Assembly Bill 942, introduced by Southern California Democrat Lisa Calderon, would trim compensation agreements from 20 years to 10 years for customers with NEM 1.0 and 2.0 contracts, and also would eliminate the carryover of such contracts after home sales.

Calderon previously worked for Southern California Edison’s parent company.

On Tuesday, Dyer sent a letter of opposition to Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, chair of the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy. The committee has scheduled a hearing on the bill on April 30.

Dyer said the city is halfway into the deployment of more than 34 megawatts of solar energy, with expected savings of more than $154 million in electricity costs over the next 20 years. AB 942 would jeopardize more than 50% of the city’s utility bill savings, which would result in uncertain costs for city residents and uncertain funding for public safety jobs, he wrote.

“Retroactive policymaking is a detrimental practice that undermines responsible city planning. While the state is entitled to reassess the future of solar policy, altering established regulations regarding long ago procurement decisions is inappropriate. It is alarming to see the Legislature contemplate such actions during this time of uncertainty on the federal level for municipal revenues and clean energy efforts,” Dyer wrote.

Mayor Dyer’s Letter

Outrage Spurs Other Legislation

He joins a growing chorus of opponents that includes the Fresno City Council, which is scheduled Thursday to consider a resolution in opposition of AB 942, school districts, and advocates for the environment and the solar industry.

Clovis Unified officials are worried about the potential impacts on the district’s finances, spokeswoman Kelly Avants said Wednesday.

“We have concerns about the negative impact of AB942 on solar customers and are currently analyzing details of the proposed bill to determine the scale of the negative financial impact it would have on our budget,” she said in an email.

AB 942 in an outlier in the current legislative session that has a number of bills addressing utility costs on the docket, including one that would limit annual rate increases to the consumer price index.

Related Story: Outrage Grows to Assembly Bill That Would Slash Solar Contract Benefits

That’s the result of growing pressure on legislators by their constituents to rein in skyrocketing utility cost and focus their attention on the regulators in the California Public Utilities Commission.

Former PUC Chair Loretta Lynch, now one of the agency’s biggest critics, said in an opinion piece published Wednesday that the PUC has not rejected any rate increase requests from the investor-owned utilities for the past 10 years, and Californians now pay the nation’s second-highest residential rates and highest business rates for electricity.

Lynch said the PUC is failing in its duty as a watchdog for the state’s residents by ignoring audits about the utilities’ wildfire mitigation spending and also by allowing interim rate increases without requiring the utilities to document how the money would be spent and whether such spending is justified.

“What’s surprising is why, for so long, we have tolerated the commission’s abdication of its central duty: To protect us while making sure that needed and reasonable investments are made to keep the lights on. When will we require our elected officials to stop the gravy train and make the state utilities commission do its job?” Lynch wrote.

The post Fresno Mayor Says AB 942 Anti-Solar Bill Poses ‘Significant Threat’ to City, Residents appeared first on GV Wire.

Fed up with decades of powerful railroads corrupting the state board that was supposed to regulate them, California voters created the modern Public Utilities Commission in 1911. Now, some 114 years later, Californians have reached their limit with the cozy cronyism between the commission and the private utilities it is required to keep in check.

That voter initiative in the early 20th century made the commission the primary protector of California’s families and businesses against rapacious or unsafe electric and gas utilities. California statutes are filled with requirements that the utilities commission ensures that each cost to provide electricity and gas to customers is both necessary, as well “just and reasonably” priced.

As President Franklin D. Roosevelt put it during a 1932 campaign stop in Oregon, state utility commissions have a “delegated authority and duty to act as the agent of the public themselves; that it is not a mere arbitrator as between the people and the public utilities, but was created for the purpose of seeing that the public utilities do two things: first, give adequate service; second, charge reasonable rates.”

“This means,” he continued, “when that duty is properly exercised, positive and active protection of the people against private greed!”

Commission Loses Its Way

Today, Californians are again faced with what FDR called “a systematic, subtle, deliberate and unprincipled campaign of misinformation, of propaganda, … lies and falsehoods” — bought and paid for by private utilities, he remarked.

