Luis Alejo: Community Power OK, raw deal isn’t

When I voted for Senate Bill 350 in 2015 while serving in the Assembly, California once again raised the bar for the rest of the nation to make greater investments in renewable energy. In fact, it made it law that California would achieve 50 percent renewable energy by 2030.

To carry these goals further, local governments in Northern California began creating their own joint power authorities (JPAs) to purchase renewable energy at even faster and greater levels while keeping energy bills comparable to PG&E or slightly lower. These agencies are now known as Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) JPAs.

Recently, a local working group created such a JPA called Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) that could potentially provide energy to nearly 769,000 residents and thousands more local businesses and institutions in Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties, while also giving them a choice to opt-out and remain with PG&E.

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors voted on March 7 to join MBCP, but it’s getting a raw deal. In fact, Monterey County and all its cities are getting shortchanged in a big way when it comes to fair and equitable representation and voting seats on the governance board.

While Monterey County represents 57 percent of the population in MBCP with nearly 435,000 residents, it’s being relegated a minority of board seats. That is not fair nor is it equitable by any standard. Monterey County has more people than Santa Cruz and San Benito counties combined with their 334,000 residents total. If we measure by energy use, Monterey County alone exceeds the other two counties by even more with 61.5 percent.

Moreover, Monterey County cities are also getting a bad deal by each being denied a voting seat in MBCP, and instead must rotate three seats among 11 cities. Giving each city a vote would have shown respect and been fair. And guess what? That’s also exactly what every other multi-jurisdiction CCA in the state has done. But MBCP proponents instead claim an arbitrary cap number of 11 seats on its governance board despite no other similar CCA using such ill-founded and rigid logic.

Marin, Sonoma, Alameda and Humboldt counties’ CCAs give each city and county a vote and have also included a “weighted vote” so that local governments get additional votes proportional to its energy use or number of customer accounts. San Mateo County’s CCA doesn’t have a “weighted vote” but it does give each city a vote and gives the county two votes due to its size. The only other two CCAs that exist in the state are single jurisdictions, San Francisco and Lancaster, and they, too, have fair governance models.

Why does all this matter? It matters because this new governing board will soon be making multimillion-dollar decisions, investments, purchases, local job creation and benefits, and potentially siting future solar or wind projects in Monterey and San Benito counties. However, when those decisions get made, Monterey County governments will not have fair or equitable representation.

During our recent deliberations I argued that this information had not been formally presented to other city councils or supervisors, nor to the public. I also raised that Monterey County and other county cities also had another option of creating our own CCA that would have been designed better and fairer to our local governments.

In a separate Monterey County CCA, each city could have been given a vote while also utilizing new startup financing structures that are faster, cheaper and more cutting edge than the design that MBCP utilized. Therefore, the question for Monterey County was never really about whether we would join a CCA; it was about which one and there was a better choice, one that could have been operating just as fast.

I do believe that Monterey Bay Community Power is needed and I support all its positive intended goals, but it lacks fair and equitable representation for Monterey County. MBCP still has an opportunity to get it right by amending its JPA and governance structure at its first meeting in a comparable way to every other multi-jurisdiction CCA in the state and in a way that is fair to Monterey County and its people.

Luis Alejo is the Monterey County supervisor for District 1 and is the former state Assemblymember of the 30th District.

Luis Alejo: Community Power OK, raw deal isn’t, by Luis Alejo, Monterey Herald, March 25, 2017.

County Supervisors Finalize Signing on to Monterey Bay Community Power Authority

Salinas >> Still divided over governance, a split Board of Supervisors finalized joining the Monterey Bay Community Power authority on Tuesday.

By a 3-2 vote, the supervisors approved under its consent agenda a community choice aggregation ordinance allowing the county to participate in the fledgling tri-county power agency that plans to take over electricity purchasing from PG&E, increasing the ratio of renewable energy in local supplies, and use the projected savings to back new renewable energy projects in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Supervisors Luis Alejo and Simon Salinas cast the dissenting votes, with Alejo continuing to argue the county is not being offered “fair and equitable” representation on the power agency board, and that all cities within the county should be offered a representational seat on the agency board like other similar agencies.

