❒ Critics in Benicia, across state say measure would hurt Community Choice Aggregation

If Assembly Bill 2145 passes, electricity customers living where a community choice aggregation program is forming would have to apply for membership. Under current California law, they’re included automatically unless they ask to be excluded — to “opt out.”

That change is significant enough that the League of Cities has spoken out against the bill, saying it could make the challenge of forming a CCA nearly insurmountable.

Benicia City Council voted 4-1 Tuesday to join the League in opposition to the bill, with Councilmember Mark Hughes casting the single “no” vote.

Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, who asked the Council to consider opposing AB 2145, said most states that allow CCAs to compete against investor-owned utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric have clear “opt-out” provisions.

In California, such programs must inform affected customers, conduct hearings and assure that existing utility customers understand they would become CCA customers unless they request exclusion.

Patterson and other supporters said CCAs have been formed to provide customers with electricity from cleaner sources than those used by commercial utilities.

Even Hughes acknowledged that under Marin County’s CCA program, Marin Clean Energy, rates are no higher than PG&E’s for those who enroll in the plan that obtains half its electricity from renewable sources. Rates are a few dollars higher if the CCA customer chooses to have all the electricity to come from “clean” sources.

A California League of Cities’ legislative representative, Jason Rhine, already has written a letter opposing the bill, authored by Assemblymember Steven Bradford, D-Gardena.

Rhine wrote that the League didn’t understand the need to change from “opt out” to “opt in.”

He reminded Bradford that the League worked with, among others, former Assemblymember Carol Migden to pass Assembly Bill 117 that let cities and counties form CCAs with the opt-out provision, and that the final version of the bipartisan bill was approved unanimously.

He wrote that the law provides for extensive public notice and due process to give utility customers “multiple opportunities over a minimum four-month public noticing process” to excuse themselves from participating in a CCA program.

The law as written “helps level the playing field for small CCAs attempting to compete in a highly competitive market,” he wrote.

Kathy Kerridge, a member of Benicia’s Community Sustainability Commission, said PG&E gets 19 percent of its energy from renewable sources. “That’s better than some utilities, and by law, they have to do more,” she said.

She said area CCAs “use PG&E for infrastructure and gas, and the bill comes from PG&E.” The only difference, she said, is that a box on the bill states that the power is coming from the CCA.

“You can choose to stay with PG&E,” she said.

Sustainability Commission Chairperson Constance Beutel said CCAs were “the single most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas.” She reminded the Council that in the next six years, Benicia must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 206,000 metric tons a year.

While those who have formed CCAs in other areas have said Benicia likely can’t afford to start one on its own, the city either could make the $35,000 application to join an existing program or collaborate with Solano County and its cities in starting a new CCA.

“Leave our options open,” Marilyn Bardet, a resident known for her environmental advocacy, said before the Council. “(AB) 2145 only benefits PG&E.”

Bardet explained that if that bill is passed, CCA organizers may be unable to generate enough participation to make a program economically feasible. “Opt-out is the only way to get the critical mass,” she said. The bill “is the hijacking of community choice.”

Hughes reminded the Council he retired from PG&E a year ago, adding, “I speak as a city official.”

He said, “I’m all for choice. I’m all for individual choice.” Just as he didn’t want the city to tell him which Internet or cable television provider to use, “If Community Choice is so good, we should be able to sell it,” he said.

Hughes explained he would rather let individuals decide than have the city declare customers would be changed to a CCA source unless the individuals announce they want to stay with PG&E.

“We’re saying, ‘This is the best for you, and you have to opt out.’ We have a letter from a man in Marin who said he had a heck of a time opting out.”

That letter was from Harry Newhall, who wrote, “I have had direct experience with the program in Marin (County).”

In his note to City Manager Brad Kilger, Newhall wrote, “I was enrolled in this new program without my knowledge, my bills tripled, and when I became aware of what happened, they told me the period to opt out had closed.”

Newhall said getting reestablished as a PG&E client, which he has done, “was a lot of hard work … requiring much red tape, letters and phone calls.”

Patterson said when the state was considering whether to allow the formation of CCA programs, PG&E spent $46 million to oppose the effort, “compared to the $100,000 the other side spent. That’s an unlevel playing field. That’s why it doesn’t work,” she said. “CCA faces daunting obstacles.”

Councilmember Christina Strawbridge and Beutel compared the introduction of CCAs to the early days of the breakup of the telephone company monopoly.

“In the early stages, you still had to go to Pac Bell. I don’t know if this is the same with PG&E,” Strawbridge said. However, she said, “It sounds like a lot of education is part of this.”

“I’m not as passionate about alternative energy,” Councilmember Alan Schwartzman said, “but it’s clear to me it’s the right thing to do.”

He called the League of Cities’ position “compelling — and I agree with it on this one.”