.

Greening Sonoma County's Footprint

Community Choice Aggregation would give county options where it buys power from and create more incentives for alternative energy companies

When it comes to renewable energy innovation, Sonoma County is at the forefront of the nation. But despite enthusiasm over alternative energy projects, frequently touted by local leaders, the county is decades away from developing enough alternative energy to meet the demand.

Currently, Sonoma County generates only 3 percent of the needed energy from alternative sources, most of it solar, according to Cordel Stillman, capital projects manager at the Sonoma County Water Agency.

But many are trying to change that through a program that allows counties to develop their own sources of clean energy—such as solar, wind, geothermal and biomass—instead of purchasing it from PG&E. In March, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors approved $175,000 just to study Community Choice Aggregation, which they say is an important step in increasing the use of renewables locally.

If Sonoma County implements the program, it would be only the second in California to do so, following on the heels of Marin County, which approved a CCA in 2010.

The county has plenty of reasons for studying the initiative. First, there is the potential for cost savings when local companies generate their own power, instead of paying to transmit it from out of state. Another is upping the percentage of alternative energy consumers get, which now hovers at just 15 percent.

The California Renewables Portfolio Standard, passed into law in 2002, for example, requires counties to derive 33 percent of their energy from alternative sources by 2020.

Another push is the reality that fossil fuels are running out and that local governments will have no choice but to turn to alternative sources as energy prices continue to climb, according to Stillman. And then, there is the vast potential for new job creation, as new solar, wind and geothermal energy companies scramble to hire engineers, sales staff and technicians to design, sell and install the new technology.

“When you invest in producing power locally, the benefits are local and because of that, it generates wealth and economic activity, jobs in the community,” said Al Weinrub, a sustainable energy writer and advocate who recently authored a white paper on the topic, speaking on Political Analysis, a weekly radio show that airs on the Progressive Radio Network. “It really is a solution to the economic stalemate in many of our cities.”

As Sonoma County studies the issue, it will be looking closely at Marin Energy Authority, which oversees Marin Clean Energy, a nonprofit that supplies energy to 8,000 out of 70,000 eligible customers throughout Marin County.

The program gives consumers two plans to choose from: the first, called Light Green, offers customers 25 percent alternative energy. The other, Deep Green, supplies customers with 100 percent alternative energy, all of it generated in California, Oregon or Washington, at about $5 more a month than current PG&E rates, according to spokeswoman Jamie Tuckey. None of the energy is currently provided in Marin County.

“The truth is we are providing much greener electricity than is available through PG&E and anywhere else locally,” Tuckey said. “It’s a really easy way to go green and do something for the environment and because PG&E still send you the monthly bill and manages the transmission lines, it’s not something you notice. The change you see as a customer is minimal.”

Some have criticized Marin’s CCA because instead of getting energy from PG&E, it partners with Shell Energy North America, essentially swapping one faraway corporation for another, while still using PG&E’s transmission lines. But Tuckey says that contracting with Shell, from which it receives alternative energy, and using PG&E’s existing grid is just a first step as the agency works to develop local sources of alternative energy.

“We view them as a stepping stone, a way to get us off the ground and start serving our customers and generate revenue,” Tuckey said. “Shell was able to give us the highest percentage of renewables at the best rate, and do it without us having a lot of financing upfront, since we are a brand new government agency.”

Tuckey said the program is using revenues generated from rates, which she describes as “competitive with PG&E” to negotiate new contracts for local solar projects. It’s also using revenues to provide energy efficiency rebates, install electric charging stations and give back to the community in a variety of ways.

“We are already on our way to weaning ourselves off Shell and our goal is to have energy projects in California, and ultimately Marin or close to Marin as possible.”

There is a lot of interest among entrepreneurs when it comes to renewables, but until policies are in place, investors are hesitant to plunk down the big bucks needed to get alternative energy projects off the ground, say people familiar with the issue.

To encourage investment, counties need to create incentives through something called feed-in-tariffs, which essentially guarantee payments to companies for a set amount of time, typically 15-20 years, said Ann Hancock, executive director of Climate Protection Campaign, a Sonoma County nonprofit that has been working on the issue of local energy generation for a decade.

