Since the passage of AB117 in 2002, Californians have been led to believe that powering their homes and businesses was a binary choice to be made between public utilities like PG&E and Community Choice Aggregators promising cleaner energy and lower rates.
But the reality isn’t that simple.
CCAs enable communities to set up their own public entities to purchase power for local residents. In theory, this creates downward pressure on utility rates through increased competition and allows customers to choose even cleaner and more locally produced power.
Unfortunately, CCA theory has proven to be different from reality.
Some CCAs have not only failed to deliver lower rates but have actively undermined California’s stated clean energy goals and economic objectives. Customers have been automatically enrolled in new power programs without their consent, incurring fees if they choose to opt-out. And most CCAs have been set up without any standards related to deceptive marketing of dirty power, investment in local clean power generation or fair labor standards.
For example, California’s first CCA — Marin Clean Energy (MCE) — has been heavily reliant on fossil fuel power, which it procures from Shell Oil of Texas. It uses unbundled renewable energy certificates to pass it off as “clean” energy. Despite startup costs that spiked rates even higher than those charged by PG&E, MCE has failed to invest in local clean power generation and outsourced frontline utility and customer service jobs to poverty-wage contractors.
MCE has attacked anyone who highlights this as anti-CCA. Such assertions are false and undercut any hope of meaningful dialogue about clean power, expanding California’s electrical grid, or creating more high-road energy jobs.
The choice is not just between a CCA or no CCA. For communities that choose a CCA, there is an equally consequential choice to do things what I call “The Right Way to CCA.”
In planning their own CCAs, both San Francisco and Alameda counties had exhaustive public discussions that moved in this direction. Both have taken steps to promote greater transparency as to where their power comes from and have limited the use of unbundled RECs as part of their clean energy portfolio.
This increases the likelihood that CCAs will deliver actual clean energy to their customers.
Alameda has also incorporated language in its proposed CCA Joint Powers Authority agreement that prioritizes investment in local energy generation as well as labor standards that will promote the creation of new middle-class energy jobs.
This last feature is especially important. Whatever you think of traditional utilities, they have invested in the workforce and human capital needed to revitalize California’s energy economy. CCAs should not be actively undermining these standards while claiming the mantle of progressive policy.
Only five California communities have functioning CCAs today. And while others have explored the possibility before deciding against it, more communities will consider CCAs in the coming years.
The good news is that whether sourced through CCA or investor-owned public utilities, California is poised to revolutionize our nation’s energy economy by committing to 50 percent renewables by 2030. And no matter where this energy comes from, it will be reliably delivered by the existing utilities who have built and maintain our grid infrastructure.
Ultimately, it will be important for communities and energy consumers to recognize this as more than a binary choice. The question is not just about whether to create a CCA. It’s about ensuring any new CCAs are developed to support our economy, our environment and our values.
Tom Dalzell is the business manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1245. He is also a member of the Alameda CCA Steering Committee.
