Understanding Urban electricity Cooperatives Role in the Energy Transition and Exploring Their

Potential in San Francisco Bay Area Communities

Amelia Wardle Stacey

R4B- Stories of Sustainability

Professor Kimerly Freeman

December 6, 2023

1
Abstract:

In the context of the ongoing energy transition sparked by the current climate crisis,
electricity grids must be reimagined to increase the percentage of energy generated from
renewable sources. Modern technologies allow for efficient small-scale renewable energy
generation; however, this energy procurement model clashes with the current monopoly that
investor owned utilities (IOUs) hold over this industry. This paper looks at the possibility of a
transition away from the domination of this management model in the energy sector and
towards the development of urban utility cooperatives. The local nature of such organizations
allows them to better support community level renewable electricity generation, an essential
aspect in this overall energy transition, and do so while offering community members more
equitable and lower energy rates than are provided within current management models. After
establishing their overall potential this paper will look specifically at California and the San
Francisco Bay Area, evaluating the possibility for the creation of a network of utility cooperatives
built off existing not-for-profit energy providers across the region. The recent proliferation of
community choice aggregates (CCAs) across the state represents the first step in this
transition. However, to fully reap the benefits a cooperative network would provide, transmission
infrastructure, currently owned by investor owned corporations, must be reorganized under a
system of regional cooperatives. Case studies demonstrate that the establishment of such a
network is not only possible but results in increased renewability and improved community
outcomes. This paper explores and demonstrates the promise of a currently underdeveloped
solution to current concerns surrounding the energy transition and climate crisis.

Key terms:

cooperatives, investor owned utilities, distributed energy resources (DER), energy grid, urban
utilities

2
Introduction:

We rely on electricity for every aspect of our modern lives but rarely, when we plug in our
phone to charge, do we think about the complex infrastructure systems or politics and
economics that surround how that power is getting from its generation site to us. As our
day-to-day lives are increasingly electrified, overall energy demand is projected to increase
40-60% by 2050.1 The energy grid in California is already chronically mis-managed, under
strain, and responsible for multiple large scale forest fires. In its current state it will not be
capable of handling these increased loads especially when considering the ongoing transition to
renewably generated energy.2 Already, conflict over variable solar rebate policies has drawn
attention to inequitable rate increases that, typically lower income, non-participating rate payers
are faced with.3 Understanding how this rate structuring impacts the implementation of
residentially generated solar power (distributed photovoltaic - DPV) draws attention to
shortcomings of investor owned utility corporations (IOU’s) in an evolving industry.4

To address the shortcoming of the aging energy grid the Biden administration has
proposed policies to incentivize the development of large scale generation and transmission
projects.5 Investment in large scale renewable energy projects will mean moving generation
sites farther from demand locations resulting in additional strain on the grid as the average
transmission distance of electricity increases. Princeton’s net zero America report estimates that
the transmission networks necessary to support this increase will require investing an additional
$370 billion by 2030 with continued increases through 2050. This is not considering the higher
maintenance costs this massive system will accrue.1 Other, more revolutionary, options must be
considered.

We must completely reimagine the systems that we rely on, not only for our energy’s
production but also its distribution. However, the first most important shift we need to make is in
our mindsets as we learn to prioritize what is best for humanity over profit margins.6 This shift
will expose the shortcomings of our current system of IOU monopolization further demonstrating
the need for a complete industry restructuring.

One possibility is restructuring publicly traded utility corporations into a system of utility
cooperatives with capacity to generate and distribute renewably sourced energy at the local
level. This research will demonstrate the extent to which a system of electricity cooperatives
could increase the use of renewable energy and successfully address equity concerns within
evolving utility landscapes as well as how such a system could be adopted in the context of
existing San Francisco Bay Area electric grids and providers. This research will demonstrate the
extent to which a system of electricity cooperatives could increase the use of renewable energy
and successfully address equity concerns within evolving utility landscapes. This research looks
specifically into California and the SF Bay Area because they have a number of independent
energy providers which are already beginning to break up the monopoly currently held by
investor owned utilities.

