Break up PG&E?

By Sam Maslin : sfchronicle – excerpt

We should first try fixing the California Public Utilities Commission

As we gear up for the 2026 election season, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is in the crosshairs. Tom Steyer is running for governor and loudly vowing to “break up” the electric utilities. Meanwhile, in the San Francisco congressional race to replace Nancy Pelosi, all three major candidates — Scott WeinerSaikat Chakrabarti and Connie Chan — support a takeover of the city’s electric system.

Politicians and voters have every right to be upset at PG&E. Rates have gone through the roof as the company has presided over a string of deadly failures and costly outages. But moves to take over the grid should give us pause. San Francisco City Hall, with pressing challenges and its own history of mismanagement, seems ill-equipped to launch an electric utility, and advocates of municipal power are often unrealistic about what would be involved. There are better ways to get the electric system we want.

Here’s the thing: The large investor-owned utilities are already publicly controlled. As state-sanctioned monopolies, they are comprehensively regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, which has the responsibility to approve their actions. So if we’re unhappy with the utilities, why don’t we just try regulating them better?

We should be asking much more of the five members of the commission, who are appointed by the governor. As a developer of solar and energy storage projects in California, I have seen firsthand how our regulators have failed to produce effective energy policy or to provide even a modest check on the utilities.

The truth is, the commission has not been meeting the moment…

Now’s the time for a fresh start. Leadership is turning over at the commission, and we’ll soon elect a new governor who will appoint new regulators. As voters, we should be asking pointed questions and demanding better results.

Can we unpack the rate increases? How are costs categorized, and do we agree? What returns are utilities receiving on their investments, and are they appropriate? Are there more cost-effective solutions to grid challenges that aren’t being considered? How can we empower communities to develop the next generation of energy assets?…

Let’s organize with our neighbors — using existing groups and forming new ones. Let’s take a hard look at utility profits and, in this era of budget cuts and hard choices, insist that they do belt-tightening just like the rest of us. Let’s increase the pace of energy development and fight for the right to develop local resources to prevent future blackouts, just as PG&E has.

We should be unabashed about these goals with the incoming governor’s administration. We want a transformed utility system and intend to work effectively across the different stakeholders to effect real change. Of course, we can always keep a city takeover in our back pocket…

Ultimately, there isn’t one solution to our energy woes. The grid is a large, multilayered system, and we have to do many things at scale to ensure that we have the energy we need over the coming years. But having regulators who recognize the urgency of the situation is a must, and right now, we don’t.

So we can keep talking about a long-term breakup with PG&E, but let’s recognize that we have the opportunity to demand better outcomes now… (more)

Sam Maslin is CEO of Eddy Energy, a developer of community energy storage projects, and the president of the Noe Valley Democratic Club in San Francisco.

SF takes another step toward public power

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

First report released on buying out PG&E. 

San Francisco is taking another big step on the path to create a municipal public power system, a plan that would reduce carbon emissions, bring in hundreds of millions a year in revenue—and fulfill a legal mandate that dates back to 1913.

The Planning Department just released its Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project, which will come before the commission for a public hearing April 17.

Much of the material in the DEIR is technical, and involves how the city would take over, rebuild, or connect to the Martin Substation on the border with Daly City. That’s the facility that turns high voltage power from the city’s own Hetch Hetchy generating facility and other sources into commercial and residential electricity.

The report suggests several options for that facility, and for the modest amount of trenching that might be needed to connect power lines.

But the real information is here … (read the details online)

The city has asked the state Public Utilities Commission to come up with a number for the value of PG&E’s assets. When that happens (and it keeps getting delayed, now we are hearing 2026), San Francisco can go to court, condemn the property under eminent domain, and buy it at the market price.

None of this will cost the taxpayers a penny, and will have no negative impact on the city budget. The SFPUC can issue revenue bonds, backed only by the projected income from retail electricity sales. There would be zero financial risk to the city; if the project doesn’t pencil out, Wall Street’s not going to buy the bonds anyway.

But the upside is huge, both in terms of clean energy and finances. PG&E has just asked the state PUC to allow it to raise rates, yet again—this time to offer more profit to the shareholders. The Budget Analyst and the Controller would have to run the numbers, but every time I’ve looked at this, the data shows the city would net more than $500 million a year—after paying the interest on the bonds, and paying to move PG&E workers into the city system in the same union at the same pay, and maintaining the lines and every other cost. And rates could be much lower.

Meanwhile, the city could move quickly to encourage solar panels on roofs and develop wind power and head toward a carbon-free grid (more)

As we have noted, the state of California through the SFPUC, is doing everything in its power to encourage big energy companies to raise the utility rates and discourage private solar power production. Please support all the efforts of https://solarrights.org to protect and expand independent solar production in California.

When you consider who to support for the next governor and state representatives, you might consider who is LEAST likely to continue the assault on independent producers and other renewable sources of energy at lower costs to consumers.

The Details of CPUC’s Disastrous Proposal for Updating Net Metering in California

votesolar  – excerpt

Californians: Take action now to protect rooftop solar!

The Background

On December 13, 2021, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued a proposed decision updating solar net metering. Their proposal would create major new barriers for Californians who want to invest in rooftop solar and battery storage. Net metering is a foundational clean energy policy that allows customers with onsite solar to save on their electric bill by receiving a credit for the excess clean energy they send back to the grid.

The popular policy has helped make California the national leader in rooftop solar adoption, with over 1.3 million solar roofs installed statewide. The December 13th proposal would reverse solar progress by decimating solar bill savings for future solar customers, as well as changing the rules on existing solar customers.

The proposed decision has been in the works for a while. The CPUC, which regulates the state’s investor-owned utilities, opened a proceeding to update net metering back in August 2020. Stakeholders including Vote Solar submitted and debated a range of proposed policy changes, which the Commission considered as it developed the 187-page proposal. Now over a year later, the CPUC released the proposal…

Some of the proposal’s most problematic elements include:(more)

California Utilities Will Buy More Energy, Hike Rates to Avoid Blackouts: CPUC

Utilities will be allowed to buy extra energy and pass on the costs to customers in order to avoid a repeat of rolling blackouts that kicked in last summer when demand outpaced supply, California regulators said Thursday.

The California Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously to authorize Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Company to purchase additional power in the next three months.

“Customers deserve a reliable grid, and they deserve a regulatory body that will be mobilized to do everything in its power to ensure that we have one,” commission President Marybel Batjer said…(more)

All the more reason for people to switch to solar power, but, will the CPUC make that more difficult? Find out what California does for and against solar power users how the utilities exert constant pressure on net metering. https://solarrights.org

RELATED:

Utility bosses: If you make us look bad, there’s gonna be trouble

 

She Noticed $200 Million Missing, Then She Was Fired

By Scott Morris, Bay City News Foundation : propublica – excerpt

Alice Stebbins was hired to fix the finances of California’s powerful utility regulator. She was fired after finding $200 million for the state’s deaf, blind and poor residents was missing…

Earlier this year, the governing board of one of California’s most powerful regulatory agencies unleashed troubling accusations against its top employee.

Commissioners with the California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, accused Executive Director Alice Stebbins of violating state personnel rules by hiring former colleagues without proper qualifications. They said the agency chief misled the public by asserting that as much as $200 million was missing from accounts intended to fund programs for the state’s blind, deaf and poor. At a hearing in August, Commission President Marybel Batjer said that Stebbins had discredited the CPUC.

“You took a series of actions over the course of several years that calls into question your integrity,” Batjer told Stebbins, who joined the agency in 2018. Those actions, she said, “cause us to have to consider whether you can continue to serve as the leader of this agency.”…(more)