Given the complexities of this new tariff, PG&E’s billing systems are not ready to bill on NBT, which they are calling “Solar Billing Plan,” or SBP. PG&E expects to have their residential SBP operations ready by December 2023 and non-residential prepared by July 2024. Once the billing systems are ready, customers will transition to SBP based on their PG&E delivery true-up date.
Underlying Limitations and Opportunities
Price and Billing Signals
EBCE customers are also PG&E customers for delivery service. Since PG&E will be billing for delivery charges on the Solar Billing Plan tariff, customers will receive the price signals from this portion of their bill and will feel that change from NEM 2.0 to SBP. For customers installing today, they’ll be basing their purchase decision on SBP models, as solar providers have historically used only PG&E pricing to model solar performance.
Data Opportunities
Considering two-way meter channel data (both imports and exports) may lead to enhanced understanding of customer usage and generation patterns, allowing for more targeted incentive opportunities. Ingesting and using hourly billing quality meter data is also a global requirement as we look to tariffs of the near future, like Day Ahead Real Time Pricing.
Customer Opportunities and Legacy Systems
Customers are not without agency in this tariff change. While NBT does not offer the retail rate for exports, energy generated and used onsite without being exported is still “worth” the retail rate. Customers can see value on the NBT rate by installing a smaller solar system to offset their “base” or “always-on” load, shifting their demand to meet their own generation supply, or adding battery storage to take advantage of higher retail rates in the late evening hours, either to offset their own energy use during peak hours, or benefitting from the higher export rates.
Customers are also allowed 20 years on NEM 2.0. EBCE will continue to offer NEM 2.0 through 2044, accounting for the legacy period of customers who are just installing their systems today and through 2024. EBCE serves 63,000 customers on NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0 today. Based on historic installation data, staff expects to see a steady, but slow transition of customers from NEM 1.0 and 2.0 over to NBT. Over half of today’s NEM customers won’t transition to NBT until 2038, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Charting customers transition dates, NEM 1.0 and 2.0 to NBT (EBCE data) Status
Staff is exploring the impacts to both our customers and our organization of mirroring NBT as prescribed by the CPUC and largely as implemented by PG&E. Staff is using current customer usage and generation data to model ways for customers to maximize their rooftop solar system to benefit their energy bills, as well as add-ons like battery storage that can help reduce both bills and grid reliability. In the meantime, our billing agent is developing requirements to bill customers on SBP.
Today, EBCE offers a bonus credit to our low-income NEM customers and we continue to discuss equity concerns, including ways to assist in development of rooftop solar and battery storage by way of increasing the export credit. The ACC, or energy export credit, already includes an adder for low-income customers. Staff may look to increase the value or duration of this adder.
Staff is also exploring incentives for customers that use batteries per our time requirements.
Battery storage and discharge at the right times helps with overall grid stability and helps reduce EBCE procurement costs, which can be passed on to all customers.
Staff expects to return to the Board no later than December 2024 with a proposal for how EBCE will implement a successor to the NEM 2.0 tariff.
Fiscal Impact
Staff is modeling fiscal implications of options for a successor tariff to NEM 2.0.
Attachments
A. Presentation
Informational Discussion on
the Net Billing Tariff as a
Successor to the Net Energy
Metering 2.0 Tariff
SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
Attachment Staff Report Item 14
2 Introduction – What is Net Energy Metering?
Net Energy Metering (NEM) is the historic billing methodology used to compensate customers for excess energy produced by their own systems, like rooftop solar. NEM also defined how this compensation was handled vis-a-vis customer usage.
Attachment Staff Report Item 14
3 Introduction – What is Net Billing Tariff?
Net Billing Tariff (NBT) is a new compensation tariff approved by the CPUC on December 15, 2022. Energy exports, or excess generation is "sold" back at one price and energy imports, or electricity used from the grid, is purchased at the standard customer rate.