3
Current rural systems:

Currently electric cooperatives only play a significant role in the generation,

transmission, and distribution of energy in rural communities. Understanding how these regions
of the country were first electrified sheds light onto these not-for-profit cooperatives' success. In
the 1930’s, during America's first energy transition, as individual households and businesses
became electrified, no IOU wanted to invest in creating distribution networks to serve rural and
hard-to-reach communities due to the fact that very little profit could be made doing so. In order
to serve their own needs, rural communities banded together to form electric distribution
cooperatives with the goal of electrifying their communities, not generating profit. Initially these
localized cooperative distribution networks were forced to purchase their energy from the large
scale IOU corporations in the region, decreasing their ability to keep costs low and stable for
member consumers. To access the economies of scale necessary for effective electricity
generation and transmission within a cooperative model, local cooperatives worked together to
form larger ones with the ability to generate and transmit electricity for the distribution
cooperatives.7

Today, these same cooperatives are still very active in rural regions and continue to
provide considerable economic and social benefits to the communities that they serve. Because
of the way that cooperatives are structured, they are able to charge members lower rates than
they would pay with an IOU. There are three major financing strategies that cooperatives use to
help keep their rates lower. First, due to the creation of generation co-ops, distribution
cooperatives are able to purchase their wholesale power at a lower rates, again because these
generation cooperatives are not incentivized to create the largest possible profit margins.7
Second, through the cooperative finance corporation, (CFC) a nationwide organization, co-ops
can access competitive financing allowing them to borrow money at lower rates then IOU’s.
Third, because cooperatives operate at smaller scales, accessing the necessary economies of
scale through the creation of cooperative networks, they are able to increase the efficiency of
their business model by cutting unnecessary overhead costs and, therefore, resulting in lower
rates for their members.8

Above all else, the biggest difference between co-ops and their investor-owned
counterparts are the primary goals that drive their decision making. In rural cooperative models,
there are no shareholders or ratepayers (as there are in corporations) but instead
member-consumers. Because the leadership of these cooperatives is heavily invested in the
overall and long term success of the communities they serve, they are incentivized to create
systems of production that will allow for long-term reproduction. This allows them to create
systems where the goal of lower rates for consumer members is balanced with the
understanding that rates should not drop below the sustainable threshold where presently lower
rates result in higher future ones.7 Their primary interest is not short-term profit generation but
rather long-term overall success and reliable energy production and procurement for their
communities. Cooperative systems internationally operate under the 7 cooperative principles’,
one of which is “concern for community.”9 This means that beyond the scope of energy
production cooperatives pay attention to how their decisions impact other aspects of the

4
community. This was exemplified when Hoosier energy, a transmission and generation
cooperative serving communities across Indiana and Illinois, closed their coal-fired power plant.
While this was clearly good for the community in the long-term, as they were making this
decision there was a lot of concern about the number of community members that would lose
jobs as a result of this closure. To address these concerns Hoosier energy partnered with local
universities to provide specialized education for those whose careers would be displaced as a
result of their closure, ensuring that they would once again be competitive in the job market.
This exemplifies how these smaller scale utility providers are better positioned to address equity
concerns that arise as a result of the decisions they make.7

It is important to remember that, when evaluating the benefits of rural cooperatives, it is

not the rural nature of service territories that allows these cooperatives to thrive. The only
reason cooperatives have been established at disproportionate rates in rural communities is
because IOUs could not significantly profit from providing energy to these regions. The
community benefits provided by rural cooperatives could be accessed in urban regions through
the establishment of urban utility cooperatives.

Current urban systems:

Typically when people think of power generation and distribution systems, they think of
IOUs which are used in almost all urban settings. In 2017 they served 72 percent of US
electricity customers and are most dominant in heavily populated regions where larger profit
margins can be generated due to geographically concentrated electrical demand.10 These
corporations are publicly traded on the stock market, owned by shareholders, and motivated
solely by the possibility of profit production. In a system where ratepayers want to see their
energy bills go down but shareholders want continuous profit increases, divergent interests
clash and IOUs often end up sacrificing the long term sustainability of their business model.

