Palo Alto Weekly

News - March 19, 2010

Palo Alto hesitant about landfill-gas contract

Council committee wants to take a new look at city's renewable-energy goals

by Gennady Sheyner

Palo Alto should reconsider its renewable-energy goals before it makes any long-term commitments to a "green energy" provider, a City Council committee recommended Tuesday night.

The Finance Committee was discussing a staff proposal to sign four 20-year contracts with the energy firm Ameresco, which is planning to build four landfills in the Central Valley and capture and burn methane at those landfills to generate electricity. The Utilities Department negotiated the $284.5 million contract over the past few months as part of its effort to increase the city's renewable-energy portfolio.

Ameresco, which currently supplies 9 percent of the city's electricity from five existing landfill-gas power plants, hopes to start building the four new ones before the end of this year. The landfills would provide up to 166,000 megawatt-hours per year of energy.

But committee members balked at the staff proposal, citing uncertainty over energy prices and the prospect of rapid technological change. Instead, the committee said the city should re-evaluate, and possibly lower, Palo Alto's renewable-energy goals.

Councilman Greg Scharff said he was concerned about locking the city into a 20-year contract given the unpredictable fluctuations of energy prices. He also said he was concerned about all of the city's renewable power, with the exception of wind, coming from one company.

If the city were to sign the contracts, 21 percent of Palo Alto's total electricity supply (and 64 percent of its renewable energy) would come from Ameresco.

The contracts would have helped the city achieve its official goal of getting 33 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2015 a target the City Council adopted in 2007. The council also specified that the Utilities Department achieve this target without increasing electricity rates by more than 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Tom Kabat, the Utility Department's senior resource originator, said the four Ameresco contracts beat out 38 other proposals the city received from renewable-energy providers. The new contracts with Ameresco would have increased rates by slightly less than 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, falling just under the city's threshold.

The four contracts would have raised Palo Alto's electricity rates by about 4 percent, according to a staff report.

But Scharff suggested that the city is focusing too much on its renewable goals and not enough on utility rates. If local electricity bills become higher than those in surrounding cities, residents will start to wonder why the city needs a utilities department in the first place, he said.

Palo Alto's average residential electric bill is currently about $76 a month, compared to $105 in Redwood City, Mountain View and Menlo Park, which get their electricity from PG&E.

Scharff also proposed that the city move its target date for 33 percent renewable energy from 2015 to 2020 to make it align with proposed state mandates.

Vice Mayor Sid Espinosa and Councilman Greg Schmid shared Sharff's view and agreed that the city needs to review its energy goals. But Espinosa also acknowledged that not signing the contracts could ultimately prove costly.

Ameresco has indicated that it needs to start construction by the end of this year to qualify for federal-stimulus funding. Staff said delaying the signing of the contract would jeopardize the "attractive pricing" in it.

"We may very well be shooting ourselves in the foot by coming back with another contract in however many months that costs a lot more and might not make financial sense," Espinosa said.

Palo Alto currently gets about 18 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, a number that is expected to go up to 21 percent in 2012 because of other energy agreements. The city gets renewable energy through two wind-power contracts and from five other Ameresco landfills.

The company is planning to start building the four new landfills by the end of this year and have them produce energy by 2013.

Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner can be e-mailed at gsheyner@paweekly.com.

Comments

Posted by Abe, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 17, 2010 at 10:28 am

> The four contracts would have raised Palo Alto's electricity
> rates by about 4 percent, according to a staff report.

The LA DWP is claiming that some of its "green" initiatives are going to be much more expensive than that:
--
Web Link

DWP rates may rise between 8% and 28% to pay for mayor's green initiatives
---

Given that there are no consequences for being wrong, of lying, in local government .. it is very difficult to believe that any of these projected rate hikes are going to be true.

What's probably not been considered is litigation costs if any part of this very shaky deal goes south.

The City Council person who suggested that the city was focusing on "green" a little too much is probably right. It's so rare to hear a voice of sanity from that elevated platform of public participation that it's hard to believe the others on that bench will take the counsel.


Posted by pat, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 17, 2010 at 12:29 pm

Thank you, Finance Committee and Bravo, Greg Scharff!

"Scharff suggested that the city is focusing too much on its renewable goals and not enough on utility rates. If local electricity bills become higher than those in surrounding cities, residents will start to wonder why the city needs a utilities department in the first place."

Finally, some common sense and concern for residents.


Posted by JW, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 17, 2010 at 12:47 pm

I am glad the Finance Committee was smart enough to reject this outrageously expensive $284.5 contract with Ameresco for the next 20 years. Who knows what technology might be available to us over the next 20 years while we are tied to this contract.

Ameresco is a relatively small company, with a dicey start-up project they can't find funding for elsewhere. How do we know Ameresco won't end up being another Enron? We all remember how the Utility Department lost $21 Million of our money to Enron's creditors. My advice to the City's Finance Committee and Council - be careful with our money!!

Let another City invest in Ameresco's proposal first, we can wait and see how it works out. I'm sure they will be happy to do business with us in 2 or 5 or even 10 years time.

Meanwhile, I'm nervous of the way Ms. Fong is inclined to play fast and loose with our money - thank you Finance Committee for being thoughtful and prudent, we don't need another Enron.


Posted by John Galt, a resident of Fairmeadow
on Mar 17, 2010 at 2:39 pm

Why worry? According to Al Gore, et al, Palo Alto is going to be under 3' of water in 20 years due to "Global Warming" and we won't need any power.


Posted by Carroll Harrington, a resident of Community Center
on Mar 17, 2010 at 5:41 pm

It is not Al Gore who predicting the rise of the San Francisco Bay. It is the Bay Conversation and Development Commission (BCDC). Check out these links:
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link


Posted by Bob, a resident of Community Center
on Mar 17, 2010 at 6:14 pm

We've finally decided to move to a 'contention-free peaceful town'. Do we list our home as "waterfront property"?


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields