When you are discussing the dangers of energy and corrupt operations I am thinking you are thinking this will change. The problem is not with the purchase of energy as the danger point for loss of life is with the distribution of that energy throughout the market place.

You are saying somehow this will change? PG&E still maintains the transmission lines and the pipes last I heard which means that their lack of performance in this area of their operation was responsible for these recent events where people lost their lives.

So how may I ask will this improve by taking away their purchase of energy economics/profits from their company? Will they now maintain their transmission lines and gas pipe lines better?

I understand your points and your frustration with it all and yes local control where profits could and might benefit the community using that energy is a good choice if those dollars are not squandered.

The energy highway you discuss still needs heavy maintenance and whom is going too improve on it and maintain it for the safety of the residents that are using it? Are public governments going to operate these energy highway infrastructures in the future and whom will end up paying the bill for this maintenance.

I like the idea of smart local control but then I see some pretty big holes in this current program.

There is much discussion on this site about CCA’s (Marin Clean Energy’s) low prices. The record does not support this. After many years in operation, MCE’s prices are less than 1/10 of 1% of PG&E’s prices. These attached prices are designed by Pacific Energy Advisors.

Pacific Energy Advisors also designs Pioneer Community Energy’s prices.

https://www.docdroid.net/ihO5Eyd/mces-prices.pdf

You didn’t mention the loss of value of homeowner solar when sticking with Pioneer. Can you clear that up?

Martin,

I would like to interview you on this subject. Would you do it? if so contact me at barrystigers@hotmail.com, and maybe we can have a coffee some morning and talk! Thanks for your inpout.

Well of course there is a comparison. One is a locally based power generation broker, oftentimes (but not always) supporting local power generation. That’s a CCA. Then the other is a locally based power broker but also owning and operating the local lines and grid, but still oftentimes (but not always) supporting local power generation as a middle man broker. That’s an MUD. Like SMUD. They don’t own all the power plants, they sign contracts with others, just like a CCA. Both are local and both broker power supply for local citizens, usually with greener more local power sources. One owns the lines, one doesn’t. To insinuate there is no similarity or clear point of comparison is to indeed mislead people. (It’s ironic, because in the Contra Costa Taxpayers screed from 2016 that you have directly quoted from on other sites, and others have re-posted links to, they clearly mislead people by also describing failed MUDs such as Hercules and SF when trying to discredit CCAs. But I don’t see you calling them out for misleading people. Instead you use their screed to push your opinion. Double standard? Or do you agree then that they are also misleading people by mentioning two MUDs in their anti-CCA piece? You can’t have it both ways.) And MCE, a great example of a NorCal CCA, is cheaper than PG&E. They’ve lowered rates twice in the past 2 years, both in 2016 and 2017, offering a basic service plan that is both greener and cheaper than PG&E. While PG&E has changed rates 8 times in the past two years. So your claim that CCAs will be more expensive doesn’t hold water if you look at actual examples based in reality and fact, rather than assuming-the-worst conjecture based on emotion. There is no way it’s a net savings? You mean like in MCE? It is a net savings, and I can’t understand why you’re so angry about that and continue to insist it’s not and never will be, when all evidence points to the contrary. Basic life requirements like police, fire, and water, typically aren’t left to greedy for-profit companies. Even water is quasi-govt in most cases, for a reason. Electricity should be the same. It’s exactly how a market for a life necessity should be handled. Not left to companies like PG&E that kill their customers and turn a profit off ita|look, you’re able to stay with PG&E, so keep paying it and accept that times are changing. And it’s of course more local control! As opposed to PG&E, with ZERO local control? You’ve gotta be kidding mea|it’s NOT more local control? You’re not making a good case for credibility herea|.

There is no comparison between a CCA and a local controlled MUD – None at all – the insinuation of that, just misleads people – It is another layer of government involved in power between us and PG&E & the CPUC – there is no way this will be a net savings for the customer, and even with the 3% savings customers are going to pay 2% more than they would have if CCA’s did not exist – this is NOT more local control, it is more government – more beauracracy, this is convoluted and not how markets should be handled –

Roseville is NOT a CCA

Yep HUGE difference

Hi Ron, because as Kathie pointed out in her reply to Dan, this is a local CCA and not a full-on public utility. They want to clearly guarantee a savings and cheaper prices, but until they get up and running it is not prudent to over promise a massive savings that may endanger the sustainability of the entire program going forward. In other areas, such as Marin, as PG&E rates have risen, the Marin CCA prices have actually dropped. I believe we may see that happen here as well, with a greater divide as time goes on. Three percent is a great start. Please see my longer comments below.

Hi John, please see my comments below.