For utility companies to successfully operate in a region, they must invest significantly
into the development of infrastructure throughout their service area. Because of the nature of
the services they provide, IOUs have special regulations that allow them to have exclusive
rights to power supply within their service territories. For example, California’s assembly bill
1890 passed in 1996, “prohibit[s] any person, corporation, electrical corporation, or local publicly
owned electric utility or other governmental entity other than a retail customer's existing electric
service provider from providing electric service to a retail customer of a publicly owned electric
utility.” 11 This law, and others like it, allowed for the establishment of investor owned monopolies
that continue to dominate the utility industry today. In an effort to keep prices in check, these
IOUs are subject to government regulation. However, due to their scale and control over the
market, rates charged by IOUs consistently exceed those offered by competing business
models, and because they hold exclusive sale rights, ratepayers are unable to purchase power
elsewhere.12

Because of their size, IOUs are not invested into the long-term success of local
communities they serve. Corporate offices are far from most of their service area and tuned out

5
of local issues making productive dialogue between ratepayers and IOU management nearly
impossible.8 This lack of accountability results in increased rates and decreased investment in
equitable community outcomes and climate initiatives. Due to the nature of their business
model, IOUs are only incentivized to respond to the interests of their shareholders, which is
always profit production, rather than the interests of the average ratepayer or community
member who is more concerned with the possibility of rate increases and lack of investment into
sustainable energy production.4 IOUs currently dominate the energy utility market landscape,
but this is something that needs to change if we hope to address climate change and support
climate justice initiatives.

Understanding Potential of Cooperative systems in Urban settings:

One potential solution to address the shortcomings of IOUs would be the development of
networks of urban electric cooperatives. In rural settings, this utility service provider model has
been shown to increase the implementation of distributed energy resource (DER) systems and
increase the percentage of renewable energy in power portfolios.8,4,13 These same results could
be achieved in urban settings.18,14 Additionally, the localization of utility providers increases
investment in the long-term success of the community, as well as equitable outcomes and lower
rates for all member consumers.8,7

A system of cooperatives will result in increased use of renewable energy and

implementation of DER systems. In the transition to renewable energy, investment in DER and
other community-based solutions needs to be prioritized. Currently the Biden’s administration's
proposed climate legislation focuses on investment into large sale generation and transmission
infrastructure.5 Princeton’s net zero america report found that this approach to the energy
transition will necessitate an additional $370 billion to be invested into transmission
infrastructure by 2030, money that could be spent more effectively elsewhere.1 A report done by
the National Renewable energy laboratory found that greater use of rooftop solar reduced the
need for investment in transmission infrastructure. The money displaced from decreasing
transmission demands could then be used more efficiently through continued investment in DER
infrastructure.5 Beyond their economic expense, large scale transmission infrastructure is
responsible for multiple large scale wildfires.2 Adding new transmission lines also requires clear
cutting large areas, disrupting the habitat of wildlife in the region. Lastly, building transmission
infrastructure requires negotiating with the many different property owners whose land the lines
must cross over. This results in a very slow moving construction process that can take upwards
of 10 years, time we don’t have given the severity of the current climate crisis.5

The impracticality of investment in large scale infrastructure highlights the importance of

the proliferation of DER in the renewable energy transition. A report published by the California
Energy Commission highlights the three primary implementation models for DER and found,
“that utility-owned DER has a high likelihood of win-win results in today’s regulatory environment
and thus potential for capturing utility interest.”14 While this report advocates for the creation of a
centralized network of DER systems within the current model of IOU industry domination it still
highlights the importance of cooperation among DER systems in modernizing energy grids.

6
Taking these findings one step further it becomes clear that coordinated DER implementation in
a cooperative model, where lower rates for community members is prioritized over shareholder
profits, will further increase these “win-win” results.

Beyond the potential for investment, a utility-owned DER structure avoids the inequitable
rate increase non-participating households are faced with in customer-owned models. This is
because a large percentage of the monthly energy bill that individuals pay goes towards
maintenance of the power grid. When households install DER, they continue to use the grid to
supplement their energy needs and transport excess energy but no longer pay for its
maintenance.3 That means that energy fees for households not participating in DER must
increase to cover the cost of grid upkeep. Additionally, in current regulatory conditions, to install
DER systems you must own a single-family residence which is only possible for the most
affluent members of a community.7 This means that the rate increases that non-participating
households face, due to the proliferation of customer owned DER, are primarily borne by the
already most financially disadvantaged members of the community.