The supervisors who voted for joining the agency argued the governance issue wasn’t important enough to risk missing a chance to join as many as 20 other jurisdictions in the tri-county region, which would form the state’s largest CCA power agency.

Meanwhile, the board also adopted the county’s Go Green! work plan aimed at helping the county achieve its sustainability goals and back future initiatives through the 2018-19 fiscal year, including the power agency’s efforts.

The work plan outlines three key program areas including resource conservation, climate adaptation and pollution reduction through energy efficiency, renewable energy, waste reduction, green building and water conservation projects, among others; a county organization-wide culture shift aimed at spreading awareness and offering training among employees, as well as pursuing climate-friendly purchasing policies and green workplace certification, and the like; and community outreach and education through online resources, links to rebates and incentives, and outreach events.

Among the key projects the county is currently pursuing under the work plan are a county facilities solar project, municipal climate action plan tracking and update, a county fleet electric vehicle program and staff support for the power agency. The plan also includes a list of potential future projects the county could pursue.

In all, the county is currently involved in about 60 sustainability projects, initiatives or strategies, all listed in a matrix included in the work plan.

Also Tuesday, the supervisors adopted a resolution approving re-scheduling school and special district elections to coincide with the statewide general election date. The election date change is proscribed under state law if voter turnout in the school and special district elections conducted in odd years fall well below the general election turnout, which is conducted in even years. The change is expected to occur by the start of 2018.

County Supervisors Finalize Signing on to Monterey Bay Community Power Authority, by Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald, March 21, 2017.

Council Passes Ordinance regarding MBCPA

SOLEDAD – In a 5–0 vote, the Soledad City Council on March 8 voted to authorize the implementation of a Community Choice Aggregation program between the City of Soledad and the Monterey Bay Community Power Authority (MBCPA).

The issue was introduced in December 2016, when the Soledad City Council heard a presentation from ZeroCity LLC about the Monterey Bay Community Power Authority (MBCPA). The introduction and first reading of the ordinance followed at the February 2017 Soledad City Council Meeting.

Council Passes Ordinance regarding MBCPA, by Kellie Hicks, SoledadBee, March 15, 2017.

SoCal Edison Seeks 55MW of Distributed Energy Resources to Keep Santa Barbara’s Lights On

Utility Southern California Edison has been asking for batteries, demand response and other distributed energy resources to solve a host of its grid needs, from long-term capacity needs caused by the San Onofre nuclear power plant shutdown, to the immediate shortfalls caused by the Aliso Canyon closure.

Now it’s asking for distributed energy resources (DERs) that can help it help prevent outages in the Santa Barbara region, no matter how unlikely.

That’s the goal of SCE’s request for offers released Monday, which calls for between 15 and 55 megawatts of storage, demand response, load shifting, solar and fuel cells to help mitigate a “transmission-related contingency” — a rare, but possible, set of combined emergencies that could lead to blackouts for thousands of customers served by its Goleta substation.

That’s a different goal than most of SCE’s previous DER solicitations, which have sought to increase the capacity of the overall electric system, said Colin Cushnie, the utility’s vice president of energy procurement and management. It does share some similarities with SCE’s Preferred Resources Pilot (PRP), which is seeking DERs to shore up two specific substations in the Orange County region.

But unlike the PRP, the Santa Barbara procurement has emerged not as a regulator-mandated pilot, but as part of a “unique and localized transmission grid issue” that first reared its head during SCE’s winter preparedness work in 2015. As part of that analysis, SCE found that “transmission towers serving the Goleta region could be impacted by heavy rainfall or other natural events,” forcing it to set up several backup generators just in case that happened.

The generators were never fired up. Nonetheless, SCE decided that distributed resources that could add generation or reduce power consumption in the event of an emergency would be a better fit than relying on megawatts of generators.

Resiliency comes with its own unique set of needs that differ significantly from those served by SCE’s other DER procurements. It’s a long-duration need, because it’s there to cover for an emergency that could last much longer than the few hours typical of energy or capacity-related resources. Specifically, SCE is seeking DERs that can be available during a 14-hour window, between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., during any day of the week.

