09/18/24 Public Comment collection - 16 letters — Ava Community Energy Board of Directors, September 18, 2024

Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy
Anna Kaminska ([email protected]) Sent You a Personal Message <[email protected]>
Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at
3:48 PM
Reply-To: Anna Kaminska <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Adrian Bankhead,
Dear Ava Community Energy Board Members, Community Advisory Committee + Alternates, Ava Community Energy (formerly East Bay Community Energy - EBCE) has promised us the power to choose cleaner energy and local investments. Nuclear energy is a distraction and disinvestment from true renewable energy. We urge you to take action by upholding the decision from April 2020 by voting against accepting PGandE's Diablo Canyon nuclear energy in Ava Community Energy.

Vote for "Scenario 0 ? Do not accept nuclear!"
Sincerely,
Anna Kaminska
1031 Kains Ave
Albany, CA 94706
[email protected]
(510) 599-0639
[Quoted text hidden]
9/17/24, 6:08 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1810485268198446036&simpl=msg-f:1810485268198446036 1/1 Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy
Lynn Quirolo ([email protected]) Sent You a Personal Message <[email protected]>
Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at
3:04 PM
Reply-To: Lynn Quirolo <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Adrian Bankhead,
Keep our energy free of dirty nuclear energy that produces radioactive waste that lasts thousands of years. We need clean energy to keep the lights on. Where would the radioactive waste go anyway? No one wants it in their backyard.

Dear Ava Community Energy Board Members, Community Advisory Committee + Alternates, Ava Community Energy (formerly East Bay Community Energy - EBCE) has promised us the power to choose cleaner energy and local investments. Nuclear energy is a distraction and disinvestment from true renewable energy. We urge you to take action by upholding the decision from April 2020 by voting against accepting PGandE's Diablo Canyon nuclear energy in Ava Community Energy.

Vote for "Scenario 0 ? Do not accept nuclear!"
Sincerely,
Lynn Quirolo
1033 Pomona Ave
Albany, CA 94706
[email protected]
(510) 527-0709
[Quoted text hidden]
9/17/24, 6:21 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1809576572199688654&simpl=msg-f:1809576572199688654 1/1 Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy
Traude Buckland ([email protected]) Sent You a Personal Message <[email protected]>
Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at
11:58 PM
Reply-To: Traude Buckland <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Adrian Bankhead,
Dear Ava Community Energy Board Members, Community Advisory Committee + Alternates, Ava Community Energy (formerly East Bay Community Energy - EBCE) has promised us the power to choose cleaner energy and local investments. Nuclear energy is a distraction and disinvestment from true renewable energy. We urge you to take action by upholding the decision from April 2020 by voting against accepting PGandE's Diablo Canyon nuclear energy in Ava Community Energy.

Did you know that the cost of keeping Diablo Canyon open has skyrocketed to over $1 billion a year in losses? And can you guess who is forced to pay for it? We are! PGandE offloads these costs to all customers in their territory.

I urge you to vote for "Scenario 0 ? Do not accept nuclear!" Sincerely,
Traude Buckland
155 Avenida Dr
Berkeley, CA 94708
[email protected]
(510) 540-5780
[Quoted text hidden]
9/17/24, 6:23 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1809610125237973257&simpl=msg-f:1809610125237973257 1/1 Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy
Marjory Keenan ([email protected]) Sent You a Personal Message <[email protected]>
Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at
4:47 PM
Reply-To: Marjory Keenan <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Adrian Bankhead,
Dear Ava Community Energy Board Members, Community Advisory Committee + Alternates, Ava Community Energy (formerly East Bay Community Energy - EBCE) has promised us the power to choose cleaner energy and local investments. Nuclear energy is a distraction and disinvestment from true renewable energy. We urge you to take action by upholding the decision from April 2020 by voting against accepting PGandE's Diablo Canyon nuclear energy in Ava Community Energy.

Vote for "Scenario 0 ? Do not accept nuclear!"
Sincerely,
Marjory Keenan
1816 Vine Street
Berkeley, CA 94703
[email protected]
(510) 525-2649
[Quoted text hidden]
9/17/24, 6:07 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1810488987312852140&simpl=msg-f:1810488987312852140 1/1 Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy
David Payne ([email protected]) Sent You a Personal Message <[email protected]>
Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at
10:38 PM
Reply-To: David Payne <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Adrian Bankhead,
Nuclear energy is dirty energy. We must focus on renewables.

Vote for "Scenario 0 ? Do not accept nuclear!"
Sincerely,
David Payne
2628 Telegraph Ave Apt 202
Berkeley, CA 94704
[email protected]
(732) 483-0132
[Quoted text hidden]
9/17/24, 6:22 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1809605121928075204&simpl=msg-f:1809605121928075204 1/1 Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
Public Comment on Accepting Diablo Canyon's Nuclear Power Susan Silber <[email protected]> Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 5:34 PM Reply-To: [email protected]
To: Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
Dear Ava Community Energy Board Members,
In light of the upcoming September 18, 2024 vote, I am urging the Board of Directors to reject PG&E's offer of nuclear energy, as the Community and focus on increasing investments in true local clean energy infrastructure, support a decommissioning of Diablo Canyon and defend us customers from having to shoulder the burden of cost of PG&E’s bad energy investments.

As Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have shown us, nuclear energy is dangerous and dirty and not just because of deadly nuclear meltdowns. Uranium mining, radioactive waste dumping, and lack of safe, long-term storage put workers, communities, and the environment at risk. This form of energy is not worth the potential fallout. ‘
California has been phasing out nuclear power, since the abrupt closure of San Onofre (San Diego) due to radioactive leaks. In the meantime, the cost of keeping Diablo Canyon open has skyrocketed to over $1 billion a year in losses—guess who is forced to pay for it? We the taxpayers are! Ava Community Energy and all other Community Choice programs could save tens of millions of dollars in customer costs if Diablo Canyon were to close, as the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility has been urging the CPUC. The CPUC and Governor Gavin Newson have instead extended Diablo Canyon’s contract by 5 years (2030); the projected costs of continuing to run the aging plant are expected to exceed $6 billion and leave workers and communities at risk. Additionally, acceptance of this nuclear offer only builds momentum for additional extensions that prevent Diablo Canyon from going into decommissioning.

The Current Proposal Seeks to Undo a Previous Decision to Oppose PG&E’s Nuclear & Throws Low Income People Under the Bus.

Ava Community Energy has promised us the power to choose cleaner energy and local investments.

Nuclear energy is a distraction and disinvestment from true renewable energy. We urge you to take action by upholding the decision from April 2020 by voting against accepting PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear energy in Ava Community Energy.

Vote for Ava Community Energy’s "Scenario 0 – Do not accept nuclear!" Sincerely,
Susan Silber
Citizen of Berkeley CA
9/17/24, 6:06 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - Public Comment on Accepting Diablo Canyon's Nuclear Power https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1810491950821869359&simpl=msg-f:1810491950821869359 1/1 Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy
Saundra Hodges ([email protected]) Sent You a Personal Message <[email protected]>
Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at
11:42 PM
Reply-To: Saundra Hodges <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Adrian Bankhead,
Nuclear energy is NOT clean energy. It is fraught with possible problems that could release highly dangerous contaminants that could lasting consequences. That is not what I signed up for when I selected clean energy when I had that opportunity. Including nuclear energy inappropriately in that selection would cause me to reject it going forward.

