In 2010, PG&E sponsored a ballot measure, Proposition 16, that was a naked attempt to preserve utility power at the expense of customer choice. That proposition went down in flames, despite $46 million of PG&E money behind it, as voters sussed out the motives behind the proposition.
PG&E and its electrical union, IBEW, are back to the same shenanigans in 2014, but now they’ve got legislative allies willing to undermine customer choice in favor of utility control.
AB 2145 (Bradford) is a bill that would gut the ability of cities and counties to take back control of their power supply and to exceed statewide renewable energy goals if they want to. Community choice aggregation (CCA) is the target of AB 2145. CCA actually represents the middle ground between full private utility control and full public control of power. Rather than taking over the entire power grid, as is the case in Los Angeles or Sacramento, CCA allows a city or a county to choose what power their citizens get and from where. The private utility continues to control the power lines and bill customers, so their profit is preserved -- but the control over power choices shifts to the CCA.
A key feature of the current CCA law (AB 117), which passed back in 2001, is its “opt-out” language. This means that if a city or a county chooses to adopt CCA, the residents of that city or county are enrolled automatically in the CCA program unless they choose to opt out. They’re given many opportunities to do so, and the law requires notification in various ways of the ability to opt out.
AB 2145 would reverse this feature and make CCA customers opt in. This means that unless a customer of a utility says “yes, I want in” they won’t be enrolled. Given the inertia to stay with what is known, an opt-in requirement is a death knell for CCA efforts.
IBEW is the public face behind the AB 2145 campaign, but considering that they represent 12,000 PG&E employees and have often in the past been the public face of PG&E campaigns, it’s quite likely that IBEW is again doing PG&E’s dirty work.
Marin County was the first CCA program to get up and running in California. Proponents of AB 2145 argue that Marin County’s CCA energy is dirtier than PG&E’s. It’s not clear that this is true even now, and what is clear is that CCAs must meet exactly the same renewable power mandates as the private utilities. Governor Brown signed a law in 2011 that requires that the same 33 percent renewables by 2020 mandate that applies to private utilities also applies to CCAs.
IBEW’s website states its concerns about the "opt out" language that is currently part of CCA:
The third issue, Stern said, is the “opt-out” process. CCAs prefer a model that would allow a CCA to automatically switch all customers from their existing utility to the CCA. Under this model, customers could wake up one morning to find themselves getting power from a new supplier without having had any say in the matter.
This is blatantly false. The current CCA law (AB 117) requires two notices to be mailed to all potential CCA customers before they are enrolled and another two after they are enrolled, for a total of four notifications of their ability to opt out. So CCA customers have numerous opportunities to opt out. AB 2145 itself states the following: the current CCA law requires that “each customer shall be informed of his or her right to opt out of the program.”
For example, PG&E’s own website states the following regarding the Sonoma County CCA effort, which just began this May. PG&E highlights the notification and opt-out process available to all potential Sonoma CCA customers:
Sonoma Clean Power is offering a CCA program to the first group of customers within participating cities and areas in Sonoma County which begins in May 2014. PG&E customers in this first phase will be automatically enrolled with Sonoma Clean Power in May 2014 unless they choose to opt out of the CCA program. Sonoma Clean Power will be providing enrollment and opt-out notifications to customers before May and after enrollment occurs. Customers who choose to opt out need to contact Sonoma Clean Power directly.
AB 2145 is not about preserving customer choice -- it’s about preserving utility control of our power system.
AB 2145 has already made it through the Assembly, with a very disappointing 51-15 vote in favor of the measure. This means that many Democrats, allegedly supporters of things like customer choice and local control, voted to preserve utility monopoly power over electricity.
The Senate has yet to vote on this bill, so please reach out to your local state senator and urge a “no” vote.
Tam Hunt is the owner of Community Renewable Solutions LLC, a renewable energy consulting and law firm that focuses on policy advocacy andsolarand energy storage project development.