As Antioch searches for ways to rejuvenate its economy and community, it’s crucial to remember our rich heritage of leveraging local resources for growth and prosperity. Historically, from the coal mines to the steel mills, our city thrived by tapping into what was readily available. Today, we face a similar opportunity, not by following the trend of tech industry acquisitions, but by returning to our roots and using our natural assets—specifically, the abundant water of the Delta.
Creating hydroelectric power plants along the Delta can be Antioch’s modern-day coal mine. This initiative will not only provide sustainable energy but also generate a surge in job opportunities, echoing the industrial boom of our past. It’s a chance to align with global movements toward renewable resources while addressing local employment and energy needs.
Such a project would do more than just power our homes; it could stimulate local businesses, attract investments, and provide the city with a stable economic foundation. Furthermore, hydroelectric power is clean, reducing our environmental footprint and offering our community a leadership role in the sustainable practices that are increasingly valued worldwide.
We must also consider the broader implications of this shift. By focusing on sustainable energy, Antioch can set an example for cities across the nation that economic growth and environmental responsibility can go hand in hand. This is not just about energy; it’s about cultivating a resilient community ready to face the challenges of the future with innovative solutions derived from our historical identity.
As we ponder Antioch’s path forward, let’s choose to harness the natural strength of the Delta. This approach not only respects our past but also paves the way for a future where Antioch stands as a beacon of sustainable innovation and economic independence.
Lawson is an educator and sci-fi author from Antioch who writes under the pen name Will Scifi.
(Left) Maps of western Canada natural gas pipelines; Source: Canadian Energy Pipeline Association – defunct – and (center) TC Gas Transmission Northwest pipeline from Canada to California. Source: TC Energy provided by CRPC – see red circles for connecting point at national border crossing and (right) PG&E natural gas pipelines in California. Source: PG&E – see yellow circles for connecting point at Oregon-California state line and the pipelines to northern, central and western Contra Costa County.
50% of gas now supplied to owner’s customers in Contra Costa originates in Canada as much as 3,500 miles away instead of 35, about 80% from fracking
“The farther that natural gas must travel to its destination, the greater the carbon emissions” – California Resources Production Corporation
They’re “just doing it for political reasons. That only benefits them, not us on climate change.” – local oil producer Bob Nunn
Proposed by District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker joined her in opposing the 35-mile long, 12-inch pipe which carried 1.8 million cubic feet of natural gas daily which is enough to supply about 9,000 homes. District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock supported the motion to renew the agreement. The result has been an increase in the emission of greenhouse gases and a much dirtier product being used by the refineries, from which Antioch is downwind, thus defeating the purpose the three council members claimed was the reason for their action.
Gas pipelines in Contra Costa County and the three cities in the yellow circles affected by the two city councils’ decisions. Source: National Pipeline Mapping System
The gas had been supplied from the Brentwood natural gas field, and natural gas fields in western San Joaquin County on Union Island in the Delta, southeast of Discovery Bay, as well as in French Camp and Lathrop. But the council’s decision also forced the pipeline company’s customer that it served, Chevron refinery in Richmond, to obtain their supply elsewhere. At least 99% of that supply originates out of state with over half from natural gas fields in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan east of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, traveling a distance of as much as 3,500 miles instead of just 35.
(Top) Canadian Natural Gas Fields map shows the locations of natural gas and oil found in Canada. Red represents gas fields and green represents oil fields. Source: The Canadian Encyclopedia (Courtesy International Petroleum Encyclopedia 2010, ed. Joseph Hilyard, PennWell Corporation, 2010). (Bottom) Map of natural gas (pink) and oil (brown) pipelines in western Canada. Source: Canada Energy Regulator
In Canada, natural gas production is concentrated in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB), with the highest production in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia with more than twice as much from Alberta than from BC.
Map showing the route of CRC’s natural gas pipeline that runs through Antioch. Source: City of Antioch
Pipeline Owner Sues City
Following the decision, the company that owns the pipeline, California Resources Corporation (CRC), believed they had the right to continue operating the pipeline. At that time, spokesman Richard Venn, Senior Director, Communications said, “We believe there are legal protections in place that prevent an arbitrary and immediate shutdown, and we will continue to work with the city and its staff on the best solution.”
However, that was not to be the case, the pipeline was shut down, and on Dec. 27, 2021 the company’s subsidiary, California Resources Production Corporation (CRPC), filed a lawsuit against the City of Antioch over the council’s decision.