Attachment Staff Report Item 14
4 Timeline
NEM 1.0
1996 - 2017
NEM 2.0
2017 – 4/2023
NBT
4/2023 -
Attachment Staff Report Item 14
5 CPUC Goals
NEM 1.0
• Promote rooftop
solar
• Diversify
resource mix
• Tariff favored
mid-day solar
production
NEM 2.0
• More closely
align
compensation
closer to cost
via TOU rate
• Require
participants to
pay non-
bypassable
charges
NBT
NEM 1.0
1996 -
2017
NEM 2.0
2017 –
4/2023
NBT
4/2023 -
Attachment Staff Report Item 14
6 The Duck Curve
Attachment Staff Report Item 14
7 CPUC Goals
NEM 1.0
• Promote rooftop
solar
• Diversify
resource mix
• Tariff favored
mid-day solar
production
NEM 2.0
• More closely
align
compensation
closer to cost
via TOU rate
• Require
participants to
pay non-bypassable
charges
NBT
• Continued
refinement of
compensation
related to net
benefits to the
grid
• Allow for
continued
growth of self-generation
NEM 1.0
1996 -
2017
NEM 2.0
2017 –
4/2023
NBT
4/2023 -
Attachment Staff Report Item 14
8 Solar Metering Tariffs: Side-by-Side
NEM 1.0
1996-2017
NEM 2.0
2017-Apr.14, 2023
NBT
Apr. 15, 2023 -
present
Rate Schedule Any TOU rates (4-9 pm
peak rates)
Residential customers
are required to be on
a TOU Electrification
Rates (4-9pm peak,
3pm-12am partial
peak)
Value of solar
used
concurrently
on-site
Offsets
imports, equivalent
to retail rate
Offsets
imports, equivalent to
retail rate
Offsets
imports, equivalent
to retail rate
Value of solar
exported to
grid
Full retail rate Retail rate minus non-bypassable chargesAvoided Cost Calculation (ACC)
price per hour, with
an adder for low
income customers.
Netting
methodology
Imports are netted
against exports
Imports are netted
against exports within
each TOU interval
Imports are charged
at the retail rate,
exports are
compensated at ACC.
Energy use is no
longer netted.
Net Surplus
Compensation
(NSC) payment
at true-up
Net exports times NSC
rate
Net exports times NSC
rate
Net exports times NSC
rate, minus ACC
export value already
granted
Billing and
true-up
period
Annual billing, annual
true-up (both charges
and credits roll over
for 12 months)
Annual billing, annual
true-up (both charges
and credits roll over for
12 months)
Monthly billing and
payment; annual true-up (credits roll over
for 12 months)
Legacy Period 20 Years, tied to the
system
20 Years, tied to the
system
9 Years, tied to both
the system AND the
customer as a unit.
Value of solar
used
concurrently
on-site
Offsets imports,
equivalent to retail
rate
Offsets imports,
equivalent to retail
rate
Offsets imports,
equivalent to retail
rate
NEM 1.0
1996-2017
NEM 2.0
2017-Apr.14, 2023
NBT
Apr. 15, 2023 -
present
Value of solar
exported to
grid
Full retail rate Retail rate minus non-bypassable chargesAvoided Cost Calculation (ACC)
price per hour, with
an adder for low-income customers.
Netting
methodology
Imports are netted
against exports
Imports are netted
against exports within
each TOU interval
Imports are charged
at the retail rate;
exports are
compensated at ACC.
Energy use is no
longer netted.
Attachment Staff Report Item 14
9 Customer Transitions from NEM 1 and 2 to NBT
Cumulative Customer Count Eligible for NBT
Attachment Staff Report Item 14
10 Next Steps
• Staff is exploring the impacts of mirroring NBT as prescribed by the CPUC, as well as looking for opportunities to customize the tariff for our customers and agency
• Exploring questions such as:
• How can NBT create value for our solar customers as well as our other customers? • How will EBCE continue to support our low-income customers? • Battery storage and timely discharge can help with overall grid stability. Battery storage can also help reduce customer bills and increase the value of rooftop solar. Is there an opportunity for a program to help encourage battery adoption? • Staff expects to return to the Board no later than December 2024 with a proposal for how EBCE will implement a successor to the NEM 2.0 tariff Attachment Staff Report Item 14
Thank You!