Vote for "Scenario 0 ? Do not accept nuclear!"
Sincerely,
Saundra Hodges
4212 Omega Ave
Castro Valley, CA 94546
[email protected]
(510) 889-8132
[Quoted text hidden]
9/17/24, 6:23 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1809609111762832648&simpl=msg-f:1809609111762832648 1/1 Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
Public Comment on Accepting Diablo Canyon's Nuclear Power [email protected] <[email protected]> Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 8:01 PM To: [email protected]
Cc: Tim Laidman <[email protected]>
To: Adrian Bankhead
From: Tim Laidman
Subject: Public Comment on Accepting Diablo Canyon's Nuclear Power Thank you for the opportunity to express my extreme opposition to accepting any energy from PGE’s Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant.

Californians choose Community Choice Aggregation in order to get clean sustainable electricity to power their homes and lifestyles. Nuclear energy is neither clean nor sustainable and the risks are extreme and devastating.

I am a retired electrician and electrical engineer that has decarbonized my own home by replacing gas appliances with heat pumps and an induction stove. I’m also an advocate for public power and rooftop solar and have attended and commented at the CPUC and legislature committee hearings.

I use my training and experience to further policies that protect the public, the environment and the world as we know it.

I’ve worked for an investor owned electric utility as an engineer and as an electrical contractor I had to interface with IOUs for service installations and replacements. I quit my job at an IOU when they started a nuclear plant. My reasons included:
- risk of catastrophic accidents
- no plan for long term storage of nuclear waste
- radiation release during operation
- pollution and use of fossil fuels during the nuclear fuel cycle - transportation of nuclear material, fuel and waste products - risks in mining to health and safety of workers and communities and - risks of nuclear proliferation.

In my comments (below in italics) to the CPUC regarding the recent extension of the Diablo Canyon operating permit I called out the specific problems of this plant and its location. o o o o
9/17/24, 6:12 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - Public Comment on Accepting Diablo Canyon's Nuclear Power https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1810410614889334395&simpl=msg-f:1810410614889334395 1/2 This would have a long-lasting detrimental effect on California and its people and the environment and may preclude safer, more effective solutions.

The reasons are as follows:
• The nuclear power plant is old, unreliable, and embrittled after years of deferred maintenance. The many parties involved negotiated a closing date for the nuclear plant based on many factors, including the unlikeliness of NRC approval of an operating plant that was at the end of its life and would not meet current requirements (cooling system) and is now known to be on numerous fault lines and connected systems that PG&E did not design for originally. • The plant’s old “once-through” cooling system is now illegal as it fails to meet modern requirements.This antiquated system uses billions of gallons of seawater each day, further damaging the local marine ecosystem by heating the local waters.
• There are no plans for future storage of the additional extra-highly radioactive waste. This compounds the existing risk by adding much more spent fuel stored outside of the containment where it is subject to severe risk from earthquakes and tsunamis.
• The exemption from CEQA review required of a new plant is unconscionable for a plant at the end of its life that poses much greater danger than a new plant and already has accumulated a huge amount of radioactive fuel in the spent fuel pools.
• The use of $1.4 billion on this gift to a disgraced, felonious utility would steal money from true clean energy projects that would have a lasting positive impact toward our climate goals. Spending that money on needed renewable energy projects, solar, wind, storage, micro-grids and improving efficiency is the true solution. o o o o
For all these reasons the consumers of AVA should not be forced to accept nuclear power generation in their CCA’s energy mix.

Thank you for your consideration of these points and I hope that a decision will be made to not have Diablo Canyon as an energy source.

Tim Laidman
East Bay resident
9/17/24, 6:12 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - Public Comment on Accepting Diablo Canyon's Nuclear Power https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1810410614889334395&simpl=msg-f:1810410614889334395 2/2 Sept. 16, 2024
From: Audrey Ichinose, East Bay Clean Power Alliance (EBCPA), California Alliance for Community Energy (CACE)
To: Board of Directors, CAC members, and Staff of Ava
Community Energy
Re: Allotment of Nuclear Generation
Thank you for the chance to submit this public comment on whether Ava Community Energy should accept PG&E’s allotment offer of nuclear generation.

As everyone knows, the allotment proposal has come up many times before. Indeed, the first time I heard it proposed was at an in-person meeting long before the Pandemic affected our lives. At that meeting Board and Staff gathered around long tables pushed together to form a rectangle in a modest sized conference room somewhere in Oakland, I believe.

If memory serves, the context then of whether our fledgling agency—then named EBCE—should accept an allotment of
nuclear generation from PG&E’s Diablo Canyon plant was very different from what is faced today. Our goal at the time was to solidify the agency financially, and as EBCE supporters, we were not only unanimously opposed to accepting nuclear generation.

We were also furious at having to pay the PCIA charges levied on EBCE and all of the other new, emerging CCAs. The awkward, legalistic acronym for “Power Charge Indifference Adjustment” generally referred to the cost of CA’s early efforts to create cleaner power generation dating from the late 1960s to 1985 when Diablo Canyon was operational, long before CCAs ever existed. We were outraged that new CCAs like ours were being forced to pay for decisions in which we had no part. And many of us viewed the cost burden as part of IOU efforts to undercut and stymy the CCAs.

Today the context for considering yet another offer of a nuclear allotment from PG&E has changed. EBCE, now the significantly expanded, robust Ava Community Energy, has different financial concerns. It faces increased pressures to meet state and local clean energy requirements and goals. And given its now proven financial strength, It needs to press on with its founding pledge to foster local economic development projects, especially those that specifically benefit our neglected, systemically underserved, disadvantaged communities.

The context for deciding today’s proposal has changed in another significant way, however. We now have a far better understanding of nuclear energy and the nuclear energy industry. Now we know how cavalierly nuclear material was sourced and that well over 50 abandoned uranium mines continue to lie exposed on Native American lands. We still have not been able to secure permanent storage facilities for our nuclear waste, even the material used in the development of the A-bomb in the last century. No community wants this albatross around its neck in perpetuity. And specifically for us, the number of storage casks continue to multiply behind the Diablo Canyon facility, even as we edge closer timewise to the Big One. Finally, on the geopolitical front, we see more devastating evidence every day that the production of nuclear energy even for peaceful purposes is hugely fraught.

For Ava Community Energy, the context for accepting a nuclear allotment has changed, but the conclusion has not. It continues to be best for our public agency to avoid any association with nuclear energy generation.

Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy
Paula Cavagnaro ([email protected]) Sent You a Personal Message <[email protected]>
Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at
3:39 PM
Reply-To: Paula Cavagnaro <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Adrian Bankhead,
Dear Ava Community Energy Board Members, Community Advisory Committee + Alternates, Ava Community Energy (formerly East Bay Community Energy - EBCE) has promised us the power to choose cleaner energy and local investments. Nuclear energy is a distraction and disinvestment from true renewable energy. We urge you to take action by upholding the decision from April 2020 by voting against accepting PGandE's Diablo Canyon nuclear energy in Ava Community Energy.

Vote for "Scenario 0 ? Do not accept nuclear!"
Sincerely,
Paula Cavagnaro
4087 Stanford Way
Livermore, CA 94550
[email protected]
(925) 245-9430
[Quoted text hidden]
9/17/24, 6:21 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1809578741757945358&simpl=msg-f:1809578741757945358 1/1 Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy
Nancy E Caton ([email protected]) Sent You a Personal Message <[email protected]>
Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at
3:26 PM
Reply-To: Nancy E Caton <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Adrian Bankhead,
While nuclear might have to be part of the global (interim) solution, putting a nuclear power plant in earthquake country strikes me as a proven disaster in the making. The Hayward fault is overdue for a big shake. It's not if but when.