CRPC did not file a lawsuit against the City of Brentwood and the company has reapplied for the franchise agreement for the portion of the pipeline that runs beneath that city.
CRPC did not file a lawsuit against the City of Brentwood and the company has reapplied for the franchise agreement for the portion of the pipeline that runs beneath that city.
Questions were sent on May 12, 2024, to a representative for CRC about the status of the lawsuit, details about the pipeline and any impacts the change in supply is having on the environment. Venn responded on May 28, 2024, with the company’s answers:
1. Where is CRC in the process with its lawsuit against the City of Antioch? Was one also filed against the City of Brentwood? When were they filed and how soon does CRC expect them to be finalized?
On May 25, 2023, the trial court sustained the City’s motion to dismiss CRPC’s complaint, effectively ending trial court proceedings against the City. On August 25, 2023, CRPC appealed this decision. The parties are currently briefing the appeal. CRPC’s opening appellate brief was filed on April 22, 2024. The City’s brief is due July 3, 2024. CRPC’s reply will be due on August 16, 2024. A decision is unlikely to occur until late 2024 or even early 2025.
No lawsuit has been filed against Brentwood. The application for renewal of the Brentwood franchise is still pending. Per the Brentwood City Council’s request, CRC hired independent consultants, Bear, Inc., to perform a safety study on the Union Island (“UI”) Pipeline, which was published in April 2022. The study confirmed the UI Pipeline is a very well maintained and safe pipeline.
2. If the company had certain rights granted by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that would prevent the cities from stopping CRC from operating the pipeline and continuing to ship gas through it how has the City of Antioch been winning in court? What have been the decisions in favor of the City?
CRPC does not presently have any rights granted to it by the PUC related to the UI Pipeline. However, CRPC has applied for a certificate for public convenience and necessity (“CPCN”) to have the UI Pipeline converted from a private pipeline to a common carrier pipeline. If the CPCN is granted, CRPC would become a regulated public utility, with the CPUC controlling certain aspects of the UI Pipeline’s operations and the rates that CRPC can charge for use of the Pipeline. The UI Pipeline’s day-to-day operations would not change however, after flow through the UI Pipeline restarts, and CRPC would be subject to the same federal and state regulations for safety and environmental protection.
If the UI Pipeline right-of-way were condemned to allow it to resume operations as a common carrier pipeline, as part of the condemnation proceedings, CRPC would have to provide “just compensation” for use of the right of way.
3. Where does the natural gas originate that was running through the pipeline in Antioch and Brentwood?
The natural gas that was running through the pipeline originates from the French Camp, Lathrop, and Union Island natural gas fields in western San Joaquin County and the Brentwood natural gas field in Contra Costa County.
4. Who are the customers served by the pipeline?
The gas is transported from the UI Pipeline to Chevron Corporation’s Richmond Refinery. The gas is used to power the refinery and used in its industrial processes to make jet fuel, diesel and gasoline that is distributed throughout Northern California.
5. From where are those customers now receiving the gas?
The gas that the Richmond refinery is no longer receiving from the UI Pipeline is supplanted by gas from PG&E’s system. The overwhelming majority of PG&E-supplied gas is from out of state. According to the most recent published information on PG&E’s gas sources, over 50% of the natural gas supplied by PG&E comes from Canada via the Gas Transmission Northwest (“GTN”) system. See 2023 California Gas Report, Table 5, https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Biennial_California_Gas_Report_2023_Supplement.pdf. Only around 1% of PG&E’s gas comes from California.
Around 80% of the natural gas produced in British Columbia, the upstream production region feeding the GTN pipeline, is produced by fracking. See https://stand.earth/.
6. Is the gas coming from Canada, is it not as clean as that produced in California, and how many miles is the gas now being shipped versus how many miles, previously?
As stated above, 80% of the natural gas produced in British Columbia is produced by fracking. Accordingly, we expect the majority of PG&E gas from Canada to be the result of fracking. This means that by stopping the UI Pipeline from operation, the City may be prioritizing the use of fracked gas.
The >1,300-mile figure does not reflect the total distance Canadian gas must travel to reach Richmond, California, though. The GTN system only runs from the Canadian border in Montana to northern California. Accordingly, Canadian gas going to the Richmond refinery must be transported from wherever the natural gas fields are located in Canada to the mouth of the GTN system in Montana. It must also be transported from northern California to the Bay area. Accordingly, gas from Canada travels well over 1,300 miles to reach the Richmond refinery.