Utility-owned DER systems result in a more equitable distribution of economic benefits.4

In this system of ownership, utility corporations own the renewable generation infrastructure and
sell the energy generated in these small scale projects to their consumer base, mirroring the
current system. This means that all community members pay the same energy rates, avoiding
the inequitable outcomes that arise when only a portion of the community acts as both
producers and consumers. DER systems are typically installed on or near existing infrastructure
not owned by the utility company. This leads to complications and concerns of anticompetitive
business practices as the utility company owns the solar panel but not the rooftop.4

Implementing a system of utility cooperatives would allow for an increase in distributed

generation (DG) while avoiding the anticompetitive ownerships concerns found within a
utility-owned structure as well as the inequitable outcomes resulting from a customer-owned
model. The proliferation of DER creates an energy market where de facto ownership is not in
the hands of the utility but rather individuals, energy generation occurs much closer to the point
of consumption, and rather than a one-way energy flow from utility provider to consumer, a
multidirectional flow pattern would be devloped.4 A cooperative system is better equipped to
manage this evolving utility landscape. In such a system there are not clearly defined customers
and providers but rather a homogenous group of consumer members. All members of the
community are invested into the infrastructure that provides them with electricity and so
anti-competitive ownership concerns melt away since all consumer members are actively
involved in the ownership and management of the shared infrastructure. Centralized ownership
within utility owned structures benefit consumers by coordinating DG systems allowing these
models to gain access to economies of scale and increase profitability.14 Looking one step
further, it is clear that the community level aggregation of DER found within a cooperative model
would most directly benefit consumer members since all profits generated would be reinvested
into the community resulting in decreased energy rates and improved long term community
outcomes.

7
 In well-established rural cooperatives, it is clear how this management structure is
allowing for increased implementation of DER. Donna Walker, the CEO of Hoosier energy,
explains how our current grids are designed for the asynchronous flow of power in one direction
from large-scale generation sites to individual homes. We must move towards the development
of a grid with multidirectional power flow where power is generated throughout the community it
is used in. Walker highlights how co-ops are better suited to support this transition to community
based energy generation because they are already so connected within the communities that
they serve. In her own cooperative, they have piloted many different DER projects that allow all
community members to participate in power generation, and have found that these projects are
capable of meeting energy needs, keeping grids reliable and decreasing transmission
distances.7

In the creation of this new multi-directional grid, or virtual power plant (VPP), DER is
more than just energy generation, but also distributed storage systems and other smart
appliances that manage individuals energy use to efficiently balance energy load with current
energy availability. Research done by Junxiang Li found that in VPP models, where consumer
members act as producers and consumers, individuals receive a net decrease in their electricity
bills.15 Additionally, these smart grids decrease emissions from the energy sector by
coordinating connected devices to shift energy demand times to match mid-day solar excesses.
Then, at the end of the day, when renewable energy availability is low but demand is high, it can
access the energy stored in devices that were charged during peak hours to continue powering
the grid with renewably generated energy.16

One not-for-profit energy generation organization, Marin Clean Energy (MCE), is working
to implement a VPP in Richmond CA. Currently this pilot project will include 100 zero net carbon
homes as well as industrial and commercial sites. Initial plans involve the implementation of
energy generation technologies, as well as energy storage including EV charging storage
methods and smart appliances. All of these devices will work together to shift energy loads
outside of peak hours, decreasing grid strain and increasing the overall percentage of energy
generated from renewable sources.17 VPP’s must be highly individualized to the communities
that they are implemented in so locally based organizations are much better positioned to
efficiently adopt this grid model compared to their large scale investor owned counterparts.

It is widely accepted that electric cooperatives result in lower energy rates for consumer
members.8,4,7,18By eliminating the competing interests between shareholders and ratepayers
found in IOUs, these not-for-profit organizations are able to direct all resources towards
providing reliable energy and low rates to consumer members.

Beyond lower rates, a cooperative system allows for better long term community
outcomes. As highlighted earlier in this paper, in existing rural cooperative networks one of their
guiding principles is “concern for community.” This means that during the decision making
process they work to fully understand the range of impacts that different options will have on all
members of the community. When implementing a cooperative network in urban settings these
same guiding principles would be used resulting in an increased connection between utility

8
providers and the communities they serve, decreasing inequitable outcomes and increasing
investment in long-term community success.