Vote for "Scenario 0 ? Do not accept nuclear!"
Sincerely,
Nancy E Caton
1974 Hoover Ave
Oakland, CA 94602
[email protected]
(510) 483-3823
This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at [email protected] or (415) 977-5673. 9/17/24, 6:18 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1810212130580610632&simpl=msg-f:1810212130580610632 1/1 Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy
Scott Grinthal ([email protected]) Sent You a Personal Message <[email protected]>
Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at
1:04 PM
Reply-To: Scott Grinthal <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Adrian Bankhead,
Dear Ava Community Energy Board Members, Community Advisory Committee + Alternates, Ava Community Energy (formerly East Bay Community Energy - EBCE) has promised us the power to choose cleaner energy and local investments. Nuclear energy is a distraction and disinvestment from true renewable energy. We urge you to take action by upholding the decision from April 2020 by voting against accepting PGandE's Diablo Canyon nuclear energy in Ava Community Energy.

Vote for "Scenario 0 ? Do not accept nuclear!"
Sincerely,
Scott Grinthal
2721 55th Ave
Oakland, CA 94605
[email protected]
(650) 578-9704
This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at [email protected] or (415) 977-5673. 9/17/24, 6:20 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1809568975198270076&simpl=msg-f:1809568975198270076 1/1 Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy
Vasu Murti ([email protected]) Sent You a Personal Message <[email protected]>
Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at
3:40 PM
Reply-To: Vasu Murti <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Adrian Bankhead,
The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy. Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663 Dear Ava Community Energy Board Members, Community Advisory Committee + Alternates, Ava Community Energy (formerly East Bay Community Energy - EBCE) has promised us the power to choose cleaner energy and local investments. Nuclear energy is a distraction and disinvestment from true renewable energy. We urge you to take action by upholding the decision from April 2020 by voting against accepting PGandE's Diablo Canyon nuclear energy in Ava Community Energy.

Vote for "Scenario 0 ? Do not accept nuclear!"
Sincerely,
Vasu Murti
30 Villanova Lane
Oakland, CA 94611
[email protected]
(510) 339-8155
This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at [email protected] or (415) 977-5673. 9/17/24, 6:09 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1810484765643796156&simpl=msg-f:1810484765643796156 1/1 September 18, 2024
“Public Comment on Accepting Diablo Canyon's Nuclear Power” Re: AVA Community Energy Meeting September 18, 2024
I am Dr. Robert M. Gould. After working as a Pathologist at San Jose Kaiser for over 30 years, since 2012, I’ve been an Associate Adjunct Professor at UCSF School of Medicine, serving as a Collaborator in our Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (UCSF-PRHE).

Since 1989 I’ve also been President of San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility (SF Bay PSR), on behalf of which I’m submitting testimony today, representing hundreds of health professionals who are committed to PSR’s longstanding opposition to nuclear power, including its inexorable relationship to the proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide.

As such, we strongly support the position of Local Clean Energy Alliance (LCEA) in rejecting PG&E’s offer of nuclear energy as part of its clean energy portfolio. We agree with LCEA’s position that Ava Community Energy should instead focus on developing and strengthening true local clean energy infrastructure that is affordable, creates clean energy jobs, and does not support dangerous and false solutions to our climate crisis, such as the promotion of nuclear power.

The safety, health, pollution, and storage issues that have plagued the nuclear power industry since its inception are well-documented, unresolved, and manifest in the continued operation of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California, which would be the putative source of the PG&E nuclear energy offer.

Diablo Canyon is surrounded on all sides by earthquake faults, posing a risk of a catastrophic disaster that would cause immense harm to the region, and leave a large part of California contaminated with radioactive pollution for generations.

Keeping Diablo Canyon open will inevitably lead to the generation of more, highly toxic radioactive waste to be stored in vulnerable spent fuel pools for an indeterminate amount of time in the vicinity of the earthquake faults, with an acknowledged lack of space for more protective short-term dry cask storage.

There are also inherent weapons proliferation dangers posed by continuing the operation of a nuclear reactor that each year produces enough plutonium for a large number of nuclear bombs.

Moreover, including nuclear power in PG&E’s “clean” energy portfolio serves to redirect essential resources from supporting the advancement of truly sustainable solutions such as solar and wind power.

The exorbitant funds for keeping Diablo Canyon operating would be better targeted to ramp-up clean and renewable carbon-free energy and battery storage solutions in the urgent way we need to address our climate emergency.

For all of these reasons, SF Bay PSR strongly rejects PG&E’s offer of nuclear energy as part of its clean energy portfolio. We understand that Diablo Canyon is neither a safe nor cost-effective way to support California's energy reliability, and it should be shut-down as soon as possible.

In summary, we reiterate our support of LCEA’s position that nuclear energy is dangerous to communities, to the environment, and to workers. It is a distraction from true clean energy investments and slows down progress toward a 100% renewable energy economy. We ask that Ava Community Energy listens to the community’s desire for 100% clean, renewable energy that does not put communities and the environment at risk.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony.

Sincerely,

Robert M. Gould, MD
President
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Email: [email protected]
Postal Address: 311 Douglass Street, San Francisco, CA 94114

Adrian Bankhead <[email protected]>
No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy
Ernie Walters ([email protected]) Sent You a Personal Message <[email protected]>
Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at
4:39 PM
Reply-To: Ernie Walters <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Dear Adrian Bankhead,
Dear Ava Community Energy Board Members, Community Advisory Committee + Alternates, Ava Community Energy (formerly East Bay Community Energy - EBCE) has promised us the power to choose cleaner energy and local investments. Nuclear energy is a distraction and disinvestment from true renewable energy. We urge you to take action by upholding the decision from April 2020 by voting against accepting PGandE's Diablo Canyon nuclear energy in Ava Community Energy.

Vote for "Scenario 0 ? Do not accept nuclear!"
Sincerely,
Ernie Walters
2437 Tartarian Way
Union City Ca, CA 94587
[email protected]
(510) 579-2851
[Quoted text hidden]
9/17/24, 6:08 PM Ava Community Energy Mail - No on Ava Community Energy accepting Nuclear Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=703fa6ea73&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1810488471892507070&simpl=msg-f:1810488471892507070 1/1 Jessica Tovar
339 15th St Suite 208
Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
415-766-7766
Subject: Reject PG&E’s Diablo Nuclear in Ava Community Energy September 16, 2024
Dear Ava Community Energy Board Members,
In light of the upcoming September 18, 2024 vote, East Bay Clean Power Alliance and the undersigned representatives of community organizations in Ava Community Energy territory urge the Board of Directors to reject PG&E's offer of nuclear energy, as the Community and focus on increasing investments in true local clean energy infrastructure, support a decommissioning of Diablo Canyon and defend us customers from having to shoulder the burden of cost of PG&E’s bad energy investments.

Background on Community Choice and Nuclear Energy in California Ava Community Energy (formerly East Bay Community Energy, or EBCE), the public electricity agency servicing Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, is considering accepting PG&E’s Diablo Canyon nuclear energy into its power mix. Community Choice programs in California were created to give the public the power to choose where their electricity comes from and what kind of energy it is (under California Assembly Bill 117 in 2002). In East Bay–Alameda County, the community effort led by the East Bay Clean Power Alliance has advocated for local clean energy through Ava Community Energy, with an emphasis on affordability, creating clean energy jobs, community wealth, less remote transmission, and combating climate change. Equity has been at the center of this effort since the beginning.