By contrast, the UI Pipeline assisted in the transportation of local gas from the natural gas fields in western San Joaquin County and the Brentwood natural gas field in Contra Costa County to Richmond, a drastically shorter distance.
7. Have there been any environmental impacts because of the change in the natural gas supply to those customers?
The farther that natural gas must travel to its destination, the greater the carbon emissions attendant to those pipeline operations. Additionally, the gas transported by the UI Pipeline is not fracked, as compared to the majority of PG&E’s gas obtained from Canada.
Finally, any GHG emissions from gas production in California are compensated for under the cap-and-trade program, which is not the case in most of the other jurisdictions supplying PG&E.
8. Has there been a change in the costs to CRC’s customer(s) in both the purchase of the natural gas from one or more different sources and the production of their products to their customers? And ultimately to the consumers?
Without the UI Pipeline, local gas cannot be delivered to the Chevron refinery. The contribution of local gas to the refinery helps keep gas prices competitive, which further keeps prices low and the refinery open. The Richmond refinery has a workforce of over 2,700 company employees and 850 contract workers, according to the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. See https://www.rcoc.com/membership-directory-2/name/chevron-richmondlorenz/.
9. Is the pipeline that runs through Brentwood and Antioch different than the high-pressure line that exploded in San Bruno in 2010? What are the differences between the two pipelines?
Source: CRPC
10. What could the Antioch and/or Brentwood City Council do to remedy the situation?
The City could extend the franchise to allow for operation of the UI Pipeline. With an extension, the City could propose additional conditions on the operation of the Pipeline to address any of its continuing concerns. Using this authority to ensure enhanced protections or benefits for the City, while allowing the Pipeline to safely transport gas as it has for the past thirty years, was not something the City officials considered during the public hearing on the franchise renewal. This kind of win-win solution would have protected the citizens from the costs of litigation, brought revenue to the City, and given the City peace of mind about the UI Pipeline’s operations.
It is also important to keep in mind that the UI Pipeline is by no means the only natural gas pipeline running through Antioch. All federally regulated natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines can be identified using the National Pipeline Mapping System Public Viewer, which can be accessed at https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/.
There are several natural gas transmission pipelines running through Antioch besides the UI Pipeline. Some of these are high-pressure pipelines, in contrast to the UI Pipeline, which is considered a low-pressure pipeline. In addition to these other natural gas pipelines, there are over 34,000 natural gas connections in Antioch.
11. If the council(s) choose to settle the lawsuit(s) would the city(ies) have to reimburse CRC for their attorney’s fees?
The terms of any settlement would govern whether attorney’s fees are reimbursed by either side.
12. Is there anything else you would like to share about the matter?
CRPC is committed to operating in a manner focused on safety, environmental stewardship, and promoting the health and welfare of all Californians. One of our leading “Values” is being a responsible operator, meeting – if not exceeding – California’s high standards for safety and environmental protection. We have a decades-long successful track record of safely and efficiently operating critical energy infrastructure such as the UI Pipeline within the City of Antioch and we look forward to continuing to work with the City and its staff to provide safe, reliable, and low carbon.
Local Environmental and Economic Benefits of Pipeline, Supports Farmers
In addition, CRPC shared information from their application to the state’s PUC about the pipeline and its benefits to the environment and local economy. The company wrote, “The UI Pipeline currently provides the only viable avenue for the natural gas produced from the Fields to reach the market, including the Richmond Refinery, which currently utilizes all of the natural gas carried on the UI Pipeline. The use of in-state natural gas displaces the use of out-of-state natural gas produced in other states and transported by pipeline into California. Currently, California imports over 90% of its natural gas from out-of-state fields where the environmental and greenhouse gas regulations may not be as stringent as those required here in California. Absent the UI Pipeline, production from the Fields would cease and the State would have to look to alternate natural gas capacity at a time when natural gas supply constraints have been widely reported.
“Given California’s current natural gas demand, the natural gas production from these Fields would likely be replaced by out-of-state production, which would be contrary to statutory preferences for in-state production of natural gas and would result in appreciable environmental impacts and increased costs. Natural gas produced out of state is not obligated to follow California’s more stringent environmental and greenhouse gas regulations, and transporting natural gas from out of state through interstate pipelines increases greenhouse gas emissions, as compared to in-state production. Furthermore, in the future, the Field would be capable of converting to carbon dioxide storage and sequestration, which is widely considered a necessary component to achieving long-term climate goals. The UI Pipeline is therefore a key component in not only ensuring the Fields continue to provide in-state natural gas, but also in reducing the environmental impact of natural gas consumption. In-state natural gas production may also mitigate the substantial increases in natural gas costs to California customers over the past year.
