Journal of Science Policy & Governance | Volume 18, Issue 02 | June 21, 2021

Policy Analysis: The Power of Customer Choice in Energy: A California Case Study in Accelerating Clean Energy Transitions

Kelly Trumbull, J.R. DeShazo
University of California Los Angeles, Luskin Center for Innovation, Los Angeles, California 

Corresponding author: ktrumbull@luskin.ucla.edu
Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG180211
Keywords: community choice aggregation; carbon free electricity; investor-owned utilities; renewable energy; renewables portfolio standard
Executive Summary: Despite a lack of action at the national level, the transition to carbon-free energy is becoming a reality across the United States. At the local level, community choice aggregators (CCAs)—which offer communities public control over their electricity purchasing decisions—are accelerating this transition. By forming these electricity providers, member cities and counties can choose how much renewable energy is offered to their residents and businesses.
 
In California, CCAs have become an effective policy tool at accelerating the transition to clean energy. Across the state, 182 cities and counties have become members of one of the 23 CCAs, with additional communities planning to join or form CCAs in the next few years. These CCAs have been effective at unlocking market demand largely stifled by an investor-owned utility monopoly by giving cities and counties greater choice and access to renewable energy. The vast majority of these CCAs procure more renewable energy than the investor-owned utilities they compete with. As a result, CCAs purchased 204% of the renewable energy required by the state from 2011 to 2019. By achieving California’s carbon-free energy targets more quickly than mandated, the state benefits from a cumulatively larger reduction in greenhouse gas emissions each year. The success of CCAs in California demonstrates the power of promoting carbon-free energy at the grassroots, enabled by public, local choice in electricity supply.
 
With six states considering CCA-enabling legislation, and with hundreds of cities and counties across the United States working toward a 100% carbon-free energy goal, policies like California Assembly Bill 117 (2002) that enabled CCAs can provide a valuable tool to accelerate the transition to carbon-free energy. The purpose of this paper is to assess how CCA-enabling policy can support the clean energy transition using California as a case study. We assess three conditions that affect a CCA’s ability to accelerate the clean energy transition: CCA customer characteristics, CCA design features, and their policy and regulatory context. We conclude with a discussion of policy recommendations important to ensure CCAs can continue to support clean energy goals.

