Talk:Community Choice Aggregation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mayrag1206. Peer reviewers: Mayrag1206.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lldavis. Peer reviewers: Rachmat fathoni.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

The last paragraph is false, I believe. There has only been one CCA implemented. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/hottopics/1Energy/070430_ccaggregation.htm

And that is in the central valley AKA San Joaquin Valley.

I live in Berkeley and I do not believe there are active plans for a CCA, although it is true that it has been discussed.

And here is another link: http://www.lgc.org/cca/

169.229.2.204 (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Emeryville has dropped out of the East Bay CCA and the two remaining cities, Oakland and Berkeley, have shelved their plans. The San Joaquin Valley Power Authority has not actually begun serving any customers, and intends to purchase power from a 500+ MW natural gas fired power plant to be built between the cities of Selma and Parlier. It will divert treated wastewater from groundwater recharge to cool the power plant. Additionally, the power plant's location is about a 1/4 mile from an elementary school. 131.89.129.231 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

PG&E must absolutely HATE this plan. We keep getting mailers from the "Coalition for Reliable and Affordable Electricity", which is clearly a front for PG&E, since they are the only organization named (who exactly are these concerned consumers, small businesses, labor and community organizations referred to in the flyer? It is a thinly disguised attack on the century old recurring theme of a "San Francisco Utility District" that would remove PG&E's stranglehold on the citizens of San Francisco. See O'Shaughnessy Dam> San Francisco Water Department Mccainre (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to me to be a serious point-of-view problem with this article. It is not written in an encyclopedic tone. (E.g., "people of San Francisco have long wanted to release the stranglehold ...".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.61.217 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted the paragraph referenced above due to obvious POV issues, factual problems, and lack of structure. The first reference given to back up the claim that CCA was a public power takover did not mention CCA or CleanPowerSF, and so the claim lacks any verifiable citation. The line about the people of SF long wanting to release the stranglehold has an obviously inappropriate tone. The SFPUC is *not* more commonly known as the Water Department, at least in San Francisco, as the paragraph claimed. And the paragraph introduces Prop. 16, a wholly new issue, in the last sentence, with no context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdale77 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Contrast CCA with other options for cities, e.g. municipalization

The article needs a broader focus on how CCA fits in among the various public policy options, including municipalization (in which a city not only buys its power, but runs its own distribution, billing etc). ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

International perspective?

Is this approach only used in the US? How does it compare with policy in other countries? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed notability tag

I removed the notability tag. The notability tag clearly came from someone with an imperfect understanding of the issue. This is not a business or an organization, CCA is a policy which states or municipalities may pursue. Given its rise to prominence over the past few years, it's certainly a notable policy worth examining on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.28.48 (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Community Choice Aggregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://noprop16.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531024500/http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=ycw4x46esj5qqj&xid=ycvk844cuw9uxh&done=.ycw4x46esjoqqj to http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=ycw4x46esj5qqj&xid=ycvk844cuw9uxh&done=.ycw4x46esjoqqj
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161024213027/http://sustainablewestchester.org/community-toolkits/cca to http://sustainablewestchester.org/community-toolkits/cca

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Article Critique

Poli 160AA

B.Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? After reading the Wikipedia article on Community Choice Aggregation, it was evident that everything written in the article was relevant to the article topic. Nothing distracted me from the main idea of the article, however, many sections did lack detail. The article mostly presented relevant information that was associated with the 7 states who are involved in Community Choice Aggregation in the United States. It presented further details about the development of CCA in these 7 states. For example, it presents information on why and how these states have been able to adopt CCA as well as a detailed description of their journey to becoming involved with CCA and the outcomes. They specifically focused their attention on the state of California, but lacked to present extensive details on the implementation of CCA in the other states. A relevant section that describes CCAs in the United States is the section “Policy Basis for CCAs” it articulates the Policy Basis behind the creation of CCA in the United States but only slightly discusses the arguments against this initiative and the key challenges that arise from it. This is only slightly discussed in the “California Overview” section, but does not discuss opponents in other states. It also does not include ideas.

C.Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article does not present a neutral point of view. The article presents information as to why Community Choice Aggregation is significant to consumers and discusses the benefits it has to creating green power and renewable energy. However, it fails to present the argument as to why others may be against Community Choice Aggregation from the producer side as well as the consumer side. It also fails to discuss the Challenges that are associated with the development of CCAs in the United States. For example, the article only slightly discusses Pacific Gas & Electricity and Proposition 16 which sponsored an initiative against CCAs in the state of California, but lacks to discuss this further and lacks to discuss the arguments made against CCAs in the other 7 states. The claims that are heavily presented in this article is that consumers will benefit from the implementation of CCA policies, however, it presents a bias point of view because it does not discuss the impact that CCA has on producers of electricity such as PG&E as discussed in the California section. If presenting the significance and benefits of having CCA as having lower costs and alternative energy it should also present arguments that producers make against the CCA policies and the key Challenges that can be attributed to these plans. It appears that the article strongly believes in the impact of CCA without attributing much discussion to the arguments or risks that are associated with CCA and the challenges that come along with its implementation.

E.Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article presents viewpoints strongly for Community Choice Aggregation. This leads to the underrepresentation of the point of view that may see CCA as a challenging implementation across states. This can lead to a biased perception of Community Choice Aggregation, as the readers only acquires a reference about the benefits and significance of CCA rather than the challenges that can be associated with the development of this action. F.Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? From the citations provided, some of the links do not work. This includes the URL for citations: 19, 30, 31, 38, 42, 47, 48. These links do not take the reader to the correct page. The article does not appear to have any close paraphrasing or plagiarism.

G.Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? The information presented is all up to date, however, it does not include all of the information of CCA up to today. For example, under the California section, it lists cities who are involved with Community Choice Aggregation but does not include all cities in California who have recently launched CCA or are planning on launching in 2018. According to outside sources, recently, more cities in the state of California have begun operating CCA, and there are other cities who have launched their Community Choice Aggregation plans for 2018. There are many who are currently exploring this idea or are in process of putting this idea into action. For example, the Wikipedia article does not mention the Town of Apple Valley, which is currently operating as a CCA. It also does not discuss the other cities aside from the city of San Jose who are anticipated to launch their CCA initiative in 2018 Mayrag1206 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Mayrag1206

Taken off Multiple issues COI|date=April 2017 refimprove|date=December 2011

The Ref improve was back in 2011 and there are now lots of refs.

The COI was in April 2017, no idea which editor it referred to, and there have been multiple changes to the article since 2017 by a range of editors.RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Citations needed

I started looking at this article because I used to belong to NOPEC in Ohio and have saved a bit on my electric bill. I quit for a $25 gift card from another provider. I noticed there were no citations for the OHIO section. As I read further, I noticed that many of the citations were not written properly; many links were dead; one of the citations leads to what appears to be a dating site. To improve this article and bring it up to date these errors and inaccuracies should be repaired. I'm going to attempt to do as much as I can, but need some help. Cleveland Todd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cleaned up all citations; got rid of "citation needed" and link to dating website. Thanks to those who helped. 8 October 2019Cleveland Todd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)