CCMIN050603 - Laserfiche WebLink

group of cities, state officials and other interested parties who have been part of the local government commission sponsored energy working group. This group has been meeting quarterly for over a year and its goal is to share knowledge and facilitate development of community-based energy programs. This is not another level of government or another government office. It is a community-based effort. He and Councilmcnnber Hosterman have been attending these meetings. Cities have come together to take advantage of the recently passed community choice law, AB 117. There are two pieces of this program: community aggregation of electricity purchases by municipalities, or groups of municipalities; and local planning and administration of the public goods charge funds to be used for energy efficient programs. Both these elements are consistent with the approved Energy Plan and Council's list of priority programs sent to the Energy Committee. At the last meeting of the PEC, it discussed the priority program for regional alliances and the concept of a regional energy office, as well as this energy working group. There was no decision made and it will be pursued further. The timing is critical to move forward in support of these efforts to meet deadlines for the submittal of the CCA letter to the PUC. The REO wants an indication of community support as soon as possible to participate in the PUC process. These recommendations do not commit Pleasanton to any future actions. The fact that many of these initiatives move quickly is an emerging problem for the Energy Committee. It meets once a month and it has not gotten to any real work yet. These things come up and need to be responded to at different points in time that don't coordinate with the way the Energy Committee is set up. It will need to address this. Many cities can have staff or the Mayor respond to certain deadlines based on Council-approved policy. That may be the answer in some of these cases. He commented about the PG&E letter in the staff report. PG&E now controls the majority of the public goods fund and it wants to keep it that way. They are actively supporting legislation that would make the utilities the sole administrator of the PGC funds. It is an important revenue stream for them and some would say, the way they manage it reinforces their financial goals of selling as much electricity as possible. In other words, energy efficiency is not in PG&E's best interests. It is true PG&E has had some small programs that have been successful, but local control of these funds would allow cities to plan and fund a comprehensive portfolio of energy programs that would benefit the community that would never be possible under the current scenario. Both these initiatives represent an incredible oppommity to Pleasanton to have the means to implement our existing Energy Plan. Having local control of PGC funds, which are collected anyway per PUC mandate, depends on who is spending them; PG&E or the cities. That would be a financing vehicle for the Energy Plan that would be hard to match from other sources. Potential of community aggregation for cost savings, incorporation of renewable energy and local control of energy decisions is incredible and he urged Council to support the staff recommendation. Ms. Ayala asked what the public goods charge costs the citizens per month? Is it based on usage or a flat fee? Ms. McKeehan believed it was a percentage of the bill, which is based on usage. Pleasanton City Council 28 Minutes 05/06/03