“Closure of the UI Pipeline would also have a significant economic impact to the local community. Over 200 local landowners receive revenue from royalties associated with natural gas transported on the UI Pipeline. Many of the royalty holders are local farmers, and monetizing these mineral rights helps support local farming operations. Closure of the UI Pipeline would eliminate any opportunity for those mineral owners to monetize their assets.”
Questions for Council Members Go Unanswered
All five council members were informed of the answers provided by CRPC on Monday, June 24, 2024. Herandez-Thorpe, Wilson and Torres-Walker were asked if, knowing now that the action by the council majority has had a greater impact on the environment, will they reconsider and reverse their vote to deny the franchise agreement allowing the pipeline to resume operations in Antioch.
They were all also asked if they know how much the City has spent to date defending against the lawsuit by the pipeline owner.
None of the council members responded prior to publication time.
Additional Questions for CRC
Asked if the Antioch City Council reverses its decision and approves their franchise agreement can the pipeline reopen, company spokesman Venn said, “The renewal for the franchise for Brentwood is still pending.”
Both cities must approve their separate franchise agreements in order for the pipeline to reopen.
Local Oil Producer Says Council Members “Doing the Opposite of What They Claim”
When reached for comment about the information from CRPC and the council’s decision to shutter the pipeline, Brentwood businessman, Bob Nunn, whose company is the only holder of a permit to drill for natural gas and oil in Antioch said, “We have the strictest rules for oil and gas in California. The energy used to move the gas 100 times further is going to be greater.”
“California is doing its best in the name of climate change. But in the last three years, California has used more oil each year than in the previous year,” he continued. “The production of oil in California to support that demand has gone down each of those three years. CARB (California Air Resources Board) will show you, on the whole, imported oil will have more emissions than oil produced in California.”
“If they’re doing it in the name of climate change, they’re doing the opposite of what they claim,” Nunn stated. “The issue is to lower demand not squeeze supply. It’s Economics 101. Their model is flawed.”
“I support decisions that will reduce man’s impact on climate change. But make sure you do your homework that their positions are for the benefit of climate change,” he said. “If not, then you’re just doing it for political reasons. That only benefits them, not us on climate change.”
Please check back later for any updates to this report.
“Flat Rate” decision accelerates California’s clean energy transition
May 09, 2024 – SAN FRANCISCO – The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today approved a proposal to reduce the price of residential electricity through a new billing structure mandated by the state Legislature in Assembly Bill 205. This billing adjustment introduces a flat rate bill component and reduces the electricity usage rate. It lowers overall electricity bills on average for lower-income households and those living in regions most impacted by extreme weather events, while accelerating California’s clean energy transition by making electrification more affordable for all.
That’s in spite of the concerns of ratepayers and state legislators who, earlier this year, scrambled to repeal or modify the bill to avoid rates being based on income. The CPUC later scrapped the income-based utility bill scheme proposed by California’s largest utilities including PG&E. (See related articles here and here)
According to the approved proposal, “Today, California’s investor-owned electric utilities recover nearly all costs of providing electricity service through the volumetric (cost per unit) portion of each residential customer’s bill. However, a large portion of these costs are fixed costs that do not directly vary based on the electricity usage of the customer from whom the revenue is being collected, such as the costs of installing final line transformers that make it possible for customers to access the grid. Most utilities nationwide and many publicly-owned utilities in California assess fixed charges on customer bills to recover these fixed costs, consistent with the general ratemaking principle that rates should be based on cost causation
“As directed by Assembly Bill 205, this decision authorizes all investor[1]owned utilities to change the structure of residential customer bills by shifting the recovery of a portion of fixed costs from volumetric rates to a separate, fixed amount on bills without changing the total costs that utilities may recover from customers. As a result, this decision reduces the volumetric price of electricity (in cents per kilowatt hour) for all residential customers of investor-owned utilities.
The new billing structure more evenly allocates fixed costs among customers and will encourage customers to adopt electric vehicles and replace gas appliances with electric appliances because it will be less expensive to charge electric vehicles and operate electric appliances.
