The City Council is taking a vote Thursday to tell Mayor Kevin Faulconer it really, really wants him to get cracking on passing the Climate Action Plan.
The plan is basically a bundle of policies meant to get the city to cut 49 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. It was aggressively pushed by Council President Todd Gloria when he served as interim mayor, and the Council is holding a vote to reiterate that it likes the plan and wants to see it approved. Soon.
Faulconer’s staff has responded by matter-of-factly saying: Yeah, relax, we’re working on it.
“(The mayor) has taken multiple steps to make sure it reaches a public hearing in spring of 2015, which is the same timeframe that was expected under the prior, interim administration,” said Mike Hansen, Faulconer’s head staffer on land use and environmental policy, at a July 23 committee hearing.
The plan would, among other things, set up steps to get the city to use 100 percent renewable energy by 2035, with an emphasis on local sources.
Meeting that goal requires something called Community Choice Aggregation. Advocates consider it the plan’s most important and essential element.
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
AB2145 was DEFEATED on August 30th in the CA Senate when it couldn't find a presenter because all Senators knew it was a very bad bill that would hurt you, the ratepayers.
You guys assume you know what is going on but you don't. Its typical when you sense some kind of government encroachment thinking you'll get taxed to death. With SDG&E you are and completely. All this fear mongering is quite tiresome and useless.
CCA is a good thing.
First of all, the private utilities will never give you a choice so just get that out of your heads. Its not like the cable companies because private utilities just want to control it all because they know the day will come where local (solar/wind on your home) and public (municipal) energy generation projects will happen providing local consumption instead of larger grid consumption.
Second, just read the law that created CCA and stop making assumptions.
Third, CCAs primary mission and purpose is completely opposite of the private monopolistic utities. CCA seeks to provide you with stable, cheaper and cleaner rates obtaining the same electriciry from the same suppliers that SDG&E gets theirs from. Plus, municipalities can also choose other alternative sources like geothermal, wave/tidal, solar and wind.
Instead of making these bonehead assumptions just to try changing public opinion try thinking about how much you pay SDG&E over the past decade and how they get to adjust your rates 2-3 times per month and you'll never know it happening under your nose.
Also, did you know that PG&E tried to get its ratepayers to foot the bill to fix the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion disaster that destroyed an entire neighborhood?
Also, did you know PG&E on behalf of SDG&E and SoCal Edison foisted Proposition 16 in 2010 and spent $46million, the largest most expensive campaign in CA history, and then went to the CA PUC to raise rates to get reimburses for that campaign?
C'mon guys, get your heads out of the sand and feet back onto earthly reality.
CCA will not just help save our air and atmosphere but also reduce your electric bill and leave you with some extra bucks at the end of every month.
CCA is a good thing.
Government being in the business of purchasing energy especially "green energy" is not necessarily a good thing especially since its tied to a climate action plan.
Does anyone care that this will likely make consumer energy costs go up significantly?
Does anyone question the wisdom of having amateurs buying contracts in the energy markets?
Is anyone concerned about government supplying energy with an objective that does not include value to the consumer?
This whole climate action plan, particularly the property mandates, is a further creep into the rights and liberties of the taxpayers and consumers.
Obviously the democrats on the council do not have much regard for rights and liberties in this regard. They seem perfectly comfortable walking into ones front door with mandates.
I kinda agree with Mark Griffin here. Why can't I just choose, for myself, what type of energy to buy? Why do I have to go along with the whole city? I can imagine a system where SDG&E acts like the cable company. I pick which channels to watch and it serves it up. I just pay for whatever I'm subscribing to. If SDG&E can use its power purchasing prowess to set up such a system, then each household can vote with their own wallet on what kind of power to buy. Other cities have already been using such systems. This is not an earth shattering new concept.
Derek. You wish to pay a premium then do so.
I prefer relative value and The entity I purchase it from to have a clear objective of cost.
My concern is my direct cost.
What concerns me about this whole climate action plan is there does not seem to be any concern about cost. Just power, control and agenda.
I would think that would be a concern for all energy consumers.
@Mark Giffin "My concern is my direct cost."
It's natural to want to ignore any costs you impose on others against their will, such as pollution. But besides being unjust, not recovering these costs makes the market inefficient, just like monopolies, information asymmetries, and other market failures.
" It's natural to want to ignore any costs you impose on others"
Obviously its my fault.
Sorry. I don't buy into this collective guilt like these measures will amount to anything but a nat on a elephants butt. The likes of Gloria use it to pass these measures that have more to do with power and control than any practical effect on "global warming".
No one argues about the importance of being good stewards of the environment but cutting ones foot off because of a sore toe is ridiculous.
