California Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) came under serious attack late last week with a pair of new bills, AB 726 and AB 813, and proposed amendments to groundbreaking renewable energy legislation SB 100. CCA is a state-legislated method by which communities can enjoy greater local control over their electricity purchases by pooling together to form their own electric utilities. The current attacks would effectively freeze new CCA development in the state (wasting the millions of taxpayer dollars already invested in their creation), cripple existing CCAs, and open California's energy regulatory system to manipulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)—which Trump is busy staffing with fossil fuel advocates. These actions are linked to backdoor dealings by energy provider PacifiCorp, the parent company of which is run by billionaire Warren Buffett.
PacifiCorp generates about 70% of its power from fossil fuels and has large wind farms in Wyoming and Idaho, and this appears to be a tactic to boost PacifiCorp's sales. Governor Jerry Brown and Buffett have been working for years to annex PacifiCorp to the California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO), and this new bill would allow them, through CAISO, to tap into lucrative regional markets with state sponsorship. Supporters argue that this will increase California’s grid reliability and help it take advantage of solar and wind tax credits due to expire soon. While these are laudable goals, rushing through highly controversial legislation controlling a multi-billion dollar market without sufficient time for scrutiny is not an appropriate solution.
URGENT ACTION: Email your elected representatives and tell them to VOTE NO on AB 726 and AB 813.
CCAs, with their emphasis on local economic benefits and local renewable energy development, provide PacifiCorp with little opportunity for sales since most of PacifiCorp's renewable energy resources lie out of state. These new bills would require California’s investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to enter into long-term energy purchase contracts with out-of-state sellers—like PacifiCorp—and allow them to pass on the high costs to CCA customers. The two bills, proposed under the guise of expanding and strengthening California's renewable energy market, in reality fundamentally undermine CCAs—one of the best chances the state has of reaching the ambitious renewable energy goals set forth under SB 100.
California has a history of heavy-handed regulatory interference with the IOUs following the Enron disaster, which has largely created high tension between CCAs and IOUs by requiring the IOUs to lock themselves into costly long-term energy contracts. This new legislation is very similar in that it requires the IOUs to undertake long-term renewable energy contracts that will be costlier than the short-term contracts favored by CCAs. The first generation of long-term contract mandates resulted in the levying of “exit fees” upon CCA customers by the IOUs to compensate the IOUs for the high prices the contracts required them to take on. These exit fees have been a source of fierce debate in the state government and a major obstacle to CCA development. This new round of state-mandated purchasing would supercharge these exit fees to the point where CCAs may be priced out of the market altogether.
While this move may benefit corporations like PacifiCorp (and billionaires like Buffett), it does not benefit the renewable energy future of California or its residents. This is a clear push away from the democratic, local benefit model of CCA in favor of centralized, profit-driven market manipulation.
Big Energy took California for a ride once already. It's time to let local communities pave a new path toward a clean energy future.
You can use the form on Greenpower’s website to tell your legislators to VOTE NO on AB 726 and AB 813 and let California’s communities continue to make their own clean energy choices.