Legislative & Regulatory Committee of the
Clean Power Alliance of Southern California
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, February 28, 2024
10:00am
Visit CPA’s YouTube Channel to view a Live Stream of the Meeting www.youtube.com/@CPApublicmeetings
*There may be a streaming delay of up to 90 seconds. This is a view-only live stream.
Clean Power Alliance
Executive Conference Room
801 S. Grand Ave., Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Members of the public may also participate in this meeting at the following locations:
City of West Hollywood
3rd Floor City Manager’s Conference room
8300 Santa Monica Blvd.
West Hollywood, CA 90069
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Conference Room
2355 Crenshaw Blvd., Suite 125
Torrance, CA 90501
Carson City Hall
Executive Conference Room
701 East Carson Street
Carson, CA 90745
LA County Sanitation Districts
Joint Administration Office
Conference Room D
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, California
PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public may submit their comments by one of the following options:
• Email Public Comment: Members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments on any agenda item to [email protected] up to four hours before the meeting. Written public comments will be announced at the meeting and become part of the meeting record. Public comments received in writing will not be read aloud at the meeting. • Provide Public Comment During the Meeting: The General Public Comment item is reserved for persons wishing to address the Committee on any Clean Power Alliance-related matters not on today’s agenda. Public comments on matters on today’s Consent Agenda and Regular Agenda shall be heard at the time the matter is called. Comments on items on the Consent Agenda are consolidated into one public comment period. Members of the public who wish to address the Committee at CPA’s Office are requested to complete a comment card and provide it to staff. If you are attending from a remote location, please identify yourself to a CPA representative when your item is called. Each speaker is limited to two (2) minutes (in whole-minute increments) per agenda item with a cumulative total of five 5 minutes to be allocated between the General Public Comment, the entire Consent Agenda, or individual items in the Regular Agenda. Please refer to Policy No. 8 – Public Comment for additional information.
Agenda Page 1 of 18
NAVIGATING OUR AGENDA PACKETS
The meeting agenda packets are bookmarked PDFs, which display a list of agenda items to the left of the page and allow you to click to view specific items within the packet. If viewing in your browser, click the "document outline" button in the upper left corner of the screen. If the PDF is downloaded, the bookmark panel (ribbon icon) appears on the left side of the screen.
ACCESSIBILITY: Meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals who need special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the meeting materials, should contact the Clerk of the Board at least two (2) working days before the meeting at [email protected] or (213) 713- 5995. Notification in advance of the meeting, while not required, will enable us to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting and the materials related to it.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approve Minutes from the November 29, 2023, Legislative & Regulatory Committee Meeting
REGULAR AGENDA
2. Oral Update from CPA Staff
3. Receive Update on Proposed Income-Graduated Fixed Charges and Related Legislative Proposals and Provide Direction to Staff
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
ADJOURN – NEXT MEETING ON MARCH 27, 2024
Public Records: Public records that relate to any item on the open session agenda for a regular Board Meeting are available for public inspection. Those records that are distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting are available for public inspection at the same time they are distributed to all, or a majority of, the members of the Board. Those documents are available for inspection at CPA Offices, 801 S. Grand Ave, Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA 90017 or online at www.cleanpoweralliance.org/agendas.
Agenda Page 2 of 18
Staff Report – Agenda Item 1
To: Legislative & Regulatory Committee
Subject: Approve Minutes from the November 29, 2023 Legislative & Regulatory Committee Meeting
Date: February 28, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Approve.
ATTACHMENT
1. Minutes
Agenda Page 3 of 18
Legislative & Regulatory Committee Item 1
MINUTES
Legislative & Regulatory Committee
of the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, November 29, 2023, 10:00 a.m.
Meeting videos are available on CPA's YouTube Channel.
http://www.youtube.com/@CPApublicmeetings
Committee Members participated in this meeting from the following locations:
Agoura Hills City Hall
Planning Conference Room
30001 Ladyface Court
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Clean Power Alliance
Executive Conference Room
801 S. Grand Ave., Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Carson City Hall
Executive Conference Room
701 East Carson Street
Carson, CA 90745
Manhattan Beach City Hall
City Manager Conference Room
1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Los Angeles County
Hall of Administration
Sybil Brand Conference Room, Room 372
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
City of West Hollywood
3rd Floor City Manager’s Conference Room
8300 Santa Monica Blvd.
West Hollywood, CA 90069
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Committee Chair Deborah Klein Lopez called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and Gabriela Monzon, Board Clerk, conducted roll call.