The idea of an urban utility cooperative is not completely untested. In 1997 the 1st
Rochdale utility cooperative was officially incorporated in the state of New York as a non-profit
organization. This cooperative was established in NYC with the stated mission of reducing
members' energy bills and increasing sustainability by developing comprehensive conservation
and renewable generation strategies. 1st Rochdale successfully met both of these goals due to
its partnership with other larger scale generation cooperatives and not for profit utility
organizations in the region but most importantly because, within this cooperative model, profit
generation was not a priority. To meet its climate goals the 1st Rochdale relied on energy from
DG systems it installed, as well as conservation campaigns.18 Given the development of these
technologies in past decades, cooperatives today would be able to reach renewable generation
goals more easily and utilize AI powered technologies to more efficiently manage energy
consumption. The existence and success of the 1st Rochdale cooperative demonstrates the
real world potential for the development of a network of urban utility cooperatives highlighting
how essential the network aspect of this system will be for its overall success.

Understanding how the San Francisco bay area could create a cooperative system:

In the SF Bay Area and across California, community choice aggregates (CCA’s) are
paving the way towards the creation of a system of utility cooperatives and are already
accessing many of the environmental and economic benefits of doing so.

The passage of assembly bill 117 in 2002 was the first piece of CA legislation that
allowed for the creation of these third party, not-for-profit, electrical providers.19 These programs
allow local governments to provide electricity for their residents separately from the IOU tasked
with servicing the region. While IOUs continue to transmit and bill for this independently
generated power, these organizations allow local authorities to offer residents more choice in
how their electricity is generated, as well as how much they pay for it.18 Because CCAs are
not-for-profit they are able to direct their focus towards cultivation of highly renewable energy
portfolios rather than the creation of profit margins for shareholders benefit. In the current
system, residents can choose if they want to have their power generated and provided by the
IOU or, if applicable, the local CCA. However, regardless of who is generating the electricity, it
will be transmitted to them via the infrastructure owned by the IOU and they will continue to pay
their electricity bills to the IOU in the region.

Even within this hybrid system CCAs have increased the renewability of all energy
production. CCAs not only provide residents with a more renewably sourced energy choice but,
due to the nature of IOUs long-term renewable generation project contracts, they are
transforming the entire industry. IOUs are invested in long term renewable energy generation
projects but due to the recent proliferation of CCAs, IOU’s no longer need to generate as much
electricity as they once predicted. That means that the completion of these long-term contracts
will increase the renewable percentages of IOUs portfolios beyond state mandated minimums.13

9
 CCAs represent the first step in the creation of a network of utility cooperatives. Because
of their local and public nature, CCAs are perfectly positioned to implement DG programs and
create multidirectional microgrids within the communities they serve. As these programs
become more well established, they will continue to generate more energy within their
communities, not only increasing renewability but also decreasing transmission needs.13 In the
2017-2018 report published by the California independent sector operator (CAISO), they
recommended the cancellation of 18 planned transmission projects and the revision of an
additional 21 projects within the PG&E service area, citing shifting load forecasts resulting from
the proliferation of CCAs. These proposed changes would create $2.6 billion in future savings.21
This displaced funding could be redirected into the further development of DG and VPPs
managed by CCAs in local communities. In rural regions they first created distribution
cooperatives and then built towards generation co-ops. In urban settings, CCAs are already
beginning to fill the role of generation cooperatives and we must now work backwards towards
the creation of cooperative distribution networks

In the SF Bay Area Marin Clean Energy (MCE), a well established CCA, has already
been working in communities to increase the overall renewability of energy consumed within this
region. MCE offers a range of energy options to its customers spread across 37 member
communities, including light green (60% renewable), deep green (100% renewable) and local
sol (100% locally generated solar). When compared to PG&E, the IOU that servies the region
and whose average energy mix is only 38% renewable, the deep green energy mix offered by
MCE is the most comparable in price.22 Due to their local nature, MCE is not only invested in
providing the most renewable energy possible but providing it in a way that creates equitable
community outcomes. It demonstrates this commitment by offering generous rebates for
residents who implement DER in their homes, therefore allowing community members who
would otherwise not be able to afford these technologies the opportunity to reduce their carbon
footprint and profit from it.23

MCE and CCAs represent the first step of the process of creating a system of utility
cooperatives to serve the SF Bay Area and California. These not-for-profit organizations are
already providing more renewable energy at a lower cost with more equitable outcomes to the
communities they serve. By fully completing this transition to a cooperative network these
benefits will only increase. This, though, will involve buying out and breaking up large scale
IOUs that own all the transmission infrastructure within the state. Obviously invested
shareholders will not be pleased with this move. The reorganization of the IOU's physical assets
in a network of cooperative utility distributors would mean there would no longer be the
opportunity for external investment in the utility sector and shareholders who bought in
previously would no longer be able to generate revenue on their investments. However, if we
hope to overcome this climate crisis, these financial sacrifices on the part of the already rich and
wealthy must be made without hesitation.

