As we know, I have been a strong advocate for more transparency in city government. It is the backbone of my campaign and why I am seeking a city council seat. Transparency is strongly needed when it comes to this issue.

Many environmentalists agree that the way to move forward is to become part of a clean power alliance. I support entering into an agreement and making it work for Hermosa Beach, however I don't think we are ready to do this tonight, and not the way it is presented..

If this city council is going to approve this tonight, I strongly urge you to implement two important items.

1. The city switches to the lean power option as a default option. Or perhaps the clean power. We need to consider the impact of rate payers and the rate for lean power is the least expensive rate and cheaper than what is currently charged by SCE. If the city chooses 100% green power as the default option it presents a problem because in the last year that rate has been higher than what SCE currently charges. If people are automatically switched to 100% green power, I would oppose this program. We should in no way in the future be able to force customers into the 100% green power option.

2. Consider requesting a waiver from the state so that prior to implementation, we can automatically opt every customer out of the clean power alliance. This way customers then can choose to opt in at their convenience. My fear is the outreach and transparency in this has been lacking and people will be switched unbeknownst to them. This would be wrong if people were switched to the 100% green power and faced increased electrical rates without their consent.

Thankfully, we did not implement a standalone CCA and I hope the discussion advances further from what occurred several years ago when this was on our agenda.

We need to seriously understand the concerns of many respected residents and their doubts of how this is going to affect the rate payer. The rate payer is what is most important.

Further sensitivity analysis would be suggested on How the supply and demands of different energy sources will affect the rate payer. With all of the global uncertainty ahead of us and an expected drastic increase in All energy sources, especially global natural gas prices, rates are surely going to increase. My hope is that the rate currently charged for lean power and clean power remains below SCE rates.

In the end, residents should be assured that they can opt out of the clean power alliance if they ever choose to in the future and that assurance is in the plan.

Although I am generally in favor of Hermosa’s green initiatives, I cannot support CCA at this time.
- What are the worst-case scenarios (specific dollar amounts – thousands, millions, tens of millions) for this program and the likelihood of occurrence? How about a cost/benefit analysis? How about staff investigating CCA’s that have problems or have gone bad and why that happened?
- It seems like a 1-2% savings, at best to 3-9% higher rates (100 green option) is not great and doesn’t leave much room for rate increases.
- The staff report doesn’t disclose the current “green” percentage of So Calif Edison. How does this compare to this CPA?
- It seems extremely disingenuous in the staff report that a move to the CCA would “reduce its GHG emissions instantly by roughly 40%”. This outrageous comment makes many assumptions including 100% participation at 100% green (not going to happen). What is the participation rate and choice mix in Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. Are solar panels immediately built to reduce emissions Day 1?
- Does joining a CCA really change the mix of green versus non-green energy in California, or is this just a check the box action to make us feel better about being green and complying with Plan Hermosa? I think this will be the main reason that the Council will approve this tonight…..
- I find it difficult to believe moving to CCA has no cost to the city…..Admin fees, legal fees. How much has already been spent by staff and consultants?
- Notification of such an important change for every Hermosa resident has been either lacking or non-existent. Although I think study sessions are often a waste of time because there are no direct answers by council members/consultants to resident questions, another one on this initiative should have been held (last one held almost a year ago)

Hermosa Beach Residents: Be advised that your current City Council wants to increase your energy bill. That is what this is about. The current City Council assumes Hermosa Beach residents are NOT paying attention to what they are doing, hence they (the current council) can do whatever they want. By the time YOU, as the resident, becomes wise to what this council doing, it will COST YOU, as a Hermosa Beach resident MONEY in the form of higher electric bills. Don’t believe that we are only talking $5 per month, because CCAs have a history of changing their rates. Some CCAs eventually remove the lowest option from their portfolio, forcing customers into higher plans.

Hermosa Beach City Council: There will be a change on the City Council in two month's time, and it is disrespectful to the community to force through a decision of this magnitude when the new council may have a differing position on CCAs. Forcing a CCA on the residents is essentially forcing our community into a rate hike with 99% of them not realizing what is actually going on. The staff report notes: “The city MUST do more to ensure achievement of the emissions reductions”. Really? At the expense of our resident’s pocketbooks while people are dealing with the effects of inflation? The only way you reduce emissions (per the way the state will “calculate” it) is to force residents into another portfolio that is weighted heavier towards green power. If you do not change the portfolio chosen by residents, this whole conversation is moot because you are not changing overall emissions (per the way the state will “calculate” it).

So clearly, the purpose of joining CCA is because then the City Council can force every resident into the Green Power option, and consequently higher power bills, then the City Council can claim instantly that the community has reduced its emissions. This is a false narrative because nothing has actually changed, the same power mix is being produced, but more carbon credits are being purchased (by the CCA) to give the illusion that something has actually changed.