Such a large span of time is unlikely to be covered by any one distributed resource in its entirety, outside of combined heat and power or fuel cell installations designed to run all the time. At the same time, solar PV, behind-the-meter batteries, demand response and other shorter-duration resources could be aggregated by third-party providers to spread their value across that window, or be fit into blocks of time being organized by SCE. (This is likely the reason why Monday’s procurement has such a wide range of needs — it could include as little as 15 megawatts of longer-duration DERs, to as much as to 55 megawatts of shorter-duration resources.)

As with most of its requests, SCE isn’t disclosing the values of the contracts it is seeking to sign in terms of dollars-per-megawatt. It’s unclear whether resiliency carries a higher value than filling in for long-term capacity needs or bidding into day-ahead energy markets, as DERs are doing under the state’s Demand Response Auction Mechanism (DRAM) program.

Resources that win contracts for resiliency may be used to achieve various targets, depending on SCE’s resource adequacy needs. The details on this are complex. The chart below from SCE’s RFO instructions lays out a high-level list of benefits and costs for each type of technology.

SCE needs these Santa Barbara resources to come on-line between 2018 and 2020. The timeline is not as fast as the nine-month turnaround for its Aliso Canyon procurements. But it’s in line with the schedules for its local resource adequacy and capacity DER contracts to date.

SCE has really broken new ground among U.S. utilities DER procurement, starting with its 2014 local capacity requirement that contracted for hundreds of megawatts of distributed solar, behind-the-meter batteries, automated demand response, and targeted energy efficiency. Companies that have profited from SCE’s groundbreaking work include Advanced Microgrid Solutions, Stem, AES Energy Storage, Ice Energy, NRG Energy, Swell and Tesla.

Greentech Media is holding its California’s Distributed Energy Future conference this week in San Francisco, where we’ll delve into the details of DER integration in one of the country’s bellwether states. Join us via live stream and stay tuned for more developments this week.

SoCal Edison Seeks 55MW of Distributed Energy Resources to Keep Santa Barbara’s Lights On, by Jeff St. John, GreenTech Media, March 7, 2017.

Monterey County Supervisors, Divided, Agree to Join New Alternative Power Agency

During the March 7 Monterey County Board of Supervisors meeting on joining the newly formed Monterey Bay Community Power agency, it was unclear how the vote would go. Even though six jurisdictions had already signed up, the largest prospective member – Monterey County – could’ve chosen to sit it out.

Hanging in the balance: The county could either get on board with at least 16 other municipalities in Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties to form the new renewable energy agency, or stay on the sidelines. MBCP promises to build alternative energy projects and aims to give customers a choice besides PG&E, while bringing jobs to the region.

Supervisors Luis Alejo and Simon Salinas demanded the MBCP give larger cities and the county an additional vote each on the board – which is why they opposed it March 7, and in a previous vote. Supervisors Mary Adams and Jane Parker wanted in. And more than 40 citizens spoke up, most in favor of MBCP.

“Most of you know I’ve been the least supportive,” said Supervisor John Phillips, the swing voter. “I think the idea is good, but is this a really good business decision?” While Alejo and Salinas worried the county wouldn’t have enough say on the 11-member board, Phillips was worried politicians would have too much.

But Phillips said it was time to move forward, and the county voted 3-2 to join.

Marina and Monterey city councils also voted March 7 to join MBCP. The agency is expected to hold its first meeting this spring, with an eye toward selling alternative energy to customers within a year.

Monterey County Supervisors, Divided, Agree to Join New Alternative Power Agency, by Pam Marino, Monterey County Weekly,  March 9, 2017.

Monterey Opts to Join Community Choice Energy Program

Monterey >> The City Council received a round of applause from attendees of Tuesday’s meeting after unanimously deciding to move ahead as a member in the Community Choice Energy Program.

The tri-county initiative that will take over power purchasing control from Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and put it into the hands of a new regional agency called Monterey Bay Community Power is also geared to keep its revenue from consumers local. That’s while doubling Monterey County’s renewable energy portfolio for the same price that is is currently under PG&E, according to Ted Terrasas, sustainability coordinator for the city of Monterey.

Overall, Terrasas said that while there are still a lot of things to consider while the process moves forward, on Tuesday an important milestone was reached.

“That’s kind of the key right now — to bring everyone together,” said Terrasas. “You don’t want too many specifics yet. The board moving forward will be making specific policy decisions and guiding where the MBCP is going to be going.”

