September 1, 2015
Senator Kevin de León
President Pro Tempore
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 350 SUPPORT, WITH AMENDMENTS -- To Reject San Diego Gas & Electric’s Attempt to Limit Community Choice Energy Programs
Dear Honorable Senator de León,
On behalf of San Diego Energy District Foundation, we write to you to express strong support for the goals of Senate Bill 350. We value your leadership on this important matter. At this time we want to also express concern about recent proposed amendments by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) to limit community choice energy programs. SDG&E’s language limits local decision-making and increases costs for customers of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs.
First, SDG&E’s proposal to allow the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to have authority over a CCA’s procurement plan undermines local control and policy making. According to existing state law, “A CCA shall be solely responsible for all generation procurement activities on behalf of the CCA’s customers, except where other generation procurement arrangements are expressly authorized by statute.” [Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(a)(5)] Allowing the CPUC oversight of CCA procurement not only contravenes existing law but also robs the community of local control of programs and policies. It also adds a significant burden to the CPUC and reduces straightforward governance structures by local elected leaders.
Second, SDG&E’s proposed amendment to ensure that bundled customers do not experience any cost increases as a result of implementation of a CCA program is both double-dipping and dangerously expands current practices. Utilities are already able to recover procurement costs lost due to CCA customers through departing load charges that are assessed to CCA customers every month. Indeed, the implementation of a CCA by law is required to “shall not result in a shifting of costs between the customers of the CCA and the bundled service customers of an electrical corporation.” [Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(a)(4)] Expanding upon this language sets a dangerous precedent for CCA customers to subsidize utility services.
CCAs are programs that embody many of the goals of SB 350 including increasing renewable energy. We urge you to reject efforts to undermine these innovative and important CCA programs in SB 350.
Sincerely,
Lane Sharman, Founder and Board Chair, San Diego Energy District Foundation
Michael Hetz, Vice Chair
Erika Morgan, Board Secretary
Jamie Edmonds, Director
Senator Kevin de León
President Pro Tempore
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 350 SUPPORT, WITH AMENDMENTS -- To Reject San Diego Gas & Electric’s Attempt to Limit Community Choice Energy Programs
Dear Honorable Senator de León,
On behalf of San Diego Energy District Foundation, we write to you to express strong support for the goals of Senate Bill 350. We value your leadership on this important matter. At this time we want to also express concern about recent proposed amendments by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) to limit community choice energy programs. SDG&E’s language limits local decision-making and increases costs for customers of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs.
First, SDG&E’s proposal to allow the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to have authority over a CCA’s procurement plan undermines local control and policy making. According to existing state law, “A CCA shall be solely responsible for all generation procurement activities on behalf of the CCA’s customers, except where other generation procurement arrangements are expressly authorized by statute.” [Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(a)(5)] Allowing the CPUC oversight of CCA procurement not only contravenes existing law but also robs the community of local control of programs and policies. It also adds a significant burden to the CPUC and reduces straightforward governance structures by local elected leaders.
Second, SDG&E’s proposed amendment to ensure that bundled customers do not experience any cost increases as a result of implementation of a CCA program is both double-dipping and dangerously expands current practices. Utilities are already able to recover procurement costs lost due to CCA customers through departing load charges that are assessed to CCA customers every month. Indeed, the implementation of a CCA by law is required to “shall not result in a shifting of costs between the customers of the CCA and the bundled service customers of an electrical corporation.” [Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(a)(4)] Expanding upon this language sets a dangerous precedent for CCA customers to subsidize utility services.
CCAs are programs that embody many of the goals of SB 350 including increasing renewable energy. We urge you to reject efforts to undermine these innovative and important CCA programs in SB 350.
Sincerely,
Lane Sharman, Founder and Board Chair, San Diego Energy District Foundation
Michael Hetz, Vice Chair
Erika Morgan, Board Secretary
Jamie Edmonds, Director