10
Conclusion:

In the context of the current crisis, we must not only reimagine how energy is generated
but also where it is produced and how it gets to us. As our lives continue to become more
electrified, energy demand will increase beyond levels our current infrastructure can support. To
increase efficiency, a larger percentage of electricity demand needs to be filled with locally
generated energy. With the rise of modern technologies that optimize energy use and allow
individuals to participate in small-scale generation, our grid must evolve away from its current
one-way flow model into a network of multidirectional energy flow where there are no strict
producers and consumers. This free-form model must be specialized to each individual
community if it is implemented in. Due to the size of their service areas IOUs are unable to
adequately invest the necessary time and resources into the thoughtful development of local
energy grids. Additionally, in this community based model the primary goal is not the generation
of profit but rather the production of renewable energy that is offered to consumer members at
the lowest sustainable rates. To achieve this IOUs must be abandoned in favor of the
development of urban utility cooperatives. However, it must be recognized how challenging this
transition will be due to the fact that this profit deprioritization flies in the face of capitalist ideals
that still govern current socioeconomic landscapes.

In rural regions cooperatives have proven to lower costs for individual consumer
members and result in better long-term community outcomes. Not only does this model allow for
more efficient development of local grids, but it creates utility organizations that are truly
invested in the long term success of the communities that they serve. The implementation of
urban cooperatives will increase the level of investment in equitable community outcomes in the
short and long term.

The establishment of CCAs across California, and specifically MCE in the SF Bay Area,
is the first step towards the establishment of this network of utility cooperatives. The social and
environmental benefits of these not-for-profit energy generation organizations has already been
demonstrated via decreasing rates for residents served by a CCAs as well as the drastic
increases in local energy generation. To fully complete this transition the IOUs, which still own
all transmission infrastructure and are responsible for customer billing, must be bought out,
broken up and reformulated into a new system of transmission cooperatives. While this sounds
drastic it is not out of reach. The recent proliferation of CCAs is already transforming the grid
and decreasing IOUs monopoly in the industry. CCAs are formed by local governments;
individuals need to pressure their officials to form CCAs. With the continued increase in CCAs
and, as knowledge of their benefits becomes more widespread, the development of a
completely cooperative network of utility providers will seem less unrealistic and public support
for its implementation will grow. This will in no way be an easy or fast process so, if we hope to
complete this energy transition before it is too late, we must act now and we must act with force.
We can no longer let the profits of a wealthy minority dictate the future of a cooperative-minded
majority.

11
References
1. E. Larson, C. Greig, J. Jenkins, E. Mayfield, A. Pascale, C. Zhang, J. Drossman, R.
Williams, S. Pacala, R. Socolow, EJ Baik, R. Birdsey, R. Duke, R. Jones, B. Haley, E.
Leslie, K. Paustian, and A. Swan, Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure,
and Impacts, interim report, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, December 15,
2020.https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf331/files/2020-12/Pr
inceton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf

2. Penn, Ivan 2020 [cited October 10, 2023] Its Electric Grid Under Strain, California Turns
to Batteries. New York Times. Available from: Its Electric Grid Under Strain, California
Turns to Batteries - The New York Times

3. Penn, Ivan 2022 [cited October 10, 2023] A Fight Over Rooftop Solar Threatens
California’s Climate Goals. New York Times. Available from: A Fight Over Rooftop Solar
Threatens California’s Climate Goals - The New York Times

4. Holm, Alison, Jeffrey J. Cook, Alexandra Aznar, Jason Coughlin, and Benjamin Mow.
2019. Distributed Solar Photovoltaic Cost-Benefit Framework Study: Considerations and
Resources for Oklahoma. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
NREL/TP-7A40-72166. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72166.pdf.

