UPDATED: CPUC Bias Against Community Choice (January 2019)

This update of our 2016 “CPUC Bias” paper documents the continuing pattern of imbalanced decisions against Community Choice, made by a CPUC undeniably protective of the monopoly utilities.   Despite California law that requires a level playing field and neutrality among electricity providers, the CPUC has repeatedly ignored statutory guidance and its own precedent to rule in favor of the utilities …

Backgrounder: Roll Back the CPUC Attack on Community Choice (January 2019)

The CPUC has long been taking decisions that disadvantage Community Choice vis a vis the investor-owned utilities (see “CPUC Bias” papers).  Now, in the aftermath of October’s devastating PCIA decision, the Alliance has committed to fighting back.  This Backgrounder outlines the basis for the “Roll Back the Attack” Campaign, the damage already inflicted on specific Community Choice programs, and what’s …

Our Position on the IOU Code of Conduct (October 2018)

The IOU Code of Conduct requires the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to be neutral about Community Choice.  The Code spells out how this neutrality must be maintained, especially regarding the use of rate-payer funds.  In early 2018, however, the IOUs filed a “Petition to Modify” the Code, to remove all restrictions against lobbying with rate-payer funds.  This paper explains the Code’s …

Our Position on Expanding Direct Access – SB 237 (July 2018)

SB 237 proposes to allow all non-residential electricity customers to procure from private electricity suppliers, under what’s known as Direct Access (DA). Opening up DA would undermine the financial viability of Community Choice programs, placing all their public benefits at risk. Our position argues that expanding DA undermines our climate progress by harming the Community Choice programs that have made …

Our Position on CAISO Regional Expansion – AB 813 (May 2018)

Regional expansion 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 …

Our Position on Customer Choice (November 2017)

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. Click to Download PDF  

Our Position on Resolution E-4907 (December 2017)

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. Click to …

Our Position on AB813 (September 2017)

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.  Click to Download PDF  

Our Position On Utility Grade Energy Services (October 2017)

Reaction to the rapid expansion of Community Choice programs has challenged new and existing programs to offer more sophisticated energy procurement and risk management strategies. This paper examines an approach that shows potential for helping to optimize benefits while managing regulatory and market uncertainties. Click to Download PDF