“This decision adopts a gradual, incremental approach to implementing Assembly Bill 205 requirements, including the requirement to offer income-graduated fixed charge amounts. The adopted billing structure will offer discounts based on the existing income-verification processes of the utilities’ California Alternate Rates for Energy and Family Electric Rate Assistance programs. The Commission will consider improvements to the new billing structure based on the initial results of implementation and a working group proposal in the next phase of this proceeding.
“Parties to this proceeding concurrently proposed how to implement the requirements of Assembly Bill 205. This decision adopts elements of several party proposals rather than adopting one party’s proposal.”
“This new billing structure puts us further on the path toward a decarbonized future, while enhancing affordability for low-income customers and those most impacted from climate change-driven heat events,” said CPUC President Alice Reynolds. “This billing adjustment makes it cheaper across the board for customers to charge an electric vehicle or run an electric heat pump, which will spur greater uptake of these technologies that are essential to transitioning us away from fossil fuels.”
Under the new billing structure:
The usage rate for electricity will be reduced by 5 to 7 cents per kilowatt-hour for all residential customers.
This change makes it more affordable for everyone to electrify homes and vehicles, regardless of income or location, because the price of charging an electric vehicle or running a heat pump is cheaper.
A portion of the fixed infrastructure costs—such as maintaining power lines and equipment— will be moved from the usage rate to a separate line item called the “Flat Rate” on customer bills.
The flat rate will be $24.15 per month, with low-income customers and customers living in deed-restricted affordable housing eligible for discounted flat rates of $6 or $12.
Customers enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) low-income assistance program will benefit from a discounted flat rate of $6 per month. Customers enrolled in the Family Electric Rate Assistance Program (FERA), as well as those residing in deed-restricted affordable housing with incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median income, will qualify for a discounted flat rate of $12 per month.
The new billing structure does not introduce any additional fees or generate extra profits for utilities. Instead, it redistributes existing costs among customers. This approach aligns with billing practices employed across the nation and by most other utilities in California.
In the coming months, the CPUC will collaborate with investor-owned utilities on a customer communications plan to educate customers about the new billing structure. The new billing structure will be implemented starting in late 2025 and early 2026.
More information is available on the Docket Card and CPUC webpage for the proceeding.
Sacramento, CA – March 28, 2024 – After immense pressure from California Senate Republicans, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has finally listened and is scrapping the income-based utility bill scheme proposed by California’s largest utilities, which came to fruition as a result of Assembly Bill 205 (2022). The non-elective commission released a flat fixed rate proposal, with reduced charges for low-income customers, and is expected to vote on it on May 9, 2024. (See related article)
“I’m cautiously optimistic to see that CPUC’s preliminary decision on a new fixed-rate plan for electrical billing includes a flat rate rather than one of the ludicrous income-based charges that had been proposed,” said Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-San Diego). “I’m looking deeper into the proposal and studying how it will affect my constituents and ratepayers across the state. Still, I hope this may be a compromise Californians can live with. At the same time, I anticipate that electricity rates will continue to be a huge affordability issue in California, even under this new flat rate proposal.”
“As vice chair of the Senate Energy, Utility and Communications Committee, l have strongly advocated for affordable and reliable energy for Californians, but the majority party’s misguided approach has been driving up the rates for years,” said Senator Brian Dahle (R-Bieber). “This income-based utility scheme was another disastrous measure. I appreciate the CPUC heeding Republicans’ advice to pause this nonsensical bill, and I will continue to work tirelessly with my colleagues to make energy reform a reality in our state.”
The CPUC’s fixed rate proposal has a 20-day comment period and is eligible for a vote at the next CPUC public meeting on May 9, 2024.
California Senate Republicans have been leading the fight against the income-based electricity charge after Capitol Democrats rammed it through budget trailer bill AB 205 in 2022. In 2023, and as recent as January 2024, Senate Democrats thwarted Senate Republicans’ efforts to provide Californians a lifeline by repealing AB 205. Additionally, this year, Senate Minority Leader Jones and the entire Senate Republican Caucus introduced SB 1326 to repeal the income-based fixed charge mandated by AB 205. Click here to learn more about the caucus’ efforts.
After immense pressure from California Senate Republicans, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has finally listened and is scrapping the income-based utility bill scheme, which came to fruition as a result of Assembly Bill 205 (2022). The non-elective commission released a flat fixed rate proposal and is expected to vote on it on May 9, 2024.