@Mark Giffin So are you in the first category of people who don't support Pigovian taxes or the second? http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/alternatives-to-pigou-club.html
I don't believe in taxes for a cause that have little to no affect except increase taxes.
Paying increased energy costs or giving up my property rights that accomplish little or nothing is a fools game. Plenty of fools buy the argument.
Cap and trade is a perfect example.
Funds going to actually go towards the goal of reducing emissions or simply be a slush fund for pet projects?
Or to balance the state budget? Brown did that one first year.
@Mark Giffin "taxes for a cause that have little to no affect"
Do you have any proof to support your claim that demand for energy is perfectly inelastic? You might discuss your theory with someone who understands supply and demand well enough to read a demand curve.
Upstate NY has a program like this where National Grid (the local power company) would allow every resident a choice on default power, half renewable power, or full renewable power. The rates are different for each. You check a box and that's it. Everything is still delivered the same way. There's no need to change anything on the house. All the billling remains exactly the same way. Super easy and convenient. On top of all that the price difference was insignificant on my monthly power bill. I really liked it. Most of the NY renewables were hydro with some wind and a tiny bit solar. CA may have a different mix and different costs.
AB2145 is clearly an attempt to undermine competition for the utility companies. Our State Assembly members should have figured this out and defeated the bill.Instead, they all (except Shirley Weber who abstained) voted for its passage.
The obvious question is what was really behind their votes for AB2145 when this legislation would clearly be at the expense of the environmental goals of San Diego as well as those of the state? Hopefully when San Diego's State Senators vote, their votes will be more representative of our interests.
Thank you VOSD for explaining about community choice energy and how it could benefit San Diegans. Seems like a no-brainer for San Diego to adopt this system which has provided cities across the country with a higher percentage of clean energy while keeping rates constant for residents and businesses.... hope they move forward with this quickly.
Good article ... AB 2145 is bad law because it places a local community-based energy district on the same regulatory footing as an Investor-Owned Utility. It would be like having to go before the CPUC to file a complaint against your local water district or school. Further, CCAs are regulated by the Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. All transactions within a CCA are public, unlike the IOUs who can hide specifics as they do regularly with their power transactions.
As a founder of the San Diego Energy District Foundation, I applaud all San Diegans who take stock in their energy future. It is a tale of two cities. On the one hand, there is SDG&E. On the other, there is the power of, by and for the people. If you are part of this group, the time is now to make your voice heard in every city hall: it is time for energy choice and competition leading to a better future for all. Ask for CCA to be placed on a fast-track.
"The feasibility study is being done by a private group, but the city could sign on to it or pay for one of its own."
Any idea who the private group is?
Excellent article. We need more information on climate change, how it's impacting us right now, and what the city of San Diego is doing to address it. We have to move away from fossil fuels and utilities that still use them, as quickly as possible. Implementing a CCA will bring more jobs, a cleaner environment, and as the residents of Marin and Sonoma have discovered, a drop in their electricity rates. What could ever be wrong with this picture?
Also, to give an update, the opt-in portion of AB 2145 was dropped from the bill. Please call and write to your State representatives and tell them to vote NO on this bill. There's no reason for it except to keep the current utilities in charge and reaping in their millions; And what utility customer wants that?
A very important topic and one well described - thanks Andrew and VOSD.
A San Diego CCA is a very important part of our next Climate Action Plan, one of several pieces that together help us get to a clean energy future. Why California state legislators and Democrats in particular are trying to gum up the works and make an already-existing good piece of law weaker, more complicated and less effective (see AB2145) are mysteries to me. (Campaign contributions and making a few more fossil-fuel, monopoly-energy-company plants' jobs available to labor come to mind, though, as possible reasons. Also, the author of the bill AB2145 IS a former executive at Southern California Edison. Hmmm.) And Joan Raphael is correct; if transparency is what we want, that can be a much smaller and easier bill to pass without the additional hoops this bill tries to tack on to the existing CCA-empowering law. There is a LOT more here than "transparency" being added to the mix.
Long term - forget long term, we are seeing the effects of climate change here and now, today - we ALL have to live in the climate we CHOOSE, and Community CHOICE Aggregation is something that should appeal to citizens of ALL political stripes. San Diego needs a Climate Action Plan with some teeth. We have that on the table right now, and we hope that VOSD stays in focus on this Plan as it moves through the City Council and Mayor's office.
Thank you Andrew for writing about this important topic! I don't agree with Toni Atkins on the legislation. We can get the transparency she is after without making it an opt in system. Opt out is much less work for busy people and will automatically encourage people to join the CCA.