My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Packet Work Session 2019 0128
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2019
>
Packet Work Session 2019 0128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2022 2:07:32 PM
Creation date
8/26/2022 11:25:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Agenda
Document Date (6)
1/28/2019
Retention
PERM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
the California Joint Power Agency statute requirement, along with the CCA's JPA <br />agreement," according to the American Public Power Association. "That agreement has <br />been approved by each of the 33 participating municipalities and stipulates — under <br />Article 7 — that the municipalities must pay their remaining cost obligations to Marin <br />Clean Energy should they choose to depart from the CCA." <br />Those collective obligations can exceed several hundred million dollars. <br />Moody's said that Article 7 "is an important credit consideration as it is helps to mitigate <br />MCE's substantial exposure to future power commitments and is the mechanism by <br />which there could be recourse to each of the 33 participating municipalities should one <br />elect to depart from MCE. While the ultimate legal underpinning of this municipal <br />obligation to MCE has not been court tested as to its effectiveness, our rating recognizes <br />that all participating members acknowledged and accepted this risk prior to becoming <br />parties to the MCE-JPA agreement." <br />As Moody's points out, taxpayers are on the hook. <br />CCAs openly encouraged "choice" when lobbying everyone to ditch their incumbent <br />utility and join CCA. Now choice is on CCAs' doorstep in the form of pending legislation <br />that would enable larger consumers to ditch CCA for a better deal elsewhere. As a result, <br />JPA municipal members would find themselves tethered to resulting high CCA electricity <br />prices. <br />Much of CCAs' clean energy is from existing sources, often out-of-state — meaning CCAs <br />only maintain existing GHG emission levels, rather than reduce them. The power <br />industry calls this "resource shuffling" and it's why labor organizations oppose CCAs. <br />CCAs aren't creating long-term jobs or constructing new renewable resources promised <br />and needed. <br />So what's the point of all this? That's an excellent question. I refer you back to my earlier <br />comments about Shell and Calpine and their California enablers — all of them are <br />interested in guaranteeing their profits, but at what cost? <br />https://www.pe. com/2018/09/02/government-controlled-energy-programs-arent-working/ <br />CCA =Shell Oil? <br />https://www.arb.ca-gov/lists/sip07/112-0777com0010.pdf <br />CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie@earthlink.net <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.