With deep admiration and respect for the fantastic staff at Peninsula Clean Energy and for my fellow dedicated members of PCE’s Community Advisory Committee, I am disappointed: the PCE Board of Directors will soon consider “sunsetting” the CAC.
Robert Whitehair
This misguided, unnecessary proposal was scheduled for the Nov. 10 PCE Executive Committee meeting – going then to the PCE Board on Nov. 20.
By “sunsetting,” actually, eliminating the CAC, PCE drastically weakens a hard-earned, nationally renowned leadership role in community engagement and dialogue. This capability has created community tested, substantive change in the way we cook our food, heat our water, and heat and cool our homes, providing strong responses to the climate crisis.
Throughout the United States, PCE is known as a thought leader, innovator and organization serving the best interests of customers — all of us who live or work in San Mateo County and a portion of Merced County. Eliminating the CAC will not serve those interests.
PCE, aided by the thoughtful, passionate and dedicated work of the CAC, is an idea, a way of thinking, a direction toward an effective personal response to the climate crisis. It is about urgently and necessarily ending reliance on fossil fuels. It is about an equitable way to provide clean, efficient and cost-effective electricity.
CAC members, past and present, are engaged in their communities, building commitment through involvement. We are strong advocates working for, and with, members of the public. Many current CAC members lead local advocacy organizations. Because of eight-plus years of hard work by all of PCE, including the CAC, every resident and business in San Mateo County and Los Banos has an immediate, personal direct response to the climate crisis when they electrify their homes, commercial space and vehicles.
The CAC meaningfully contributed to PCE’s successfully becoming a thriving community energy provider of clean electricity at rates lower than Pacific Gas and Electric. Savings are reinvested back into the community — PCE funds whole home electrification for income qualified families, providing concierge services, rebates, and zero-interest loans. PCE has an emergency hot water heater replacement program. Actively engaged in vetting and strengthening these programs, the CAC provides formal, transparent, reliable support.
Although federal Inflation Reduction Act tax credits are no longer available Jan. 1, PCE’s rebates will continue, providing financial assistance for transitions to electric appliances like heat pumps, e-bikes and electric vehicles.
CAC members have been well-briefed by PCE staff about threats facing PCE from a hostile rate-making environment, possibly higher electricity prices and national regionalization of demand management. Darwin had it right, saying that survival belongs to those, like PCE, most fit to make changes and adapt.
City and county elected bodies have collaborated with their residents and businesses, to eliminate greenhouse gases. CAC members have played a vital role supporting community change and adaptation.
At recent San Mateo City Council meetings on building codes for electrification — Reach Codes — it was pleasing to hear discussions focused on reducing GHGs. Critical data that informed council direction was provided by a GHG emissions tool spearheaded by the CAC and on which CAC and staff spent considerable time perfecting.
We understand that the PCE Executive Committee will be hearing a proposal to replace the CAC with a community feedback forum. We also understand the new forum would likely convene less frequently than the monthly CAC meetings. This new forum must also include full community approval of policy development.
The community feedback forum concept is conditionally supported by the CAC. However, there remains an opportunity for the CAC, with the dedication, passion and expertise that its membership provides, to continue to serve PCE on a meeting schedule that would mesh with the new forum’s meeting cadence. A combination of the CAC with the new forum, without an increase in the total number of annual meetings, provides a means for PCE to maintain a robust environment for dialogue, collaboration and community engagement.
PCE needs the CAC, and the CAC appreciates PCE. Personally, I have gained valuable expertise by being on the CAC, enabling me to be a better community advocate. I hope that the CAC’s support from the community has helped PCE grow and prosper.
While the CAC wholeheartedly supports the continued success of PCE, I believe that success is most assured with thoughtful, continued direction from the current CAC.
Robert Whitehair is a member of PCE’s Community Advisory Committee. He and his wife Teri were the winners of the 2023 PCE All-Electric Leader, Outstanding Residential Modernization Award. They have completely electrified their home, had the gas meter removed and have a net minus electricity bill.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(10) comments
Robert - this is beginning to look like a switch and bait trick. Over time, PCE will not be in a position to offer lower rates than PG&E, and you know it. Since PCE customers are hooked and have become all-electric customers, PCE will have a captive audience and can raise rates with impunity. PCE has no regulatory oversight like PG&E, so the CAC will be the last brake on decisions made by the Executive Committee, which comprises gullible, transient city politicians. For once, you and I agree. Good Luck!
Dirk, we should meet sometime - we both seem to be equally passionate. Your expression of the pressure on PCE to keep rates low, does seem to be on target. Personally, I would be willing to pay more for clean electricity, if higher rates were to occur. And I would be willing to support that publicly as well as lobby for it around the PCE territory.
