Editorial: Oakley Should Delay Move Away from PG&E to Marin Clean Energy

On Tuesday, the City of Oakley will vote to switch all residents away from PG&E in favor of Marin Clean Energy (MCE) all in the name of “going green”.

There is nothing wrong with going green, but the council is moving too fast, they do not have all the facts, and have provided no transparency to the public. Most importantly, better options may become available within the next several years.

Should the council approve a Letter of Intent on Tuesday, within a 6-month period all Oakley homes would be automatically enrolled in MCE. PG&E would then only handle the delivery of power and billing and charge residents an “opt out fee” each month.

If approved, the switch will come with no public outreach to the community prior to the council voting on a item that will impact every home in Oakley. Both city staff and MCE acknowledged they did not reach out to the community, but stated the outreach would begin after the move is approved.

This is wrong, public input should occur prior to any decision of this magnitude—much like they did with multiple open meetings about switching from the Sheriff’s Department to its own Police Department.

Instead, all residents will be switched over without their approval or even their knowledge.

By Oakley’s own admission, they began discussing this idea since last summer. Since that time, they have not held one public forum to provide a presentation or data on if this move was better for the community. Instead, they waited until a deadline to push this through so few in the public could ask questions or find other options to present to the council.

Even more concerning, MCE is more expensive at this time than PG&E—due to a $13 monthly exit fee which wipes out any savings. MCE says they expect the fee to be reduced in the future, but that is not given per PG&E and common sense suggests when was the last time any fee was actually reduced.

Should Oakley residents opt out of MCE after 60-days of the switch, they are charged a $5 fee. if

A major oversight in the process is the City staff, MCE, or Council did not question the data during MCE’s presentation. They used figures from September 2015 which is outdated and showed MCE as cheaper. PG&E increased its fee in December and the data was not updated which shows that when you include the monthly opt out fee, it wipes out any savings in energy costs from leaving PG&E and you actually may pay more.

When Councilwoman Vanessa Perry challenged MCE if it was cheaper, their CEO admitted at this time MCE was not, but that traditionally had not been the case.

Finally, Oakley’s biggest error in moving to fast may come from the actions of the City of Brentwood who successfully provided a very public process. During the January 26 Brentwood City Council Meeting, Brentwood was interested in information gathering to find the best possible options for both its city and residents instead of moving at light speed.

Brentwood received a presentation both from Contra Costa County, who is looking into the idea of a Joint Powers Authority, followed by a nearly identical presentation as Oakley got from MCE.

Oakley City Council never received the County (JPA) presentation and neither did the public. Thus, the Council does not actually know what else is available except on the word of the City Staff says who looked into two companies and provided no data on the county plan.

Brentwood City Council provided good reasons to wait 18-24 months which Oakley City Council would be smart to adopt a similar stance on Tuesday.

For example, Brentwood Mayor Bob Taylor highlighted how the council was there to represent the residents and not the city’s interest.

“For us to do something of this nature, yes it’s the wave of the future, but I would opt with the county for exploratory and not tied on the dotted line that we are with someone for eternity,” said Taylor.

Referring to how MCE is requesting Oakley to make a decision by March, Brentwood did not like the deadline. Councilman Erick Stonebarger explained that if you tell him we need to make a decision quickly, he was not going to carry your water and will go the other way.

Brentwood Councilman Steve Barr noted that they represent the residents and not the city’s interest and explained they needed to have a community workshop to give the public an opportunity to hear the presentation and discuss it before they get a new item showing up on the bill. He also criticized the fact people have to opt out versus opting in.

Meanwhile, Councilman Gene Clare explained that by going to the county option at this time, they have time to research it more and get community input.

In Oakley, it was a contrast where three councilmembers stated their “hatred” for PG&E.

So the real question becomes are they making this decision based off their hatred for PG&E? Are they making this decision for the City of Oakley who may benefit? Or the residents?

For example, when it comes to solar, Oakley Councilwoman Sue Higgins proclaimed she believed under MCE, those with solar installed within Oakley would pay more than they are today. MCE had no response.

In speaking with several local solar companies over the past week, they stated moving towards the clean energy programs were better in the long run, but right now they are so new that better programs will be coming on board in the next several years as the technology continues to improve. Laws may also be changed to benefit these types of programs to allow more choices for residents. Although they did not go on record, they did say it would be better for Oakley to wait to see how the programs play itself out.

Rather than wait to see what is available, Oakley city council appears persuaded by staff to join MCE over a $15,000 fee waiver for a 30-year contract, a fee that is just $500 a year, or just $41.66 per month which is a drop in the bucket in a $16 million city budget.

We encourage Oakley to hold off Tuesday and at least see what the County proposes in the near future. At the very worst, someone else will present a similar, if not better offer than what MCE is proposing today.

City Council Emails:
Kevin Romick: [email protected]
Sue Higgins: [email protected]
Doug Hardcastle: [email protected]
Randy Pope: [email protected]
Vanessa Perry: [email protected]

Online Public Comment Card for Item 5.1
http://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/city-meetings/#meetingCommentContain

Editors Note: During the original discussion (recap here), the council voted 4-1 to move the Letter of Intent forward with Councilwoman Sue Higgins voting “no”.