More than a century later, California’s utilities commission has lost its way. Over the past 10 years, each and every time California’s private utility companies have wanted more of our money, the state’s appointed commissioners have willingly agreed.

Between 2019 and 2023, average residential electricity rates increased 47%, outpacing inflation, the Legislative Analyst’s Office noted in a January report. Last year alone, the commission approved six increases for PG&E, while it raked in record-breaking profits.

California’s utilities commission is neglecting its primary responsibility. The companies claim that they know best what money and programs they need in order to provide gas and electric service to their customers. They ask us to trust them to spend customer money wisely, without suffocating their businesses with regulatory bureaucrats standing over their shoulders, second-guessing every dollar spent. The CPUC has increasingly obliged, allowing the utilities to choose for themselves what they will spend money on or decide how much they will charge for electric and gas service — gold-plating profit potential without sticking to job one: safe and reliable service at a reasonable cost.

Ignoring Oversight and Audits

Over and over again, the utilities ask and the commission gives them whatever they want. In the past three years the CPUC has created a pernicious practice of “interim” rate increases, handing the utilities billions of dollars more without even having to list or provide any detail for the specific costs they presented for payment.

These interim rate decisions abrogate the CPUC’s fundamental role to dig into the utilities’ cost proposals, figure out what we actually should pay for safe service, and reject the expensive baubles and trinkets Californians shouldn’t be on the hook for.

The commission also ignored independent audits of the utilities’ wildfire spending. In 2021, California’s big three utilities either could not account for or diverted $240 million, $700 million and $1.5 billion in money the CPUC had already allowed the companies to collect for programs they proposed, planned and profited off. The audits urged commissioners to withhold money for additional wildfire prevention projects until the utilities could explain what they spent the initial funding on.

Read More: Californians pay billions for power companies’ wildfire prevention efforts. Are they cost-effective?

That didn’t happen. Both PG&E and Southern California Edison were given the vast majority of what they asked for in new funding, without any true up or requirement that they explain how they spent the previous tranche of public dollars.

Highest Rates in the Nation

So it’s not surprising that California families now face the second-highest utility rates in the nation, and California businesses own the dubious prize of paying the highest business rates in the country.

What’s surprising is why, for so long, we have tolerated the commission’s abdication of its central duty: To protect us while making sure that needed and reasonable investments are made to keep the lights on. When will we require our elected officials to stop the gravy train and make the state utilities commission do its job?

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

About the Author

Loretta Lynch served as president of the California Public Utilities Commission from 2000 through 2002 and as a commissioner until January 2005.

Make Your Voice Heard

GV Wire encourages vigorous debate from people and organizations on local, state, and national issues. Submit your op-ed to bmcewen@gvwire.com for consideration.

The post Over a Century Later, California May Need Another Revolt Against Its Utility Companies appeared first on GV Wire.

But now Torres and other California solar customers who bought or leased systems under NEM 1.0 or NEM 2.0 contracts could lose those financial benefits after 10 years instead of 20 under an Assembly bill proposed by Lisa Calderon, a Southern California Democrat who previously worked for Southern California Edison’s parent company.

Assembly Bill 942 would shorten the contract times for homeowners and eliminate the carryover of NEM contracts when homes with solar systems are sold. It also would impact government agencies such as school districts that have invested in solar systems.

Fresno Unified’s solar provider, Forefront, estimates that the district’s energy savings could be slashed by as much as 75% under AB 942, district spokeswoman AJ Kato said.

Although AB 942 would trim the net metering contract from 20 years to 10, the district’s agreement with Forefront would remain fixed for the entire 20 years, Kato said. If PG&E pays the district less for energy generated by Forefront’s solar panels, “utility bills will increase creating a scenario where having solar may cost FUSD more in energy costs than not having solar,” she said.

