HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpdate on the Review of the City's Membership in the Orange (2) ���sTiNG.ro 2000 Main Street,
of �a�n.. Huntington Beach,CA
City of Huntington Beach 92648
�CF%NTS
File #: 23-159 MEETING DATE: 2/21/2023
Update on the Review of the City's Membership in the Orange County Power Authority (OCPA)
Joint Power Authority
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 2/16/2023
powered LegistarM
cn
N
♦+ �T
CO as c
lb
Iwo
...i
O >I SI
C — .—
c '- L N co
O cO CD o
a) Cti ma .o. a M
'cn .t-) 0 co
_ , 3 U L.
OcoO 0
Va0. 0 u_
,4/►/turd,, ,►,�
1‘)
bHC i0#/ P
y Ilk
AO � ••••••••ftee. 410 NI\
•• �, y y •••• , \
�AV ,SZ) 4... iill _-'- * ;6,..
,'1I C t N� � . •
CO 4.
• 'Cr , ' 1 Cr;
Zir CDCC k,„. , 1 cs, • F' .—
' •
' ' r-, G• p � N � i
S "Zi J 76
1 r �`
•
N •9 %•' Ii - Ili! ,11 \ ' ' , -..< 4: (Z) c. , ,„ . JP c, 0
, 1 ,, i i . . .-
\ --, i; , , . - _At .
- _ .••• 1
u7
N
c
o co
} c^'
0) a)
c c Mn
'
) � m
Q co I 0
U
co
C.) a) ° a)
O -0 m
a)
c Co U_ c
�L o
o co a) 0)
Co C c
Q .0 co .0 =
0_ E a) I
U co co E o
O Q o o cc)
. _a 2 c.)o
oE Q co c °n
Co a, 73
o QE
a) c c
�U -o a)
E ' .c '� �_
U = = Co cn
-C3 _ca) _ca)
o 2 O = LI- =
Cl Q > 1.13 Co .- Co
co co c Qco QCo
U U U o O 2 O0
1 a
i ) i
O Co N N 2
■m N N N L.. N CON
O 0 O a) 0 O
0) N N N o N - N
E ci
) Q. N v co
._ 0 LL o E Qm O0_
. . . . .
N
O
4cro co E CD A CD
.}, -0 L 2 U co
n2O a)
,V E a) L
a) (I) CZ - 0-
a) ) _E a) °
_ o co -
- cm
a) v) � +� � c
U- c ca3 a)
O O O (o L
-oU -cI'd U .0- o
� V � oc c
c co L 'UO—)
—_
a) c co U
. O —
U O i- ..0 (o 0_
c Q
c cfl 0 = L o U
o n ,,_, o w -c0
U _�r O O
0 U -U
- .E A
U = _c c.) Q =a- o .c
9 E aU 0 2
mcc m0 >'a
c co O c _c -- _C
O •( o U 0 ;�
� � u) tin a) 5
� c
� �c � — may
c L >+
CD co -a
ac .amc �c oa) aV
D a)U_ CnQ 0) U I -c
■M N •O Co 0_ C " +- O ce) 0
N _C CVc -C N
• o N c V N
v)U N O tj
U
E � U i
'in
o O C0 '
co aco xi o
CDQ
■ 0m 2
- cm LL ._
n
N
J
U
Co N � co
CDa) a) -c = c
m _c teg.1) _a
c 1 j LL a)
�O a) O a. -0 E
° < U c a)
C CO
O a) el- 0 03 i-
a)
sa 4-
U +r
U) O O C
CD
C U o o o
OD � 0o � c C.) C ca a... — Cl)
a) � � CDc
Q • = o a�
45
CZ U N Cl) = '0
E ' L � Cl) o �v °
a) a)
cr) cy)_c c .2 2 .-c)
a)
Q m - 0
n o - U
L p -0 o .o co a0
CO U0- U a) E
CD L CO 0 �...
a) cii
0 O
E
a) O .-
0 c Cco C
0 _O O a) a) >
CD 73
E O N N
2 T..) Li- b
al <„ (3 o_
a. cc U � 00O •U -c ° �
(_) U a) .� - .
O 0 m O I— I—
N
G co r1
C (T U a 0
O p .L
-
0 u) a U c§
0 Cl) c O (6
= a) .
E o .0 N a) can)
a) L c
U �... a) 4}' a) (73
C 0 ate--+ _ a O Q Q
Ci_ L a) a••+
0 o) a) 0 a) co o
_p c > O o 0 0
c,_
.- -..,U cm
Q a) c v a)
Am. O 0_ci_ 2 t 5 co 2 LIP- 4-'
a) }' O � -' =
Lc o v � a?
