Cleaner energy is great, but it's still more expensive than conventional fuels (especially with the current cost of natural gas). And rooftop solar is even more expensive. I highly doubt that a CCA would both increase penetration of clean energy on the western grid and lower overall system costs. There should be legitimate retail competition, but let's not fantasize about some 100% local, renewable, ultra-low cost network that doesn't exist.

Justin,

Agreed. I'd be pleased though if we had an option not unlike that in Santa Clara.

BTW....anyone else get cheesed every time one of PG&E's ads plays during a Giants game? I mean, what is the flipping point of that? It's not like I can decide who to buy electricity from. Am I supposed to "feel" better about paying my power bill because some dude and his kid are both linemen?

I wonder what PG&E spends every year on TV, Radio, billboard and print ads? Seems like an absurd and unnecessary expense and one that is no doubt rolled into the other expenses on the P&L and recovered in the price of energy sold to us.

I seriously doubt that a "100% local, renewable, ultra-low cost network" is possible *at this moment*.

However...the time *will* come when the fuels that we use for power will have run out. And it is a smart move to start the process to gradually switch over to renewable sources, even if it will take some time to do so.

Solar and wind are now the cheapest energy source in England and Germany. That may happen here some day.
Web Link

Responding to Justin and True's comments...

Community Choice actually DOES give you the choice you seek. I believe that the rise of Community Choice Energy is one of the reasons that PG&E has lately been spending so much on image advertising.

Rooftop solar is also a choice for homeowners, but renters and condo owners don't have that option. With Community Choice energy, they finally will.

Regarding the skepticism about lower costs -- I understand your perspective, but Sonoma, Marin and Napa counties all have Community Choice programs and their rates are the same or lower than PG&E's. With our larger population and consequent economies of scale, I think Silicon Valley should be able to do even better.

"but it is already being touted as a way for local ratepayers to lower costs"

Hahaha, where have i heard that before, the ACA?

PG&E will not like this, it may mean an end to their hands over fist taking in of our money.

This is advertised as a way to get more clean energy, however unless you actually build new clean energy sources you are merely increasing the demand for the existing clean energy which will cause it's price to increase. Also the electricity you use in your home will be delivered by PG&E and come from the same place it did before you signed up.

It strikes me as simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

True, we lack local sources of clean, renewable power. We also lack market incentives and opportunities to build clean, renewable power because PG&E and the other incumbents are fighting tooth and nail to strangle decentralized, renewable generation. Big power is lobbying to kill rooftop solar with punitive grid tie-in fees and asymmetric pricing. PG&E is a monopoly seller and a monopsony buyer of power, which means that the little guy always loses. PG&E and SoCal Edison are shaking down their regulatory and political friends to ensure that the reign of crony capitalism is unhindered by environmental concerns or competitive pressures.

Compare PG&E to SMUD. Compare their attitudes, prices, policies and initiatives. Compare safety--particularly the number of pipeline explosions and burned neighborhoods.

Bring on the community power then watch as renewables flourish and meter charges drop.

The blanket statement, "renewable power is more costly than fossil-fueled power," is being punched full of holes faster and faster--despite the recent reductions in the cost of natural gas and petroleum and the mounting bankruptcies of coal mining corporations.

All power companies continually add new sources of energy. The latest California law requiring 50% renewable power by 2030 takes advantage of that to dramatically increase the amount of electric energy from renewable sources.

Roof-top solar power will probably always be the most expensive solar power because it is small scale, by definition. Nevertheless, the government is right to subsidize it because it uses millions of square feet of rooftops that are available throughout the city, minimizing the cost of bringing the energy from afar.

Finally, the full cost of the city's, nation's and world's profligate burning of fossil fuels, especially in the most recent 100 years, is now starting to be felt and it can no longer be prevented. The sooner we (Mountain View, America, the world) stop burning fossil fuels the lower the ultimate cost will be. Even if the cost of the fossil fuels drops dramatically, it will still cost less in the long run to stop burning them now. We must understand and accept that energy sources do not have to be burning fuels, fossil or otherwise.

