Part 2: AB 2145, What it is Now

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 2: The Fans and Foes of AB 2145

In my last post, we saw how the “opt in” provision in California AB 2145 threatened to kill the future of Community Choice Aggregators (CCA’s) across the state. The bill, with this hazardous provision, sped through the legislature without controversy until abruptly amended in the Senate. There, the “opt in” provision was removed and it seemed the worst was over. Yet, for those monitoring the path of AB 2145s through the legislature, the confusion certainly wasn’t.

Why is it that a bill with such obvious consequence should fly through one legislative body and then completely reform in another?

For the answer, look no further than the list of the bill’s few original supporters: PG&E and 3 prominent labor unions.   PG&E already proved their determination to stop CCA’s at all costs, when they spent $46 million in 2010 on a ballot measure that would have made CCA formation near impossible. With their economic clout, the power of their influence comes as no surprise. Labor union opposition is also unsurprising as CCA’s are frequently framed as a threat to the traditional utility employer despite the fact that CCA’s have so far been shown to increase jobs, not lose them.

Interestingly, in a blog post published by the Labor Union International Brotherhood of Electricity Workers (IBEW), jobs were not mentioned.   Criticisms instead centered on the issue of transparency and complaints that Marin Clean Energy, the first California CCA, over reported its benefits.  Whether or not these complaints have merit, a call for increased transparency seems reasonable at first. However, at the end of this post is a link to sign a petition with the title, “Support AB 2145: Stop Shell Oil from Automatically Enrolling Thousands of Californians in their Dirty Energy Program.” This accusation came out of left field following this moderate post, nowhere in the article was Shell Oil even mentioned.

Comments following the petition link included the likes of, “I believe that clean energy is the only way to go“ and “I want to stop our collective planetary suicide,” feedback you'd expect to find at NO2145.org, a site run by the Climate Protection Campaign not a petition in support of the monopoly protection bill. It goes without saying; the petition was misleading the public into signing something with dire consequences for community choice, local power and clean energy under false pretenses of environmental protection.

In the Assembly as well, AB 2145 rode through under false pretenses. Supporters again called for transparency. Assemblyman Bradford repeated the mantra: “community choice, not community force”. Almost all of the supporters of AB 2145 claimed they supported CCAs provided they were reformed. Yet, none of the supporters realistically addressed the detriment that the “opt in” provision would have on future CCAs (essentially stopping them before they start) nor the fact that rate payers already have no choice in regards to their energy without CCAs. Opposition brought to light these and other problems with AB 2145 but it fell on deaf ears in the Assembly, which passed the bill 41 to 12 on May 28^th. CCAs were dying while the Assembly was pretending to protect “community choice.”

Woody Hastings, from the Climate Protection Campaign, asserts that misinformation about CCAs pushed forward by the PG&E and its labor union IBEW was rampant in the Assembly. It was these lies and Assemblyman Bradford’s political clout as Chair of the Utilities and Commerce committee that enabled the bill’s smooth ride through the Assembly.

In regards to transparency, Hastings said that despite PG&E’s unfounded attack on CCAs, he supported a provision in the original bill that required a uniform accounting system for greenhouse gas emissions. Uniform emission reporting would ensure data was accurate and comparable. Unfortunately, in another show of Sacramento politics, that provision was amended out early in the process, to avoid the Senate Environmental Quality Committee where the bill would likely have died.

PG&E and AB 2145 political allies met their match however, when a list of local governments, businesses and nonprofits in opposition to AB 2145 quickly ballooned from 140 to 200. The opposition united and earned its own political influence. Senator Alex Padilla stated in late June, “for the last, literally weeks, my office has been in recite of phone calls, faxes, email, notes being dropped off, you name it, expressing concerns about the ‘opt in’ vs ‘opt out’ provision of the bill in print. That was sort of loud and clear.” What was loud and clear during the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications committee meeting on June 23^rd was that organized, persistent and targeted action of a populous could not be ignored. There the “opt in” provision was finally pushed out of the bill.

With “opt in” dead, the question now becomes how much opposition towards AB 2145 is left and will it be strong enough to go head to head with continued PG&E support?

Interested in hearing more about the battle over AB 2145? Stay tuned for my third and final blog post as we look at what’s left in the bill and what it means for Orange County. Until then, feel free to learn more at http://www.no2145.org/

~Marla