@PoweredbyEBCE
[email protected]
11 Questions? Give us a call:
1-833-699-EBCE (3223)
Español
ebce.org/es
中文
ebce.org/cn
Attachment Staff Report Item 14
Staff Report Item 15
Staff Report Item 15
TO: East Bay Community Energy Board of Directors
FROM: Alex DiGiorgio, Public Engagement Manager
SUBJECT: Community Advisory Committee (CAC) structure
(Discussion Item)
DATE: September 20, 2023
__________________________________________________________________ Recommendation
Receive staff report on Community Advisory Committee (CAC) structure and provide direction regarding how to restructure the Committee (if at all) in light of EBCE’s expanding service area and inclusion of new member-jurisdictions to the Joint Powers Authority (JPA).
Background and Discussion
On October 21, 2020, the Board of Directors approved updates to the CAC Guide and Appointment process. These updates were made to provide proper representation and engagement of the CAC, particularly given the inclusion of EBCE’s new communities in the cities of Newark, Pleasanton, and Tracy. The updates included the following: The addition of three seats (increasing the CAC to twelve active seats corresponding with the concept of “voting shares” in the JPA Agreement); configuring the apportionment of CAC seats to EBCE Service Area Regions; appointing one Alternate for each EBCE Service Area Region, for a total of five; and engaging the Mayors’ Conference to appoint two at-large Members.
Since that time, the CAC has been composed of twelve active seats (Members) and five alternate seats (Alternates).
On June 21, 2023, the Board of Directors approved a six month term extension for all current CAC Members and an interim seat for the City of Stockton. The purpose for this action was to provide staff with time to help the Board consider alternative Staff Report Item 15
committee structures to address the challenge of shifting seat allocations created by the addition of new jurisdictions to EBCE’s JPA territory.
Under the CAC’s current structure, seats are distributed regionally across EBCE’s service area in Alameda and San Joaquin counties.1 Each region is allocated its number of seats according to its approximate cumulative electricity load. This corresponds to the JPA’s allocation of Voting Shares votes among the Board of Directors (per JPA Sec. 4.12.2 and Exhibit C).
The CAC currently has eleven members serving. One Member seat in the South Service Area Region is vacant, as are all five Alternate seats. Below is a table with the current structure, seat allocation, and membership of the CAC:
EBCE Service Area Region Current CAC Seat Allocation Current Alternate Seat Allocation
NORTH
Albany, Berkeley, Oakland,
Emeryville, and Piedmont
3 - Anne Olivia Eldred, Chair
- Cynthia Landry
- Lisa Hu
Open
EAST
Dublin, Livermore, and
Pleasanton
1 - Joel Liu
Open
SOUTH
Fremont, Union City, and
Newark
3 - Shiva Swaminathan
- Vijay Lakshman
- [Open]
Open
CENTRAL
Hayward, San Leandro, and
Alameda County
Unincorporated
2 - Ernie Pacheco
- Lorraine Souza
Open
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
Tracy
1 - Harman Ratia
Open
STOCKTON (interim) 1 (TBD) N/A
At-Large Ed Hernandez N/A
At-Large Jim Lutz N/A
Issue: As the CAC is currently structured, the allocation of each Service Area Region’s seats adjusts to reflect the change in the JPA Voting Shares vote each time EBCE’s territory expands to include new communities. In effect, whenever 1The one exception is the Board’s recent creation of the interim seat for the City of Stockton (referenced above) at the June 21, 2023, meeting.
Staff Report Item 15
EBCE welcomes a new jurisdiction into its territory, one CAC Service Area Region may gain a seat on the Committee, while another loses one.
Under this arrangement, with the addition of the City of Stockton to EBCE’s service area, the CAC’s San Joaquin Service Area Region would gain a seat, while the CAC’s South Service Area Region (which includes the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City) would lose one. This dynamic is illustrated in the tables below.
