Legislative

Regionalization of the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) is not about creating a regional market, which we already have. It is about the governance of CAISO: essentially, changing control of the regional market and the resulting system of costs and benefits. California would no longer determine its own energy policy destiny, but would become a minority player within a western regional authority dominated by coal interests, an authority that is able to override California's interests. This position paper lays out why CAISO regionalization is a serious threat to Community Choice energy programs and must be opposed.

In a stealth attack on Community Choice, the CPUC will vote on January 11 on a draconian resolution that would freeze new Community Choice programs. Our take? Further evidence that the CPUC is doing the IOUs' bidding to halt, delay or otherwise strangle local programs. We argue that the resolution constitutes biased regulatory overreach and should be withdrawn.

Calls for a NO vote on this measure which would require investor-owned utilities to procure long-term renewable energy contracts at today's rates, then pass those costs on to Community Choice customers.

Calls for a YES vote on SB 692, which will make local renewable projects more competitive, leveling the playing field by ensuring proper allocation of transmission access charges to Community Choice programs based on their actual usage. Please See: SB-692 Background Information

Calls for a NO vote on SB 618, which would tie the hands of Community Choice energy programs by putting approval of their integrated resource plans in the hands of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), an agency that has demonstrated strong bias towards monopoly utilities and against Community Choice.

Opposes Assembly Bill 1110 as a convoluted, confusing, and biased prescription for reporting greenhouse gas emissions by retail energy suppliers in California.

Regulatory

The Investor-Owned Utilities have attacked the central feature of the Code of Conduct, by petitioning the CPUC to remove the prohibition against lobbying with ratepayer funds. The Background paper describes the origin of the Code of Conduct and the history of IOU violations, CCA complaints and CPUC inaction.

Responds to the CPUC's October 2017 workshop on "California Customer Choice." Enumerates the many ways in which California's approach to customer choice--centered on Community Choice energy programs--provides a more compelling model of competition, community engagement, and consumer protection than the failed retail market approach adopted in the 1990s.

State law requires that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) support Community Choice programs and enforce utility cooperation with such programs. Yet the CPUC has repeatedly flouted this imperative, as detailed in this report, exhibiting a bias against Community Choice in favor of monopoly utilities.

Proposes an urgent fix for the current Transmission Access Charge (TAC) market distortion. This distortion inhibits vital, community-based renewable energy development and severely limits the benefits that Community Choice programs can deliver to the communities they serve.

Opposes a proposal adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission which allows San Diego Gas & Electric to circumvent California's Community Choice law by setting up a separate division to market against Community Choice initiatives.

Calls for sunsetting the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA)--an ongoing charge to Community Choice customers imposed by the monopoly utilities to recover the costs of energy that these utilities procured for customers who have departed to Community Choice programs.