No more stalling on CCA - Page 2

If San Francisco wants to present a solid legal case that its CCA is already in business, the contract with Powerchoice needs to be completed and signed, now
|
(1)

That misses the point — PG&E's rates are going up every year and renewables are coming down, and the greatest risk to the city, the ratepayers, and the planet is sticking with the unreliable private utility that relies on fossil fuels and nuclear power for much of its electricity portfolio.

If the city has legitimate issues with Powerchoice, fine: Sit down and begin working them out. Now. But the only thing we can see at this point is the administration of a mayor who wants to be lieutenant governor intentionally delaying the process and giving PG&E exactly what it wants. (We called the PUC April 26, our print deadline, to ask why there were no talks scheduled that day, but Harrington wasn't available; he was taking the day off.)

Sups. Ross Mirkarimi and David Campos suggest that the board simply refuse to sign off on any contracts, appropriations, or other approvals for anything the SFPUC does until this contract is completed. That's a fine idea; they should start today.

Comments

Just one short added comment to fully connect the dots..

A 15 year long-term pay back period is precisely what allows the CleanPowerSF program to pay for itself and give Power Choice a reasonable profit, and still easily meet or beat PG&E rates. The CleanPowerSF plan was -designed- over 6 years ago to do exactly that, and everyone involved has been fully aware of this ever since.

So what Harrington was doing, was purposely and absurdly, utterly leaving out this key mathematical factor of the long term pay back period, so that his charts would falsely show that solar and wind power are more expensive, when over time they are actually cheaper, especially when combined with broad scale energy efficiency programs.

Harrington's presentation was nothing but a magician's parlor trick designed to dupe commissioners and the public into believing the program couldn't work. Fortunately, the commissioners didn't fall for it, and I doubt the public that was watching did either.

So the really important question is.. Why would Harrington play such a desperate and absurdly transparent shell game in an attempt to mislead us?

Who benefits Mr. Harrington?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 9:04 am