCE’s ability to handle increased costs that will be passed to consumers if they are not appropriately processed. The variables are well outside the scope of prudent risk.
• Power generation contracts: Most, if not all, of MCE’s contracts are short-term. It is unclear whether they contain renewal options or whether new terms and conditions, including cost, mustbe renegotiated. In any event, if they are unable to negotiate existing and new sources of power at competitive prices, they can’t serve their customer base at the level and cost promised.
• Increased job opportunities: Another specious claim, as over 50 percent of power generation contracts are outside California.
• MCE decisions may not serve Benicia well. We only get one of 12 (or more) votes. PG&E serves all customers equally.
• There is less likelihood that MCE will be able to offer low-income customers the rates provided by PGE. This alone should be sufficient to warrant a wait-and-see approach.
The decision has been made by those in power, the City Council. Therefore, I believe the public now is forced to make one of four choices:
1. Stay uninformed and believe the myth that you cannot do anything about what was decided. Based on our last election participation, this number may well be in the 60- to 70-percent range, which is tragic. This group will become members of MCE and most will not even know it.
2. Review the facts for yourself and make a conscious decision to remain with MCE. The city has moved you to MCE, so you don’t have to do anything else to remain a member.
3. Review the facts and make a decision that you do not want to be a member of MCE. You are moved to MCE anyway and then are provided a procedure on how to opt out and be moved back to PG&E within 60 days.
4. Work to make sure our representatives understand that we will not tolerate decisions such as this made in our behalf without our permission. The business model for MCE anticipates around 25 percent will opt out. One way to let everyone know how you feel is to drive that number higher than 25 percent. That message would be heard loud and clear by all politicians.
In closing, I want to state that I was not originally against the proposal to go with MCE. However, I was and am against doing so now. We need to see how time will either prove or disprove many of MCE’s assertions. It is not worth the risk to be a member when such outcomes are in question.
We could have waited to see if the outcomes were as predicted and then proceed. In the meantime, the city could have solicited input from the public to see if they supported such a drastic change in who provides our power. The bottom line is that it’s about government power and authority — controlling private lives. I am totally against that proposition.
Dennis Lowry, a retired telecommunications executive, is former chairman of the Benicia Finance, Budget and Audit Committee. He has been a Benicia resident since 1986.
Sharing is caring!
Everyone has the freedom and liberty to live off the grid. Few have the fortitude to do it. If you choose to live in a planned community, then plan to give up some aspects of freedom and liberty. Just don’t complain when you make that choice.
Excellent article Dennis, you nailed it. I have been pounding on this for almost a year. The presentations were without a doubt biased. The public comment session was run like a council meeting by the Mayor. PG&E did have a rep there. But was curtailed what they could say by the law. So the opposition was out numbered by four to one. The meeting mostly was set up by the Climate Action Plan co-ordinator with some help from city staff. and a little oversight. I personally believe that the council was bullied into this decision. You know, what do we have too lose. That shows me that as much as the council said they did look into this issue they were over riden by the smooth talk of agenda driven ideals. I do not fault the council but do believe they should have not been bullied by MCE and their energy buys timeline. IN FACT THE MAYOR HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER INVESTIGATED TO SEE IF THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAS TO RECUSE THEMSELF. GUESS WHAT THE MAYOR LOST. BUT THE COUNCIL MEMBER PUT THE CITY FIRST AND DID RECUSE THEMSELF. ON THE OTHER HAND THE MAYOR SENT OUT AN E_MAIL SAYING THAT THE CITY COULD NOT MEET ITS CLIMATE ACTION PLAN GOAL WITHOUT MCE. AGAIN SUPPORT WITHOUT ANY FACTS AND BEFORE FINAL DISCUSSIONS AND A VOTE. She should have recused herslf as a biased opinionated Mayor with a vote. She did not. The CSC said it would reduce GHG without any facts. They new that the MCE energy could not be tracted put chose to use that info to get a positive result that cannot be proven. Just a hope and a prayer. All supposition. The MCE never told anyone if Valero was in. Nor how many Industrial Park members were in. Above all no info on local residents on how many were in. Just their model which is flawed on what the folks that stayed in did know. In Richmond 75% of the members did not know they were in MCE. Very bad intended lack of verified info. I urge all residents to take a good look at this and make your own decision. I do believe when you do you will opt out in reasonalbe numbers that will not verify what the CSC and MCE say are the results. expected. All that smooth presentation will go down the drain. Opt Out.
