CityofSantaBarbaraSource: City of Santa Barbara
Recently, Santa Barbara Clean Energy, the City’s green energy community-choice aggregator, shared an announcement from Southern California Edison stating that Edison had raised its electricity rates. Unfortunately, that rate increase coincided with the launch of Santa Barbara Clean Energy thereby causing some confusion when customers reviewed their bills.
Santa Barbara Clean Energy charges are not additional charges to what customers previously paid Edison, instead they replace Edison generation charges that were already charged to customers.
Edison’s rate increase is specifically related to the infrastructure needed to deliver power to homes and businesses and applies to ALL customers in Santa Barbara (and the entire Edison service area). It’s based on the increasing costs of updating poles, wires, and other infrastructure to prevent wildfires and modernize their grid.
Santa Barbara Clean Energy provides customers with green energy, and Edison delivers the electricity. This is shown on every electricity bill under procurement and delivery rates. Santa Barbara Clean Energy procurement rates are staying the same.
Santa Barbara Clean Energy’s mission is to offer customers green energy options with continued reliable electric service to achieve our community’s ambitious climate goals. This is particularly important because local electricity use accounts for over 20% of Santa Barbara’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
For more information about the Santa Barbara Clean Energy program, the various clean energy choices, programs and incentives, frequently asked questions and more, please visit www.SBCleanEnergy.com or call (805) 897-1979.
City of Goleta Addresses Concerns Regarding Southern California Edison’s Rate Increase
Central Coast Community Energy Generation Rates Remain Unchanged
Update by the City of Goleta
Residents and businesses may have noticed an increase in their electric bills in the last month. The increase is due to Southern California Edison’s increase in its transmission and distribution rates and is NOT related to the City’s new electricity provider Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE).
On October 1, Southern California Edison (SCE) raised its transmission and distribution rates for all customers. These increased rates, which typically account for approximately 2/3 of an average household’s monthly electricity costs, were reflected in customers’ bills starting in November, and will amount to a monthly increase of approximately $10 per average household. The increased rates are tied to SCE’s need for continued grid infrastructure development and hardening to prevent wildfires and accelerate grid modernization. For more information visit www.sce.com/bill_change.
Also in October, all Goleta electricity customers were enrolled in CCCE service. CCCE is now in charge of electric generation (how and where our electricity is generated), a cost that typically makes up approximately 1/3 of an average household’s monthly electricity costs. SCE will no longer charge customers for electric generation (how your electricity is generated), but SCE will continue charging customers for transmission and distribution (how your electricity is delivered). CCCE electric generation charges now appear on your SCE bill as a separate line item. Those enrolled with CCCE are now shared customers: SCE provides and charges for transmission and distribution, CCCE provides and chargers for electric generation.
Despite SCE rates going up, CCCE has not raised its electric generation rates. In fact, a visit to SCE’s rate comparison page demonstrates that CCCE generation charges are lower than SCE generation charges. Currently, Goleta electricity customers who are not enrolled with CCCE are paying higher generation rates, combined with the recent increase to transmission and distribution rates.
Along with 32 other Central Coast communities, the City of Goleta joined Central Coast Community Energy to access greater control of our electricity needs and to support the growth of clean and renewable energy. Doing so provides our residents and businesses with economic and environmental benefits.
If you have additional questions, you can contact CCCE by calling 888-909-6227 or emailing SouthSupport@3CE.org. To learn more about CCCE and attend upcoming webinars, visit https://3cenergy.org/2021-enrollment/.
I suspect ‘thou dost protest too much’. I am suspicious of any entity that constantly is telling me how much good they are doing for me. Has anyone ever tried to read all the fine print that comes with any of the self promoting information that 3CE sends out? If it takes that much verbiage to protect you from what you say then it probably isn’t worth saying.
I opted out of SBCE– SCE seems to be moving very quickly to solar and wind, so why change?
My plan next year is to add my own solar and I do not need SBCE in the middle. As soon as the cost goes down I will add battery backups and get completely off the electrical grid.
Bottom line is I really do not trust anything that the city/county is involved with.
I fear SBCE is as good as the time they are still getting taxpayer subsidies. Solydra promised the moon and spent money like ever-flowing water. Then poof all that “investment” was gone in a puff of smoke and a dry till bankruptcy. Going off the grid with solar cells and several storage walls will cost around $30K. Not sure how many days the storage will last an average household, or how little energy is produced on overcast days. Anyone know more specifics?
Is it coincidental that SCE implemented their significant delivery and distribution surcharges at the same time when nascent Community Choice Energy consortiums were sending out their first bills for actual energy use?
I have read this statement four times and still cannot get what is trying to be said. This is exactly my experience with every written statement put out by SBCE it seems. They, at best, foggy and at worst disingenuous. Are they saying that the increase is applied to every bill and therefore does not affect the choice to select SBCE or SCE? If so, just say so. And, by the way, SCE is doing serious work to replace infrastructure in my area. Every few months an old pole is being removed and it seems that work on the relay stations is also happening. We need to pay for this and I am glad to do my share.