This is done through the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) fee, enabled by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) who act as a rubber stamp body for PG&E. This fee is in addition to transmission and distribution charges in our PG&E bills that also go towards subsidizing Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.

Ava Community Energy and all other Community Choice programs could save tens of millions of dollars in customer costs if Diablo Canyon were to close, as the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility has been urging the CPUC. The CPUC and Governor Gavin Newson have instead extended Diablo Canyon’s contract by 5 years (2030); the projected costs of continuing to run the aging plant are expected to exceed $6 billion and leave workers and communities at risk. Additionally, acceptance of this nuclear offer only builds momentum for additional extensions that prevent Diablo Canyon from going into decommissioning.

History of PG&E’s Nuclear in Ava Community Energy
In Spring and Fall of 2020, Ava Community Energy (then East Bay Community Energy - EBCE) staff proposed taking a nuclear allocation two different times to the Board and cities of Hayward and Albany; the attempts at adding the nuclear energy were rejected by a majority. There was a common thread to each rejection, which was that East Bay Community Energy, now Ava Community Energy, was founded on the basis of being a ‘clean energy’ agency with a goal of achieving 100% renewable energy. The majority of the Board and community members did not want to have nuclear as part of Ava Community Energy’s resources and hundreds of community members showed up to say the same, each time the proposal was made. Additionally, three Ava Community Energy cities are “nuclear free zones”: Hayward, Oakland, and Berkeley.

In December of 2020 the agency staff reintroduced the PG&E nuclear offer a third time and recommended accepting the nuclear only if it could be sold to a third party, who would then share with the agency, 50/50, any profits made. East Bay Clean Power Alliance argued that there was an existing precedent that shows there is hardly a market for nuclear power in California and they likely would not find a buyer. Subsequently, staff failed to find any third party willing to take the nuclear power, because the market value of the energy was so low. Overall, 70% of PG&E’s nuclear offer was rejected by the majority of Community Choice energy programs in California that year. The majority of Community Choice energy programs rejected the nuclear portion due to community outcry and focusing on goals towards renewable energy.

Since the earlier attempts by Ava Community Energy, the community also laid bare many misleading statements in addition to the bias made by the agency staff about the nuclear offer. We describe some of these along with the facts (in italics) below.
● The allotment of nuclear energy would be free.

Actually, Ava Community Energy will pay the wholesale price for unspecified energy for any allotment accepted. Only the “carbon-free” label or “attributes” are free. The agency would still have to pay for the energy.
● Ava Community Energy’s resource mix would only reflect the “carbon-free” attributes of the allotment, not the percent nuclear.

Ava Community Energy’s power mix would include the percent of nuclear that the allotment represented.
● Accepting this nuclear power would benefit Ava Community Energy by reducing energy costs.

As stated above, the reduced costs would only be for the carbon-free attributes. Meanwhile, if Ava Community Energy accepts the nuclear allotment it is a huge benefit to PG&E. Because PG&E owns Diablo Canyon, it must include all the nuclear energy the plant produces each year on its power content label. If PG&E cannot unload the excess nuclear energy, its power content would be greater than 50% nuclear, making PG&E’s compliance with state mandates for renewable energy almost impossible. This is just another backhanded bail out of PG&E for their bad investments? ● Ava Community Energy customers have already paid for the energy through the PCIA fee.

The PCIA pays Ava Community Energy’s share of the above market costs of operating Diablo Canyon. Nuclear energy has almost no value on the energy market, resulting in the yearly above market costs of running the aging Diablo Canyon nuclear plant to be in the billions of dollars. We are forced to pay the PCIA cost and that is what subsidizes PG&E and its nuclear power plant. It is to the advantage of the community that Ava Community Energy challenges the PCIA to protect its customers.

The Current Proposal Seeks to Undo a Previous Decision to Oppose PG&E’s Nuclear & Throws Low Income People Under the Bus
At the April 17, 2024 Ava Community Energy board meeting there was a discussion item to consider PG&E’s nuclear power and add it to Ava Community Energy’s Bright Choice – the energy tier competitively priced below PG&E’s rates. This is insulting to overburdened low-income customers, environmentally unjust, and a “bait and switch” to Renewable 100 customers who are currently paying a premium for the promise of clean, renewable energy. We can have affordability and other community benefits by staying on track and implementing the Local Development Business Plan–Ava Community Energy’s own roadmap to clean energy investments.

Ava Community Energy has promised us the power to choose cleaner energy and local investments. Nuclear energy is a distraction and disinvestment from true renewable energy. We urge you to take action by upholding the decision from April 2020 by voting against accepting PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear energy in Ava Community Energy.

Vote for Ava Community Energy’s "Scenario 0 – Do not accept nuclear!" Sincerely,
Jessica Tovar, East Bay Clean Power Alliance & Local Clean Energy Alliance

1. Asian Pacific Environmental Network

2. Bay Area System Change Not Climate Change

3. California Alliance for Community Energy

4. California Interfaith Power & Light

5. Californians for Energy Choice

6. Climate Equity Policy Center

7. Climate Justice Alliance (National Network)

8. Collective Resilience

9. Ecology Center

10. Filipino Advocates for Justice

11. Greenbank Associates

12. Kehilla Community Synagogue Greening Committee

13. Little Manila Rising

14. Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy

15. Movement Generation Justice & Ecology Project

16. North American Climate, Conservation and Environment (NACCE)

17. Oakland Climate Action Coalition

18. Our City SF

19. People’s Climate Innovation Center

20. Public Bank of the East Bay

21. Reclaim Our Power: Utility Justice Campaign

22. Récolte Energy

23. Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment

24. New Voices Are Rising

25. San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility

26. SEIU 1021 COPE Committee

27. SEIU 1021 Climate Justice Committee

28. Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter

29. SLO Climate Coalition

30. Sunflower Alliance

31. Sustainable Systems Research Foundation

32. Unitarian Universalist EcoSocialist Network
Dear Ava Community Energy Board members,
We are writing as clean energy advocates to urge you to support the inclusion of Diablo Canyon’s GHG-free electricity in your planning procurement portfolio and power content label.

The customers of Ava Community Energy will have an opportunity to lower their electricity bills and get higher GHG-free electricity in their service plans if this nuclear generation allocation is accepted. The CCA’s mission is to transition to a cleaner, more efficient energy supply, and accepting Diablo Canyon’s low-carbon energy supports this goal and will allow for more clean energy to be developed.

This decision will signal your commitment to reducing GHG emissions to customers and other CCAs. Ava has the ability to cast off its dirty unspecified power mix which comes from mainly natural gas. In taking the carbon-free allocation credit, Ava could achieve a 100 percent carbon-free generation portfolio five years earlier than planned, while achieving financial savings in the tens of millions of dollars, as projected by the objective analysis from Ava staff.

With Diablo Canyon’s power, you will have more clean energy and more money to invest in local community programs, grants, scholarships, electrification efforts, clean power projects, or spot windfall savings back to customers. It’s a win-win and would be a monumental victory for customers.

Opposition to this decision has repeatedly referenced the SB100 policy, stating that it calls for 100% renewables, disqualifying nuclear energy - but this is incorrect. The bill text states that “it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources AND zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045.” And according to bill SB846 nuclear energy is a zero-carbon electricity source that “currently supplies approximately 17 percent of California’s zero-carbon electricity supply and 8.6 percent of California’s total electricity supply.”
In a state recovering from an energy crisis, plagued with the second-highest electricity prices in the nation, and not on track to meet its climate mandates, we have the duty to deliver clean affordable energy.

