News

Peninsula Clean Energy opposes state utilities commission decision

A recent California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) decision could have long-term impacts on the ability of local nonprofit energy competitors of PG&E to succeed.

That's according to several local energy programs, Peninsula Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, San Jose Clean Energy, East Bay Community Energy and Monterey Bay Community Power, which have all come out against a June 11 decision by the CPUC that designates PG&E and Southern California Edison as "central buyers" responsible for ensuring that there are enough energy resources to provide electricity within the state, according to a press statement from Peninsula Clean Energy.

The decision could undermine community choice energy programs – nonprofits that pool a region's energy demand to bargain for environmentally cleaner electricity than PG&E provides, they say.

"The CPUC's action undermines our ability to make long-term planning decisions, while undercutting incentives to speed up clean energy innovation," leaders at the opposing energy programs said in a joint statement. "It represents a lost opportunity to support local clean energy investments being made today."

Representatives of the community choice energy programs worry that if PG&E is the only authorized buyer in Northern California, then it'll favor larger energy production facilities rather ones that may be smaller and more local, according to Joe Wiedman, director of regulatory and legislative affairs at Peninsula Clean Energy.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Almanac Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

"Our concern is that we want to go out and buy more renewables," he said. "Our communities formed (Peninsula Clean Energy) to say we want to do more renewables faster than the state. To do that, we have to invest in building local resources all over."

But if PCE does that, and then PG&E says it won't buy energy from the new resources that PCE has invested in, "we don't get to see all the benefit of that investment," Wiedman said. "We still have to pay PG&E for what it did buy."

In short, "This change in direction leaves value on the table that threatens to raise customer costs," the joint statement said.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Follow AlmanacNews.com and The Almanac on Twitter @almanacnews, Facebook and on Instagram @almanacnews for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Peninsula Clean Energy opposes state utilities commission decision

by / Almanac

Uploaded: Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 11:37 am

A recent California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) decision could have long-term impacts on the ability of local nonprofit energy competitors of PG&E to succeed.

That's according to several local energy programs, Peninsula Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, San Jose Clean Energy, East Bay Community Energy and Monterey Bay Community Power, which have all come out against a June 11 decision by the CPUC that designates PG&E and Southern California Edison as "central buyers" responsible for ensuring that there are enough energy resources to provide electricity within the state, according to a press statement from Peninsula Clean Energy.

The decision could undermine community choice energy programs – nonprofits that pool a region's energy demand to bargain for environmentally cleaner electricity than PG&E provides, they say.

"The CPUC's action undermines our ability to make long-term planning decisions, while undercutting incentives to speed up clean energy innovation," leaders at the opposing energy programs said in a joint statement. "It represents a lost opportunity to support local clean energy investments being made today."

Representatives of the community choice energy programs worry that if PG&E is the only authorized buyer in Northern California, then it'll favor larger energy production facilities rather ones that may be smaller and more local, according to Joe Wiedman, director of regulatory and legislative affairs at Peninsula Clean Energy.

"Our concern is that we want to go out and buy more renewables," he said. "Our communities formed (Peninsula Clean Energy) to say we want to do more renewables faster than the state. To do that, we have to invest in building local resources all over."

But if PCE does that, and then PG&E says it won't buy energy from the new resources that PCE has invested in, "we don't get to see all the benefit of that investment," Wiedman said. "We still have to pay PG&E for what it did buy."

In short, "This change in direction leaves value on the table that threatens to raise customer costs," the joint statement said.

Comments

There are no comments yet. Please share yours below.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.