Electricity prices are shocking the lawmakers who voted for them

Presented by

With help from Jordan Wolman, Camille von Kaenel, Alex Nieves and Blanca Begert

ELECTRIC POLITICS: California lawmakers are getting burned by the very utility bills they voted to increase for their wealthy constituents.

A cadre of coastal Democrats is pushing to repeal a fee that would drive up utility bills for some middle- and high-income customers. Lawmakers ordered it up two years ago in part to cover the costs of adapting to climate change.

“My constituents are pissed off,” Menlo Park Assemblymember Marc Berman said at a press conference this morning on Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin‘s AB 1999. “I know because they told me over and over again at every community coffee that I had in the fall and in the winter [that] their rates keep going up.”

Berman voted for the fee in 2022. What’s changed?

The support for Irwin’s proposal reflects the intensifying political pressure lawmakers face to do something about utility bills that have shot up by as much as 127 percent over the last decade. The bills incorporate climate-driven costs such as burying power lines to reduce wildfire risks and building out infrastructure that will be needed to electrify cars and homes to wean the state off carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

AB 205, passed in 2022, was intended to spread the costs more equitably. It authorized the California Public Utilities Commission to create a new fee that would vary with income, costing wealthier people the most, while reducing the price for each kilowatt of electricity everyone uses. The legislation specified that the change must reduce overall bills for low-income residents.

It hasn’t taken effect yet — the CPUC is still weighing competing proposals and has a June deadline to settle on one. Utilities are pitching some of the largest fees, at up to $50 per month.

But lawmakers representing wealthier, coastal areas of the state are freaking out now.

“The CPUC needs to withdraw this proposal,” said San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener, who also voted for AB 205. “Come back with a proposal that actually works for California, that focuses our utilities on being safe, providing reliable electricity without continually jacking up rates.”

When asked why they had reversed course on their own order to the CPUC, Irwin — who hails from Thousand Oaks — said it was tucked in a catch-all energy spending bill that was introduced late in the legislative process with little time for deliberation.

“This should’ve had a discussion in both houses, a thorough and robust discussion,” she said. “Policy decisions should not be made at the PUC.”

The PUC’s ratepayer advocacy arm said lawmakers have it backwards: Failing to implement the fixed charge would bring their fears to pass.

“It will cause utility rates to increase unsustainably, it will push more people into arrearage, and it will create enormous headwinds for our efforts to electrify the economy,” said Matt Baker, director of the Public Advocates Office.

A spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom said he was looking forward to seeing a CPUC proposal in line with AB 205.

“California must combat climate change by rapidly expanding the use of clean electricity in our vehicles and buildings, while at the same time making it more affordable for low-income Californians,” Alex Stack said in an email. — WV

Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here!

CHAMBER CLAPS BACK: Business groups that fought hard against California’s most ambitious climate bills last session are back for more.

National heavyweights like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Farm Bureau Federation joined forces Tuesday in a new lawsuit with CalChamber and other state groups to try to overturn the state’s nation-leading climate disclosure laws that Newsom signed last year, SB253 and SB261.

The laws will compel thousands of large corporations operating in the state to disclose their carbon footprints and climate-related financial risks, including controversial Scope 3 emissions.

But the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, claims that the laws violate the First Amendment by compelling speech on a “controversial” issue and that California is attempting to act as a de facto national emissions regulator.

“These new climate reporting laws are far from cost-effective and they will not have any notable impact on climate change,” CalChamber CEO and President Jennifer Barrera said in a statement.

It sets the stage for a big legal fight over California’s ability to require these disclosures from hefty polluters — and is likely to reverberate beyond the state as others seek to follow suit.

Wiener, who sponsored SB253, said in a statement that the lawsuit amounts to “straight up climate denial.”

Newsom, who’s expressed some reservations about the implementation timeline and costs for businesses for SB 253, is “in the process of reviewing” the lawsuit, Stack said in a statement. Newsom’s recent budget proposal didn’t include funds for the California Air Resources Board to begin rulemaking.

POWER PLAY: In other 253/261 news, Wiener and Sen. Henry Stern, author of SB261, clarified today in a letter to the Senate Daily Journal that utility companies based outside of the state whose sole interaction with California is selling power into the state don’t need to comply with the disclosure laws.

The letter is in response to questions the lawmakers said they’ve received on whether such companies need to comply.

One of those companies is Idaho Power, a utility that sells into California and is considering broader ties as part of the California Independent System Operator’s day-ahead electricity market.

Brad Bowlin, a spokesperson for Idaho Power, said the laws could discourage it from seeking closer trading ties with California.

“This legislation, if enforced, could add significant costs to our participation, and that will certainly be part of our analysis moving forward,” he said in an email. — JW

SALMON TRUCKER HAT: Newsom played up his salmon-preserving bona fides today with the release of a 37-page document outlining both new and ongoing state efforts to protect the iconic fishery from habitat loss and warming temperatures.

The steps include the in-process removal of dams along the Klamath River, Eel River and Matilija Creek as well as the construction of fish ladders and restoration of floodplains and streams.

Environmental and fishing groups remain skeptical. Scott Artis, the executive director of the Golden State Salmon Association, long at odds with Newsom over dropping salmon numbers and his plan to pipe more water south via the Delta Conveyance Project, isn’t won over quite yet.

“What it potentially boils down to is conveniently timed smoke and mirrors,” Artis said.

He sees promise in Newsom’s strategy: He called it “full of good stuff,” pointing specifically to increased production from hatcheries and measures to protect salmon in the Feather River, where hot temperatures threaten an important stronghold in the Sacramento Valley.

“We need to make sure that these things actually go forward because the track record so far has been lackluster,” Artis said.

Redgie Collins, the legal and policy director of California Trout, is looking for funding in the budget and a proposed climate bond.

“If we fund these efforts listed in this document, and we do it on the timeline associated with it, then it would be very easy to call Gov. Newsom a salmon champion in the state,” he said. — CvK

HIT THE BRAKES: A Democratic state lawmaker is moving to stop local governments from banning the construction of new gas stations.

Sen. Aisha Wahab, a Bay Area Democrat, introduced SB 983 late Monday night. It would direct the California Energy Commission to produce a study by January 2027 on retail gas stations and non-fossil-fuel infrastructure like electric vehicle chargers and hydrogen fueling stations — and block cities and counties from stopping the construction of both gas stations and zero-emission infrastructure until that study is completed.

It comes as a growing number of cities nationally consider gas station bans, a movement that began in 2021 when the Sonoma County city of Petaluma passed its moratorium.

Wahab’s bill acknowledges the state needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also raises concerns about the economic future of the state’s more than 10,000 retail gas stations. Around 95 percent of those gas stations are operated by small business owners, predominantly immigrants. — AN

SNOW MAN: The face of California’s snow surveys has moved to a new role: Sean de Guzman is now leading flood operations for the Department of Water Resources.

He started Jan. 2 but still showed up for today’s snow survey at Phillips Station, measuring stick in hand, to brief the public about the snowpack (which is at only 52 percent of average) and mention his new role.

Will he be back for next month’s survey? “You’ll have to tune in,” said department spokesperson Ryan Endean. — CvK

— The Surfrider Foundation gave California an A in its annual State of the Beach report. Meanwhile, 22 coastal states got a C for their response to sea-level rise.

— California’s over depleted aquifer situation is dire — but groundwater management can make a difference, shows a study in Nature.

— Patagonia gave $500,000 this month to the campaign to stop neighborhood oil drilling in California.