Ava commits itself under its Joint Powers Formation Agreement to pursuing a lower total amount of greenhouse gas emissions for its power portfolio than comparable service from PG&E, calling for 10% greater zero-carbon resources than PG&E in its CPUC-filed implementation plan. Though, ironically, by not accepting nuclear in its portfolio, Ava has fallen behind PG&E in this pursuit. In fact this year, PG&E announced in its 10-K filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that it has reached a zero carbon power content label for 2023.

With the inclusion of electricity procurement from Diablo Canyon, Ava can maintain a competitive advantage in terms of price and clean energy portfolio; without it, your portfolio's fossil fuel portion will be higher.

Despite statements claiming low support for Diablo Canyon and nuclear energy, recent polling suggests otherwise, finding that:
● Support for Diablo Canyon is highest in the Bay Area at 66% ● Nearly ⅗ citizens support the continued operation and in SLO County 76% support ● California voters have become more comfortable with nuclear energy over time, with solid majorities saying they approve of the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity and that its benefits outweigh its risks.

The local YTT Northern Chumash tribe, whose land the plant lies on, is also supportive of the continued operation of Diablo Canyon. Your acceptance of this power does not necessarily mean you support the extension of Diablo but demonstrates an understanding that for the next five years, communities can benefit from its clean and affordable electricity.

As California does its part alongside the United States and the rest of the world to continue the energy transition, there is consensus among the top energy and climate organizations that nuclear does and will continue to play a major role in decarbonization. ● In the latest IPCC WG3 Climate Report, it states that a doubling of nuclear capacity is needed by 2050 to limit the warming to 1.5 degrees.
● According to the UN Economic Commission for Europe, “nuclear energy is demonstrably a source of low carbon energy and a vital tool for successfully helping the world mitigate the effects of climate change.”
● In a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, they found that nuclear energy has made significant contributions to carbon avoidance in the past, and in order “to support the Paris Agreement 2°C goal, nuclear capacity must more than double the current level worldwide.”
● In a summary by the World Economic Forum, they conclude, “Nuclear technology could sustain the deployment of renewables, provide a stable and secure baseload, and allow the planet to meet the necessary carbon-free targets set by the Paris Agreement.” ● In 2021, the European Commission’s research center, the JRC, conducted a report and found no scientific evidence that nuclear power harms people and nature more than other energy sources - including wind and solar power.

On May 15th, Ava can secure savings benefits and accelerate its carbon-free generation and emissions reductions to its customers by accepting the carbon-free allocation from nuclear generation. We urge you to demonstrate thought leadership and financial rigor towards this decision and vote in favor of Scenario 2: Accept nuclear, procure less system power. This option has $0 impact on customers in 2025 and projects cost savings.

Sincerely,

1. Paris Ortiz-Wines - Albany 94706

2. Kevin Pannell - Albany 94706

3. Brendan Pittman - Berkeley 94704

4. Ryan Pickering - Berkeley 94709

5. Marsha McClellan-Hopf - Tracy 95376

6. James Hopf - Tracy 95376

7. Francisco Porcel Rodriguez - Dublin
94568

8. Hannah Doan - Dublin 94568

9. Dinara Ermakova - Alameda 94501

10. Carlos Noreña - Berkeley 94704

11. Brenna Marcoux - Oakland 94610

12. Karis Russell - Oakland 94619

13. Jennifer Klay - San Luis Obispo
93401

14. Wesley Schon - Oakland 94610

15. Casey Tompkins - Alameda, 94501

16. Daeseong Kim - Oakland 94607

17. Emil Mejares - Oakland 94612

18. Grant Mills - Berkeley 94709

19. Sam Nathanson - Oakland 94610

20. Taylor Jaszewski - Oakland 94610

21. Rohan Reddy - Berkeley 94720

22. Karen Haga - Pleasanton 94566

23. Lucas Beveridge - Commerce City,
80640

24. Stephanie Wise - Livermore, 94551

25. Kurt Cabrera - Livermore, 94551

26. Holden Elias - Berkeley, 94702

27. Nathan Fleischer - Berkeley, 94703

28. Joseph Arroyo - Oakland, 94609

29. Almutairi Faris - 94107

30. Juliana Mora - 94546

31. Carl Holland - Oakland, 94611

32. Jorge Morales - 94612

33. Maria Garcia-Sheets - 95204

34. Matt Wages, Oakland 94619

35. Peter Cook - Berkeley, 94703

36. Krisha Nair - Berkeley, 94704

37. Rohan Reddy - Berkeley, 94709

38. Ryan Dole - Alameda 94501

39. Tomas, Kovalcik - Oakland 94610

40. Emma Kovak - Alameda 94703

41. Gabriel Navarro - Alameda 94608

42. Abraham Gertler - San Francisco
94121

43. Guido Nuñez Mujica - San Francisco,
94103

44. Thomas Japhet - San Francisco
94103
Ava Community Energy Board Members, Community Advisory Committee + Alternates, 304 people have signed a petition on Action Network telling you to _Keep Ava Community Energy from accepting PG&E’s Nuclear Energy!.

Here is the petition they signed:

Ava Community Energy (formerly East Bay Community Energy - EBCE) has promised us the power to choose cleaner energy and local investments. Nuclear energy is a distraction and disinvestment from true renewable energy. We urge you to take action by upholding the decision from April 2020 by voting against accepting PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear energy in Ava Community Energy.

Vote for "Scenario 0 – Do not accept nuclear!"
You can view each petition signer and the comments they left you below.

Thank you,
East Bay Clean Power Alliance (EBCPA)

1. Barbara Stebbins (ZIP code: 94702)

2. June Brashares (ZIP code: 95472-5315)

3. Hernando Sanchez (ZIP code: 94502)

4. Beth Weinberger (ZIP code: 94619)

5. Elizabeth Ferguson (ZIP code: 94708)
Nuclear energy is never a good choice. It's selling out our children and grandchildren's health (not to mention putting our entire ecosystem at risk).

6. Gopal Shanker (ZIP code: 94558)

7. Constance McKnight (ZIP code: 94606)
Nuclear energy is definitely not clean energy! We need to transition to a healthier environment, not focus on making money and creating new problems for our descendants. Nuclear energy is a inferior choice for many reasons, and we should not be promoting it, when we should be using our time and financial resources to transition as quickly as possible to the best alternatives.

8. Spencer Veale (ZIP code: 94612)

9. Margaret Lewis (ZIP code: 94619)

10. Robin Latham (ZIP code: 95472)
NUkes and nuclear energy put us all at greater risk. Clean power now and if climate change or some nuclear disaster does not kill us hopefully we can live we clean energy into the future for our descendants.

11. Will Wil (ZIP code: 94710)

12. Jerry Rivers (ZIP code: 11575)

13. Paul Smith (ZIP code: 94601)

14. Miguel Morales (ZIP code: 94612)
This is sick! When’s it gonna click?!

We said “NO!” in 2020, and your lazy governance refuses to understand no means no!

Nuclear is an irresponsible and grossly short-sided poison!

No more toxic decisions cosplaying as solutions benefiting special interests, and deliver on your stale promises: WE NEED CLEAN ENERGY NOT A LAZY REBRAND!!

15. Susan Bassein (ZIP code: 94704)
Nuclear is not clean, renewable energy and I do not want it injected into the Renewable 100 that I pay for.