5. Penn, Ivan and Krauss, Clifford 2021 [cited October 10, 2023] More Power Lines of
Rooftop Solar Panels: The Fight Over Energy’s Future. The New York Time. Available
from: More Power Lines or Rooftop Solar Panels: The Fight Over Energy's Future

6. Figueres, Christina. Rivett-Carnac, Tom. The Future We Choose: The Stubborn

Optimist’s Guide to the Climate Crisis . New York: Vintage Books; 2020

7. UC Davis Energy. March 9, 2022. The Role of Electric Cooperatives in the Energy
Transition. Accessed 10/24/23. Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OBFetkJxpw

8. Golden State Power Cooperative, No Date, What Could Be. Accessed 10/24/23
Available at: https://www.gspower.org/history/what-could-be/

9. International Cooperative Alliance. No Date. Accessed November 2023. Cooperative

Identity values and principles. Available From:
https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity

10. Lindstrom, Anodyne; Hoff, Sara. 2019. [Cited November 2023] Investor-owned utilities
served 72% of U.S. electricity customers in 2017. U.S Energy Information
Administration. Available From:
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id%3D4091

12
 3&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1699320716147391&usg=AOvVaw1qCkQTFC3S5RanYHB
W0YUx

11. AB 1890, 1996 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 854 California (1996) Avalible at:
https://energy.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/energynvgov/content/Programs/TaskForces/2017/A
B%201890%20CA%20reference%20legislation(1).pdf

12. Stein, Zach. 2023 [Cited November 2023] Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs). Carbon
Collective. Available from: Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) | How They Work and Pros &
Cons

13. DeShazo, Jr; Gattaciecca, Julien; Trumbull, Kelly. July 2018. The Growth In Community
Choice Aggregation. UCLA. Available at:
https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The_Growth_in_Communi
ty_Choice_Aggregation.pdf

14. California Energy Commision [Electric Power Research Institute] November 2007
Creating Incentives For Electricity Providers To Integrate Distributed Energy Resources
Patrill, E. Thimsen, D.

15. Junxiang Li, Yichen Zhu & Mei Yong (2023) Cooperative Operation and Profit
Distribution of Virtual Power Plant, Electric Power Components and Systems, 51:1,
71-82, DOI: 10.1080/15325008.2022.2161673

16. Dillemuth, Sarah. 2022 [cited November 2023]. What is a Virtual Power Plant? Marin
Clean Energy Available from:
https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/mce-news/what-is-a-virtual-power-plant/

17. Tenney, Jenna. 2022 [Cited November 2023]. MCE Unveils Plans for Virtual Power Plant
to Benefit Disadvantaged Richmond Residents and Businesses. Marin Clean Energy.
Available from:
https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/mce-news/mce-unveils-plans-for-virtual-power-plant-to-
benefit-disadvantaged-richmond-residents-and-businesses/

18. Yaker, Edward. Goldner, Fredric. Thompson, Thomas, 2000 The Cooperative Alternative
Case Study: The First Urban Coop. Deregulation of the Utility Industry and Role of
Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) - 5.383 Available from:The Cooperative Alternative
Case Study: The First Urban Electric Coop.

13
19. California Choice Energy Authority. No Date. Accessed November 12th, 2023. Benefits
of CCA. Available From: https://californiachoiceenergyauthority.com/benefits-of-cca/

20. California Public Utilities Commission. 2021. [Cited November 2023] Community Choice
Aggregation – Consumer Information. CA.gov. Available at:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/consumer-support/consumer-programs-and-services/electrical-
energy-and-energy-efficiency/community-choice-aggregation-and-direct-access-/consum
er-information-on-ccas---frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=Community%20Choice%20
Aggregation%20(CCA)%20is,for%20their%20residents%20and%20businesses

21. California ISO/MID. 2018 [Cited November 2023] 2017-2018 Transmission Plan. CASIO.
Available from:
https://www.caiso.com/Documents/BoardApproved-2017-2018_Transmission_Plan.pdf

22. Marin Clean Energy. 2022. [Cited November 2023] Operational Integrated Resource
Plan 2022-2032. Marin Clean Energy. Available
from:https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MCE-Operational-Int
egrated-Resource-Plan_2023.pdf

23. Marin Clean Energy. No date, Customer Programs and Offerings. Accessed 11/12/23.
Available at: https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/customer-programs/

14