Community Choice Energy Legislation
Check back frequently for updates during legislative sessions (January – September every year).
Legislative Calendar Check: The legislature is currently on summer recess and will reconvene on Monday, August 12.
We are monitoring about 29 energy and/or climate-related bills, not all of which directly impact Community Choice Energy. Below is a selection of highlighted bills with a brief summary, the Center’s position, if any, and the status of the bill.
Bills we oppose:
AB 1584 (Quirk) – At the time of the close for recess, this bill would impinge on Community Choice statutory procurement authority. It would allow the CPUC to set obligations for renewable energy “integration” and potentially for load management and demand response. It would require the CPUC to audit CCA compliance and allow the CPUC to buy any kind of resource it deems necessary to meet any perceived un-procured resources and assign those costs to the CCA. This bill would effectively transfer significant planning and procurement rights from CCAs to the CPUC because all resources have some impact on renewable integration, which is a broad term meaning ensuring system reliability while increasing the percentage of energy from renewable sources. Due to amendments made in early July, CalCCA has shifted to a neutral position. We remain opposed at least until we see favorable changes in the bill text. Status: The bill is schedule for a hearing the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 19.
SB 155 (Bradford) – This bill expands CPUC’s authority over CCA procurement and Integrated Resource Plans. Read the Center’s updated July Letter of Opposition. Due to amendments made in early July, CalCCA has shifted to a neutral position. We remain opposed at least until we see favorable changes in the bill text. Status: SB 155 was voted out of the Asm Natural Resources Committee on July 8 and was referred to the Asm Committee on Appropriations with no hearing date set as of this update.
SB-520 (Hertzberg) – This bill empowers the CPUC to determine what load serving entity should serve as the provider of last resort (POLR), based on certain criteria. Currently IOUs serve as the provider of last resort in their service territories. A big problem with the bill is that it gives the IOUs veto control over the POLR application process. If another LSE (e.g., a CCA) wants to become the POLR, the incumbent IOU must agree to the application submitted to the CPUC, which is unacceptable. Status: SB 520 is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Monday, August 19.
Bills we support:
AB 684 (Levine) – Read our Support Letter. Rules proposed in this bill would ensure that the infrastructure necessary for EV charging in multi-family dwellings is codified through multi-family building standards. Status: AB 684 was voted out of the Senate Housing Committee on July 2. It has been referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee with a hearing set for August 12.
AB 1046 (Ting) – Clean Vehicle Rebate Program. Read our Letter of Support. This bill requires the California Air Resources Board to develop a plan to provide for the continuous funding of a program with a goal of supporting deployment of 5 million electric vehicles by December 2030. Status: AB 1046 was amended in the Senate Transportation Committee on July 9, and was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. As of this update, 1046 is not on the August 12 agenda of Senate Approps.
SB 246 (Wieckowski) – Read our Support Letter. – This bill, if enacted as written, will impose an oil and gas severance tax of upon any operator for the privilege of extracting oil or fossil gas from the earth or water in California. Status: This is a bill that requires a supermajority vote, meaning that two thirds of the legislature must approve it. Such bills are not encumbered by the usual committee process. It can be brought to committee/s or full Senate at any time at the author’s discretion.
Bills that were enacted, became two-year bills, were gutted and amended, or died:
AB 1054 (Holden, Mayes, Burke) – Enacted: This 200-page bill was fast-tracked through the legislature. In addition to encumbering ratepayers with nonbypassable charges for more than a decade just as they were set to expire, and no safeguard against rate increases, the bill includes a clause that is completely outside of any wildfire concern, and it impacts Community Choice agencies. The clause empowers the CPUC to obstruct sales of IOU assets to other load serving entities and public entities. This could hobble local governments wanting to launch their own municipal service, and/or emerging CCAs that may benefit by acquiring assets that the IOUs no longer want or need. Status: AB 1054 passed out of the legislature on July 11 and was signed by the governor. It is now being challenged in federal court by two PG&E customers on grounds that it may allow for ratepayer funds to be used to pay for cost increases due to PG&E negligence.