16. jennifer tanner (ZIP code: 90036)

17. Ayla Peters (ZIP code: 94607)

18. Jean Merrigan (ZIP code: 95641)

19. Linda Seeley (ZIP code: 93402)
Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, and expensive. No Community Choice energy program should accept it as part of its portfolio!

20. Karl Young (ZIP code: 95445)

21. Robert Gould (ZIP code: 94114)
Supporting this petition as President of San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, representing hundreds of health professionals in SF Bay Area

22. Susan Schacher (ZIP code: 94619)

23. John Smigelski (ZIP code: 93405)
you should be better than this.

24. Ann Harvey (ZIP code: 94609)
Nuclear energy is not renewable, safe, sustainable, or clean.

25. Sheela Shankar (ZIP code: 94710)

26. Elsa Wefes-Potter (ZIP code: 94609)

27. Aaron Lehmer (ZIP code: 94611)

28. Colin Cook-Miller (ZIP code: 94610)
Yes to Resilience, No to Nuclear!

29. Marty Brown (ZIP code: 93422)
Go with clean energy providers. Nuclear is not clean and it is dangerous. The waste lasts forever.

30. Jill ZamEk (ZIP code: 93420)
Nuclear energy is dirty and dangerous.

31. Ernest Pacheco (ZIP code: 94544)

32. Jane Swanson (ZIP code: 93401)
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace strongly agrees with the positions in this petition. Keep PG&E's dangerous nuclear energy out of Ava Community Energy's program!

33. Briseida Ayala (ZIP code: 94544)

34. Emily Johnston (ZIP code: 98112)

35. Maryam Tahmasebi (ZIP code: 91364)
We don't want nuclear power in CA

36. Mina Fardeen (ZIP code: 94117)

37. Julian Nesbitt (ZIP code: 94605)

38. Julie Mansfield-Wells (ZIP code: 93402)
Nuclear is NOT clean energy. It is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Please do not accept nuclear power--it must be phased out and Diablo Canyon NPP must shut down at the end of their current license.

39. Zoria Temple (ZIP code: 94536)
Do not accept energy from PG &E!!!

40. Nahal Ipakchi (ZIP code: 94702)

41. Lauren De Arman (ZIP code: 94611)

42. Adele Watts (ZIP code: 94605)

43. Kara Brodfuehrer (ZIP code: 94601)

44. Ashly (ZIP code: 94608)

45. Naima Sudjian-Carlisle (ZIP code: 94805)

46. Adan Deeb (ZIP code: 94121)

47. Kyle Crider (ZIP code: 35080)

48. Ceyda Durmaz Dogan (ZIP code: 06901)

49. Alice Madden (ZIP code: 55407)

50. Julie Ann Wireman (ZIP code: 93442-2603)
Please do not contribute to the poisoning of San Luis Obispo county & my long time home, with continuing nuclear power from Diablo Canyon!

51. Timothy DenHerder-Thomas (ZIP code: 55407)

52. Steve Ongerth (ZIP code: 94801)

53. Craig Ickler (ZIP code: 44120)

54. Maria Stamas (ZIP code: 94610)
As an Oakland resident, customer/member of Ava Energy, and an energy justice attorney, I strongly oppose purchasing energy from PG&E's Diablo Canyon.

55. Liz Veazey (ZIP code: 68132)

56. Victoria Benson (ZIP code: 94605)

57. Maclovia Quintana (ZIP code: 94608)

58. Paul Fenn (ZIP code: 01039)
Taking PG&E's nuclear power would permanently damage AVA's otherwise solid reputation as a green power leader, and send a harmful message to other CCAs in California and throughout the United States. - Paul Fenn, author of California's Community Choice Aggregation law.

59. Selena Feliciano (ZIP code: 94607)
As an Ava customer and resident of Oakland, I urge the decision-makers at Ava to listen to community voices: we don't want nuclear energy here--not now, and not ever!

60. Vanessa Ramirez (ZIP code: 92253)
Nuclear is not a sustainable and safe resource. Protect the people and the planet, all of California is watching

61. Carli Yoro (ZIP code: 94609)

62. luke k (ZIP code: 94610)

63. Carole Hisasue (ZIP code: 93402)

64. Bryan Vega (ZIP code: 92250)
We are sending solidarity from the Salton Sea! We send an unequivocal and unilateral message to energy actors that there is no space for energy actors that have previously harmed our collective community of California. The clean energy transition will not come at the expense of Californians. La lucha sigue!

65. Ronnie Lipschutz (ZIP code: 95064)

66. Janet Martinez (ZIP code: 94538)

67. Jesus Gutierrez (ZIP code: 94518)
CSEUB Public Health

68. Kate Harrison (ZIP code: 94702)

69. Valeria Mora (ZIP code: 94544)
Valeria Mora

70. Tanishka Chellani (ZIP code: 94539)

71. Sarah Shanley (ZIP code: 94609)
No nukes!!

72. Sergio Sanchez (ZIP code: 94502)

73. Blanca Sanchez (ZIP code: 94502)

74. Tiffany Vu (ZIP code: 95132)

75. Larry Kelp (ZIP code: 97402)
I was an EBCE/Ava customer since its inception, before we moved to Eugene, OR. I can't believe that Ava staff have once again tried to shove nuclear down the communities' throats!

76. Emily Ross (ZIP code: 94801)

77. Emi Yoko-Young (ZIP code: 94604)

78. Calvin Chai (ZIP code: 94579)

79. Jim Lutz (ZIP code: 94609)

80. Suzanne Baker (ZIP code: 94609)

81. Kelly Lin (ZIP code: 94104)
As a public health student at UC Berkeley, I strongly urge Ava Community Energy to reject PG&E’s nuclear energy. The health risks associated with nuclear power—including potential accidents, radioactive waste, and the dangers of uranium mining—are too great to ignore. These risks disproportionately impact low-income and vulnerable communities.

Ava Community Energy should continue to invest in genuinely clean and renewable energy sources.

This approach not only protects public health but also promotes environmental justice and sustainability. Please prioritize our community’s well-being by saying no to nuclear energy.

82. Kimberly Espinoza (ZIP code: 94601)

83. Ojan Mobedshahi (ZIP code: 94803)

84. Lara Clayman (ZIP code: 94602)

85. Jack Fleck (ZIP code: 94619)

86. Nyah Tisdell (ZIP code: 94606)

87. Jeffrey Gould (ZIP code: 94501)
No More Fukushimas!

88. [email protected] t (ZIP code: 94608)
Let's shoot down all the nuclear options, both for cost and liability reasons. We don't need it and the cost to shutter the plant needs to fall on PGE, not ava

89. Audrey Ichinose (ZIP code: 94705)
We should not support nuclear generation in this country until 1) there are permanent storage sites in the U.S for all of the nuclear waste that has been accumulating since the end of WWII and development of the atomic bomb and 2) we have cleaned up most or all of the 50 plus abandoned uranium mining sites in the country, most of which are found on tribal lands.

90. Leonsrdo Gonzalez (ZIP code: 94577)

91. Antonio Díaz (ZIP code: 94110)

92. Navreet Purewal (ZIP code: 95991)

93. Jose Espinoza (ZIP code: 94606)

94. Erika Morgan (ZIP code: 92101)
It is completely frustrating that AVA, other CCAs, CalCCA, etc, keep bringing these 'nuclear allotments' back into the mix. CCA customers don't want this, and arguments in support are thinly-disguised, weak rationales to maintain unsafe, uneconomic nuclear plants that should have been shut down long ago.

