Letter to Mill Valley City Council re Marin Clean Energy
Submitted by open4energy on Mon, 02/22/2010 - 01:32
To the Council Members
I refer to my email to you of Thursday February the 4th, in which I expressed my sincere concern at the "political manipulation of the residents of Marin by Mr Charles McGlashan, and included a copy of our opinion submitted to the Marin IJ for your consideration. I trust that you have since received a copy of my apology to Mr McGlashan, the retraction of my letter to Matthew Hymel, and the retraction of our opinion provided to the Marin IJ.
Apology and Retraction of Opinion by open4energy
I note that our original message is included (pages 94-96) in the packet of information for the Mill Valley City Council meeting of Tuesday, 2/23. I ask that we be permitted to distribute a printed copy of this message at the meeting?
It may appear unusual to you that an energy expert like us would be in this position. Having apologized to the individuals affected, I felt it would be useful for the city council to understand the general circumstances leading to our error, and to provide you with an updated assessment of Marin Energy Authority and its suitability to be the cities energy supplier.
I have been working with PG&E's smart grid team and the companies pioneering smart grid technology in Silicon Valley for the last year. There are some excellent PG&E engineers, creative energy delivery projects. A number of Silicon Valley companies have delivered technology to PG&E, including Silver Spring Networks.
This positive experience led me to place my trust in the information published by a web site and group of individuals known as "Friends of Mill Valley".
I am ashamed to say that I accepted information about the political motivations of the chairman of MEA, and allowed myself to think that my experiences of PG&E's delivery business were representative of PG&E's energy generation intentions, without appropriate investigation.
This influential group of people, for reasons that I am not sure even they fully understand, has become a mouthpiece for PG&E through their advocate Joe Nation. The information being provided through them has little concern for the needs of Mill Valley or Marin County. The bigger agenda, for which it seems that PG&E have enlisted them, is obstructing CCA's and any successful outworking of AB117.
Simply put, I was duped!
In my original letter I encouraged local energy generation, and suggested partnering with PG&E based on the following four incorrect understandings.
a) That the chairman of MEA had a personal agenda for building a new local government authority.
b) That PG&E were committed to local energy generation in Marin and long term energy independence for all California local communities.
c) That the profits PG&E earn from Marin's energy generation would be used by PG&E to stimulate local energy generation in Marin.
d) That the increase in renewable energy from Shell, was of questionable value compared to the technical complexity of its energy integration.
However, since writing to yourselves, as I sought to understand and publish the energy goals of PG&E for Marin County, I discovered that all four of the above were wrong.
a) I have not found a single instance where Mr McGlashan can be faulted for his efforts, despite the continued and personal attacks by PG&E, to use the provisions of AB117 to explore an innovative solution to Marin County's local energy generation requirements. His assessment that the significant risk to MEA, expressed at the meeting on the Supervisors Board on 4th February, was the continued obstructionism from PG&E, is completely in accord with our findings. I state for the record that the provisions included in AB117, to protect a CCA like the MCE Plan from MEA from such obstructionism appears to be working as intended. We look forward to publishing an updated financial projection for MEA now that the purchase costs from Shell have been contracted, and the energy selling rates published. The only question we have regarding the next 12 months financial projections is; exactly how much additional cash will be available to the county?
b) I have established that PG&E and its funded bodies are 100% committed to disrupting the creation of Community Choice Aggregation Plans as set out in AB117 of September 2002.
c) I have found that PG&E have little desire, despite all expert advice to the contrary, to develop a partnership with our community to implement a collaborative model of distributed clean energy generation. We have been offered no statement from PG&E of their explicit plans to provide clean energy to Marin, to match the clean energy commitments from Shell, or to invest in Marin's energy generation or energy distribution infrastructure.
d) It may be technically more complex to integrate another energy provider into the grid, but in our opinion this is considerably less onerous than working with PG&E's centrist energy policies.
Unfortunately the abuse of open4energy's communication channel, appears trivial compared to the other deceptions being carried out by PG&E and their funded bodies.
Over the next weeks open4energy will systematically expose the extraordinary levels of deception we have encountered. They include attacks on the credibility of individuals, creation of web sites, creation of coalitions, manipulation of individuals, sending of letters, representation at meetings, abuse of local political groups, misleading claims including finance, manipulation of local press, legal challenges, and new propositions for June.
open4energy is now actively investigating the influence PG&E had on Marin County Civil Grand Jury in December 2009, the report of the Marin Treasurer Michael Smith of January 7th (who has recently admitted he based his opinion on the Grand Jury report), the letter submitted to Mill Valley by our 11 past mayors, specific letters submitted to the council of Mill Valley, postings on web sites including that of "Friends of Mill Valley" and information published in our local press.
We encourage debate and we encourage disagreement on a topic that is as complex as this.