Roll Call
Agoura Hills Deborah Klein Lopez Committee Chair Remote Carson Cedric Hicks Committee Member Remote
Los Angeles
County Lindsey Horvath Committee Member Absent
Manhattan Beach Amy Howorth Committee Member Absent
West Hollywood Chelsea Byers
Alternate Committee
Member Remote
All votes are unanimous unless otherwise stated.
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
Agenda Page 4 of 18
Legislative & Regulatory Committee Item 1
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approve Minutes from the October 25, 2023, Legislative & Regulatory Committee Meeting
Motion: Committee Member Byers, West Hollywood
Second: Committee Member Hicks, Carson
Vote: The consent agenda was approved by a roll call vote.
REGULAR AGENDA
2. Review and Recommend Approval of the Proposed 2024 Legislative & Regulatory Policy Platform
Gina Goodhill, Sr. Director, Government Affairs, presented CPA’s 2024 Legislative and Regulatory Policy Platform. The first two changes broaden the scope of the Platform’s policies for transmission and distribution planning and interconnection timelines. The third change adds language to fortify CPA’s ability to set, meet, and implement its regionalization climate goals. The fourth change aims to promote building decarbonization through electrification. The fifth change further defines fair rates for Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) customers versus non-CCA customers. The sixth change clarifies actions taken for changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the final change employs language to emphasize the importance of CPA maintaining autonomy over its governance structure.
In response to Committee Member Hicks’ question about Board member attendance in closed sessions, Ted Bardacke, CEO, clarified that only one Board member or non-elected alternate from each agency is permitted to attend and vote in closed sessions. Committee Member Byers expressed concern that the third proposed change to the platform, language on regionalization climate goals, may preclude a local agency’s ability to go beyond the policy, which staff clarified it would not. Chair Klein Lopez asked about the policy’s building decarbonization language. Staff indicated that the term ‘building’ broadly includes residential and commercial buildings; the intent is to strengthen the electric code for buildings to transition to all-electric rather than mandating a transition. In response to Chair Klein Lopez’s question regarding the income graduated fixed rates and fair rates for CPA customers, staff explained that the legislature and the CPUC are still figuring out how to implement income graduated rates; Mr. Bardacke added that the intent of the platform is to ensure CPA customers are not negatively impacted in comparison to Southern California Edison (SCE) customers.
Motion: Alternate Committee Member Byers, West Hollywood Second: Committee Member Hicks, Carson
Vote: Item 2 was approved by a roll call vote.
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURN
Chair Klein Lopez adjourned the meeting at 10:35 a.m.
Agenda Page 5 of 18
Staff Report – Agenda Item 2
To: Legislative & Regulatory Committee
From: Gina Goodhill, Senior Director, Government Affairs Subject: Oral Update from CPA Staff
Date: February 28, 2024
Staff will provide an oral report on Legislative & Regulatory activities, including a Lobby Day debrief.
Agenda Page 6 of 18
Staff Report – Agenda Item 3
To: Legislative & Regulatory Committee
From: Gina Goodhill, Senior Director, Government Affairs Approved By: Ted Bardacke, Chief Executive Officer
Subject: Discuss AB 1999 (Irwin): Electricity, fixed charge Date: February 28, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Receive update on proposed Income-Graduated Fixed Charges and related legislative proposals and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT
1. Presentation on Income-Graduated Fixed Charge
Agenda Page 7 of 18
Income Graduated Fixed Charge
February 28, 2024
Agenda Page 8 of 18
Summary
In 2022, AB 205, a budget trailer bill spearheaded by the Governor’s office, was signed into law. One little understood sentence in the bill directed the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to authorize an income-graduated fixed charge (IGFC) for residential rates by July 1, 2024 and implement it one year later
In November 2022, the CPUC opened a proceeding on the IGFC, and has since been considering a range of proposals from various parties on how to craft this new charge In February 2024, Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin AB 1999, introduced a bill to repeal the IGFC provision in AB 205 and replace it with a fixed charge of no more than $5 for residential customers on the CARE rate, and no more than $10 for all other residential customers
Staff is seeking Committee direction on if CPA should take a position on AB 1999 Agenda Page 9 of 18
What is an IGFC and What Has Been Proposed?
Historically, customers of California’s investor-owned utilities pay their share of the costs associated with running the power grid through the volumetric rate (kwh): the more electricity they consume, the higher their bill Some stakeholders contend that many costs currently contained in the volumetric rate are “fixed” i.e. they do not vary depending on usage. These costs include wildfire safety/mitigation, infrastructure upgrades, and legislatively-mandated customer programs. These stakeholders contend that as energy infrastructure costs increase, volumetric rates are an inequitable way to pay for these fixed costs
A fixed charge would add a set, monthly charge to residential customer bills regardless of how much electricity they use.
