Jessica Guadalupe Tovar
339 15th St Suite 208
Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
415-766-7766
Subject: Item 15: PG&E Nuclear Allocation
Dear Ava Community Energy Board Members, Alternates, Community Advisory Committee and Alternates, East Bay Clean Power Alliance (EBCPA) and Ava community allies urgently request that the Ava Board of Directors delay making a decision on Item 15: PG&E Nuclear Allocation, on the agenda for the Wednesday, May 15 Ava Board meeting.
We make this request because there are several new members on the Ava Board who do not know the history of this item, including the 3 previous attempts by staff to include nuclear in Ava’s resource mix. These attempts were defeated largely due to community outcry against the inclusion of nuclear, betraying a commitment made at its genesis to achieve 100% clean, renewable energy.
There are several other arguments to be made in opposition to the staff’s proposal, including that accepting an allocation of PG&E’s nuclear power is a back-handed bailout of the corporate utility. Because PG&E owns Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, it must include all the nuclear power it cannot unload to others. That affects their energy resource report by increasing the nuclear proportion and decreasing the renewable energy portion.
Ava Community Energy staff have promoted accepting the nuclear allotments as a boost to Ava Community Energy’s financial security, because they are “essentially free.” In reality, only the carbon-free label associated with the energy is free. The agency will have to purchase the power at the price of brown power (gas). Additionally, the agency expects multimillion dollar surpluses every year, has acquired an A level credit rating, and has hundreds of millions of dollars in its general reserves and Rate Stabilization Fund. The nuclear allotments ultimately contribute very little in comparison.
Furthermore, when the Ava Board previously accepted a nuclear allotment on the condition of selling it to a third party, no buyers could be found. We had warned the agency of this as there was already a precedent set by Pioneer Energy.
Lastly, we want to point out that the agency has just spent millions to rebrand itself as Ava Community Energy. It would be a shame to tarnish that re-branding with the red mark of including PG&E’s nuclear energy. Berkeley, Oakland and Hayward cities all include “nuclear-free” in their descriptions and several cities are under Renewable 100 at a premium price.
The community has made it clear in 2020, several times, that we do not want greenwashed nuclear energy in Ava Community Energy’s resource mix. Given that this issue is being rushed by staff, we urge the Board to give more time to consider this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Jessica Guadalupe Tovar, East Bay Clean Power Alliance