Tuesday’s decision came amid a bevy of public comment and some reservations by councilmembers Dan Albert and Ed Smith, who were also feeling pressure from a deadline concerning the project’s overall timeline. Nineteen local governments including Santa Cruz and San Benito counties had already indicated they wanted to join the agency. On Tuesday, a previously split board of Monterey County Supervisors also agreed by a 3-2 vote to sign on to the Monterey Bay Community Power under the agreement’s original governance structure.

Concerns about the new initiative have centered around fair and equitable representation on the agency board. Because Monterey County’s energy demands are higher, local officials have felt they should have more votes to reflect that. Other concerns revolve around an option by customers to “opt out” and the possibility that PG&E could charge more for the transmission of energy. As part of the new agreement, PG&E would still maintain power lines and provide customer service.

Terrasas has maintained that the risks of joining such an initiative are far less than the benefits. The project would ultimately produce little to no carbon and would be renewable in that it wouldn’t use up natural resources.

“There’s still valid points and things to consider, but I think a lot of folks recognized that having more choice and more control over our energy destiny rather than have an investor-owned utility where the revenues are going to shareholders somewhere else, is a good thing,” said Terrasas. “I think they realized this is an option we have to have.”

Also on Tuesday, the council voted to send a letter to the state Coastal Commission urging it to intervene in the ongoing Cemex sand operation. Southern Monterey Bay has the highest erosion rates in the state, and the Cemex plant is the primary cause of erosion in the Monterey Bay, according to research by the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA. The Coastal Commission has said it plans to vote on a cease-and-desist order.

“Signing a letter of support to start winding the operation up — especially given the impacts to the coastal erosion makes sense,” said Terrasas. “That is why the City Council voted to move forward with a letter.”

Monterey Opts to Join Community Choice Energy Program, by Carly Mayberry, Monterey Herald, March 8, 2017.

Santa Cruz County Board of Sups Vote to Join Monterey Bay Community Power

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors has joined a growing list of Central Coast governments opting to provide clean, locally managed power to residents and businesses across Monterey Bay.

Tuesday’s unanimous vote means Santa Cruz County will join Monterey Bay Community Power, a new Community Choice Energy entity allowing Monterey Bay governments, acting on behalf of residents, to purchase and deliver clean, renewable energy over existing transmission lines at prices competitive with larger utilities. Four other local governments have officially joined the effort, four more have taken initial votes to do so and votes in several more jurisdictions are imminent.

“Establishing a locally owned power agency is the single most significant step we can take to protect our precious environment,” said Supervisor Bruce McPherson, whose office has led the regional formation effort. “The added benefits of protecting ratepayers while providing local jobs makes Monterey Bay Community Power an easy win for the community.”

“This is a significant step forward in our efforts to fight climate change,” Board Chair John Leopold said. “Monterey Bay Community Power allows us to reinvest local dollars in a manner that benefits the region, while giving us local control over our energy future.”

The formation of Monterey Bay Community Power follows approximately 100 community meetings and presentations, with 19 local governments having taken formal action signaling their interest in joining. MBCP aims to provide consumer choice, increase renewable energy and stimulate the regional economy by reinvesting consumer energy spending locally.

At Tuesday’s meeting, several supporters spoke out on behalf of Monterey Bay Community Power, including Sierra Club and Monterey Bay Central Labor Council. Communities in San Francisco, San Mateo County, Marin County, Sonoma County and Lancaster have all voted to reduce their carbon footprints by establishing Community Choice Energy entities, all now offering clean energy to local customers.

Monterey Bay Community Power plans to begin delivering clean, renewable energy by Spring 2018.

For more information, visit http://www.mbcommunitypower.org or www.facebook.com/montereybaycommunitypower.

Santa Cruz County Board of Sups Vote to Join Monterey Bay Community Power, by  Sara Isenberg, The Santa Cruz Tech Beat, March 2, 2017.

 

SCE Seeks New Distributed Energy Resources in the Goleta Area

ROSEMEAD, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Southern California Edison has launched a Request for Offers (RFO) to acquire new distributed energy resources to bolster grid resiliency in the Santa Barbara-Goleta area.

