One thing editors at Current often don’t see eye-to-eye on is on whether the use of “fighting” language in our stories--such as battle, boxing, big guns, etc.--is appropriate. Is the use of these colorful words legitimate? Or is it lazy, overly simplistic journalism? I admit to having to curb my use of them fightin’ words. It could be attributed to the fact that I loved to punch the boys in grammar school--or at least until they became bigger and stronger than me. Whether or not it is my Irish temper, I don’t see much difference between physical and financial struggles. They get ugly. Nasty tactics are used. There are winners, losers, and innocent victims. When it is a full blown tug-of-war over energy market turf at the regulatory, legislative, or legal level fists may not be flying but money, lawyers and lobbyists sure are. Bam! Pow! KaBlam! Take the more-than-six-year struggle between communities seeking to offer their customers retail energy and Pacific Gas & Electric. After local power advocates in early 2000 won enough support for their bill to allow regional entities to provide generation to their residences over utility lines, investor-owned utilities publicly ended their opposition. They agreed to support--or at least not oppose--regional community aggregation efforts although it meant they’d lose ratepayers. After AB 117 passed, it was not until 2006 that the first serious community aggregation effort gained momentum. The San Joaquin Valley Power Authority was the first public entity attempting to provide businesses and household energy supplies. It was whammed by PG&E, the power provider in the area. The authority complained to the California Public Utilities Commission that the utility used unfair tactics funded by ratepayers to obstruct its efforts. A year later, the CPUC, which sets community choice aggregation rules, acknowledged PG&E did an about-face and openly viewed community aggregators “as competitors” and “actively” campaigned against them, according to a commission community choice aggregation update report released this week. At that time, commission staff established that ratepayer money can’t be used to bludgeon burgeoning aggregators--only shareholder funds can be tapped. In June 2009, San Joaquin suspended its community choice aggregation efforts largely because of the economic downturn and PG&E’s ongoing opposition. Next out of the community aggregation chute around that time was Marin County. Marin and PG&E quickly became involved in a bare-knuckled mêlée. The CPUC again was asked to step in to curb PG&E efforts to thwart the Marin Energy Authority. In the midst of that scuffle the utility initiated Proposition 16. That initiative aimed its volleys to halt aggregators and other expansions of public power by requiring two-thirds voter approval before a launch. PG&E went from being viewed as a local bully into a statewide harasser. Prop. 16 went down in defeat. Marin County ended up going for the big guns, replacing PG&E generation in 2010 with renewable power supplied by the oil giant Shell Energy. I see no advantage in the switch of generation providers. Just this week, Royal Dutch Shell announced it plans to drill in the Arctic. It also reached a $2.2 million settlement to resolve claims it cheated the federal government on royalties from natural gas reaped from public lands. PG&E’s tactics, however, sure aren’t taken from a chapter in “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” Instead, it makes a lot of people see red. The utility also has been kicking sand in another skinny kid’s face. The City and County of San Francisco plans next year to launch a 100 percent renewable community retail energy program. San Francisco, too, has complained about PG&E’s efforts to kill its ability to offer retail renewable energy to San Franciscans. Like Marin, it entered into a power deal with Shell in response to PG&E’s opposition in the current economy. When asked about San Francisco’s choice of power provider, the community choice aggregation director said Shell had the requisite capacity and financial strength to supply clean energy. CCA director Mike Campbell defended the deal by adding the agreement is only for five years, as is Marin’s. They want to show lawmakers “there is a model that works that is super clean and renewable,” he said. PG&E is working on other fronts. Last week at the State Capitol there was an all-out assault on legislation seeking to strengthen the ability of counties to pursue community choice aggregation. It made me so angry that if I had the choice of choosing between Shell or PG&E I might just choose the former. While not openly fighting a bill to protect community aggregation or promoting other legislation seeking to limit the work of consultants who provide advice on aggregation implementation, the attacks have a familiar feel. The front man in separate hearings on the measures was a lobbyist for the California Coalition of Utility Employees. I can’t prove PG&E is behind the opposition but it and CUE’s agendas are predominantly the same. In fact, I can’t think of a time CUE opposed an investor-owned utilities’ position. In recent hearings, CUE lobbyist Scott Wetch’s rants misrepresented the issues before legislators and were over the top. He went on at great length--far longer than any other witness, and his testimony included comparing community choice aggregation formations to the 2000-01 deregulation debacle. He also warned that the pro-community aggregation folks would allow “every mosquito abatement district” in the California to attempt to provide power along with bug repellant. If I was 10 years old I would have punched him. At the same time, San Francisco wasn’t openly promoting its position on the other bill restricting community aggregator consultants. The Sierra Club was on the front lines instead. After facing concerns about skewing the playing field, both pieces of legislation squeaked by. PG&E must stop interfering with community efforts to offer their citizens a choice in power provider. If voices pushing to allow community choice aggregation within PG&E are gagged then regulators must referee and prohibit the interference. That also would increase the choice of renewable suppliers beyond the private utility and Shell Stomping the life out of legitimate attempts to offer alternative power is anti-competitive, unfair, a huge waste of resources and only increases animosity. PG&E may win the local battle, but is going to lose the war because a lot more than 10-year-old girls will want to punch their lights out.