Violating a Guarantee

Before customers either lease or buy solar systems, they are provided a guide prepared by the California Public Utilities Commission that says the 20-year NEM contracts are guaranteed, said Brad Heavner, executive director of the California Solar and Storage Association.

“They actually have to sign a piece of paper saying we’ve given them this solar consumer guide before they sign the contract,” he said. “It’s a PUC document, and it says that NEM is guaranteed for 20 years. It uses that word, guaranteed. And so customers are seeing that before they make the final decision to invest in solar or to sign a long-term lease. And for the state government to go back on its guarantee would be immensely unfair.”

Violating that guarantee would be “unprecedented,” Heavner said. “I’m getting calls from all around the country asking if this is real because other states are scratching their heads about California making this change.”

Opponents Plan Protest, Council Considers Resolution

Opposition to the bill has been gearing up statewide. Opponents are planning a “noisy” protest at Calderon’s City of Industry office on Wednesday.

The Fresno City Council will consider a resolution at Thursday’s meeting in opposition to AB 942, noting that it would force residents who “in good faith” signed up for solar system installation under a more favorable compensation arrangement to have to shift to a less favorable arrangement.

AB 942 would impact school districts that have used facilities money to install or lease solar systems, basing their calculations on the NEM 1.0 or NEM 2.0 compensations, said Nancy Chaires Espinoza, executive director of the School Energy Coalition.

If AB 942 becomes law, school districts would need to redirect revenues to cover energy costs instead of devoting dollars into classrooms, which would directly impact students, she said.

Changing the rules also could lead to a loss of public faith in government and in the ability of school districts to invest public funds, Chaires Espinoza said.

Other Energy Bills Pending

AB 942 appears to be the outlier of a number of bills introduced in the current legislative session. The majority appear to be aimed at reining in the skyrocketing cost of electricity for customers of investor-owned utilities like Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern Cal Edison.

Senate Bill 322 would link and limit rate increases to the consumer price index and would put restrictions on power shut-offs for customers unable to pay their bills. Assembly Bill 1167 would prevent utility companies from including lobbying, promotional advertising, and similar expenses from being passed along to ratepayers.

Lawmakers are finally recognizing their responsibility to control utility costs, Heavner said.

“I think something meaningful is going to pass to reform utilities and to check their runaway spending,” he said. “Finally, the Legislature is fed up enough about the regulators failing to contain utility spending that they are likely to act on something meaningful this year.”

Bill Would ‘Penalize’ Homeowners

Ramon Torres said he hopes legislators will realize how harmful AB 942 would be to Californians such as himself and reject it.

Torres, 57, lost his job as a finance director at a dealership in December. He’s a veteran and is working on a medical retirement, so his income will be fixed and limited moving forward. And he still has to keep the lights and air-conditioning on at his home, where he lives with his wife and their two teenage sons.

“I don’t think it’s fair for people that have already purchased (solar panels). You’re penalizing them for trying to help protect the environment. Instead of being rewarded, now we’re going to get added charges. … So basically, it’s a punishment for going solar, instead of rewarding us consumers,” he said.

The post Outrage Grows to Assembly Bill That Would Slash Solar Contract Benefits appeared first on GV Wire.

PG&E is notifying customers that they’ll have to pay transaction fees starting May 19 if they use a bank account, credit card, or debit card to pay their bills.

The fee will be $1.50 for residential customers and $6.95 for business customers. It’s unclear why business customers would pay more than residential customers.

Customers who use a “commercial” credit card also will be charged a 1.95% surcharge on the payment amount, in addition to the fee. So, if the power bill totals $200, that’s an extra $5.40 for residential customers and $10.85 for business customers for the fee and surcharge.

It was unclear Friday whether the company had gotten the OK from the California Public Utilities Commission, or even needs to ask permission, to institute the new fees and surcharge.

New Fees Are ‘Shocking’

Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, an advocacy organization based in the Bay Area, was critical of the new fees.