-Read the full article through download.-
Download PDF

References

  1. “15-Day Report of Registration: February 18, 2020, for the March 3, 2020, Presidential Primary Election.” California Secretary of State. Accessed 2020. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/report-registration/15day-presprim-20
  2. “2. Public Opinion on Renewables and Other Energy Sources.” Pew Research Center, October 4, 2016. Accessed 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-opinion-on-renewables-and-other-energy-sources/
  3. “2019 Power Source Disclosure.” California Energy Commission, 2020.
  4. 2019 RPS Compliance Reports. California Public Utilities Commission, 2020. “About CalCCA.” CalCCA. Accessed 2020a. https://cal-cca.org/about/
  5. “Advanced Energy Rebuild Napa.” MCE. Accessed 2020c. https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/rebuildnapa/
  6. “American Community Survey, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B19013.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020.
  7. California Renewables Portfolio Standard
  8. Annual Report. California Public Utilities Commission, 2018.
  9. “CCAs and COVID-19.” CalCCA. Accessed 2020b. https://cal-cca.org/about/ccas-and-covid-19/
  10. “CCA by State.” Lean Energy U.S. Accessed 2020. https://www.leanenergyus.org/cca-by-state
  11. “CCA Programs.” CalCCA. Accessed 2020c. https://cal-cca.org/cca-programs/
  12. “City and Town Population Totals: 2010-2019. Table Subcounty Resident Population Estimates: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 (SUB-EST2019).” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020.
  13. Chaset, Nick. “Myth of The Month: How Can CCA Rates Be Lower Than Investor Owned Utilities?” East Bay Community Energy, July 2, 2019. Accessed 2020. https://ebce.org/news-and-events/myth-of-the-month-how-can-cca-rates-be-lower-than-investor-owned-utilities/
  14. Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, Senate Bill 350 (California 2015). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350​
  15. “Community Choice Aggregation.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 2020. https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/community-choice-aggregation
  16. Community Choice Energy Programs: Existing and Prospective.” Clean Power Exchange. Accessed 2020. https://cleanpowerexchange.org/resources/programs/
  17. “COVID-19 Resources.” Clean Power Alliance, 2020. Accessed 2020. https://cleanpoweralliance.org/covid-19-resources/
  18. “COVID-19 Response.” Silicon Valley Clean Energy, 2020b. Accessed 2020. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/covid-19/
  19. Crume, Christina, and Lynette Green. Renewables Portfolio Standard Eligibility. 9th Revised ed. California Energy Commission, 2017.      https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=217317
  20. Daily Journal staff report. “Peninsula Clean Energy Grants $100 Credit to Enrollees.” The Daily Journal, March 31, 2020. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/peninsula-clean-energy-grants-100-credit-to-enrollees/article_d0a94da2-72eb-11ea-a85f-eb9c729cf035.html
  21. DeShazo, J.R., Julien Gattaciecca, and Kelly Trumbull. Rep. The Growth in Community Choice Aggregation: Impacts to California’s Grid. Los Angeles, California: UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, 2018. https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The_Growth_in_Community_Choice_Aggregation.pdf
  22. DeShazo, J.R., Julien Gattaciecca, and Kelly Trumbull. Rep. The Promises and Challenges of Community Choice Aggregation in California. Los Angeles, California: UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, 2017. https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The_Promises_and_Challenges_of_Community_Choice_Aggregation_in_CA.pdf
  23. Electricity: community choice aggregation, Senate Bill 790 (California 2011). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB790
  24. Electrical restructuring: aggregation, Assembly Bill 117. (California 2002). http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_117_bill_20020924_chaptered.pdf
  25. “Energy Savings for Multifamily Properties.” MCE. Accessed 2020b. https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/multifamily-savings/
  26.  Gustafson, Abel, Matthew Goldberg, Seth Rosenthal, John Kotcher, Edward Maibach, and Anthony Leiserowitz. “Who Is Willing to Pay More for Renewable Energy?” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, July 16, 2019. Accessed 2020. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/who-is-willing-to-pay-more-for-renewable-energy/
  27. IRENA. Rep. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: International Renewable Energy Agency, 2020. https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Jun/IRENA_Power_Generation_Costs_2019.pdf
  28. Leiserowitz, Anthony, Edward Maibach, Seth Rosenthal, John Kotcher, Abel Gustafson, Parrish Ballew, and Matthew Goldberg. Rep. Energy in the American Mind: December 2018. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, 2018. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BDQ25 https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Energy-American-Mind-December-2018.pdf
  29. “Local Sol 100% Locally-Produced Solar Energy.” MCE. Accessed 2020a. https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/100-local-solar/
  30. “MBCP and SVCE Sign Contracts for 210 MW of Geothermal and Solar Energy in California.” Silicon Valley Clean Energy, April 21, 2020a. Accessed 2020. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/news/mbcp-and-svce-sign-contracts-for-210-mw-of-geothermal-and-solar-energy-in-california/
  31. O'Shaughnessy, Eric, Emily Heeter, Julien Gattaciecca, Jenny Sauer, Kelly Trumbull, and Emily Chen. Rep. Community Choice Aggregation: Challenges, Opportunities, and Impacts on Renewable Energy Markets NREL/TP-6A20-72195. Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2019. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72195.pdf
  32. “Our Response to COVID-19.” East Bay Community Energy, 2020. Accessed 2020. https://ebce.org/covid-19-response/
  33. PCIA Rulemaking 17-06-026. California Public Utilities Commission, 2017a.
  34. Pacific Gas & Electric and King City Community Power, 2020. “PG&E – King City Community Power Joint Rate Comparisons.”
  35. Pacific Gas & Electric and Pioneer Community Energy, 2020. “PG&E – Pioneer Joint Rate Comparisons. ”
  36. “Power Source Disclosure Program.” California Energy Commission. Accessed 2020. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/power-source-disclosure
  37. Pacific Gas and Electric and East Bay Community Energy, 2020. https://res.cloudinary.com/diactiwk7/image/upload/fl_sanitize,q_auto/ebce-web-comparison-may2020-new-ebce-bill-format-2.pdf
  38. “Providing you with $17,500 to rebuild an efficient, sustainable home.” Sonoma Clean Power. Accessed 2020. https://sonomacleanpower.org/programs/advanced-energy-rebuild
  39. Rep. Community Choice Aggregation and California’s Clean Energy Future. Oakland, California: Gridworks, 2018.                 https://gridworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Gridworks_CCA-Clean-Energy-Overview_final-1.pdf
  40. Rulemaking. 17-09-020. Decision on Central Procurement of the Resource Adequacy Program. California Public Utilities Commission, 2020.
  41. Staff report. “Community Choice Aggregation: Business Plan/Feasibility Study Update.” Coachella Valley Association of Governments Technical Advisory Committee, 2016.
  42. Staff White Paper. Consumer and Retail Choice, the Role of the Utility, and an Evolving Regulatory Framework. California Public Utilities Commission, 2017b.
  43. Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Packet. Silicon Valley Clean Energy, 2019.
  44. SCE and CPA Joint Rate Comparison. Southern California Edison and Clean Power Alliance, 2020. https://cleanpoweralliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/SCE-and-CPA-Joint-Rate-Comparison-May-2020-2018-Vintage.pdf
  45. Trumbull, Kelly, Colleen Callahan, Sarah Goldmuntz, and Michelle Einstein. Rep. Progress Toward 100% Clean Energy in Cities & States Across the U.S. Los Angeles, California: UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, 2019. https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/100-Clean-Energy-Progress-Report-UCLA-2.pdf\
Kelly Trumbull is a project manager at the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation. Her research supports the Center’s energy, water, and climate initiatives. She graduated with a Master of Public Policy from the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and received a Global Environment and Resources Certificate from UCLA’s Global Public Affairs Program. She holds a B.A. in Political Science with a concentration in comparative politics from the University of California, Santa Barbara.
 
J.R. DeShazo is the Director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation. He also is a Professor of Public Policy in the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. He holds a Ph.D. in Urban Planning from Harvard University and a M.Sc. in Development Economics from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. He is co-chair of the External Environmental Economics Advisory Committee, an independent organization providing the best available economic advice to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
 
Acknowledgments
We thank Michael Northrop and Deborah Burke. We also thank Tyler Aguirre, Woody Hastings, Gordian Raacke, and CC Song who generously contributed their time to review the paper. This report could not have been completed without Julien Gattaciecca and Sarah Goldmuntz whose assistance supported this paper. Thank you to Colleen Callahan, Nick Cuccia, and Michelle Einstein for their review.
DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance or issue partners/sponsors. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications and events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.