In 2022, the California legislature passed and Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB205 – Energy into law, which requires that the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) “shall, no later than July 1, 2024, authorize a fixed charge for default residential rates.” As a result, the CPUC is currently reviewing proposals for a tiered, fixed-price structure, as directed by the bill.
According to FOX Business, the state’s three main, investor-owned utilities – Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) – proposed a tiered rate plan: “Households earning $28,000-$69,000 would be charged an extra $20 to $34 per month. Those earning $69,000-$180,000 would pay $51 to $73 per month, and those earning more than $180,000 would pay a $85-to-$128 monthly surcharge.”
According to California Energy Markets, “The first version of the income-graduated fixed charge, or IGFC, could be implemented by SDG&E and SCE by 2026, according to Freedman. PG&E is in the process of changing its billing system, he said, so its implementation would likely be in 2027.”
That’s on top of the 13% increase for both electricity and natural gas rates for PG&E customers approved by a unanimous vote of the CPUC last November that went into effect on January 1, 2024. Plus, another vote on March 7 for $4-$6 in additional monthly fees for the typical ratepayer that will take effect in April, was approved for PG&E to recover $516 million in costs for wildfire mitigation, gas safety and electric modernization.
According to a Canary Media report, “The utilities are also proposing to significantly lower the per-kilowatt-hour charges that customers pay to counterbalance the big increase in fixed charges, and to structure both fixed and volumetric charges in a way that allows lower-income customers to save money overall. Still, the proposal, if enacted, would instantly make California the home of the nation’s highest monthly utility fixed fees, according to analysis by clean energy research firm EQ Research.”
The IGFC would require the CPUC to evaluate every ratepayer’s income annually in order to assess the appropriate fee.
Assemblyman Jim Frazier didn’t vote on the bill in 2021 and State Senator Steve Glazer didn’t vote on AB205 during the State Senate’s floor vote in 2022. Newsom signed the bill into law on June 30, 2022.
Details of New Law
As of July 1, 2022, the applicable portion of the law now reads as follows:
“SEC. 10. Section 739.9 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:
(d) The commission may adopt new, or expand existing, fixed charges for the purpose of collecting a reasonable portion of the fixed costs of providing electrical service to residential customers. The commission shall ensure that any approved charges do all of the following:
(1) Reasonably reflect an appropriate portion of the different costs of serving small and large customers.
(2) Not unreasonably impair incentives forconservation, energy efficiency, and beneficial electrification and greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
(3) Are set at levels that do not overburden low-income customers.
(e)(1) For the purposes of this section and Section 739.1, the commission may authorize fixed charges for any rate schedule applicable to a residential customer account. The fixed charge shall be established on an income-graduated basis with no fewer than three income thresholds so that a low-income ratepayer in each baseline territory would realize a lower average monthly bill without making any changes in usage. The commission shall, no later than July 1, 2024, authorize a fixed charge for default residential rates.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, ‘income-graduated’ means that low-income customers pay a smaller fixed charge than high-income customers.”
Source: Energy Sage published 3/10/24
Californians Pay 27% More for Electricity Than National Average
According to Energy Sage, California residents currently pay 31 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to the national average of 18 cents per kilowatt-hour. “On average, California residents spend about $256 per month on electricity. That adds up to $3,072 per year. That’s 27% higher than the national average electric bill of $2,426.”
That same day, Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, (D-Thousand Oaks) and 10 others introduced a bill to repeal AB205. According to Irwin’s press release about the new bill, “The CPUC has had the authority to implement a fixed rate charge, up to $10, since 2015, but has declined to do so. I see no need to rush now. It’s time to put some reasoning back into how we charge for electricity in California.” Bauer-Kahan is listed as a principal coauthor. It was also introduced in the State Senate.
According to the aforementioned Canary Media report, “The newly introduced bill, AB 1999, would limit the CPUC to adding a fixed charge of no greater than $10 a month on customers’ bills to pay for the rising costs of maintaining the state’s utility grids, regardless of household income.”
The bill is in the committee process, was referred to the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Electricity. If approved it will then head to the floors of both houses of the state legislature for votes and if passed, the bill will head to the governor’s desk for his signature or veto.
3/27/24 UPDATE: According to Sylvie Ashford, Energy & Climate Policy Analyst for The Utility Reform Network (TURN) which supports the implementation of an income-graduated fixed charge, and is one of the authors of the organization’s IGFC proposal,
“The IOUs are no longer proposing the charge levels that you cite (e.g. up to $128 per month). The CPUC has already ruled that the first iteration of the fixed charge will have income tier cut-offs based only on the existing CARE/FERA programs, with no ‘high-income’ tier. The IOUs submitted new proposals in the fall, with a max charge of $51-$73 (page 5 of their brief).