I have been against this since I first heard about it. I for one will be opting out and telling everyone I know to do the same. Once again, this is another movement (like the multi-million dollar solar farm) to address a non-existent problem. There is no verifiable scientific facts, although the lefties will beat the drum, to support climate change. Mother earth is bigger than all of us. She was here before us and will remain long after us.
You know going in on the deed rerstrictions. There will be no complaints. that is why you moved there.
The city owes its citizens a detailed, written response to the questions Dennis has raised – BEFORE citizens are asked to make a decision. If this isn’t implemented properly the backlash will be significant, especially if rates increase and the renewable energy benefits become questionable.
Believe me Reg I have asked all those questions and have written many times about this MCE stuff. I have questioned the City Manager, Climate Action Plan Co-orinater, Council members and many others. I have personally talked to many MCE employees, PG&E employees and even had lunch with one of the employees fom PG&E PG&E is unable to give out info on the record. That is why you saw very little opposition to this issue from PG&E. But at present I would not worry to much about the issue. It will fail in Benicia. Also as PG&E renewable 3energy moves past CCA’s and in this case MCE they will be of no use. I do not blame the four members of the council or the City Manager and city staff. The blame is with the MAYOR, CSC and the Climate Action Plan co-corinator. Those people lead the council down a yellow brick road. Believe me Reg I do not believe anyone knows more about this as a resident than I do. Want to stop it. Just OPT OUT. Very simple solution to an agenda driven ideal by a failed CSC on their Climate Action Plan. Again I urge all residents to OPT OUT
Bob,
I give the Council the benefit of a doubt, as well as the other entities you mention. However, a vast majority of citizens won’t have the slightest idea about what to decide/do when the deadline approaches. That is why it is important, from a public relations standpoint if nothing else, for the City to take the lead and answer these questions to the best of their ability. A number of these questions are fundamental to the program’s success and, if they aren’t answered satisfactorily, no one will benefit. Honest answers will be appreciated, I believe, and enhance the credibility of their efforts. If they have questions or doubts themselves let those be aired. THAT is the essence of open government (imho).
Reg believe me I will be all over this issue when the MCE starts their outreach. My goal is very simple. Let the residents know fully about this issue and also make sure they understsand how to OPT OUT without any problems. It is now a policy. The residents must take control of their own decisions. I will do my best. Dennis and folks like you must keep at this MCE thing. It can be made to be very ineffective with proper info. I will do my best but at the same time we need many more voices.
That’s fine and my only point is that the City itself needs to take the lead in presenting the information folks are going to need, beginning with the answers to Dennis’ questions.
Reg I will talk to the city about when the MCE starts their public input. It did pass the council and it might not be in the best interest of the city to go against the council who did approve it. Info will be provided by MCE and it will be biased. I do agree that the city should but out updated info if Valero and others are going to OPT OUT. Hank is wrong. No one evern knows if Valero is even in or the Industrial Patrk is all in or part in.. This MCE issue will not meets its expectations that were told and sold to the council. Very bad program. I pay no attention to the folks that no nothing about MCE or CCA’s for that matter.
Few will opt out. Live with it.
Only a couple of comments regarding this issue confirming most are unaware. The last comment is the most troubling; jus live with it. I think allowing elected officials to take our freedom and liberty without consequences simply emboldens them to do more and more.
I am considering organizing an effort to counter this particular effort in the only legal way I know; to boycott by opting out.
Mounting an effort where people are unaware what is being done to them is quiet daunting. More thought and planning is in order to determine the next steps. Giving up is not an option.
Dennis Lowry
Dennis you can count on me.