“There is a lot of latent interest that is waiting for a channel to come fruition,” Hancock said. “What you want to do is spur investment so that investors feel they will get return on it.”

Countries like Germany and Spain, which have 30 and 20 percent rates of renewable energy respectively, have successfully used feed-in-tariffs to encourage an investment in alternative energy.

“You have to prove that you have a rate base, customers who will buy the power, and then investors will loan you money,” Stillman said. “Or you can bond for money to build those projects, and it’s not cheap. But when you consider there is half a billion dollars is going out of the county every year for energy generation costs, you can leverage that against these projects and start building local projects.”

Another option is instead of forming its own CCA, Sonoma County could partner with Marin Clean Energy, which would save money and allow it to provide a higher percentage of alternative energy sooner and to more customers.

The CCA study is expected to be completed by October and Stillman stresses that if approved, the program won't be an overnight remedy to reducing our carbon footprint. Still he, Hancock and others believe in the region's vast potential for renewable energy generation, from the geysers along the border with Lake County to hundreds of thousands of roofs which solar panels can be attached to, and garbage that can processed into biomass.

“The technologies are proven,” says Hancock. “It’s the policies that need to be put into place.”

Sandy LeonVest June 06, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Sadly, this piece does not even try to peel away the multiple layers of Marin Clean Energy's (MCE) PR spin. Instead, it quotes from MCE's head "PR gal," Jamie Tuckey, as if she were the "last word" on CCAs, while failing to give details about why "some have criticized Marin’s CCA." We don't have another two or three decades to seriously tackle climate mitigation, and Tuckey's assertion that contracting with Shell and using PG&E’s grid "is just a first step" is MCE's standard PR spin. It doesn't change the fact that MCE has re-created the corporate energy model, and is now trying to propagate it throughout the state. It takes journalistic diligence to peel away the layers of MCE's greenwashing, but the Patch would provide a far greater public service if it did that hard work. Sadly, after reading this piece, it sounds as if the Patch has chosen the easy (greenwashed) path. I think your readers would want to know that most of Marin's "clean energy" mix is not considered sustainable or even clean by reasonable environmental standards, and that even relatively conservative groups like the Sierra Club and the NRDC oppose Landfill Gas to Energy (MCE's latest "clean energy" source). Again, local generation is key to sustainability, yet not one kilowatt of Marin's "clean" energy is being generated locally. More on this in my column in the West Marin Citizen at http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=1228983365. Sandy LeonVest Editor-Publisher SolarTimes (www.solartimes.org)
Karina Ioffee June 06, 2011 at 11:38 PM
Thanks for your feedback, Sandy. Several people who have been working on this issue for years--including key environmentalists in Sonoma County--agree that contracting with Shell is the first step to generating local energy, so the MCE is not a lone voice in that by any means. They also told me they believe MCE is doing a good job in alternative energy generation, although, for now, none of their sources are local. So I don't think it's fair to say that I only included spin from MCE. The point I tried to make in the story is that the desire for local alternative energy production is there, but the infrastructure is not and before we get the windmills and solar panels, etc, the policies and rate payers have to be in place. I surely could have interviewed dozens more people, but my objective was to succinctly encapsulate the problem as it exists now and speak to sources besides MCE about possible solutions, which is what I tried to do. Perhaps it's not what you would have written, but for that you have your own newspaper.
Edwin Drake June 07, 2011 at 02:49 AM
Windmills!? I can't wait to see the fight over windmills across the landscape; that's going to be a beaut. This is more about the "powers that be" seeing another little kingdom they can control, than it is about providing clean energy. If Sonoma does go this route, just who do you think will be on the board of directors?
Sandy LeonVest June 07, 2011 at 05:31 PM