An additional cost that IS new, however, on my bill is listed under “CCA cost responsibility surcharge”: PCIA 378kWh x $0.02505 = $9.47. Everywhere the advertising has told us the additional cost would be “about $5”. So, yeah… just double that?
This is the problem with these newly created CCAs. They have nothing to do with infrastructure needed to transmit power. They are simply an added bureaucracy that procures power supposedly “ greener energy”. But SCE currently procures power from greener sources. SCE sucks and CCAs regardless of which one you were auto enrolled in , do nothing to fix our existing problems with SCE.
Have you ever read the entire Terms of Service of any application you use or website you visit? Do you own a cell phone? The same is true of every app and site we contact in this day and age (whether we use it or not). If you don’t know this, I fear for your online safety.
The PUC cannot be reinvigorated. A “properly regulated” energy company is an oxymoron. At least here in CA. There are few states that have been very successful with that model and their regulations result in a not-for-profit government-controlled utility company. Our PUC is a political oversight board that does not do anything like that.
The “free market” investor-owned utilities don’t work for the consumer, and just look at the disasters they have brought us.
You wrote: “The CCA program offers nothing that a properly regulated energy sector would not do better.” Sure, a properly regulated SCE/PG&E *could do* what CCAs are doing. They were given that choice and chose not to. The state regulatory authority has failed the citizens, over and over again. Our CCAs are all about taking back control and working for the sake of the consumer/end user. And, by the way, no one associated with our CCAs is making a dime from this. In fact, will be operating at a net loss for perhaps 5 years. All in the effort to transition to renewable green energy and to help save the planet and, actually, save us money. Not-for-profit vs. investor-owned. Big difference.
Ginger 1, your zealotry on behalf of the CCAs might make us suspect that you are a lobbyist or employee of one. True?
The PCIA fee is charged by SCE to CCA customers to cover the cost of energy contracts and infrastructure for which SCE contracted on behalf of its customers. These are long term investments. When CCA customers withdraw from SCE’s service area, SCE is still on the hook to pay for these obligations, at least for some period of time. Therefore, the cost of these obligations is embedded in the SCE customer bill; they are specifically called out on the CCA customer bill in the form of a PCIA charge.
Theoretically, this PCIA fee should eventually drop off of the CCA customer’s bill as SCE divests itself of these prior obligations; I hope the PUC is watching to ensure that SCE does not allow the PCIA charge to continue indefinitely.
SCE specifically timed its distribution rate increase to coincide with the launch of SB Clean Energy. This is no coincidence; rather, it is intended to make it appear that SCE provides a better deal and to encourage CCA customers to “stay within the fold.” Dirty politics.
6:38 – More likely Ginger is just someone who gives a damn about doing what’s right.
What I find funny is all the people who thought that adding this additional layer of bureaucracy would bring bills down (or at least stay the same). It was humorous to the point of being truly nonsensical. We’re going to provide more and better with the same lines and infrastructure for less money.
The greater the number of hands in the pot, the more shrinkage. Nothing new here, move along.
6:38’s comment is what one would expect from an employee of SCE.
Thanks! Nope. I’m not a lobbyist or employee. Just well informed and pissed off at SCE for their years of ripping me off (paying me a fraction of the value of my excess solar power going into *their* grid) and dragging their feet with maintaining their infrastructure, resulting in forest fires, burned homes, lost lives and now, their CYA (cover your….) PSPS ( “public safety power shut-offs.”)
CCAs are the answer to real, honest for-the-public utilities. Our particular CCAs are focused on that, plus sourcing sustainable, green energy. There’s more to come. Like community shared solar/battery microgrids. No worries about PSPS, the power is generated and stored in your neighborhood, for your neighborhood. All of this works to secure safe access to electricity while reducing dependence on fossil fuels, helping address the Climate Crisis, creating jobs, and even saving the end-user a few bucks. Probably. Maybe. We’ll see. It’s all good.
I am not sure about the rates but I just got my bill and has suddenly become insanely complicated to read and understand.
7:58 — Don’t we elect local representatives to ensure we have proper management of public services? Take this up with Senator Limon and Assemblyman Bennett – they are in Sacramento working on our behalf. I believe that is why we pay them generously and hold them accountable at election time. Perhaps they have been ignoring local priorities.
Yes, but Limon and Bennett serve only the public unions. Public taxpayers have no representation from our local representatives.
Things I don’t like about the City program:
Recent bill with SBCE was $30 higher than previous bills.
9/2020 delivery charge by SCE was 10.6 Cents/kwhr
11/2021 delivery charge by SCE is 15.6 cents/kwhr, 50% increase.
Other questions still not anwered:
When the Thomas Fire threatened the power lines in our area, SCE brought in generators as backup. Can SBCE do this?
Does SBCE have contracts to meet all of the demand during very hot days in the summer? Or very cold days in the winter? Or are they buying electricity on the spot market which means they could be gamed by the new Enron and we could be on the hook for $1000s just like happened in Texas?
It’s a privatized, for profit play built on the backs of public infrastructure and awash in a sea of “green” propaganda. Profits built in for the people who created and run this program on the false pretense that its an “environmentally friendly” path, when instead it adds costs and multiple layers of bureaucratic friction. Another fine example of our government publicizing risk while privatizing profits.