“It is shocking to TURN that PG&E wants to charge a customer fee for paying through a checking account, because the transaction costs are so minimal, as compared to costly credit card transaction fees of 3-5%.” he said in an email Friday. “PG&E should know better than to try to sneak in a brand-new customer fee without first filing a (California Public Utilities) Commission request for a rate increase, so that TURN, business groups, and the public can weigh in.

PG&E customers, already facing an affordability crisis, shouldn’t have to pay an additional fee “just for paying their bills,” he said.

The California Public Utilities Commission press office did not respond immediately to an email seeking comment Friday.

PUC spokeswoman Terrie Prosper later responded with the following: “The residential fee in question was previously $1.35 and was increased to $1.50 via an Advice Letter request by PG&E to the CPUC.”

Why the Surcharge?

The PG&E website provides the following explanation regarding the credit card surcharge: “PG&E has partnered with an independent payment provider so you can pay with a credit or debit card on a one-time or recurring basis. The fees for these payments are set by credit card networks, payment processors, and banks, not by PG&E. California Assembly Bill 746 (AB746, enacted in 2005) restricts energy companies, including PG&E, from passing these costs to all customers. Instead, only those using this service are charged these fees. The last fee change occurred in 2017.”

According to the company website, customers who pay online directly from their checking or savings account can avoid the transaction fee, although that seems to conflict with another part of the website that says they will be charged a fee “for using a bank account.”

PG&E spokesman Jeff Smith later clarified that the company already has been charging a surcharge for credit card payments and also said that customers who pay online will be able to avoid fees. The higher fees are due to higher vendor costs, he said.

“Customers can avoid transaction fees by signing up for recurring payments or by logging into their PG&E account to use the One-Time payment option with their checking or savings account,” Smith said in an emailed statement. “Transaction fees will apply if customers pay with their bank account by phone or use the One-Time feature without logging into their PG&E account. The fees for these payments are set by credit card networks, payment processors, and banks, not by PG&E. … PG&E does not profit from transaction fees. Since 2006, PG&E has maintained one of the lowest transaction fees compared to other California and national utilities.”

Customers who pay with cash, money orders, or cashier’s checks apparently can avoid the fees and surcharge. Click here to use PG&E’s payment center locator.

The post Hey PG&E Customers, Get Ready for New ‘Transaction Fees’ appeared first on GV Wire.

Energy efficiency programs such as light bulb and thermostat replacements are paid for by utility customers in rates separate from their electric and natural gas usage, and total billions of dollars.

The state audit, which was requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, reviewed the portfolios of energy efficiency programs for Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and Southern California Gas Company from 2012 through 2022 and targeted 20 efficiency programs.

The audit’s main takeaways: The portfolios did not achieve their goals and were “rarely” cost-effective, and the 20 programs reviewed did not achieve energy savings and also were not cost-effective for the most part.

Related Story: CA Bill Would Stop PG&E From Sticking Ratepayers With Ad and Lobbying

Programs not Cost Effective

Over the decade studied, state auditors found that utility company spending on efficiency programs continued to decrease. When there is less spending on energy efficiency programs, the CPUC reduces the amount that the utility companies collect from customers.

But even though the CPUC spends millions in ratepayer dollars on independent evaluations of efficiency programs, the agency does not follow up to make sure the utilities follow resulting recommendations for improving the programs’ performance, the audit found.

A key finding of the state audit is that the CPUC has allowed the utilities to operate energy efficiency programs for years that are not meeting energy-savings goals and are not cost effective according to its formula of costs and benefits.

That formula, however, does not fully capture non-energy benefits to participants, such as cleaner air or increased property values, state auditors said.

The CPUC’s response to the audit was to agree with all but one of the auditor’s recommendations and pledge to engage regularly with the utility companies to review and discuss the performance of efficiency programs and also consider how to add non-energy benefits into calculations.

Audit Report

The post State Audit: CPUC Needs to Boost Oversight of Energy Efficiency Programs We’re Paying For appeared first on GV Wire.

Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), introduced Assembly Bill 1167 on Feb. 21. The bill requires utility companies to justify rate increases. It makes “unjust” or “unreasonable” charges unlawful, according to the bill text.