CAC’s regional seat allocation before Stockton’s JPA membership:
Region Member Jurisdictions New JPA
Vote Share
CAC Seat
Allocation
Alternate Seat
Allocation
North Albany, Berkeley,
Oakland, Emeryville,
Piedmont
30% 3 1
East Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton
14% 1 1
South Fremont, Union City,
Newark
27% 3 1
Central Hayward, San Leandro,
Unincorporated AlCo
23% 2 1
San Joaquin
County
Tracy 6% 1 1
At-Large All 1
At-Large All 1
100% 12 5
CAC’s regional seat allocation after Stockton’s JPA membership:
Region Member Jurisdictions New JPA Vote
Share
CAC Seat
Allocation
Alternate Seat
Allocation
North Albany, Berkeley,
Oakland, Emeryville,
Piedmont
27.6% 3 1
East Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton
12.8% 1 1
South Fremont, Union City, Newark19.6% 2 1
Central Hayward, San Leandro,
Unincorporated AlCo
18.7% 2 1
Staff Report Item 15
San Joaquin
County
Tracy, Stockton 21.3% 2 1
At-Large All 1
At-Large All 1
100% 12 5
Alternative Committee Structures
As referenced above, the CAC’s current, regionally-determined seat allocations reflect the approximate combined Voting Shares percentages of each JPA member-jurisdiction outlined in Exhibit C of the JPA Agreement. Under this Committee structure, the prospect of one region losing a seat if/when EBCE welcomes new jurisdictions to its JPA and service area will persist. For this reason, staff is seeking guidance from the Board regarding 1) whether to consider alternative committee structures/seat allocation mechanisms; and 2) if so, which alternatives to consider.
To assist with this, staff has summarized the strcutures of similar committees at other community choice aggregation (CCA) agencies in California. This summary is as follows:
CCA
Committee structure/ seat
allocation
Central Coast Clean Energy All At-large
Clean Energy Alliance Jurisdiction
Clean Power Alliance Region
Desert Clean Energy All At-large
EBCE Region
Orange County Power Authority Jurisdiction
Peninsula Clean Energy All At-large
Redwood Coast Energy Authority Jurisdiction
San Diego Community Power Jurisdiction
Sonoma Clean Power All At-large
Valley Clean Energy Jurisdiction
As outlined above, seat allocations of community advisory committees at other California-based CCAs are generally structured in one of the following three ways:
Staff Report Item 15
1. By region
2. By jurisdiction
3. All at-large
Each of these structures offers various potential benefits and trade-offs regarding the committee’s representation and operation. These generally include the following:
Structure Potential benefits Potential trade offs
By Region • Geographically distributed
representation;
• Proportional representation
relative to population size;
• Smaller committee size
• Seat allocations likely to shift as
service area/JPA membership
grows;
• Some jurisdictions may not
have individual representation;
• Member appointments
administered by CCA
staff/Board members
By Jurisdiction • Geographically distributed
representation (+ all
jurisdictions have individual
representation);
• Committee structure mirror’s
Board structure;
• Member appointments
administered by city/County
staff
• Larger committee/more
members;
• No proportional representation
relative to population size;
• Increased fiscal impact (e.g.,
more stipends to be paid)
All At-large • Smaller committee size; • Proportional representation relative to population size
more likely; • Multiple members from the
same region/jurisdiction can
serve on the Committee
• Geographically distributed
representation less likely; • Member appointments
administered by EBCE
staff/Board; • Potentially more challenging to
reach cross-section of
community members
Board Engagement
To help facilitate robust input from EBCE’s Board of Directors on this subject, staff convened an Ad Hoc committee of the Board to provide initial guidance. Board members from four of the five CAC Service Area Regions participated on this committee, including the following:
• Alameda County Supervisor/EBCE Board Chair Elisa Márquez (Central) • Dublin City Councilmember Sherry Hu (East)
• Newark City Councilmember Matthew Jorgens (South)
• Piedmont City Councilmember Betsy Andersen (North)
• Union City City Councilmember Jaime Patiño (South)
Staff also reached out to individually consult with the following:
Staff Report Item 15
• Current CAC Chair (Anne Olivia Eldred);
• EBCE’s Vice Chair of the Board (Pleasanton Vice Mayor Jack Balch); • The Board Members of EBCE's two largest JPA member-jurisdictions (Oakland Councilmember Dan Kalb and Fremont Councilmember Teresa Cox); • Emeryville’s EBCE Board Member (Mayor John Bauters)
• Founding EBCE Board Chair, former Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty Committee Recommendation
An Ad Hoc committee of the Board convened on August 30, 2023, to discuss the CAC’s structure and offer feedback to staff and the Board. Staff also individually conferred with three Board members. The bullets below summarize the key points that came out of these conversations:
• While Ad Hoc committee members acknowledged the appeal of a jurisdictional structure (i.e., one that mirrors the Board), they expressed concerns regarding 1) increasing the size of the CAC; 2) filling the seats/finding interested community members in each jurisdiction; and 3) coordinating with cities regarding the appointment timing and process;
• Given these concerns, the consensus of the Ad Hoc committee and the Board members with whom staff individually consulted was to maintain the CAC's regional structure;
• There was support expressed for either 1) removing the two At-Large CAC seats; or 2) exploring how to reallocate the seats to the Service Area Regions, since the At Large seats invite an imbalance among the regions/jurisdictions (e.g., Oakland gains an additional seat). Staff also noted the current At Large appointment process through the Alameda County Mayors’ Conference does not align well with the timing of CAC terms/operations.