You may want to check out Boulder, CO about what happened after the FAIRED SMARTMETER ATTEMPT that costs the ratepayers $53 Million and P.O. Boulder residents and the City Council enough to literally " nationalize " all of the Xcel property within it's city limits. That may include the Valmont coal fired power plant.

You may want to check into Calpine Energy. They are working in your area.

As for Windmill and PV Systems, MV doesn't have the wind to make windmill systems viable. PV systems are possible but PV cells are only ~22% efficient and the system and batteries degrade over time. Now that high energy storage is in your EVs, maybe that could " pinch hit " for PV storage if you have the right isolation switches so you won't fry a Perennial Gouger&Extortion lineman.
Regular powerplants are " teakettle " operations. Nuclear, coal or natural gas boil water to spin the turbines. 40% effective energy creation. Period.

No local dams, so no hydroelectric power.

Maybe the design of Trombe Walls into existing and new houses will handle heat issues in your mild climate.

The ROI in rooftop PV systems and maintenance may be better than in CO. No golf ball or baseball sized hail that turns a $25,000 investment into junk.

The Perennial Gouger&Extortion gas pipeline has been in the news. Maybe it is time to retire #132 due to age. Civil Engineers design for a 40 year lifespan of what is built. Maybe MV can lower the pressure in #132 but eventually that pipe will fail again like it did in San Bruno. At least MV can keep better records and inspections. Just buy a " pig " to do the inspections.

A thought: Just cover Hangar One with PV panels and kill two birds with one stone! Then add that power into your electrical grid!

On Gas: Build a biomass conversion system. The SJ sewage plant has run it's systems on biogas for decades. Sell the solids to Central Valley farmers. Pipe the digester gasses into the MV gas grid.

Think outside the box!

Foothill College gave me the real life numbers quoted here. Practical studies of PV systems and research give me ROI for the average PV household information. You have plenty of " suns " in your energy bank.

Failed instead of faired. Darn spellcheck....

Another thought Look into setups like the IREA CO-OP. This is National CO-OP Month. You also may want to contact Touchstone Energy.
The Pacific Intertie Path #65 could also apply here. HVDC transmits better than HVAC over long distances. Buying energy directly cuts out the Perennial Gouger%Extortion middleman. At least Boulder had the nads to grab all of Xcel's infrastructure.

@Doug Pearson
Having worked a bit in the energy industry and talked to people there and to economists, renewable energy is not cheaper than fossil fuels and there are significant costs of higher penetration levels on the grid. Not technologically unsolvable, but it will be expensive. It is no coincidence that California has one of the highest electricity rates of any state despite a mild climate and good solar conditions.

As far as rooftop versus large-scale PV, rooftop solar can be problematic because it is not often properly aligned (should be west-facing in California to increase later afternoon production), and installation costs are very high (labor, materials, etc). Hopefully we will come up with better compensation for rooftop solar than the current subsidy that is overly generous and highly regressive. The average transmission losses for transporting electricity are around 7%, but I guess this could be greater in some areas. Still, it's hard to see rooftop systems beating power purchase agreements of $0.05/KWH that we are seeing in Texas.

@Others
Community Choice Aggregation is not true retail competition. The choice is only between the IOU and a publicly subsidized (through lower interest loans) utility. Consumers will not likely do much research and will only stay in whatever program they are defaulted into. There should be the realization that a CCA is not guaranteed to lower costs-this is completely dependent on whether it has signed better contracts and is more streamlined in operations than the traditional utility.

It is completely possible that the IOUs are so bureaucratic and complacent (since they have regulated profits) that they will continue to sign poor contracts, but not certain. Additionally, utilities have to contend with numerous regulatory requirements (for example, flexibility, reserves, etc) that smaller municipalities could potentially try to opt out of. That would not work on a large scale, and on a small scale may just imply that non-CCA communities are subsidizing cheaper energy for CCA communities.