The time has come to recognize and root out the systemic insertion of PG&E's opinion into our local debate. I find it unacceptable that good people like our past mayors, are having their integrity questioned. Yes their names are attached to a letter that has a quote from the county treasurer, one known to be without appropriate investigation. Who should our elected people trust? We are being consumed by an agenda that has no interest in Mill Valley or Marin prosperity. It is for PG&E, a monopoly resisting essential change.
The issue we face in Marin County, as with all 58 counties in California, and all states in the USA, is only partly of clean energy, carbon and our climate.
The opportunities of a vibrant local renewable energy policy include:
a) Locally generated renewable energy for Marin County energy price stability
b) Locally generated renewable energy for Marin County reliable & continuous energy supply
c) Locally generated renewable energy for Marin County energy independence
d) Locally generated renewable energy for Marin to comply with the requirements of AB32
Unfortunately the reasoning for economic stability through energy, consideration of the global implications of peak fossil fuel availability, are much more complex than the simpler and more emotive arguments of global warming and carbon reduction.
But they are issues which must continue to be addressed by our County and City Planners. Without energy price stability, secure and reliable energy availability, the economy of Mill valley and of Marin is at risk.
Only last week Google, who we all know as a leading Silicon Valley company, was approved by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to buy and sell energy. Interestingly enough, the California Public Utilities Commission also filed a motion to intervene in the application, shortly after Google filed it. If Google are wise to the critical nature of being independent from PG&E and the CPUC, I suggest we are doing exactly the right thing by ensuring our energy independence as quickly as possible.
In my opinion it would be a tragic error of judgment to allow PG&E to continue to actively obstruct our ability to achieve local energy independence.
Going forwards we will have many tough decisions to make, how to use the cash MEA generates, how to fund the capital projects for additional energy, and how to encourage our energy monopoly (PG&E) into a meaningful distributed energy partnership with us.
I am sorry that standing against PG&E will increase the technical complexity of energy distribution, that we have needed to enlist the help of Shell North America to stand against PG&E and that there has been so much money wasted by PG&E resisting inevitable change. I refer you to Lena Hansen and Amory B. Lovins in their recent article titled "Keeping The Lights on While Transforming Electric Utilities"
But, as we really understand PG&E's desires, and the efforts they appear willing to go to, for retaining their antiquated and mistaken centrally managed energy policies, I applaud the City of Mill Valley and the Marin Supervisors Board for their decision and commitment to equip us with an Energy Authority who has our needs in mind.
respectfully
Alexander Bischoff
I refer to my email to you of Thursday February the 4th, in which I expressed my sincere concern at the "political manipulation of the residents of Marin by Mr Charles McGlashan, and included a copy of our opinion submitted to the Marin IJ for your consideration. I trust that you have since received a copy of my apology to Mr McGlashan, the retraction of my letter to Matthew Hymel, and the retraction of our opinion provided to the Marin IJ.
Apology and Retraction of Opinion by open4energy
I note that our original message is included (pages 94-96) in the packet of information for the Mill Valley City Council meeting of Tuesday, 2/23. I ask that we be permitted to distribute a printed copy of this message at the meeting?
It may appear unusual to you that an energy expert like us would be in this position. Having apologized to the individuals affected, I felt it would be useful for the city council to understand the general circumstances leading to our error, and to provide you with an updated assessment of Marin Energy Authority and its suitability to be the cities energy supplier.
I have been working with PG&E's smart grid team and the companies pioneering smart grid technology in Silicon Valley for the last year. There are some excellent PG&E engineers, creative energy delivery projects. A number of Silicon Valley companies have delivered technology to PG&E, including Silver Spring Networks.
This positive experience led me to place my trust in the information published by a web site and group of individuals known as "Friends of Mill Valley".
I am ashamed to say that I accepted information about the political motivations of the chairman of MEA, and allowed myself to think that my experiences of PG&E's delivery business were representative of PG&E's energy generation intentions, without appropriate investigation.
This influential group of people, for reasons that I am not sure even they fully understand, has become a mouthpiece for PG&E through their advocate Joe Nation. The information being provided through them has little concern for the needs of Mill Valley or Marin County. The bigger agenda, for which it seems that PG&E have enlisted them, is obstructing CCA's and any successful outworking of AB117.
Simply put, I was duped!
In my original letter I encouraged local energy generation, and suggested partnering with PG&E based on the following four incorrect understandings.
a) That the chairman of MEA had a personal agenda for building a new local government authority.
b) That PG&E were committed to local energy generation in Marin and long term energy independence for all California local communities.
c) That the profits PG&E earn from Marin's energy generation would be used by PG&E to stimulate local energy generation in Marin.
d) That the increase in renewable energy from Shell, was of questionable value compared to the technical complexity of its energy integration.
