A 3 Part Look at AB 2145: What it was, What it is Now and Why it Matters

California Assembly Bill 2145 makes various amendments to the rules of forming and running a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) which is a local, public power utility that serves as an alternative electricity supply to monopoly power companies. AB 2145 was introduced to committee in February but obtained recent infamy after it passed the Assembly floor in late May.  While AB 2145 has gone through many modifications some of the proposed amendments include limiting the size of CCAs, increasing their reporting requirements and the most controversial, removing CCA’s status as the default provider for municipality electricity once approved. Proponents of the bill claim that CCA reforms are fair and necessary to ensure transparency while those in opposition say the “reforms” will cripple CCAs in order to protect existing monopolies. Whatever you’re opinion, the bill’s transformation through the legislature is worth a closer look. Its path may have critical implications about where the power truly lies in legislation. Spoiler alert: it might not be where you think!

In my three part piece I will examine what the bill might have done, the factors that effected its creation and how what’s left will affect community choice for years to come. Stay tuned!

Part 1: Bad Bill Defanged

Two weeks ago proponents of local jobs and clean energy across CA gave a collective cheer as AB 2145, dubbed the Monopoly Protection Bill, was robbed of its most threatening clause. The bill was viewed as an end to Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) which are the beloved alternative to monopoly generated power.

As it stands right now, CCA serve as an alternative to monopoly produced, no-choice electricity. Instead of accepting power from the region’s mega-utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) or San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) small governments have the opportunity to switch the provider of their constituent’s energy to a CCA, a small public agency that buys electricity from mostly local suppliers. CCA micro-utility generally have the mechanisms to provide electricity that is more locally produced, more renewable and more cost effective than the state regulated mega-utility.  Sound to good to be true?

Well, the secret to their success lies in 2 little words “opt out.” When a CCA is voted in, the surrounding community is automatically switched so the CCA becomes their default provider and rate payers are allowed to “opt out” if they want to return to the monopoly generated electricity. Having thousands of guaranteed customers gives CCA’s the economy of scale they need for their micro to compete against a larger, established competitor.

Since the opt-out provision came to CA in 2002 two successful CCA’s have launched, first in Marin County and second in Sonoma County.  Today, upwards of 6 more projects are on the table. While not without their controversy, CCA’s are viewed by many as a critical and innovative tool in the fight against climate change through competition.

Yet, if AB 2145 passed the senate in the form that it passed the Assembly, the magic of the CCA would have fizzled. 62nd district Assemblyman Steven Bradford sponsored the bill with an “opt in” clause that would have forced each member of the community with an approved CCA to send in notice that they wanted to opt into the CCA.  Imagine trying to get every person to not only pay attention to their mail, but to actively respond to it! Eric Brooks of the San Francisco Green Party speaks for the more than 200 organizations listed on the bill as opponents who say that this provision would kill any CCA before it even started.

Of course, Assemblyman Bradford doesn't see it like that. According to Bradford, this bill is entirely different than Prop 16, a failed CA ballot measure pushed forward by PG&E that would have required a super majority (2/3 vote) to form a CCA. Yet proposition 16 would have at least left CCAs in the hands of citizens responsible enough to vote, not to entire populations over-busy and overburdened with junk mail. Jamie Tuckey, communications director of the CCA Marin Clean Energy, says that expecting that type of initiative out of the populous is unrealistic, no matter how much “climate zeal” they have.

Even so, Bradford maintains that his 4 year stint in the Conservation Core outweighs his previous employment for Southern California Edison and proves that Ab 2145 was not about monopoly protection at all, but transparency and choice! This of course, assuming that Californians had a choice in the current system of power company monopolies.

Regardless of Bradford’s intentions, it’s pretty clear that AB 2145, as it passed through the Assembly, was a CCA-Kill Bill. Lucky for CCA supporters everywhere, the “opt in” clause is now off the table.  With that most controversial piece amended out, it’s anyone’s guess if the bill will pass the Senate or what it will mean for CCA’s if it does. But I am getting ahead of myself! Stay tuned for my next installment as I look at how that dangerous clause made it so far through the CA legislator and what eventually brought it down!

~Marla