Peninsula Clean Energy was created for one reason and one reason only:
GHG Laundry.
In go nighttime fossil fuel imports from Arizona and Nevada, out come "100% green, renewable energy".
PCE is the definition of greenwashing.
None of their "energy sources" has the main feature called "Additionality" - they are buying bragging rights. Of course they don't want any community members looking behind that scheme.
The latest one: instead of adding a few wind turbines along the coast and the bay so we have a microgrid here, they buy bragging rights from some wind farm in New Mexico. To get that "green" power to the Bay Area, PG&E needs to upgrade all their high voltage equipment and needs to raise fees.
Hello. Your response is misleading. Peninsula Clean Energy buys NO fossil fuel or nuclear power generated electricity. Period. PCE buys only solar and wind power. If you want dirty electricity, continue to buy it from PG&E. PCE power is purchased through what are called Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), for electricity from solar farms and wind farms all over the West. In addition, it provides grant funding for large solar arrays on Government Buildings, and on school campuses. Ask PCE how much power they purchase in this way, and then ask what is the total usage of electricity in PCE territory. You will find that the total amount of PCE-purchased clean electricity more than matches usage.
Robert, PCE does not buy any power at all. It's not creating, nor sourcing, nor providing any energy. It is buying RECs - Green Bragging Rights.
I give you an example.
Shasta Dam is a very old dam from the 1980s. It existed long before PCE, it created power long before PCE existed. We can be fairly sure Shasta County was using that "green power" just fine.
Then PCE swoops in, buys the bragging rights and now claims that this Hydropower is what charges EVs in San Mateo at night.
Any real Environmentalist would tell you that PCE is committing "Renewable Energy Imperialism". It's called greenwashing. They want to brag, they are buying bragging rights.
The real power mix for San Mateo County is 80-90% fossil fuel during the night when all EVs are charging. That is the physical CAISO reality.
Any real Environmentalist would also ask the question:
"What does it matter if Shasta County is using the green power themselves or if San Mateo County is doing so?"
And PCE can't answer that.
easygerd - you need to educate yourself on how electricity is purchased and scheduled. I ran the electricity procurement program for the University of California system for a number of years. PCE, like all other providers, buys generation blocks of energy from various sources and those are delivered based on rigid contractual terms. Electrons themselves are not selective so what PCE has contracted for is 'pumped' into the system. While the same electrons may not make to the the Peninsula, PCE gets the credit for the delivered green energy. It is a banking system, legitimate and scrupulously managed by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The transmission lines and distribution systems to our houses and businesses are still owned by the utility companies. PG&E just owns one generation source, Diablo Canyon. Don't confuse the terms "Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)' with physical credits as there are categories of RECs as well. The Shasta Dam and several thermal sites are producing 'green' energy. PCE managed to claim that output because community providers, like PCE, are now given priority over utilities such as PG&E. The cities of Alameda, Palo Alto and Santa Clara have similar priority rights. I am not a PCE customer and have no intention to switch, but PCE's business model is sound and professionally managed. Shasta County is served by PG&E and has no rights to its generation unless they form a community aggregation system like PCE. I hope this helps.
Dirk. PCE is not a sourcer, provider, or buyer of energy.
It's a CCA - Consumer Choice Aggregate.
This is based on the European model to outsmart PG&E and push renewable energy.
Residents could VOLUNTARILY join a CCA and pay MORE to source more expensive renewable energy. This would then push down the price of renewables and make them more attractive.
The person paying more then had the bragging rights to claim renewable energy - physically their grid was just as bad as their neighbors. But they bought and deserved those bragging rights and eventually they did drive down price of renewables this way.
The law for CCAs in California was established in 2002 (I think).
So let's repeat:
- renewables were more expensive than fossil fuel
- voluntary participation
- consumer pays more
- consumer earns and deserves bragging rights
In 2012/13 solar became the cheapest form of energy, wind came shortly after. CCA basically did their job and outlasted their function.
So with that in mind, why ...
... was PCE founded in 2016 or 3 years after CCAs became obsolete?
... why make it MANDATORY or rather DEFAULT to join PCE?
... why is PCE's green power supposedly cheaper than PG&Es?
... how does it make any sense that 40 year old Shasta County or Kern County power suddenly became San Mateo County power in 2016?
Here is what really happened in 2015:
Bay Area Democrats realized they completely missed all GHG reduction goals set by Sacramento. So they pulled out this 2002 CCA law and created these organizations AFTER they became obsolete. But by buying these bragging rights to 40 year old Shasta or Kern county power, they suddenly looked much greener than they deserved.
The main point is "ADDITIONALITY". Has PCE themselves created any renewable power plants? Is there a wind turbine in this county? Is there geothermal facility here to provide a microgrid?
