Los Angeles Times

Public energy programs offer lower rates — at first

Cost advantage from operations such as what L.A. County has OKd tends to decline.

- By Ivan Penn

Southern California Edison customers looking to cure their power-bill pain might find some relief in Los Angeles County’s new government-run energy program — but the track records of similar public energy efforts show that the initial cost advantage doesn’t last.

From California to Massachuse­tts, the kinds of community energy programs that L.A. County approved this month lowered electricit­y bills 5% to 40% when they began.

But after an initial honeymoon period, the savings have tended to shrink.

In many cases, the electricit­y-cost difference between the old utility and the newer competing public program has declined to a few cents a month on customers’ bills. In some cases, the cost advantage for the new rivals has disappeare­d altogether.

And California’s investor-owned utilities just tossed another complicati­on into the mix.

Customers who leave the traditiona­l utilities are required to pay a fee for electricit­y bought on their behalf that no longer is needed, and now the utilities — Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and Pacific Gas & Electric — want to increase it, according to a proposal filed with regulators Tuesday. Increasing the fee included with each month’s bill would further reduce any cost difference.

Still, proponents of the government-run operations, called Community Choice Aggregatio­n programs, or CCAs, contend that they offer benefits to all electricit­y users beyond cost savings.

The public programs replace some of the functions performed by traditiona­l, investor-owned utilities such as Edison.

The government-run operations take on the role of purchasing power as well as developing their own sources of electricit­y, such as by placing solar panels atop roofs or canopies on parking lots.

In doing so, they compete against the utilities in securing power contracts and finding suitable spots for developing sustainabl­e power projects.

But Edison, SDG&E and PG&E still must collect money from all utility customers to pay for maintenanc­e of power lines, substation­s and other resources that help make up the electric grid.

“They’re responsibl­e for system reliabilit­y,” said Steve Hoffman, a retired president of power company NRG West. “All of those costs are still going to be borne by CCA customers.”

Much of the economic benefit to consumers comes from the utility — government-run or investor-owned — that can secure the best deal and save consumers money.

But there’s an additional benefit: As the government­run energy programs push for more clean energy, Edison and other investorow­ned utilities increasing­ly must consider that consumers might want wider use of solar or wind power rather than fossil fuel sources such as natural gas or coal.

“CCAs do provide pressure on the utilities,” Hoffman said.

How well is public power performing?

About half a dozen states allow community choice aggregatio­n programs, including California, Illinois, Massachuse­tts, New Jersey, Ohio and Rhode Island.

In Illinois, utility customers participat­e in the government programs at a higher rate than in any other state. About 60% of the state’s utility customers are enrolled in community energy programs, down from as high as 80% when the initial savings was a third of the cost at the investor-owned utility.

Illinois offers utility customers broad flexibilit­y to switch between the investorow­ned utilities and the government-run programs.

As older, higher-priced contracts ended, investorow­ned utilities negotiated better deals that let them offer more competitiv­e prices to retail customers.

“Basically, [the investorow­ned utilities] had a highnote mortgage and refinanced it at a lower rate,” said Mark Pruitt, principal at the Illinois Community Choice Aggregatio­n Network.

Chicago was the biggest Illinois town to join the public power push. But only two years later, in 2015, city officials decided to get out of the business of supplying energy and returned about 750,000 households, or about 2 million people, to the investor-owned utility because prices had become more competitiv­e.

Scott Tess, environmen­tal sustainabi­lity manager for Urbana, Ill., said the majority of the utility customers in the college town are enrolled in the government program. He said it sometimes is difficult to see savings from month to month because electricit­y usage and prices fluctuate.

“There are quarters of the year where we haven’t competed as well,” Tess said. “It’s actually hard to see $5 or $10 savings per month. It’s actually year to year that you see the savings.”

Greening the Cape

public energy plan even though it isn’t always the cheapest.

Over the 15 years that the Cape Light Compact has operated, a residentia­l customer would have paid on average about $6.30 more a year for electricit­y but also would have gotten increasing­ly clean options, culminatin­g with the recent introducti­on of a 100% renewable energy selection.

“It brings in more choices,” said Downey, whose program serves 207,000 customers. “We never say we’re the lowest price. If we bought today, the price could change. The price could go up.”

Giving customers the ability to choose clean energy is one of the major benefits of community energy programs, beyond any potential savings, proponents argue.

In Marin County

About 255,000 utility customers are part of California’s oldest community energy program that began in Marin County in May 2010. That’s 83% of the eligible customers in the service area.

Over the life of the program, electricit­y costs for those customers were cheaper than PG&E about 70% of the time.

“Right now, our rates are barely less than theirs,” said Jamie Tuckey, a spokeswoma­n for the program in Northern California, dubbed MCE. “But it’s less.”

The typical MCE residentia­l customer pays about $97.75 a month for electricit­y from 50% renewable energy sources such as solar power, which means the program already meets the state’s mandate that utilities get half their power from clean sources by 2030.

That compares with a typical PG&E customer bill of $98.30 a month for an electricit­y mix of about 33% from renewable sources, including about 13% from solar.

MCE and PG&E also offer 100% clean energy options. MCE’s 100% clean energy program increases monthly costs by about $4 to a typical residentia­l bill, while PG&E’s comparable program adds about $13.

“We’ve seen their rates reduce. They’re also even offering 100% renewable option,” Tuckey said.

“I think a lot of that,” she said, “is spurred by the competitio­n that CCAs are creating in California.”

‘We never say we’re the lowest price. If we bought today, the price could change. The price could go up.’ — Maggie Downey, head of Cape Light Compact

 ?? Anne Cusack Los Angeles Times ?? AS THE government-run energy programs push for more clean energy, Edison and other utilities increasing­ly must consider the consumer appeal of using more solar or wind power. Above, solar panels at Taft High School in Woodland Hills.
Anne Cusack Los Angeles Times AS THE government-run energy programs push for more clean energy, Edison and other utilities increasing­ly must consider the consumer appeal of using more solar or wind power. Above, solar panels at Taft High School in Woodland Hills.
 ?? Luis Sinco Los Angeles Times ?? ABOUT HALF a dozen states allow community choice aggregatio­n programs, including California. Above, solar panels at the DWP in L.A.
Luis Sinco Los Angeles Times ABOUT HALF a dozen states allow community choice aggregatio­n programs, including California. Above, solar panels at the DWP in L.A.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States