• The Board should consider removing the Alternate seats, since filling them has proven difficult (they are all currently vacant);
• The Board should consider instructing staff to stagger the terms of the current CAC members so that half of the members’ terms end in an even year, and the other half in an odd year, with terms beginning in June with the fiscal calendar.
• The Board should consider allowing current CAC members who wish to continue serving to do so without having to reapply;
Based on communications with the CAC Chair, staff anticipates the CAC will discuss the Committee’s structure at its meeting on September 19, 2023. The CAC may provide its own feedback and recommendations to the Board thereafter.
Fiscal Impact
Staff Report Item 15
There is no fiscal impact to considering alternative CAC structures. If EBCE’s Board votes to restructure the CAC this could affect the amount of money budgeted for Committee member stipends. The current CAC stipend budget is $20,400. If the committee were to be restructured to have fewer seats, the budget would decrease proportionally. Alternatively, if the Committee were to be restructured to mirror the Board (i.e., one seat allocated to each jurisdiction) this would require an additional four seats, increasing the stipend budget to approximately $27,200. The additional stipends would be disbursed as new CAC members are sworn-in and begin serving at regular, monthly meetings.
Attachments
A. CAC Structure Ad Hoc PPT – 8.30.23
Ad Hoc Committee:
Community Advisory
Committee (CAC)
Structure
AUGUST 30, 2023
Attachment Staff Report Item 15A
Objective: To address the issue of shifting CAC seat allocations 2 • Issue:
The current regional structure of the CAC results in one region potentially losing an allocated seat when a new jurisdiction joins the JPA
o E.g., Stockton joining JPA = CAC's San Joaquin region gains a seat, while the CAC's South region (Fremont, Newark, Union City) loses a seat
• Ad Hoc Committee Assignment:
1. To advise staff and EBCE Board of Directors re how to restructure the CAC (if at all) as EBCE grows to include new jurisdictions
2. To consider various committee structures for the CAC o e.g., Regional vs. Jurisdictional vs. At-Large
Attachment Staff Report Item 15A
3 CAC Intro
Overview
• The CAC is a Brown Act body established
in EBCE's JPA
• The CAC meets monthly on the Monday
before the Board of Directors mtg
• To Join: Interested members of the
public submit applications for open
seats; Board Members for each region
make nominations from among the
applicants; final appointments are
approved by the full Board.
• At-large Members are appointed by the
Alameda County Mayor's Conference
• Members can serve 2-year terms for a
maximum of 4 terms (8 years total)
Current Structure
*
*City of Stockton: Interim seat awaiting appointment
Attachment Staff Report Item 15A
4 Current CAC Membership
Current Vacancies:
• All five Alternate seats
• South Region Member
• Stockton Interim Member
Attachment Staff Report Item 15A
Ad Hoc Committee Background
5 Why are we here?
• With the addition of Stockton (and possible further expansion) the Board may wish to consider structural changes to avoid having some CAC regions lose seats while others gain them. • Most of the CCA's in California that have CACs have one of the following structures:
▪ Regional: The service area is divided into regions and CAC seats are allocated on a per region basis. This is EBCE's current structure.
▪ Jurisdictional: Seats are allocated to each JPA member-jurisdiction on a per city/county basis, often mirroring the BOD structure.