95. Tracey Brieger (ZIP code: 94703)

96. Rogelio Velazquez (ZIP code: 80210)

97. Thane Silva (ZIP code: 94531 )

98. Gabrielle Sloane Law (ZIP code: 94603)
I am a resident of Oakland, a Nuclear-free city. Nuclear has no place in Oakland!

99. Vicki Charbonneau (ZIP code: 93402)
100. Amara I. (ZIP code: 94044)
101. Moira Birss (ZIP code: 94606)
102. Sheila Baker (ZIP code: 94952)
Stop making nuclear power which makes nuclear waste.
103. Alvaro Ramos (ZIP code: 94577)
104. Alice Sung (ZIP code: 94611)
Accepting PG&E's nuclear power would definitely mean a breach of trust of AVA Community Energy , especially for all those current Bright Choice and Renewable 100 customers, of which I am one. We can't believe you are trying to slip this one over us again!

I urge Ava Community Energy Board of Directors to reject PG&E's offer of nuclear energy and focus on increasing investments in true local clean energy infrastructure and support the closure of Diablo Canyon and defend us customers from having to shoulder the burden of cost of PG&E’s bad energy investments. Thank you.
105. Valeria Gonzalez (ZIP code: 94518)
106. Cynthia Campos (ZIP code: 94542)
107. Ryan Madden (ZIP code: 11225)
108. alvina wong (ZIP code: 94621)
109. Nora Elmarzouky (ZIP code: 19143)
110. Kimberly Hui (ZIP code: 94121)
111. Srinidhi Sampath Kumar (ZIP code: 94706)
112. Michael Eisenscher (ZIP code: 94601)
No nukes is good nukes! Radioactive waste is not "clean energy" 113. Steve Morse (ZIP code: 94619)
114. Tony Marks-Block (ZIP code: 94610)
115. Nicole Inaba (ZIP code: 94609)
116. Kenneth Gibson (ZIP code: 94602)
Please don't make me, as consumer connected to the grid, criminally complicit in the continuation of uranium use for nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Family friends in Dine-tah, and probably my own father owe their cancer driven deaths to nuclear testing, uranium mining and/or uranium processing.

Now we also know the hazards of spent nuclear fuel. Our region, like most of the world, is blessed with the emanations of the sun. We should encourage every roof-top - residential, commercial, industrial, educational and administrative to be endowed with solar panels. We should selectively install, well planned fleets of wind generation assets - perhaps over crop land - to generate all the energy the world needs. Don't institute policies, procedures and subsidies that will expand nuclear power. Rather shut it down. The potential for nuclear warfare is everywhere there is a nuclear power plant since a non-nuclear weapon can strike it to spread carcinogens through the atmosphere. Peace, out.
117. Deirdre Snyder (ZIP code: 94609)
I do not want Diablo Canyon's nuclear energy included in my "renewable" energy. It is not renewable! 118. Martha Booz (ZIP code: 94803)
119. Elizabeth Katz (ZIP code: 94611)
120. Margaret Rossoff (ZIP code: 94609)
121. Bonnie Lockhart (ZIP code: 94610)
122. Nadra Ehrman (ZIP code: 93117)
123. Peri Caylor (ZIP code: 94025)
Nuclear energy is not our future!
124. Ingrid Behrsin (ZIP code: 94708)
125. Brian Hines (ZIP code: 95407)
Nuclear Power and Waste are not clean.
126. Joe Houde (ZIP code: 92084)
127. Rebecca Tamiru (ZIP code: 94612)
128. Lucia Sayre (ZIP code: 94703)
Nuclear energy is not the answer and is not necessary. Diablo Canyon is a huge accident waiting to happen and efforts to shut it down for yrs have not been successful. Ava, please stay clean and true to your mission!
129. Jean Tepperman (ZIP code: 94703)
Diablo Canton is a disaster waiting to happen. Not local, not clean energy 130. Gladwyn d'Souza (ZIP code: 94002-3819)
Clean energy alternatives to nuclear and cheaper, faster, deflationary, resilient, clean and non threatening. Even the operators want out of nukes. Stop subsidizing failure. 131. Patricia Blevins (ZIP code: 95118-1808)
Nuclear power is NOT "clean" energy.

If this outdated and dangerous nuclear

plant is allowed to stay online past 2025, when it was scheduled to be shut down for good, the people living in San Luis Co and those all the way to the Central Valley could be at risk of death from nuclear fallout when this plant

erupts like Fukeshima did and spread nuclear waste for miles wiping out the crops in the Central Valley for centuries.

This is a 1.5 billion dollar waste of taxpayer money Newsom HAD to give in payback to the felon PG&E to keep Diablo Canyon functioning despite PG&E's agreement some years back to shut Diablo Canyon for good in 2025.

Nuclear power is NOT clean energy and it can kill residents of this State.

Where will they put the nuclear waste?????? NO NO NO The entire world should be nuclear free, and certainly the entire state of California.
132. Nancy Nadel (ZIP code: 94608)
I don't consider nuclear power to be clean energy. Please do not include it in your portfolio. 133. Jan Warren (ZIP code: 94598)
134. Lenore Olmstead (ZIP code: 94606)
Nuclear power is not safe and is too costly. Keep the focus on solar, wind, and thermal. Don’t pass nuclear energy costs on me and other customers.
135. T L Rosenberg (ZIP code: 94619)
Incorporating PG&E nuclear energy is essentially kow-towing to their efforts to kill local renewable energy development. Acquiescing to this sales pitch merely reinforces their business model, which is burdening their ratepayers excessively. This is why we were so interested in creating CCA in the first place. Please stay true to the values that launched AVA/EBCE in the first place 136. Madeline Stacy (ZIP code: 94612)
137. Karen Rusiniak (ZIP code: 94710)
138. Phoebe Sorgen (ZIP code: 94708)
My last name is now Thomas, but people here in Berkeley know me as Phoebe Sorgen, so I still use that name too. I signed up long ago for EBCE and was wondering if I'm still signed up. At the time, it did not cost more than being only with PGE. Is that still the case? Thanks for keeping our energy clean and nuke free.
139. Tim Little (ZIP code: 94618)
“No nukes is good nukes”
140. Martha Kuhl (ZIP code: 94609)
As a nurse I know all of us need a healthy and safe environment. There are grave immediate and long tern dangers for all involved with nuclear energy. Do not use! 141. An anonymous signer (ZIP code: 94609)
142. Jeffrey Gould (ZIP code: 94501)
No More Fukushima's!
143. Al Sandine (ZIP code: 94707)
144. Rosana Francescato (ZIP code: 94608)
145. Janie Pinterits (ZIP code: 94707)
146. Patrick Kennedy (ZIP code: 94608)
Vote for "Scenario 0 – Do not accept nuclear!