The RFO is seeking a range of new distributed energy resources including: energy storage, demand response, permanent load shift, combined heat and power, fuel cells, solar PV paired with energy storage and renewable distributed generation.

To be considered, resources must connect to a circuit, load or lower-level substation served by the Goleta 220/66-kilovolt substation. In addition, resources must be commercially proven technologies, and project start dates should be no earlier than June 1, 2019, and no later than June 1, 2020.

The RFO instructions provide additional requirements and are available on the RFO website at scegarfo.accionpower.com.

“Unlike other solicitations looking to increase capacity of the overall electric system, this solicitation is specifically designed to help increase resiliency for the Santa Barbara-Goleta area,” said Colin Cushnie, SCE vice president of Energy Procurement & Management.

Projects that meet the RFO requirements can participate in the competitive bidding process, and SCE has scheduled a bidder’s conference on March 22 at 10 a.m. (PDT). RFO and conference details can be accessed by registering at scegarfo.accionpower.com.

“We are seeking to provide our customers with increased reliability in the event of transmission outages that could affect this region, and do so with local resources,” said Cushnie.

About Southern California Edison

An Edison International (NYSE:EIX) company, Southern California Edison is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, serving a population of approximately 15 million via 5 million customer accounts in a 50,000-square-mile service area within Central, Coastal and Southern California.

Contacts

Southern California Edison
Media Contact: Robert Laffoon Villegas, (626) 302-2255

SCE Seeks New Distributed Energy Resources in the Goleta AreaBusinessWire, March 6, 2017.

PG&E Narrows Scope of the CPUC Proceeding to Shut Down the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant by Unilaterally Withdrawing Its Procurement and Cost Allocation Requests

On February 27, 2017, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) announced it is withdrawing several portions of its plan to close its 2.3 gigawatt Diablo Canyon Power Plant near San Luis Obispo by 2025. Specifically, PG&E has withdrawn its requests that the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) authorize PG&E to replace Diablo’s generation capacity with additional procurement of clean energy resources and to pass some of the costs of that procurement on to non-PG&E customers.

PG&E gave up on its procurement and cost allocation proposals because these proposals were widely criticized in opening testimony filed by intervening parties on January 27. But PG&E will very likely continue to pursue the same procurement and cost allocation proposals in different forums, in particular as part of the CPUC’s ongoing Integrated Resource Planning (“IRP”) Proceeding (R.16-02-007).

Background

As we detailed in a previous post, in June 2016, PG&E and several other parties, including some environmental groups and labor unions, sought CPUC approval of a Joint Proposal regarding the shutdown of Diablo Canyon. In the Joint Proposal, PG&E sought to offset the capacity lost from Diablo Canyon retirement through three replacement procurement steps, referred to as “tranches.”

Numerous parties opposed PG&E’s proposed three-tranche procurement approach. Among other things, the intervening parties argued that any replacement procurement necessary to replace Diablo Canyon (if any is needed at all) should be considered in connection with the ongoing IRP process. Many parties — particularly Community Choice Aggregators and Direct Access providers — also opposed PG&E’s proposed method of allocating the cost of replacement procurement through a new non-bypassable charge, which PG&E referred to as the “Clean Energy Charge.”

Based on widespread opposition, PG&E decided to withdraw its Tranche #2 proposal to procure a mix of energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (“GHG”)-free supply-side resources in 2025–2030 and its Tranche #3 proposal to procure GHG-free resources sufficient for PG&E to reach a 55% Renewables Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) target in 2031–2045. PG&E also withdrew its proposal to implement the Clean Energy Charge to recover the costs associated with Tranches #2 and #3.

As a result, the only procurement-related request that remains within the scope of the Diablo Canyon proceeding is PG&E’s Tranche #1 proposal to procure 2,000 GWh of energy efficiency resources by 2025 through a solicitation process beginning in June 2018.

Parties Will Continue to Address Procurement and Cost Allocation in the IRP and Other CPUC Proceedings 

In 2015, in Senate Bill 350, the California legislature mandated that the CPUC adopt an IRP process by 2017. The IRP process is intended to help optimize electric utilities’ long-term planning and procurement to achieve a variety of public policy goals, including a 50% RPS and a doubling of energy efficiency by 2030.