▪ At-large: Seats are not allocated to any specific regions/jurisdictions. • Additional structural questions to consider:
• Alternates?
• Terms?
• Appointment process
Attachment Staff Report Item 15A
CCA Comparison
6 CCA
Committee
structure/seat
allocation
Central Coast Clean Energy All At-large
Clean Energy Alliance Jurisdictional
Clean Power Alliance Regional
Desert Clean Energy All At-large
EBCE Regional
Orange County Power Authority Jurisdictional
Peninsula Clean Energy All At-large
Redwood Coast Energy Authority Jurisdictional
San Diego Community Power Jurisdictional
Sonoma Clean Power All At-large
Valley Clean Energy Jurisdictional
Attachment Staff Report Item 15A
Regional Approach Allocations w/ Stockton
7 Region Member Jurisdictions New JPA Vote Share CAC Seat Allocation
Alternate Seat
Allocation
North Albany, Berkeley, Oakland,
Emeryville, Piedmont 27.6%
3 1
East Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton
12.8% 1 1
South Fremont, Union City,
Newark
19.6% 3 2 1
Central Hayward, San Leandro,
Unincorporated AlCo
18.7% 2 1
San Joaquin County Tracy, Stockton 21.3% 1 2 1
At-Large All 1
At-Large All 1
100% 12 5
Attachment Staff Report Item 15A
Next Steps
8 • 8/30: Ad Hoc mtg to discuss future of CAC structure • 9/6: If necessary/desired, item goes to Executive Committee • 9/18: CAC discusses item and may provide recommendation to Board • 9/20: Item goes before full Board of Directors for discussion/final decision 12/31/23: End of term for all current Members of the CAC Appointment timelines by structure:
• Regional (current structure): Applications (Oct/Nov); Nominations (Nov); Appointment by BOD (December).
• Jurisdictional: Appointments by cities/County (Oct-Dec) • At Large: Applications (Oct); Appointments by BOD (December) Attachment Staff Report Item 15A
Thank You!
@PoweredbyEBCE
[email protected]
9 Questions? Give us a call:
1-833-699-EBCE (3223)
Español
ebce.org/es
中文
ebce.org/cn
Alex DiGiorgio,
Public Engagement Manager
[email protected]
Attachment Staff Report Item 15A
EBCE Public Comment received for 9/20/23 Board of Directors Meeting Letter # Name Date
1 Jessica Tovar 9/18/2023
2 Tom Kelly 9/20/2023
3 Jessica Tovar 9/20/2023
Jessica Tovar
339 15th St Suite 208
Oakland, CA 94612
415-766-7766
Dear East Bay Community Energy Board of Directors,
With the formation of East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) agency in 2016, the joint powers succeeded in providing their constituent territories with a public alternative to investor-owned energy procurement with the explicit intent to promote and provide local, clean energy resources that are more reliable, resilient and affordable and to do so centering equity in workforce development, rates, distributed energy resources etc.
However, the agency’s success in fulfilling its mandate can only be evaluated through thorough accountability to the public it serves. In turn, community accountability is only possible insofar as the agency is transparent to the public about its decision making, business partnerships, programs etc.
Several issues of transparency and inequity have continued at East Bay Community Energy in the past years.
We ask that these issues be dealt with promptly in the ways suggested and that this enumeration of concerns be used as guidance for how the board can and should hold the staff accountable to transparent and equitable practices.
1. Performance data on the metrics have not been provided yet the 2018 Local Development Business Plan Clear and Transparent Reporting section states: “A clear and cogent set of metrics efficiently reported over time is more effective than an overly complex reporting system that creates undue burden on EBCE staff and confusion among community stakeholders”. Most pressing, given the active Request for Proposals (RFP) on phase 2 of the municipal critical facilities is lack of a jobs report and the missing language on workforce standards in theRFP. We suggest the board take this concern up at the next board meeting to adopt agency wide standards.
2. The resilience and virtual power plant program that facilitates microgrid development within the service territory needs to work more closely with communities in order to bundle the benefits of resilience and procurement needs. This pertains to both community-facing municipal critical facilities and community based organizations (CBO). With respect to the former, we ask that EBCE clearly designate the division of funds between community facing and non-community facing resilient municipal facilities and commit to working with CBOs to identify which locations are best suited to provide emergency resilience services to the public.
Regarding the latter, while the 2023-2024 budget states that EBCE does not have the resources to include CBO sponsored sites into the community resilience program, there is $14.75 million of currently unallocated funds in the budget which should be allocated to including CBOs in the program. East Bay Clean Power Alliance acknowledges that $2 million has been dedicated to provide technical assistance to CBOs hoping to access microgrid and resilience funds, however, there is no need for this support to be restricted to technical assistance. Rather, this $14.75 million can support leveraging federal and state funding for CBOs to be more directly incorporated into the virtual power plant, which also further reduces EBCE procurement needs. In addition, the EBCE surplus funds have in total almost $100 million. While we understand the need for some rainy day funds, $100 million in reserve account funding for a public agency is unnecessary compared to the EBCE Public Comment Letter - Jessica Tovar - 9/18/23
urgency of CBO led resilience programs to serve communities vulnerable to power shut offs and unforeseen crises. We also ask for the “streamlined process” for CBOs to receive technical assistance be released as soon as possible.
3. East Bay Clean Power Alliance acknowledges the long-anticipated RFP for Community Innovation Grants.
We appreciate that $300,000 for a 3-year project, makes the grant a significant effort. However, it is concerning that the very first grant in this round has become a “community investment grant” focusing on education around induction cooktops. Restricting the goals of the grant to “education and awareness” reduces the scope of benefits organizations could deliver, particularly to low income communities of color. Those communities will need support for replacing gas ranges with expensive induction ranges, which may also require even more expensive electrical panel upgrades alongside education. While “lack of information and familiarity” and “emotional connection” with gas may be contributing factors, slow adoption of induction appliances, particularly in equity priority communities cannot reasonably be attributed to lack of information, when such significant financial impediments are present.
The language of this RFP is not representative of the intent of community innovation grants, which as laid out in the Local Development Business Plan, are intended to “deliver social and environmental benefits” and prioritize disadvantaged communities. Furthermore, the solicitation should be in the form of an accessible community grant application. The restrictions on the one hand to education and awareness and secondly to induction cooktops do not provide meaningful benefits. Furthermore the language of the RFP makes it inaccessible to smaller community based organizations despite their real ties to communities that may be more effective in the first place and in need of the funds. This also furthers a systemic barrier where large non-profits with existing programs, funds and development capacity can easily undercut funding opportunities from small CBOs. The future community grants application needs to be written with more of a lens towards equity and accessibility for small CBOs and the communities they serve. We recommend the following changes for future community innovation grants.
1. Grant applications should be directed towards a broader scope of issues, for example the full range of building decarbonization rather than one limited technology.
2. Grant applications should allow for and encourage small organizations serving a part of the service territory to apply for a portion of the full grant. This enables a far more tailored approach to community outreach. As such, smaller grants at $50,000 are crucial in addition to larger $100,000 for the next three years.
3. Community Innovation Grants should not be limited to education and awareness but should fund projects that also leverage funding and facilitate access to new technologies. The Induction Cooktop Lending Program and giveaways alone are insufficient for meaningful health or energy benefits.
4. Community input on the grant application design and process should be implemented.
5. A subcommittee made up of Community Advisory Committee members and Board members should field applications and make the grant awards. As they had in 2019.
6. Funding for community innovation grants has not been issued since 2019 and was reinstated in June of 2022, therefore EBCE should release grant opportunities as soon as possible as access to the funds is overdue.
4. After having avoided a costly misappropriation of EBCE funds in a $15 million charity gift to UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital, direct information about the reallocation of these funds has not been provided. In June at the agency’s board meeting, staff indicated that they had identified a health care provider with research capabilities, had secured verbal agreement to support the health care partnership, had identified several EBCE Public Comment Letter - Jessica Tovar - 9/18/23
non-profit partners to manage health care partnerships and were hiring a building electrification channel manager. None of these secured partnerships were disclosed. Especially given the lack of transparency and illegal nature of this $15M gift of ratepayer funds, it is of the utmost importance that EBCE staff provide clarity on who they will be partnering with, and provide clarity on geographic locations and exact numbers and types of stoves provided.
