Stunt or first step? Inside California’s last-minute effort to cut electricity bills and improve clean energy – Times-Standard

The Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom have significantly scaled back their last-minute plans to lower California’s electricity bills and speed up renewable energy projects.

Many experts said the proposed measures amount to a political gesture or, at best, a small first step toward solving problems, rather than specific, comprehensive actions that would provide financial relief to Californians or speed up the implementation of solar and wind projects.

A major proposal to address California’s rising electricity bills would give every household a small, one-time credit of $30 to $70, according to a person familiar with the bill. The measure would save about $500 million, which would come from cuts to utility programs that help low-income residents and schools.

It is unclear whether the chaotic, radical approach will win approval from the legislature by Saturday, the deadline for approving all bills for the year.

For weeks, top lawmakers and the governor’s advisers have been negotiating a series of proposals aimed at solving California’s twin clean energy problems: meeting its clean, emission-free energy mandate and lowering electricity bills that are among the highest in the nation.

As of Wednesday evening, state leaders had introduced six bills addressing electricity costs and renewable energy project implementation.

Environmental groups, clean energy companies and consumer advocates have mixed feelings about all of these solutions, with some saying they are largely ineffective and others saying they are a good first step.

Loretta Lynch, an environmental consultant and former chairwoman of the California Public Utilities Commission, told CalMatters that customer bills are rising because the commission continues to greenlight rate increases. The Assembly measure won’t address the biggest cost drivers for consumers, she said.

“Last-minute, behind-the-scenes, gut-and-replace deals don’t address the root causes of California’s incredibly high energy bills,” she said. “Instead, they rob Peter to pay Paul — taking critical funds away from programs that operate to create the appearance of reducing (consumer) bills.”

But Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, supported the measures, saying they were “an important first step toward affordable energy for all Californians.” He called lowering costs for ratepayers an urgent priority because the state is at risk of losing public support for clean energy.

Molly Croll, director of Pacific offshore wind for American Clean Power, a renewable energy industry group, said she was surprised by the proposed upgrade and had no position on it because it wasn’t something the industry lobbied the Legislature for. “We had no information,” she said, echoing comments from other renewable energy groups.

Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire, a Democrat from Santa Rosa, told CalMatters he would try again next year with more proposals.

“It’s a two-year effort,” he said. “Anything that matters in life, anything big and bold, takes time. But we’re committed.”

Electricity bills in California have nearly doubled over the past decade as the state’s largest utilities have shifted spending to reducing wildfire risk and rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels. Rates are expected to continue to outpace inflation through 2027.

Two measures by Irvine Democrat Rep. Cottie Petrie-Norris aimed at lowering energy bills were introduced Wednesday night by cutting and amending two unrelated bills.

House Bill 3121 would require ratepayers to receive funds — reportedly amounting to a one-time amount of $30 to $70 per household — from several energy programs for consumers in areas served by Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

It includes a program to upgrade heating and air conditioning systems in schools and two programs to help low-income Californians save on their energy bills through incentives to install solar panels and rebates for energy storage.

Supporters of the programs say the proposed cuts would hurt low-income Californians and children while reducing utility bills only by a negligible amount.

“This is a senseless decision that does nothing to address the systemic (energy) affordability crisis that we face,” said Stephanie Seidmon, program director for UndauntedK12, a nonprofit that helps public schools transition to clean energy. “It feels more like a political stunt, and it’s unthinkable that we would do this to our children, staff members and teachers who come to schools that are not always safe environments to learn and work in.”

Jennifer Robison, a spokeswoman for Pacific Gas & Electric, said the company has not taken a position on AB 3121 but supports refunding customers from the programs.

“PG&E shares the Legislature’s and Governor’s desire to make energy bills more affordable for our customers. We are working to stabilize bills and limit average annual bill increases to no more than 3% through 2026,” she said in a statement. She said the company “has adopted company-wide cost-saving initiatives to reduce our operating costs and curb unnecessary expenses” and is “supporting customers with ways to reduce their energy use and bills.”

The second legislative proposal, House Bill 3264, would require the Public Utility Commission to study how to reduce the costs of expanding transmission capacity and report to the Legislature on energy efficiency programs funded through consumer utility bills.

Two other Senate bills address utility costs. Senate Bill 1003 would help address the cost of wildfire protection plans for utilities, supporters said, and Senate Bill 1142 would prevent power shutoffs for ratepayers who agree to payment plans.

The Senate has moved forward with a much-scaled version of the Renewable Energy Project Acceleration Proposal, which was intended to streamline and help solar, offshore wind, battery storage and other renewable energy projects.

Senate Bill 1272 would allow the California Energy Commission to adopt a general environmental impact report that assesses potential impacts common to a wide range of clean energy projects. This approach allows developers to rely on the analysis in most cases, saving time and money.

Renewable energy advocates have asked for more time to develop better legislation, saying the bill “raises more questions than it answers.”

Instead, clean energy groups wanted the state to update its tax code to align with federal rules that would allow them to take advantage of renewable energy tax credits that are part of the Biden administration’s inflation-reduction bill without having to tax them as income.

“We appreciate the intent to facilitate project streamlining, which is definitely needed, but it deserves more discussion,” Shannon Eddy, executive director of the Large-scale Solar Association, told CalMatters. “What clean energy projects need at this time is tax compliance.”

According to a previous CalMatters report, McGuire has backed away from proposals that would have created tax breaks, streamlined local and state permitting and granted “as a matter of law” approval to developers building in areas already zoned for them, eliminating the need for local approvals.

The proposal to consolidate the process by creating a “one-stop shop” system that would consolidate applications, hearings and decision-making was also abandoned.

McGuire told CalMatters that creating tax breaks was difficult because of the state’s large fiscal deficit. He said he would restore the rest of the funds next year.

To meet ambitious greenhouse gas emissions goals, California must obtain 60 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045. Californians pay the highest energy bills in continental America.

Another proposed measure, Senate Bill 1420, would allow hydrogen plants to take advantage of certain improvements under the California Environmental Quality Act. One environmental group, California Environmental Voters, said it would oppose the measure because it could open the door to a ramp-up of fossil-fuel-powered hydrogen plants.

It was unclear Thursday whether either bill would be put to a vote by Saturday — or whether it would pass — given the tense negotiations and lawmakers’ competing priorities.

Newsom warned legislative leaders he would call a special session to address energy issues if Senate Bill 950 on gas prices is not passed — a prospect that state Senate leader McGuire has publicly opposed. A spokesman for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas declined to comment.

Originally published: August 30, 2024 at 9:43 AM