No, instead they pretend to "source" wind farm power from New Mexico that New Mexicans can use up without our help.
Greenwashing!
So the question is, is PCE the proverbial expensive middleman or is it essential to get renewable energy to residents of this county.
So we have two different theories here:
A) PCE is run by San Mateo "Green Deal" Democrats who believe in Climate Change, love Sustainability, want to do the right thing for the Environment.
B) The county stopped caring about GHG in 2015 (RICAPS), when they realized they are falling further and further behind. So in 2016 they created a CCA to greenwash their carbon from residential energy.
If we just had a litmus test to show us which of the two theories is right and which is wrong.
And luckily we have. It's called Transportation. Around 2015, the amount of GHG emissions was something like 45% from energy and 45% from transportation. So we have to assume that "green, sustainable" politicians would push for high-density, green, transportation solutions as well.
And these solutions to work require bus lanes and bike lanes.
So, which of the PCE politicians have favored bus lanes and bike lanes through their communities?
Time for a game: GREEN or GREENWASHING and let's look at the Board of Directors of PCE:
- Chair Donna Colson - voted against bike lanes and blamed a child instead of taking responsibility - GREENWASHING
- Marty Medina, Vice Chair - San Bruno - GREENWASHING
- Jackie Speier - San Mateo County isn't exactly a model of sustainable transportation - GREENWASHING
- Lisa Gauthier - dito - GREENWASHING
- Tom McCune (Belmont) - oil companies helped getting him elected - GREENWASHING
- Stacy Jimenez (FC) - now going after children on Zero Emission Vehicles - GREENWASHING
- Betsy Nash (Menlo Park) - GREEN
- Andres Fung - are there any bike lanes in Millbrae? - GREENWASHING
- Elmer Martinez Saballos and Chris Sturken - RWC hasn't added useful bike lanes since 2016 - GREENWASHING
- John Dugan - San Carlos hasn't really stepped up just yet - GREENWASHING
- Adam Loraine and Lisa Diaz Nash - WHO takes down sustainable, green, bike lanes for schools? - GREENWASHING and GREENWASHING
... I could go on, but we get the picture. If these guys were all about 'green' we would see it in the transportation sector as well. But we don't. That should tell you just how right I am (as always).
I give Betsy Nash the benefit of the doubt, but the rest are Virtue Signalers. "Greenstanders" rather than Sustainability Democrats. These guys are closer to
By now CA CCAs are running out of renewable energy projects they can hijack for greenwashing, so Josh Becker - sponsored by Big Tech - wants to go bigger. His bill is all about expanding this GHG Laundromat:
https://abc7news.com/post/senate-bill-540-ca-state-senator-josh-becker-refuses-answer-questions-energy-donations-100k-advisor-gig/16718061/
easygerd - it was "A" when the CCA was formed. It was modeled after the CCA in Marin County and intended to increase the green energy that PG&E at the time could or would not provide. PCE has since evolved into a complex structure that the County needs to disband and return all customers to PG&E. It serves no purpose other than employing well-meaning bureaucrats and a few energy experts that are milking various local and federal incentive programs. Because of its status, PCE is eligible for low interest loans with which PCE attracts more clientele and lobbies for the Reach Codes, non-viable energy consumption apparatus, and now e-bikes as well.
I had applied to become a member of the CAC when it was formed but the Belmont executive member, a former mayor, told me that I would possibly compete with the general manager. She and I had a similar professional background. She turned out to be very effective to be sure. The CAC could have used more expertise but it was decided to populate the ranks with women in tennis shoes (a derogatory PG&E term, dating to the Diablo Canyon licensing era) and greenies. PCE has entered in several long term power purchase agreements (PPAs), so the green energy that is delivered is real and can be verified. You are correct that CCAs are running out of renewable energy projects, as are all providers, and will likely burden their customers with phony RECs in the future.
"and will likely burden their customers with phony RECs in the future." ...
... I would count 'sourcing' hydropower and wind power from 40 year old projects in Shasta and Kern County as phony already. And now Becker wants to make it possible for California to "own" green power plants in Utah or Arizona or other states that don't care what the color of their power is. While he can keep bragging how he loves renewables.
I compare PCE and all these CCAs and CACs as a "Vegan Cult" that talks about the danger of red meats and obesity and cancer and GHG during their meetings and then go home eating sausages and cheeseburgers in secret.
Redwood City for example hasn't built bike lanes for green, sustainable transportation since 2016, but is planning to spend billions on 6 grade separations, 1 highway widening and Ferry Service - all rated badly by real environmental groups. But here Saballos and Sturken can claim they love the color "green".
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.