These four primary concerns of transparency and equity at East Bay Community Energy are indicative of a longer history at the agency. Public accountability through verifiable metrics and feedback, access to resources for disadvantaged communities, and long term investment in communities through workforce standards and collaborations with CBOs have been systematically deprioritized. The very formation of East Bay Community Energy was a community effort, we at East Bay Clean Power Alliance hope to see this new board support the agency in living up to its mandate.
Sincerely,
Jessica Guadalupe Tovar, East Bay Clean Power Alliance
EBCE Public Comment Letter - Jessica Tovar - 9/18/23
9/20/23, 11:33 AM
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1777581921576012829&simpl=msg-f:1777581921576012829 1/1 Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
Item 11 - Inclusion of New Communities: City of Lathrop Tom Kelly <[email protected]> Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 11:23 AM To: Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
Cc: Anne Olivia Eldred <[email protected]>
Adrian,
Can you provide this request (below) to the Board as a part of public comment for Item 11 - Inclusion of New Communities: City of Lathrop at tonight's Board meeting? Thank you.
Tom Kelly
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Members of the EBCE Board of Directors,
As you will recall, I have frequently commented on EBCE's failure to comply with the terms of its Joint Power Agreement, specifically the Agency's failure to provide electricity that has a lower greenhouse gas content than the electricity provided by PG&E. To it's credit, EBCE was in compliance with its obligations in 2018 and 2019, but has fallen far behind PG&E since 2020 and has made little effort to comply with its obligations since then.
I request that, prior to voting tonight to allow the City of Lathrop to become a member of EBCE, that the Board ask EBCE's General Counsel if it is legal, fully transparent, or appropriate for EBCE and the City of Lathrop to sign a JPA that contains a major provision that the parties know is inconsistent with EBCE's actual greenhouse gas intensity for its primary electricity product, Bright Choice.
The question should not come as a surprise to the Agency's General Counsel, as I have raised this issue repeatedly. My assumption is that staff and the General Counsel would have discussed this issue and that the General Counsel has provided some basis to staff for EBCE to ignore those provisions of the JPA that apply to doing better on greenhouse gases than PG&E. I think the public and the Board has a right to know what that justification is.
Thank you.
Tom Kelly
Berkeley
winmail.dat
17K
EBCE - Public Comment Letter for 9/20/23 BOD Item 11 - Tom Kelly - 9/20/23 Please join us as we say goodbye to our beloved Allen Weinrub Ph.D. We’ll pay tribute to his life and many accomplishments. More information is at the Chapel of the Chimes website. Please feel free to post an entry in Al's Guest Book, even if you cannot attend.
Celebration of Life for Al Weinrub 1943-2023
1:00 pm – 5:00 pm, September 23, 2023
Chapel of the Chimes
4499 Piedmont Avenue Oakland, CA 94611
Reception to follow at same address
If you plan to stay for the reception that follows, Please also RSVP here by Thursday September 21, so we can estimate how many people to feed.
For those who wish to attend from afar, please save this link on your calendar for 1-3pm PT to attend from your computer: http://webcast.funeralvue.com/events/viewer/92063 If you’d like to make a donation in his honor, we suggest contributing to the Al Weinrub Justice Fund to ensure that Al's legacy can continue to engage and inspire a national and international community. --We would like to celebrate the acquisition of 50 years of Al Weinrub’s writings and his historical archive of social movement documents by the University of Massachusetts Libraries.
The collection covers key justice struggles spanning five decades, including the Science for the People anti-imperialist organizing of the 1970s, the struggle within U.S. labor against the war in Central America of the 1980s, the anti-racist struggles of the National Rainbow Coalition, and more recently, the life-critical struggle for climate and energy justice. Details of the collection are provided in the University Library’s recent press release announcing the acquisition. The Al Weinrub Justice Papers join the Library’s W.E.B. Dubois and Daniel Elsberg collections, among others, as important historical archives for activists, researchers, historians, and scholars.
EBCE Public Comment Letter - Jessica Tovar - 9/20/23