AB 56 (Garcia) DIED in Committee – This bill would have empowered the CPUC to order energy procurement based on shortcomings in the Integrated Resource Plan submitted by Investor Owned Utilities, Direct Access providers, and CCAs. The bill would have allowed the CPUC to require procurement on any perceived deficiency that may be 10 to 12 years out in the future. This makes no sense, given that so much lead time would allow a CCA to address any potential problem. Read the Center’s updated July Letter of Opposition. Status: AB 56 failed to pass out of the Senate Energy Committee at the July 10 hearing.
AB 1362 (O’Donnell) – This bill as originally written would have destroyed the utility “Code of Conduct” but was amended in May to a point of harmlessness.
SB 288 (Wiener) Gut/amend – The former “Solar Bill of Rights” is no more. The “SB 288” bill number is now a different subject altogether. Urge your representative to work with Senator Wiener to initiate a similar bill.
SB 350 (Hertzberg) Two-year bill – This bill would “authorize the CPUC to consider a multiyear centralized resource adequacy mechanism,” meaning, a central buyer, which would encroach on CCA statutory authority on procurement autonomy. This bill was a tandem bill with AB 56 that failed to pass the Senate Energy Committee. Status: Senator Hertzberg pulled the bill from the file at the July 10 Assembly Energy Committee. It is now a two-year bill.
SB 386 (Caballero) – Two-year bill. Read our Letter of Opposition. This bill would allow Turlock, Modesto, and Merced Irrigation Districts to count their large hydro assets (dams) toward their Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligations. This would significantly impact progress with new renewables. These Irrigation Districts will already be able to count their dams as carbon-free pursuant to state policy on decarbonization and mechanisms are in place to protect low-income communities from any cost burdens. Status: On May 30 Senator Caballero announced that SB 386 would be a two-year bill. Expect the fight to continue in early 2020.
SB 676 (Bradford) – This bill would require the CPUC, by December 31, 2020, in an existing proceeding, to establish strategies and quantifiable metrics to maximize the use of feasible and cost-effective electric vehicle grid integration. Based on amendments made in early July, CalCCA has shifted to a neutral position. Status: SB 676 is set for a hearing in the Asm Appropriations Committee on August 19.
SB-772 (Bradford) – Two-year bill. Relates to procurement of long duration bulk energy storage. Concerns center on forcing the hand of CCA procurement. Status: On May 30 the bill was ordered to the inactive file on request of Senator Bradford.
SB 774 (Stern) – Two-year bill. SB 774 would require IOUs to collaborate with the State’s Office of Emergency of Services and others to identify where back-up electricity sources may provide increased electrical distribution grid resiliency and would allow the IOUs to file applications with the CPUC to invest in, and deploy, microgrids to increase resiliency. Concerns focus on too much control being placed in the hands of the IOUs over microgrid development when other LSEs and stakeholders can and should play a role. Status: At the request of the author, SB 774 was placed in the inactive file on July 8.
For the complete list of bills we are monitoring click HERE. Next CPX legislation update will be on Thursday, August 8.
Click HERE for a summary of the 2018 legislative session.
Click HERE for a summary of the 2017 legislative session.
Click HERE for a summary of the 2015-16 legislative session.
Community Choice Law
The two pieces of legislation that make Community Choice possible in California are AB 117 (Migden, 2002) and SB 790 (Leno, 2011). AB 117 established Community Choice and SB 790 strengthened it by creating a “code of conduct” that the incumbent utilities must adhere to in their activities relative to Community Choice.
Community Choice law, Assembly Bill 117 (Migden), enacted in 2002, can be found in the California Public Utilities Code sections 331.1,381.1, 707 and Code Sections 360 through 380.5. Scroll down to code section 366.2, where the main body of information describing Community Choice can be found. Community Choice law was conceived as a way to salvage a good part of the deregulation experiment of the late 1990s and early 2000s, choice.
Keeping track of Community Choice-related Legislation
In any given legislative year there are bills that either directly relate to Community Choice, or may impact Community Choice in some way. Please let us know if you are aware of a bill that has bearing on Community Choice that should be highlighted here.
The official California legislation tracking website is: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ This is where you can find out about the status of any bill and subscribe to updates on specific bills.
Another excellent tool is the Advanced Energy Legislation Tracker that can be used to find energy-related bills in California, other states, and at the federal level.
To find out who your California representatives are visit this handy site: http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
Having a hard time understanding the lingo? Try this glossary of common legislative terms.