Note as well that this CPA budgeted for a $28M loss in this prior fiscal year. Good for them that it did not come to fruition, but how is that NOT cause for concern? Did anyone on the council even look at their financials, or did you just let them present to you whatever their perspective is, without any vetting of the facts?

Note also that their credit rating on their website is completely blank. Why is that? Every other category on their website has data.

Typically, the members of a JPA assume responsibility for the liabilities. This is my understanding unless there is legislation prohibiting that. Why are the risks associated with a JPA not detailed in the staff report? CCAs have failed – just look at Riverside.

Respect the community and incoming council and do NOT move forward on this. Allow the next City Council to make this decision.

Dear Council.

The timing is just bad and looks worse. While this idea has been batted about for years, I have heard from many residents that thought it had died a deserved death. To suddenly dump it on an agenda without any preamble, literally weeks before an election that has the potential to bring three new council people is inappropriate and smacks of a rush to push through an unwanted risk prior to the election.

CCAs are complicated and I do not pretend to completely understand them; however, there is almost no case in human history where adding an extra level of expensive bureaucracy has reduced or even maintained costs. This decision should be clearly noticed - in a timely manner - and provide the community an opportunity to weigh in, yet again, with what I remember was largely disapproval in the past.

At a minimum, it makes sense to allow a new council to have its say on a decision this momentous.

Sincerely,

Raymond Dussault

I am adamantly opposed to CCA’s. Bainbridge Island (“BI”) where I recently lived before moving back to Hermosa, looked into joining one and ultimately decided against joining a CCA. As part of the research BI studied the California Marin County one and one in Washington. Those existing CCA’s were more expensive and in the case of the WA one, a financial disaster with huge increases of monthly electric bills for all plus debt for the CCA (maybe looking at bankruptcy, not sure) They are a creation of a new and costly middle man of administration under the guise of providing more green energy.

What happens with CCAs is that because there is still a limited amount of green energy, the price of those green sources are bid up and to make the goal of “100% green” CCAs often buy and sell energy credits ( a scam in my opinion). You now have an expensive new administrator and staff, the customers rarely save more than a few dollars per month and often pay way more than they paid before the CCA.

When there are energy shortages, CCAs are bidding against expert energy companies like Edison. When CCAs mis-price their future energy contracts, again the customers pay more. Also, CCAs still have to use So Cal Edison’s distribution lines and infrastructure and now those utilities get to charge more fees for that. Finally, if the City ever wants to exit a CCA, there are huge cost prohibitive fees that must be paid back.

So beyond claiming to provide more green energy, why do Cities want to do this? Well, they get to skim pennies of each monthly bill for the City coffers. This is a tax dollar raising project!

Cal Edison’s costs and fees charged to customers are regulated by the government, if they screw up and need more $ the shareholders pay or the state government must approve the additional charges vs. CCA charges are not regulated, if they screw up all costs are directly borne by us the customers.

Bottom line, this is a creation of an extra layer of administration that adds cost, and minimal to no actual real benefit. Cities do it to get extra tax dollars.

Someday there will be an energy crisis and my money is on Cal Edison to procure the needed energy and the best cost vs. dozens of inexperienced CCAs battling each other.

Individual electricity customers like us are allowed to opt out of the CCAs and stay with Edison, I will 100% be opting out of this misguided CCA.

We're late to the game. This is no longer new. Let's move forward and join up.

Oppose CPA/CCA

There are layers of misinformation that get baked into these things by all of these consultants / staffers… and their official looking reports. For example, Hermosa’s “GHG Inventory, Forecasting, and Target Setting,” dated January 2015 is based upon pre-AB 1110 methodology. 1110 removed lots of errors such as the use and reliance on unbundled RECs that totally skewed everyones models and assumptions. Did Clean Power Alliance abuse these instruments when it got into financial trouble mid-2019? Everything changed, but CCAs and the Hermosa Beach city council cite old docs to tip the scale in their favor it seems.

Likewise, Hermosa’s 2015 carbon neutral plan includes reliance on large hydro from PNW. That report cites Lancaster, MCE, and Sonoma, which, at the time were heavily reliant on PNW large hydro that was subject to double-counting because there is no digitized tracking system for PNW large hydro. Not only that but (legitimate) PNW large hydro is non-existent due to drought. So where does CPA and other CCAs get carbon-free power? Nuclear. But CPA claims it does not use coal or nuclear.

Total deception?

CPA uses thousands of megawatt-hours of “unspecified power” which is loaded with nuclear from AZ’s Palo Verde nuclear and coal from AZ’s Cholla and Coronado, N.M’s San Juan Plant, and WY’s Bridger, Wyodak, and Johnston coal plants. “Oh, but we don’t purchase unit-specific coal or nuclear.” People need to wake up.

I could write a book, but the net of it is — Hermosa Beach will needlessly take on millions of dollars of liability and won’t solve a thing… except to virtue signal like mad and make consultants and Shell Oil rich.

Let's pack the chambers with press and anti-CCA folks.

Oppose CPA/CCA