In its notice withdrawing portions of the Diablo Canyon application, PG&E called for the CPUC to “adopt a policy directive” in the Diablo application proceeding “that the output of Diablo Canyon be replaced with [GHG-]free resources, and that the responsibility for, definition of, and cost of these resources be addressed as a part of the IRP proceeding.” While such a “policy directive” would have limited practical effect, PG&E’s request underscores the importance of the ongoing IRP proceeding to the future procurement of renewables in California.

PG&E is also likely to continue to look for ways to pass on some of its procurement costs to other load serving entities through the implementation of “exit fees” or other non-bypassable charges. The importance of these non-bypassable charges (and the corresponding scrutiny of the methods used to develop such charges) only increases as more customers move from PG&E’s bundled service to alternatives such as community choice aggregation.

PG&E Narrows Scope of the CPUC Proceeding to Shut Down the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant by Unilaterally Withdrawing Its Procurement and Cost Allocation Requests, by Patrick J. Ferguson, Vidhya Prabhakaran and Emily P. Sangi, Lexology, February 28, 2017.

Editorial, March 1, 2017: Time to Move Forward with Monterey Bay Community Power

Electricity rates are going up again for PG&E customers.

The higher electricity costs, which take effect today, mark the second time in two months power bills have spiked for PG&E customers. A typical residential bill will go up nearly $12 a month to $110.77, due to the new rates and changes in billing tiers. Gas bills also took a big jump last summer.

There is something electricity customers can do to take control of how power is generated and purchased and perhaps eventually lessen rate hikes.

Monterey Bay Community Power is a tri-county effort several years in the making aimed at creating a new regional agency to purchase clean-source electricity at a cost equivalent to PG&E.

The community-choice energy initiative would take over power purchasing control from PG&E for an estimated 285,000 customers in Santa Cruz, San Benito and Monterey counties in an effort to also increase the use of renewable energy and to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

The regional project would still require PG&E to maintain power lines and provide customer service, but money paid out by consumers would ostensibly stay in the local communities to create jobs and fund renewable energy projects. Similar projects are already in place in Marin and Sonoma counties, among others.

But the cooperation of the three counties is at risk. Currently, the joint power agency’s 11-member board of directors would include five representatives from Monterey County communities, including the county, city of Salinas, Peninsula cities, coastal cities and Salinas Valley cities, as well as four representatives from Santa Cruz County and two representatives from San Benito County. The board would have the power to determine agency spending, and the percentage of renewable energy in the local power portfolio that would affect customer rates.

Nineteen local governments including Santa Cruz and San Benito counties have already indicated they want to join the agency. But Monterey County has sought majority control of the agency board because its population is more than Santa Cruz and San Benito counties combined. That desire has kept the county from moving forward, despite widespread support for the agency elsewhere in the region.

The Monterey County demands are led by new Supervisor Luis Alejo, along with supervisors Simon Salinas and John Phillips. The three supervisors have a number of questions about the power agency, including the uncertain future of renewable energy subsidies under the Trump administration along with the potential impact on customers’ bills,

Last month, Alejo, Salinas and Phillips voted to direct staff to prepare an agreement that would allow Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, and the city of Salinas, an additional vote on the proposed 11-member Community Power agency board, and to return March 7 for board action. An earlier attempt by the county to gain a population-based voting structure on the board was rejected by a majority of staff representing the potential power agency jurisdictions.

But supervisors Jane Parker and Mary Adams, who voted in the minority against the proposal, said they remained concerned the new power agency will be formed and operate without Monterey County. If the county decided later to opt in, it would do so without influencing start-up issues.

Santa Cruz County Supervisor Bruce McPherson, who with aide Virgina Johnson, has been the public face for the agency, said he will ask the other jurisdictions to consider the latest Monterey County proposal.

Johnson recently told this paper’s Editorial Board the power agency’s formation had been in the works since 2013 and that a final deadline for joining the agency had already been delayed from October to allow Monterey County additional time. The agency hopes to be open for business by early 2018. Santa Cruz County is prepared to move forward with existing partners, she said — and it would be better if Monterey County is among them.

We agree.

Editorial, March 1, 2017: Time to Move Forward with Monterey Bay Community Power, by Editorial Staff, Monterey Herald, February 28, 2017.