“The California Ratepayer Protection Act is a common sense proposal to hold for-profit utilities accountable when they attempt to fleece customers for expenses that utility shareholders should be paying for, such as political lobbying, promotional marketing, or shareholder-related expenses like travel on private jets, Berman said in a news release.

Related Story: Baked-in-Profits Send PG&E and SCE Bills Soaring. Are They Excessive?

“At a time when monopoly utility companies are reaping record profits, and Californians are paying record high utility bills, it is insulting to force ratepayers to pay for activities that only serve to benefit shareholders.”

PG&E: We’re ‘Laser Focused’ on Lower Energy Costs

In a statement to GV Wire, PG&E said the company is exploring different ways to keep energy rates low. They also said rates today are lower than they were in 2024.

“PG&E is delivering on our commitment to stabilize customer bills. Residential electric customers are paying lower bills today, compared to a year ago (January 2024),” said Jeff Smith, spokesperson for the utility. “We are laser focused on continuing our progress and exploring every opportunity to lower energy costs for our customers.”

A SoCal Edison spokesperson said they don’t use money from electricity rates to pay for lobbying.

“No ratepayer dollars are used to support our state and federal legislative lobbying efforts,” said Gabriela Ornelas, spokesperson with SoCal Edison.

She said the utility is watching AB 1167.

“Southern California Edison monitors all legislative bills as they are introduced and actively advocates for policies that will benefit our customers,” Ornelas said.

Between 2019 and 2023, the three major utility companies — Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric, raised average rates between 48% and 67%, Berman said.

In 2024, PG&E reported $2.47 billion in profits, while also requesting six rate hikes, according to Berman’s office. SoCal Edison earned $1.69 billion in 2024 after increasing rates by 9.8%.

“California utilities are making record-breaking profits while hardworking people across the state struggle with skyrocketing bills,” said Mark Toney, executive director at The Utility Reform Network.

“The people of California deserve better than to have their money used against them, to pay for utility lobbying and promotional advertising. It is time legislators take action to hold for-profit utilities accountable.”

Utility Companies Try to Bake Political, PR Expenses into Power Rates: Investigations

Last week, PG&E asked the California Public Utilities Commission to increase rates by 11.3%. The utility company said the price hike would help attract and keep investors.

The company said in a release that it pays the lowest dividends in the industry. The company estimated the increase would increase costs by $5.50 a month.

“Investors expect to be compensated for the risk they take when providing that funding,” the company said in a statement.

However, CalMatters reported in January that the “shareholder rates as approved by the utility commission have outpaced those for the 10-year treasury bonds, which are often used as a benchmark by researchers because they track inflation and are considered riskless.”

Recent investigations also revealed that PG&E and SoCal Gas have tried to hit ratepayers with lobbying and PR expenses.

In 2023, SoCalGas tried to pay for $36 million of lobbying efforts against environmental reform with customer funds, according to The Sacramento Bee. In 2024, PG&E used $6 million in wildfire funds on TV ads.

The post CA Bill Would Stop PG&E From Sticking Ratepayers With Ad and Lobbying Costs appeared first on GV Wire.

In fact, the report says, customer-owned solar systems have kept rates from rising even higher because the systems are producing power at the local level, helping to supply enough juice to handle peak loads such as the notoriously hot summers in the Valley when air conditioning demand skyrockets.

The real reason for rising rates, says the report, is the utilities’ need to create profits for their shareholders: The more the utilities spend, the higher the profits.

And, the report says, state regulators and policymakers appear to be protecting the interests of the investor-owned utilities instead of Californian ratepayers whose tax dollars support regulatory agencies and the state government.

The report, “Rooftop Solar Reduces Costs for All Ratepayers” was authored by Brad Heavner, policy director of the California Solar + Storage Association, Bernadette Del Chiaro, CALSSA’s executive director, and Richard McCann of M.Cubed Consulting.

