Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 9:30 AM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Comments on the OCA's last meeting.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 5:17 PM
To: Walker, Renee <Renee. [email protected]>
Cc: CITY COUNCIL < [email protected]>
Subject: Comments on the OCA's last meeting.
Good Afternoon City Manager Zelinka and City Council Members I reviewed your OCPA slide show and felt it was a little light on facts. Here is some information I garnered from the OCPA meeting this past Wednesday.
I will address Pacific Energy Advisor's (PEA)presentation which was more of a dog and pony show for the public. The presentation lacked vital information about the OCPA. Looking at their presentation on Buckets a lay person would think that the OCPA procures 75% renewable energy in Bucket 1. PEA explains how buckets are defined but failed to explain that for Bucket 1 the 75% refers to the OCA's required Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which for 2022 was 35.8% of eligible renewables. 75% of 35.8% is 26.85% RPS required. The remaining 8.95% renewables would be made up with Bucket 2 purchases (PCC 2). In 2023 OCA's RPS is 75% of 41.3%. PEA was also unclear how the OCPA apportions Buckets to its three product levels which is listed on CEC PSD Sch. 1. This leaves consumers in the dark. Is the OCA loading low quality PCC 2, Bucket 2 "System Power" (greenwashed fossil fueled power) into its alleged 100% renewable product after complying with its RPS obligation? PEA doesn't explain that. Bucket 2 is Firmed and Shaped and is labeled as "renewable," however the Green House Gas (GHG) intensity reflects the underlying energy that is delivered under the PCC 2 contract. PCC 2 example: if you have a Firm and Shape Wind Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) and system power is delivered, the GHG intensity is calculated as unspecified power and is 943.58 pounds of C02/MWh. The wind REC makes the power greenwashed and classified as renewable but it would be exposed by the GHG intensity. If environmentalists really scrutinized the alleged 100% renewable programs they have the power to petition the CPUC to have emissions disclosed on a monthly basis. They won't do this because it would expose their favored CA's 100% renewable fairytale. Near the end of PEA's presentation, page 57, it reads "Portfolio emissions rates are also calculated through the CEC PSD reporting template and is annually disclosed to customers." That would be nice if the OCPA didn't have the opportunity to defer these emissions reporting for 24 months or more which allows the OCPA the ability to hide this vital information from the public. Again, what I am saying is that PEA's presentation was a dog and pony show that disclosed absolutely nothing. An elaborate attempt to snow the public. OCA's problems are systemic and include PEA.
Sincerely,
Walter Nobrega
Sent from my iPad
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Mesting Date: 221/2023
Agenda Item No.: 7(23-159)