It’s not that utilities will “also” lower $/kWh rates. The fixed charge itself lowers rates, as is comprised only of costs that are included in rates today. It shifts some fixed costs out of electricity rates and into a separate line item.
Thus, your headline that “Californians face higher electricity rates based on income” is incorrect. All customers will pay lower electricity rates (15% lower under TURN’s proposal). Some higher income customers will see higher overall bills only if their assigned fixed charge exceeds their savings from the reduced rates. (For example, TURN’s proposal has a maximum monthly fixed charge of $30, and we estimate those customers will see $3-7 bill increases, depending on their usage).”
Iin addition, she shared, “TURN believes that the fixed charge presents a critical opportunity to reduce low-income energy bills in the state. TURN also believes much more is needed to make bills affordable and intervenes widely at the CPUC to oppose rate increases. A few quick points:
The fixed charge will not increase utility revenue/profits; it removes costs from rates and shifts them to a separate line item on your bill.
This will reduce electricity rates ($/kWh) for all Californians, making it more feasible to operate electric vehicles and appliances.
Because the new line item is based on income, it will also reduce overall bills for low-income Californians (likely to be defined as the low-income CARE/FERA discount programs, which cover 30% of the state) and it will make electricity bills less regressive.
TURN strongly opposes the joint proposal of the utilities for fixed charges, and the CPUC is not considering it. The CPUC has already ruled that the first iteration of the fixed charge will have income tier cut-offs based only on the existing CARE/FERA programs, with no ‘high-income’ tier, so the average fixed charge will be low (TURN proposes an average of $23.50, which is the same charge already offered by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District).
Ashford was asked to explain how, if the cost of providing electricity does not differ from one user to the next in one of the three utility company’s service areas, it’s fair to charge one customer more based on their income. She was also asked weren’t renewals supposed to reduce electricity costs and aren’t we relying more on them, now for electricity generation in California,
Ashford responded, to your questions about the fairness of paying based on income, and why rates have been increasing when generation keeps getting cheaper (thanks to renewables): the problem is that your $/kWh electricity rates today are largely comprised of costs that have nothing to do with your personal usage. They are bloated with the fixed costs of the grid, like the utilities’ wildfire mitigation programs and infrastructure projects.
As a result, a UC Berkeley study found that California’s electric rates are highly regressive; low-income households pay more of their income on shared system costs. Households in hot climates, that need to use more electricity to keep cool, also pay more than their fair share of these costs. On the flipside, solar customers are paying less than their fair share, which has created a ‘cost shift’ that hikes rates for everyone else (source).
TURN is a strong advocate of reducing utility spending, which is the most important step to reduce rates. The fixed charge alone doesn’t address that problem, as it simply shuffles the collection of existing costs, but it will make bills more affordable for those that are disproportionately burdened by shared system costs.”
Supervisors suspend all-electric requirements following U.S. Court of Appeals ruling
(Martinez, CA) – The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Tuesday suspended enforcement of its requirement that most new buildings be constructed as all-electric buildings. The County’s all-electric building requirement, as part of the County’s building code, had prohibited the installation of natural gas infrastructure in most new buildings and required developers to use electricity as the sole source of energy in the building. With Tuesday’s action, the County’s all-electric building requirement will not be enforced.
Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated a City of Berkeley ordinance that prohibited natural gas infrastructure in new buildings. The court held that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act precludes cities and counties from adopting building codes that prohibit the installation of gas plumbing in buildings.
Contra Costa County’s all-electric building requirement, like the invalidated City of Berkeley ordinance, prohibits the installation of gas plumbing in new buildings. The County is therefore suspending this requirement in response to the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
At the same time, the Board of Supervisors remains committed to the goals that prompted it to adopt the all-electric requirement: improving public health and fighting what they believe contributes to climate change. The Board referred the topic of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings to its Sustainability Committee and directed staff to report on alternatives for advancing this objective at the Committee’s next meeting.
“Contra Costa County remains committed to reducing the use of fossil fuels in buildings and continues to support the construction of new buildings using all-electric technologies,” said Board Chair Federal D. Glover, District 5 Supervisor. “We are eager to identify new and innovative ways to continue to pursue our goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings.”