“Utilities are attacking clean energy as a way to deflect attention from their self-serving overspending,” Heavner said in a news release. “This has nothing to do with the transition to clean energy and everything to do with companies owned by Wall Street running roughshod over California consumers.”

Scapegoating Solar Customers

Utilities and state regulators have tried to paint owners of private, so-called “rooftop” systems as privileged and wealthy, but more than half of the 2 million systems installed thus far in California are in low- to middle-income neighborhoods, according to the report.

The power those systems produce has helped California keep pace with its growing electricity needs as the state moves toward decarbonization, the report says.

One of the report’s key points is this: Energy that is produced at the neighborhood level does not have to travel far to serve nearby customers. Keeping energy production local lowers transmission costs, which should lower the rates customers pay.

But the state’s decision to alter net-metering rules, such as prohibiting schools, apartments, and other large customers from directly benefiting from the energy produced at their sites, has discouraged customers from installing new systems.

After NEM 3.0 was imposed in April 2023, sales of new systems plummeted in California, causing many solar businesses to close, the report says.

The solar association’s report contends that the increase in rates charged to customers has corresponded to the utilities’ spending, which the report says is unchecked by regulators such as the California Public Utilities Commission.

Report: ‘Cost Shift’ Calculations Are Flawed

The report also is critical of findings in an analysis by the CPUC’s Public Advocates Office that rooftop solar’s “cost shift” has climbed to $8.5 billion a year as of August 2024.

“The single biggest error the PAO makes is to include self-consumption (electricity produced and used on-site) as a cost to the utilities. Roughly half of the electricity generated by rooftop solar panels is directly consumed by the customer in real time. The other half is exported to the grid and consumed immediately by a neighbor, using only the small wires connected to the transformer.

“The electricity that customers produce from their own solar panels and use in real time without ever touching a single utility wire should be treated the same as energy efficiency, not as ‘lost revenue’ or a cost to the utilities … utilities do not own a customer’s electricity usage. Their monopoly status does not extend behind the meter to cover the electricity a customer doesn’t buy. Anyone would be hard-pressed to identify a single business, monopoly or otherwise, that gets guaranteed revenue from customers not buying their product,” the association’s report says.

Customers with rooftop systems are paying the utilities companies on average $101 monthly, the report says, so those customers are paying more than their share of connecting to the grid, the report says,

But until state regulators get serious about regulating instead of enabling the utilities, runaway spending will continue because it’s how the utilities increase profit margins, the report says.

PGE Reports Record Profits

The solar association’s report, which was released Tuesday, comes just a week after Pacific Gas & Electric reported a $2.48 billion profit for 2024 — its highest annual earnings on record, and a 10% increase over 2023 profits.

According to statewide consumer advocate organizations, PGE’s record-breaking profits follow six rate hikes in 2024, causing rates to balloon by 20% in just one year. And the company’s bottom line is bolstered by a guaranteed 7.27% rate of return.

For-profit utility rates in California now exceed public utility rates by 67%, according to the advocacy organizations.

Investor-owned utilities such as PGE, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electricity have the biggest customer bases. Some Californians, such as those who live in Sacramento, are served by municipal utility districts and pay much lower rates.

“The rate of return issue is the 800-pound gorilla in the room and it’s high time the PUC dealt with it rather than pumping up investor profits at ratepayers’ expense,” said Jamie Court, President of Consumer Watchdog. “If the PUC doesn’t address the outrageous profits for PG&E coming from outrageously high utility bills, then the legislature must do it. Ratepayers at California’s investor-owned utilities deserve more affordable electricity.”

The solar association’s report includes a similar call for heightened oversight by regulators and lawmakers.

“What did they spend those billions of ratepayer dollars on in the face of flat demand should be the subject of an extensive investigation by regulators. Instead, some California regulators today are blaming solar rooftop, repeated the utility’s cost shift myth, while turning a blind eye to the glaring problem of runaway spending. Consumer solar did not cause rate increases. Utility spending did.”

Solar Association Report

The post Why Have CA Electric Rates Exploded? Report Blames ‘Runaway’ Spending by Utilities appeared first on GV Wire.

