Raissa Arielle Kasa Ngoma <[email protected]>
Agenda item 17:support for SB540--350 Bay Area urges OPPOSE 1 message
Claire Broome <[email protected]> Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 3:14 PM To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "Tregub, Igor" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "Neish, Laura" <[email protected]>
To the Clerk of the Board: Please share my email today before 6pm, to the entire Ava Community Energy board, their alternates and Community Advisory members.
To: AVA Board members March 19, 2025
From: Claire Broome, MD AVA customer
26 Northgate Berkeley 94708
Representing: 350 Bay Area, Advocates for environment, equity and ratepayers Request: agenda item 17: vote to oppose SB 540
At a minimum, delay vote on action Item 17 (proposing that AVA should support SB540) until there is time for real analysis and discussion
350 Bay Area opposes SB 540 because the purported benefits are non-existent, and California could lose control of costs and clean energy content of our electricity.
A study funded by proponents of Pathways – the Brattle 2025 study –shows that the most likely scenario results in increased emissions in the Western region. Pathways/SB 540 will also increase ratepayer costs. The minimal savings claimed for energy purchase will be dwarfed by the cost of building transmission to get that energy to California. Transmission is currently the most rapidly increasing part of our high electricity bills.
SB540 language does NOT guarantee what proponents claim. There is a substantial risk that California would over time lose control over the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). Currently CAISO operates under California law requiring it to consider the costs to California customers, and California policies accelerating renewable energy as part of our electricity. The Regional Organization proposed under SB540 would make California interests just one voice among many Western utilities from other states. Several of these utilities generate power using coal; many of these coal plants are fully paid off, so that coal power will appear to be “cheap”. When the costs of the carbon emissions and the cost of the transmission to get dirty energy to California are considered, the energy will NOT be cheap.
Please support your customers and the environment and oppose SB540.
Clean Energy Team Lead
--
[email protected]
Berkeley, CA 94708