Sorry, Karina ... But you apparently missed my point, which was not that you needed to interview "dozens of people," but that, as a journalist, if your intention is to advance an enlightened conversation on energy, critical analysis is key. You might, for instance, have included at least one quote from someone with an alternative point of view -- someone besides MCE's PR person. Someone like energy researcher-author Al Weinrub, who wrote the widely acclaimed, groundbreaking new report on Community Power in California comes to mind. As a journalist, to simply "overlook" the wealth of resources and people at your disposal, who should be weighing in on this critical issue (who understand the slippery slope of "going corporate," when it comes to energy generation) doesn't do justice to your profession. There are those like John Farrel, researcher at the Institute for Local Self Reliance, author-activist Harvey Wasserman, Al Weinrub, Amy Goodman, Norman Solomon and so many others who have been following the dangerous evolution of corporate power for decades, who could lend so much to this conversation. In these critical times, to assert that "key environmentalists" believe that a genocidal, planet-wrecking, greenwashing mega-corporation like Shell is "the first step" toward "local generation" strikes me as sad. PS: Al Weinrub's report can be found at http://www.localcleanenergy.org/Community-Power-Publication. Sandy LeonVest Editor-Publisher SolarTimes www.solartimes.org
Sandy LeonVest June 08, 2011 at 12:25 AM
Addendum: Karina, I'm not sure whether I read too fast or whether you added the quote from Al Weinrub after I posted my last comment ... Anyway, I'm glad it's there ... thanks! There are, however, still quite a few inaccuracies and misconceptions in your above piece. But, rather than "spam" your site, I'll wait awhile ... Maybe someone else will catch it ... Thanks again for your effort, Karina. Sandy LeonVest Editor-Publisher SolarTimes (www.solartimes.org)
Juliette Anthony June 08, 2011 at 05:41 AM
Alas, Katrina, it wqould have been good if you had contacted some of us who live in Marin County and know that its financial model has serious flaws. The initial group of customers included only high energy users, which made their bottom line which was gained from only 8000 customers, can hardly be called a fair sampling nor is it representative of what would happen if Marin included those of us who are conservationists and have low energy usage. I would urge you to check out a financial analysis by a San Rafael engineer, Gene H. Dyer, which can be found on the Marin energy Authority website under the minutes of both the May (earlier edition) and June minutes. Gene appeared before the Board of MEA last Thursday where he questioned Marin's effort to include cities or counties, such as Richmond and Monterey County before serving those customers in Marin who are part of the six cities and the County of Marin which are all members of the Joint Powers Authority which is called Marin Energy Authority. In a July 5th article in the Marin Independent Journal, after Gene Dyer's testimony, Dawn Weitz stated that they would not serve communities outside Marin until ALL the customers who wished to be included in Marin Energy Authority were served. Sonoma has the choice not to use Shell with all its human rights and environmental violations and to choose another company such as McQuarie Cook which was on the top three choices for Marin, or another capable supplier. Sunshine Solar
Karina Ioffee June 08, 2011 at 04:07 PM
No, the Weinrub quote and link to the report were there from the start.
Karina Ioffee June 08, 2011 at 04:07 PM
Thanks for your message Juliette. Will check it out.
Sandy LeonVest June 09, 2011 at 06:41 PM
On May 30, 2011, the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced that greenhouse gas emissions from world energy generation in 2010 had reached the highest levels in recorded history. These largely unmitigated emissions are, according to the IEA, pushing the global climate closer to the point of no return. On May 26, despite the fact that California produces more than 1.4 percent of the entire world's greenhouse gases and more than 6.2 percent of the nation’s total GHG emissions, the CPUC approved a proposal by PG&E to reward its greediest energy users with a hefty 17.6 percent rate cut. This, in a state that continues to market itself as a leader of “the green revolution," while pushing its "greener than thou” image via highly publicized (but mostly ineffective) efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. The problem with abdicating power (and our energy futures) to local politicians and mega-corporations (as with MCE/MEA model), is that, in doing so, we re-create the same overly-centralized, corporate energy model that needs to be abandoned. As the IEA report makes clear, climate change is accelerating -- We don't have time for incremental (corporate-lead) "transitions." The battle we are fighting comes down to this: Who will ultimately own (and control) this country's resources? As long as Americans continue to act like mindless consumers, allowing corporate-bankrolled politicians to "take care of things," it certainly won't be us. Sandy LeonVest Editor www.solartimes.org
Dave Erickson August 11, 2011 at 07:18 PM
Sandy, what is your solution for reducing emissions due to electricity generation at the speed and scale required for keeping the atmospheric CO2 below dangerous levels? Sincerely, Dave Erickson

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something