The U.S. Department of Energy announced a conditional commitment for one of the largest loan guarantees ever under its Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment program. When finalized, the money would be loaned in installments over several years.

The funds would support a portfolio of projects to expand hydropower generation and battery storage, upgrade transmission capacity, and enable virtual power plants throughout PG&E’s service area, the energy department said.

Related Story: Californians Pay Billions for Power Companies’ Wildfire Prevention ...

PG&E submitted its application to the agency’s Loan Programs Office in June 2023. Partially funding its projects with lower-cost federal loans could save customers up to $1 billion over the life of the financing, the utility said in a statement Tuesday.

“Investments in a clean and resilient grid for northern and central California will have significant returns for our customers in safety, reliability and economic growth. The DOE loan program can help us accelerate the pace and impact of this work, which supports thousands of living wage jobs, at a lower cost to our customers,” PG&E CEO Patti Poppe said in the statement.

The Sierra Club, the environmental advocacy group, cheered PG&E’s commitment to modernizing the power grid and expanding clean energy infrastructure.

“This innovative loan program will help ensure that Californians will see more stable rates, enjoy more good clean energy jobs and live with fewer harmful emissions. This unprecedented windfall also offers a unique opportunity for PG&E to update its outdated transmission infrastructure with more efficient, climate-friendly and fire-safe technology,” Sierra Club organizer Julia Dowell said in a statement Tuesday.

The loan office hopes to finalize the commitment before President Joe Biden leaves office next month.

The post California’s PG&E Could Receive $15B in Federal Loans to Modernize Its Power Grid appeared first on GV Wire.

The credit, part of the California Climate Credit program funded by the state’s Cap-and-Trade Program, will range from $32 to $174 depending on the utility.

Related Story: Is Your PG&E Bill Painfully High This Summer? You’re Not Alone

Customers of investor-owned utilities, including PG&E, Southern California Edison, and SDG&E, will automatically receive the credit. In addition, more than 1 million small businesses are expected to benefit from the program.

Californians will see an average of $217 in climate credits by the end of 2024, with similar credits issued in April.

Related Story: PG&E Warns of Possible Outages in Extreme Fresno Heat Wave

The California Climate Credit is funded by payments from companies required to pay for their carbon emissions, with the proceeds distributed back to consumers.

Managed by the California Air Resources Board, the program has provided over $14 billion in bill savings since 2014. These credits are designed to offset rising energy costs while supporting the state’s climate goals.

Check out how much credit you could receive. 

The post Californians Could See a Credit on Their Electricity Bill. How Much Will You Get? appeared first on GV Wire.

But how to make that happen is still a bit of a head-scratcher.

Monday’s meeting at the Yosemite Falls Cafe on Cedar Avenue was the first gathering of the Valley chapter of the Stop PG&E movement. And it was similar to other early-organizing sessions of newfound political groups as the participants threw out ideas about how to generate interest, attention, and support in the community, and also get the word out.

Related Story: Is Your PG&E Bill Painfully High This Summer? You’re Not Alone

The facilitator was Vanush Ghaturian, a familiar face in the Fresno in political actions that included the Fresno High mascot protests a few years ago.

Monday’s meeting went pretty much as expected, and the small size of the initial group was not unwelcome, she said afterward.

“Every group I’ve ever been involved with, it’s always 10 or 20% that do all the work anyway. So I’d rather have 10 good people than a thousand that just come here and bellyache and have no strategy,” she said.

The strategies that participants talked about included contacting elected officials, visiting School Board meetings, talking to the Department on Aging, hammering on the California Public Utilities Commission, and figuring out the best way to share the stories of people who are struggling or unable to pay their soaring electric bills.

There were discussions about how best to gather public support and grow their organization. And all were in agreement that talk without action will be ineffective to getting their message across.

Their next meeting is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 14, at Yosemite Falls Cafe.

The post Stop PG&E’s New Valley Chapter Plots Its Next Steps appeared first on GV Wire.