Bakersfield.com: Kern County news, events, classifieds, shopping, & search

More than one way to skin PG&E

The Bakersfield Californian | Monday, May 02 2011 08:00 AM

Last Updated Monday, May 02 2011 08:00 AM

Sure, it's easy to take swipes at outgoing PG&E honcho Peter Darbee as he is set to retire later this month.

And why not? He's made an obscene amount of money off of us, including his downright sinful parting gift of nearly $40 million.

Meanwhile, he presided over record rate hikes, the SmartMeter foul up and, of course, the deadly pipeline blast in San Bruno that revealed a breathtakingly cavalier attitude toward pipeline safety throughout the state.

I agree, good riddance.

What I don't agree with are statements like "I am hopeful that this is the first step in a series of pro-consumer actions that will signal a new chapter for PG&E as it works to rebuild trust and confidence with its customers," by Michael Peevey, president of the California Public Utilities Commission.

First, you can't rebuild something you never had -- trust.

Second, that's pretty rich coming from the PUC, which never saw a rate hike they couldn't justify for the giant utility and were apparently asleep at the wheel on that whole pipeline safety thing.

Third, Darbee didn't start PG&E's corporate culture of screw-the-consumer-full-speed-ahead, he just fit into it. Granted, he went at it with a bit more gusto than we'd seen before.

Which brings up something I'm asked all the time: What can we do about it?

Well, there are options, which I think we need to be much more proactive in exploring. Among them: just getting away from PG&E.

To that end, the Board of Supervisors really dropped the ball last August when they declined to put an informational item on the November ballot to test the public's interest in having the county at least look into other utility options.

Wimping out on the ballot initiative was a disservice to the public and, frankly, gave PG&E too much breathing room.

But a report by the County Administrative Office outlined how difficult it would be for Kern County to wrench itself free from PG&E and Supervisors bailed on the idea.

"Creating our own municipal utility wasn't a practical solution at the time," Supervisor Mike Maggard told me. "The game is rigged against us."

That just means we have to get in the game, change the rules.

KernTax has shown it's not impossible. For the past year, they've fought at the PUC to alter rate tiers to even out costs between Central Valley residents and coastal dwellers. And they've had some success.

You have to aim small and stick with it.

Yes, a municipal utility would be almost impossible. PG&E would fight it tooth and nail, we'd have to buy the transmission facilities (wires and poles), buy the power or build a plant. And a whole new government structure would have to oversee it all.

There are other ways to skin this cat.

One is Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). It was created in 2002 by the Legislature to allow cities, or groups of cities, to buy their own power without having to own the transmission system. It gives cities the opportunity to buy cleaner power if that's what they're after and have more local control over rates (that's the part I like.)

So far, there have been a few attempts to do this in California, but only one success, Marin Clean Energy. Their goal was to bump up the clean energy mix for residents and keep rates about the same as PG&E's.

After much wrangling with PG&E, they've finally been able to start delivering power to customers.

As an aside, it was the Marin Clean Energy effort, as well as another called CleanPowerSF that got PG&E so hot and bothered that it put the well-loathed and thankfully defeated Proposition 16 on last year's ballot. It would have kept us from being able to vote for similar efforts in our own communities on a simple majority.

The San Joaquin Valley Power Authority, up in Kings county, wasn't so lucky. The combined pushback from PG&E and credit market collapse put that effort on hiatus, according to David Orth, general manager of the authority.

After the 14 initial cities/counties dropped to nine because of PG&E's lobbying, the authority didn't have the customer based it needed.

"It took the wind out of our sails," he said.

The authority sued PG&E for its tactics and got a settlement of $400,000 but the damage was done.

Some good came out of the fight, however. In the settlement, PG&E flat out said it would not cooperate with CCA efforts, as they're directed to by law.

Because of that, State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, authored a bill to would clip PG&E's wings, prohibiting the utility from using any ratepayer money to lobby or market against CCAs.

It also authorizes fines against PG&E for messing with CCAs and would give that money to the CCAs. I like it and hope our senators Michael Rubio and Jean Fuller will give it the support it deserves.

Meanwhile, I'm also hoping Kern County is keeping in touch with Orth and other CCAs in the state to see where and when we can jump in.

This is a fight worth getting a little bloody for.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com