I •§ En. 0 U •v
O
a) _0 0 _ a) U Ws a-.
ca a) '5 a) L U cn
o U
c c U LV u) . .+C -0 a) O a) _c
al § (1)
"-
ma
. . Q La) N a) L L
a)
a)a ' -I_' = L O i- a) co 0 , o a) > E
O L - E a a� Cu
0 a) ma) — o stm co
o) u) u) '- N v - m
COmIlmo a) L U >' � c, c •�
co O E O U a Tu �- .L p
C 2 a a) a) CO � - E p a)
■ >, -0 E F `� O CU U - U C.
� co a✓
}' 0_ u) 0_ .� Cu 'U Q
cn U >' U
° OHO m uo 0
N
CO O
4-1
.� ca Q
�+ L a
g 0 C�
= . O
._
_ .. L N cV
O = O 0 o
IP O = 2 N
ra ._
4-1
Lco
= 'V N
c -E ° 2
O co O .i -8
0 a 0. 0 u
A
/ ;"tk,
'/,//Ir►—
if/ -...w
H
C i
l R�
•.
•• , •• y
• / 1 v I�i, , �" •
Moore, Tania
From: Lisa Swanson <lisainlb@ymail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 2:48 PM
To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: 2/21/2023 mtg agenda item 23-159
Dear City Council Members and City Staff, thank you for the due diligence and update regarding the Orange
County Power Authority (OCPA). I urge you to continue to delay action on withdrawal until the costs arising
from the resale of capacity, electricity, or any power load attributed to the City has been determined and the
results of the State's audit of OCPA is released. This release is scheduled for Feb 28 and should resolve any
concerns regarding corruption at OCPA. If these concerns are adequately addressed, it does not appear that
withdrawal from OCPA is fiscally responsible due to the withdrawal penalties and the cost savings that can be
realized now that OCPA's base rate is less than SCE's.
I want to continue to emphasize that as a resident of Huntington Beach, I strongly support my freedom to have a
choice regarding electricity providers. Please do not take away that choice from the majority of residents and
businesses who have opted to stay with OCPA and realize the benefits that they have the potential to offer over
SCE.
Regards,
Lisa Swanson
13 yr homeowner SE Huntington Beach
714-851-8523
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: a 1 3
1 Agenda Item No.; 7 ( sq)
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 9:30 AM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Comments on the OCPA's last meeting.
Original Message
From:Wjnobr1@earthlink.net<wjnobrl@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 5:17 PM
To:Walker, Renee<Renee.Walker@surfcity-hb.org>
Cc: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Comments on the OCPA's last meeting.
Good Afternoon City Manager Zelinka and City Council Members
I reviewed your OCPA slide show and felt it was a little light on facts. Here is some information I garnered from the OCPA
meeting this past Wednesday.
I will address Pacific Energy Advisor's(PEA)presentation which was more of a dog and pony show for the public.The
presentation lacked vital information about the OCPA. Looking at their presentation on Buckets a lay person would think
that the OCPA procures 75% renewable energy in Bucket 1. PEA explains how buckets are defined but failed to explain
that for Bucket 1 the 75% refers to the OCPA's required Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)which for 2022 was 35.8%
of eligible renewables. 75%of 35.8%is 26.85% RPS required.The remaining 8.95% renewables would be made up with
Bucket 2 purchases (PCC 2). In 2023 OCPA's RPS is 75%of 41.3%. PEA was also unclear how the OCPA apportions Buckets
to its three product levels which is listed on CEC PSD Sch. 1.This leaves consumers in the dark. Is the OCPA loading low
quality PCC 2, Bucket 2 "System Power" (greenwashed fossil fueled power) into its alleged 100% renewable product
after complying with its RPS obligation? PEA doesn't explain that. Bucket 2 is Firmed and Shaped and is labeled as
"renewable," however the Green House Gas (GHG) intensity reflects the underlying energy that is delivered under the
PCC 2 contract. PCC 2 example: if you have a Firm and Shape Wind Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) and system
power is delivered,the GHG intensity is calculated as unspecified power and is 943.58 pounds of CO2/MWh.The wind
REC makes the power greenwashed and classified as renewable but it would be exposed by the GHG intensity. If
environmentalists really scrutinized the alleged 100%renewable programs they have the power to petition the CPUC to
have emissions disclosed on a monthly basis.They won't do this because it would expose their favored CCA's 100%
renewable fairytale. Near the end of PEA's presentation, page 57, it reads"Portfolio emissions rates are also calculated
through the CEC PSD reporting template and is annually disclosed to customers."That would be nice if the OCPA didn't
have the opportunity to defer these emissions reporting for 24 months or more which allows the OCPA the ability to
hide this vital information from the public.Again, what I am saying is that PEA's presentation was a dog and pony show
that disclosed absolutely nothing.An elaborate attempt to snow the public. OCPA's problems are systemic and include
PEA.
Sincerely,
Walter Nobrega
Sent from my iPad SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: �ai/ao��
1 Agenda Item No.; 7 ( -i )59