However, since writing to yourselves, as I sought to understand and publish the energy goals of PG&E for Marin County, I discovered that all four of the above were wrong.
a) I have not found a single instance where Mr McGlashan can be faulted for his efforts, despite the continued and personal attacks by PG&E, to use the provisions of AB117 to explore an innovative solution to Marin County's local energy generation requirements. His assessment that the significant risk to MEA, expressed at the meeting on the Supervisors Board on 4th February, was the continued obstructionism from PG&E, is completely in accord with our findings. I state for the record that the provisions included in AB117, to protect a CCA like the MCE Plan from MEA from such obstructionism appears to be working as intended. We look forward to publishing an updated financial projection for MEA now that the purchase costs from Shell have been contracted, and the energy selling rates published. The only question we have regarding the next 12 months financial projections is; exactly how much additional cash will be available to the county?
b) I have established that PG&E and its funded bodies are 100% committed to disrupting the creation of Community Choice Aggregation Plans as set out in AB117 of September 2002.
c) I have found that PG&E have little desire, despite all expert advice to the contrary, to develop a partnership with our community to implement a collaborative model of distributed clean energy generation. We have been offered no statement from PG&E of their explicit plans to provide clean energy to Marin, to match the clean energy commitments from Shell, or to invest in Marin's energy generation or energy distribution infrastructure.
d) It may be technically more complex to integrate another energy provider into the grid, but in our opinion this is considerably less onerous than working with PG&E's centrist energy policies.
Unfortunately the abuse of open4energy's communication channel, appears trivial compared to the other deceptions being carried out by PG&E and their funded bodies.
Over the next weeks open4energy will systematically expose the extraordinary levels of deception we have encountered. They include attacks on the credibility of individuals, creation of web sites, creation of coalitions, manipulation of individuals, sending of letters, representation at meetings, abuse of local political groups, misleading claims including finance, manipulation of local press, legal challenges, and new propositions for June.
open4energy is now actively investigating the influence PG&E had on Marin County Civil Grand Jury in December 2009, the report of the Marin Treasurer Michael Smith of January 7th (who has recently admitted he based his opinion on the Grand Jury report), the letter submitted to Mill Valley by our 11 past mayors, specific letters submitted to the council of Mill Valley, postings on web sites including that of "Friends of Mill Valley" and information published in our local press.
We encourage debate and we encourage disagreement on a topic that is as complex as this.
The time has come to recognize and root out the systemic insertion of PG&E's opinion into our local debate. I find it unacceptable that good people like our past mayors, are having their integrity questioned. Yes their names are attached to a letter that has a quote from the county treasurer, one known to be without appropriate investigation. Who should our elected people trust? We are being consumed by an agenda that has no interest in Mill Valley or Marin prosperity. It is for PG&E, a monopoly resisting essential change.
The issue we face in Marin County, as with all 58 counties in California, and all states in the USA, is only partly of clean energy, carbon and our climate.
The opportunities of a vibrant local renewable energy policy include:
a) Locally generated renewable energy for Marin County energy price stability
b) Locally generated renewable energy for Marin County reliable & continuous energy supply
c) Locally generated renewable energy for Marin County energy independence
d) Locally generated renewable energy for Marin to comply with the requirements of AB32
Unfortunately the reasoning for economic stability through energy, consideration of the global implications of peak fossil fuel availability, are much more complex than the simpler and more emotive arguments of global warming and carbon reduction.
But they are issues which must continue to be addressed by our County and City Planners. Without energy price stability, secure and reliable energy availability, the economy of Mill valley and of Marin is at risk.
Only last week Google, who we all know as a leading Silicon Valley company, was approved by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to buy and sell energy. Interestingly enough, the California Public Utilities Commission also filed a motion to intervene in the application, shortly after Google filed it. If Google are wise to the critical nature of being independent from PG&E and the CPUC, I suggest we are doing exactly the right thing by ensuring our energy independence as quickly as possible.
In my opinion it would be a tragic error of judgment to allow PG&E to continue to actively obstruct our ability to achieve local energy independence.
Going forwards we will have many tough decisions to make, how to use the cash MEA generates, how to fund the capital projects for additional energy, and how to encourage our energy monopoly (PG&E) into a meaningful distributed energy partnership with us.
I am sorry that standing against PG&E will increase the technical complexity of energy distribution, that we have needed to enlist the help of Shell North America to stand against PG&E and that there has been so much money wasted by PG&E resisting inevitable change. I refer you to Lena Hansen and Amory B. Lovins in their recent article titled "Keeping The Lights on While Transforming Electric Utilities"
But, as we really understand PG&E's desires, and the efforts they appear willing to go to, for retaining their antiquated and mistaken centrally managed energy policies, I applaud the City of Mill Valley and the Marin Supervisors Board for their decision and commitment to equip us with an Energy Authority who has our needs in mind.
respectfully
Alexander Bischoff
- 387 reads