Proponents argue that this more accurately reflects the costs that it takes to serve all customers, regardless of electricity usage. Most utilities in the country, and the California POUs, have a fixed charge An Income Graduated Fixed Charge would be determined by income levels with higher income customers paying a higher fixed charge, and lower income customers paying a lower fixed charge. At the same time, volumetric rates would decrease, so that the total amount of money collected by the IOUs would be revenue neutral. This type of fixed charge is unusual An IGFC would go on the delivery side of the bill. It will not directly impact CPA customers in relation to non-CCA customers The CPUC is considering various proposals on how to structure the IGFC. The proposals are varied in complexity, with the IOUs suggesting a fixed charge of as much as $85 per month for the highest income bracket in SCE territory The proposals from the IOUs have gotten the most attention as they have the largest fixed charges, but proposals from CEJA, Sierra, Club, CalAdvocates (PAO) and others are more nuanced and/or include lower fixed charges and more tiers. 3 Agenda Page 10 of 18
Arguments in Support
Electricity bills are rising across
California. Low-income customers are
especially vulnerable to these bill
increases.
As the state prepares for increasing
electrification, charging customers
solely on volume fails to fully capture
common expenses not linked to
energy usage, such as infrastructure,
grid hardening costs, and
legislatively-mandated programs
According to the CPUC’s Public
Advocates office, those charges make
up more than half of the IOUs costs CPUC Public Advocates Office 4 Agenda Page 11 of 18
Arguments in Support
A IGFC would not change the amount of
money that utilities collect from
ratepayers as it would be paired with a
lower volumetric rate. Rather, it would
change the distribution of the payments
Generally higher-income customers
would pay more and low-income
customers would pay less. (Actual results
would be highly differential based on
climate zone, individual investments in
energy efficiency/solar, income)
Because energy investments are broad
societal services, they are appropriate for
differential charges based on income
Supported by The Utility Reform Network
(TURN), NRDC, Public Advocates and
others
Testimony of NRDC and TURN in CPUC proceeding R.22-07-006 5 Agenda Page 12 of 18
Arguments in Opposition
The process by which the CPUC was directed
to implement a fixed charge was purposely
opaque and subversive. Such a big policy
decision should go through the normal
legislative process.
California has set aggressive climate goals
that encourage people to conserve energy and
prioritize energy efficiency. Current rate
structures are designed to send a price signal
to customers to conserve energy. Uncoupling
this price signal could curb household efforts
to reduce energy usage or invest in rooftop
solar.
Adding a fixed charge would redistribute who
pays for electricity but it would do nothing to
reduce the rising costs of electricity overall
6 Agenda Page 13 of 18
Arguments in Opposition
The complexity of determining income brackets may
mean that low-middle income customers will get
lumped in with ultra high-income customers and see
a large bill increase that causes economic harm
Almost every proposal relies on income data
that utilities do not have
CPA CARE customers who are not at the lowest
income level could pay more under SCE’s
proposal than they do now
The fixed charges that are being suggested are some
of the highest in the country, with the joint utilities proposal at 4x the national average
Opposed by various grassroots environmental and
environmental justice groups, the rooftop solar
industry, and anti-tax organizations
7 EQ Research
Agenda Page 14 of 18
Range of Proposals
Across Parties
8 Proposals fall roughly in three buckets: High Fixed
Charge (Joint IOUs); Modest Fixed Charges across
more income tiers (NRDC/TURN/Public Advocates
Office); Low fixed charge and distinct TOU rates
(SEIA/Clean Coalition)
SEIA is the only proposal that would not require
new income information
This chart represents the median only: SDGE has
suggested the highest fixed charge at $128 for
high income customers and The California
Environmental Justice Coalition (CEJA) has
suggested the lowest fixed charge of $0 for low-income households Agenda Page 15 of 18
Deep Dive: SCE’s Proposed Fixed Charge Structure
9 Agenda Page 16 of 18
Action Requested and Next Steps
AB 1999 (Irwin) would repeal the fixed charge provisions under AB 205 and replace with a $5 fixed charge for CARE customers and a $10 fixed charge for all other residential customers
The bill is unlikely to be signed by the Governor, and raises questions of politics vs policy
CPA is active in the regulatory proceeding on the IGFC through CalCCA, which expects to have a decision by March or April 2024.
Options:
Watch bill and take no position at this time
Take a Support if Amended position and direct staff to suggest a fixed charge amount that is lower and more nuanced than the Joint IOU proposal but higher than what is suggested in AB 1999
Take a Support position on AB 1999
10 Agenda Page 17 of 18
Questions and Discussion
Agenda Page 18 of 18