Urgent: Sonoma Clean Power may include nuclear – please send comment in opposition to this proposal

Just say no to nonrenewable energy and no place for nuclear waste…..

Urgent: Sonoma Clean Power may include nuclear – please send comment in opposition to this proposal

Dear all, Please share far & wide…
Our local not-for-profit electricity service provider, Sonoma Clean Power, that many of us worked so hard to create, and that is doing so many wonderful things for our community, is considering the idea of accepting an “allocation” of nuclear power from PG&E’s Diablo nuclear power plant this coming Thursday at their board meeting at 8:45am.
This is the only way to express your opinion: Please send a message to meetings@sonomacleanpower.org to let them know you don’t like this idea and you do not want nuclear power in SCP’s power mix and to please vote “No” on accepting the nuclear allocation (agenda item 10).
In addition to the attached agenda item, I have attached the California Alliance for Community Energy’s fact sheet on why accepting this allocation is a bad idea.
To participate in the meeting on Thursday:
Members of the public who wish to view and/or listen to the Board of Directors meeting may do so via the following webinar link, or teleconference call-in number and webinar ID code:
• Telephone number: 1 (669) 900-9128
• Webinar ID code: 979 1298 0771
PLEASE NOTE: The Sonoma Clean Power Business Office is closed and this meeting will be conducted entirely by teleconference. We ask that should you want to submit public comment that you do so by email before the item is discussed by the Board. Please state the agenda item number that you are commenting on and limit written comments to three hundred (300) words. Comments can be sent to meetings@sonomacleanpower.org Written comments received prior to the meeting and/or the agenda item you wish to comment on will be read into the record.
Thank you,
-Woody (CONGAS)
Staff Report – Item 10
To: Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board of Directors
From: Geof Syphers, CEO
Deb Emerson, Director of Power Services
Issue: Approve Allocation of PG&E’s Legacy Carbon-Free Resources
Date: May 7, 2020
Recommended Action:
Staff requests the Board determine whether or not to accept SCP’s proportionate
share of PG&E’s legacy carbon-free resource attributes, including large hydropower
and nuclear.
Background
PG&E must offer SCP its fair share of PG&E’s legacy large hydropower and nuclear
resources as part of a new CPUC process. Staff recommends accepting the large
hydropower resources, but is neutral on accepting the nuclear resources, which
would provide SCP customers with non-GHG energy and save approximately
$3.1 million per year but also potentially harm SCP’s environmental reputation. Some
background is provided here to aid the Board in making this decision.
SCP customers pay PG&E for its above-market costs associated with its electric
generating resources in the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) fee. The
PCIA was established to prevent PG&E’s non-CCA customers from having to pay
more as CCAs developed. However, an unfortunate side-effect has been to protect
PG&E from having to take any actions to reduce generation costs for ratepayers of
any type. In addition, PG&E has gotten a “free hedge” by having CCA customers pay
for the company to retain an out-sized portfolio at a fixed price.
55 of 58
Recent progress of SCP and CalCCA’s advocacy at the CPUC has led to a joint
proposal by CalCCA, Southern California Edison and Commercial Energy on
February 21, 2020 to create changes to the PCIA methodology. The most significant
change is that CCAs now have the option to take allocations of resources from the
IOU portfolio which CCA customers are already paying for. The proposed allocation
will cover a host of products:
􀂄 Resource Adequacy (local, flex, and system),
􀂄 Renewable (RPS) energy, and
􀂄 GHG-free energy.
The option for a GHG-free allocation has received attention, as PG&E’s GHG-free
portfolio contains the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The CPUC has required
CCA customers to pay for PG&E’s expensive nuclear power since 2010, even though
CCA customers were not allowed to use that energy or get any benefit from their
payments (such as the right to report lower GHG emissions).
The CPUC is now forcing CCAs to make a choice between continuing to pay for their