147. Bob Martin (ZIP code: 94609)
Nuclear energy is dangerous, expensive, and certainly not clean energy. I am adamantly opposed to this proposal.
148. Marion Gerlind (ZIP code: 94603)
Nuclear power is dangerous and unacceptable, not clean energy. Remember the nuclear power plant accidents in Harrisburg, Chernobyl, and Fukushima! Say a clear No to nuclear power! 149. Sally Marone (ZIP code: 94550)
150. J B (ZIP code: 94603)
PG&E needs top be more closely regulated and reigned in. They're not operating in the public's best interest.
151. Gabriel Lautaro (ZIP code: 94610)
152. Manisha Rattu (ZIP code: 94565)
153. Micaela Morse (ZIP code: 94619)
154. Mav Moorhead (ZIP code: 10014)
NO PG&E Nuclear Energy!
155. Albert Yuan (ZIP code: 20002)
156. Janice Cecil (ZIP code: 94705)
157. Susan Park (ZIP code: 94602)
158. Gabby Reynoso (ZIP code: 94587)
159. Rosa Gonzalez (ZIP code: 93905)
160. Sara Zimmerman (ZIP code: 94702)
No to nuclear energy from Diablo Canyon. Let's use community energy to support clean renewables, not to justify nuclear waste, environmental harm, and potential nuclear catastrophe from an aging plant.
161. Dave Shukla (ZIP code: 90803)
Making me wait 4 hours only to pull the PG&E nuclear allocation item at their May board meeting was not appreciated. Nor were the pro-nuclear-energy lobbyist that may or may not have been invited by the Ava's President behest.
162. Josephine Galdamez (ZIP code: 90037)
163. Domenichi Morris (ZIP code: 94801)
164. Michelle Ralston (ZIP code: 94702)
165. Cynthia Landry (ZIP code: 94607)
SEIU 1021 Climate Justice Committee rejects the use of nuclear energy in AVA Community Energy portfolio!
166. Aniya (ZIP code: 94603)
167. Mmakgantsi Mafojane (ZIP code: 94602)
168. Mari Rose Taruc (ZIP code: 94606)
169. Shina Robinson (ZIP code: 94601)
170. Abbot Foote (ZIP code: 94706)
171. ena coleman (ZIP code: 94611)
172. Kiernan Rok (ZIP code: 94606)
173. Bonnie Borucki (ZIP code: 94703)
Using PG&E’s Diablo Canyon nuclear energy is unacceptable. We need to reduce the demand for electricity by encouraging off peak use and using energy more efficiently. 174. Brandy Hyatt (ZIP code: 94607)
175. Kathy Dervin (ZIP code: 94707)
176. Megan Moran (ZIP code: 94710)
177. An anonymous signer (ZIP code: 94705)
NO NUCLEAR ENERGY — IT IS DANGEROUS AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE EARTH.

RESOURCES MUST BE INVESTED IN CLEAN, RENEWABLE ENERGY THAT DO NOT COMPROMISE THE HEALTH OF THE EARTH.
178. Peter Rubin (ZIP code: 94111)
179. Jackie Barshak (ZIP code: 94116)
180. Cheryl Davila Former Councilmember (ZIP code: 94710) 181. Kathy Labriola (ZIP code: 94710)
Nuclear power is NOT an alternative to fossil fuels! It causes even more harm than the climate change which is being powered by fossil fuels! PLEASE oppose any nuclear energy for Ava Community Energy.
182. Woody Little (ZIP code: 94605)
We need to keep building out new renewables!
183. Lauren Poor (ZIP code: 90027)
184. David S. Gill (ZIP code: 94546)
185. Edwin Dimarucut (ZIP code: 94544)
186. do_a deVroede (ZIP code: 94611)
187. Don Eichelberger (ZIP code: 94117)
188. Domonique Insixiengmay (ZIP code: 94547)
189. SOLOMON MOHABBAT (ZIP code: 94587)
190. Tina Coverdale (ZIP code: 95377)
191. Mariana Longoria (ZIP code: 94565)
192. Constance Pierre (ZIP code: 94611)
193. Margarita Torres (ZIP code: 94580)
Oposición a la energía nuclear.
194. Liliana Cuamatzi (ZIP code: 94601)
Apoyo la petición de oposición a la energía nuclear
195. Margarita Rojas (ZIP code: 94594)
No
196. Mars Keith (ZIP code: 94115)
197. Ren D (ZIP code: 94606)
198. Corrine Van Hook-Turner (ZIP code: 95133)
199. Gregory Stevens (ZIP code: 94110)
200. Irene Calimlim (ZIP code: 95206)
201. Diana C. (ZIP code: 94607)
202. Celia Kitchell (ZIP code: 94607)
203. John broberg (ZIP code: 93420)
Close Diablo. Its a disaster and a health risk to me.
204. Susan Purcell (ZIP code: 94803)
Nuclear wnergy is not safe, as evidenced very well by insurance companies’ refusal to cover it. No nuclear-powered energy, PG&E!
205. Joe Galliani (ZIP code: 90277)
206. Andrew Christie (ZIP code: 93401)
When PG&E tried to insert the output of Diablo Canyon into the power mix of the Community Choice agency here in San Luis Obispo County, the home of California’s last nuclear power plant, we told our CCA to reject the offer, as should you. Nuclear power is the antithesis of clean, renewable energy. As it is unscalable, it is often responsible for crowding renewables off the grid. But as California’s renewable energy generation and battery storage capacity have soared, the output of the Diablo Canyon plant has become increasingly irrelevant. It is now a political football, with PG&E seeking ways to justify extending the life of Diablo and billing ratepayers for the increasing cost of doing so, conservatively estimated at $10 billion. Diablo's energy has no place in a CCA's energy mix, and Ava Community Energy should not aid PG&E in its quest to soak ratepayers for the privilege of propping up an aging nuclear power plant.
207. Katharine Bierce (ZIP code: 94706)
I live in Ava's territory and don't want nuclear in my power! It's not clean or renewable because it's a finite resource that pollutes communities where we mine uranium. 208. Susanna Porte (ZIP code: 94703)
Shameful and dangerous. The cost of keeping Diablo Canyon open has skyrocketed to over $1 billion a year in losses, and we're paying for it via the PCIA fee. Berkeley is supposed to be a nuclear-free zone. Do better.
209. Charlene Woodcock (ZIP code: 94709)
It is horrifying to think that the output of the Diablo Canyon nuclear energy plant would be brought to the Bay Area as "clean" energy. Quite aside from the huge carbon footprint embodied in the aged-out physical plant, the radioactive wastes will pollute the environment for eons into the future. Who knows how future generations will be warned about the toxicity of these plants. NO to nuclear energy, as the people of California have said since the 70s.
210. Jean Woo (ZIP code: 94709)
No nuclear keeps the promise of clean energy and relieves the guilt of a nuclear footprint on the future. There is no truly good answer for nuclear waste. The risk of nuclear power plants in case of attack ( note: Ukraine) or meltdown is far too great to justify continuing to employ nuclear when better alternatives exist. Geothermal and hydro for baseload, solar and wind for day time and evening renewable power.
211. Jenifer Lomeli (ZIP code: 94603)
212. Esther Goolsby (ZIP code: 94621)
213. Sylvester Enriquez (ZIP code: 94544)
214. Larry Chang (ZIP code: 94803)
We said no to nukes once already, let's make sure this is the FINAL time! 215. Joseph Avakian (ZIP code: 94501)
This is a danger __ do not let it happen
216. blanca Moran (ZIP code: 94545)
217. Timothy Judson (ZIP code: 13206)
218. Shoshana Wechsler (ZIP code: 94708)
219. Jim Stewart (ZIP code: 90712)
220. MaryAnn Furda (ZIP code: 94707)
Diablo Canyon should already BE closed__ Why are you even considering extending its life? 221. Brett Garrett (ZIP code: 95060)
Community Choice Agencies should focus on local renewable energy. Please avoid dangerous energy sources such as nuclear.
222. Jenna Ludwig (ZIP code: 94705)
Please, no!
223. Jessica Mitchell (ZIP code: 94611)

Ava Community Energy Board of DirectorsSeptember 18, 2024

Ava Community Energy Board of Directors
September 18, 2024