share of PG&E’s nuclear power or paying almost double the GHG-free premium for
the right to reject it. In SCP’s case, the cost of rejecting the nuclear portion of PG&E’s
portfolio would be approximately $3.1 million per year. The Board should consider
that option due to the downside of showing nuclear power on SCP’s CleanStart
Power Content Label and the SCP/PG&E Joint Rate Mailer. However, there are a
number of reasons to consider accepting it as well.
There is a clear path to accepting PG&E’s allocation of hydropower since SCP already
uses this resource type, but there remains a question of whether SCP should accept
or reject PG&E’s offer for nuclear energy.
Option 1: Reject the Nuclear Allocation
When considering rejecting SCP’s share of PG&E’s legacy nuclear resources, consider
that having nuclear energy show up in 2021 on the Power Content Label for 2020
power sources could be disappointing or angering for SCP customers. The amount
of nuclear energy on the label would be significant — approximately 20% of the
CleanStart power mix. EverGreen would remain 100% local renewable geothermal
and solar.
This could be partly mitigated by stating on the Label that “SCP does not purchase
nuclear energy. A share of PG&E’s legacy nuclear resource has been allocated to SCP
customers by the CPUC until that power plant closes in 2025.” However, many
56 of 58
customers may still be disappointed or angry that SCP appears to be buying nuclear
energy.
Rejecting the allocation has no cost relative to current conditions. But it would mean
leaving approximately $3.1 million per year of customer cost savings on the table,
which is roughly equal to 0.8% in bill savings or the combined value of all of these
current programs:
􀂄 SCP’s net energy metering cash outs;
􀂄 Loans to support battery storage in the SGIP program;
􀂄 The remaining Advanced Energy Rebuild incentives; and
􀂄 The planned zero-interest loans for technologies in the Advanced Energy
Center.
Option 2: Accept the Nuclear Allocation
When considering accepting PG&E’s allocation of nuclear energy, consider:
1. There is no environmental or safety benefit to rejecting the allocation.
Whether SCP accepts the allocation or not has no bearing on the amount of
nuclear energy generated by PG&E. Diablo Canyon power plant runs as a
baseload resource and cannot be adjusted downward due to a lack of
demand.
2. There is no impact on how long Diablo Canyon will operate.
The CPUC has approved PG&E’s proposal to shut down Diablo Canyon Units 1
and 2 on November 2, 2024 and August 26, 2025 respectively. However, the
plant is not expected to be allowed to close early.
3. Accepting the allocation reduces SCP’s costs and rates.
SCP’s customers are already paying for the GHG-free attributes in the PCIA,
but have historically received no value. The allocation would ensure SCP’s
customers get the climate benefits for the resources they are paying for, saving
approximately $3.1 million per year.
For reference, California Energy Markets reports that three CCA Boards have decided
to reject the nuclear allocation (East Bay Community Energy, MCE and Valley Clean
Energy) and two have decided to accept it to date (San Jose Clean Energy and
Monterey Bay Community Power).
57 of 58
How the PG&E Carbon-Free Allocation Mechanism Works
The key elements of the Allocation Mechanism are:
􀂄 Limited in time to 2019-2020 (but is expected to become an on-going process
in the future)
􀂄 Covers PG&E’s legacy in-state large hydropower and nuclear resources.
􀂄 Is based on a December 2, 2019 Advice Letter to amend PG&E’s bundled
Procurement Plan, and will remain in place until the effective date of a CPUC
action on the PCIA Proposal Rulemaking (R.17-06-026) orders an alternative
methodology.
Under the Allocation Mechanism, PG&E will allocate to each eligible electric provider
its pro rata load share of large hydropower and nuclear resource attributes based on
the electric provider’s election.
Financial Impact
The acceptance of PG&E’s legacy nuclear resource attributes would reduce SCP’s
costs to procure by an estimated $3.1 million per year. However, this may introduce
an unknown cost risk associated with customer opt outs.
The rejection of PG&E’s legacy carbon-free resource attributes would preserve the
status quo, in which SCP customers pay for PG&E’s nuclear resource in the PCIA but
get no financial or environmental value.
58 of 58