The County encourages residents and businesses to continue to install all-electric building systems and appliances. There are many benefits of all-electric construction, some of which include:
Cleaner air and better health outcomes from eliminating the emissions associated with burning fossil fuels, particularly indoors.
Not having to pay to install gas pipes in new buildings.
Taking advantage of financial incentives and rebates for all-electric appliances.
Resilience against power outages, particularly when electric technologies are paired with battery storage.
Hedging against high electricity costs by being able to schedule electric appliances to operate at times of day when electricity costs are lowest.
Preparing for the potential discontinuation of gas appliances in the future that could occur from possible regulatory actions by regional, state, or federal agencies.
There are many good resources on the benefits of all-electric buildings, including:
The County’s sustainability web site has information on state and federal incentives, rebates, and other ways to fund all-electric upgrades.
MCE, the community choice energy provider for most of Contra Costa County, offers rebates and incentives.
The Switch Is On, sponsored by the Building Decarbonization Coalition, is a collaborative campaign to support all-electric home conversion by providing tools, support, and resources to Californians.
Rewiring America provides information about the benefits of all-electric technologies, and helps generate a personalized plan for individuals, including costs and savings.
PG&E also has resources on all-electric buildings, including rebates, incentives, rate plans, and design guides.
Rendering of the new PG&E Antioch Service Center Project building. Source: City of Antioch
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday, February 13, 2024, the Antioch City Council approved the redevelopment of the PG&E Service Center on Hillcrest Avenue on a 3-0 vote with Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson and District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica absent. The project includes a new operations building, fleet maintenance, logistics shops and warehouse, warehouses, material storage and support structures. (See Agenda Item 3)
PG&E Antioch Service Center site location map. Source: City of Antioch
Located on 36.39 acres of the existing 56.15-acre parcel at 2111 Hillcrest Avenue just north of the Sunset Drive and Slatten Ranch Road intersection, as well as the Union Pacific Railroad railroad right-of-way and the Antioch BART station.
The proposed project involves the replacement and demolition of four existing buildings within the existing PG&E Service Center (Fleet Maintenance, Logistics Warehouse, Logistics Shops, and Operations buildings). Additionally, the proposed project would include the construction of new non-occupied support structures, a below grade parking area, circulation improvements, expansion of paved surfaces, and expansion of lighting infrastructure.
PG&E Antioch Service Center Project Phasing Plan. Source: City of Antioch
During the Planning Commission meeting on Jan. 17, 2024, Brett Badelle, Local Government Affairs Representative for PG&E stated the Antioch service center would improve service to customers, add beautification and have a positive impact on the economy. He also explained that the project would improve safety, reliability, resiliency and sustainability. On a 4-0 vote with two members absent and one vacancy, the commissioners recommended the council approve the project.
Under agenda Item 7-1, Chevron requested a Use Permit, Variance and Design Review approval for a hydrogen fuel dispensing facility which will consist of hydrogen storage, associated equipment, two hydrogen dispensers located under a canopy, new landscaping, and stormwater control facilities. A variance is requested to reduce the minimum setback requirements of the canopy from 20 feet to 10 feet.
Eric Snelling, Senior Principal Planner for Stantec Consulting Services, gave a PowerPoint presentation of the hydrogen program, project overview, safety systems and operational components. He stated that Chevron was excited to bring hydrogen fueling to Antioch.
According to the City staff report on the item, “The hydrogen fuel dispensing facility does not involve the use of hazardous substances and is not in an environmentally sensitive area.”
The proposed project consists of the construction of a hydrogen fueling station at the eastern portion of the existing Chevron gas station. The project will provide two hydrogen dispensers under a new canopy, hydrogen storage and compression compound, a hydrogen offload panel and new electrical service. The compound will be enclosed by a combination of concrete masonry block wall and louvered metal fencing. The new enclosed area will cover approximately 1,750 square feet. Additionally, the project includes paving areas that are currently gravel, and installing new frontage landscaping.
Perspective view of Chevron Hydrogen Fuel Dispensing Facility equipment. Source: City of Antioch
The hydrogen fueling station would operate during the hours of the existing convenience store and gas station. Cars that use hydrogen to operate are called fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). FCEVs are similar to electric vehicles except that they get their power from hydrogen. Like electric vehicles, they use an electric motor instead of an internal combustion engine like gasoline powered vehicles. While electric vehicles run on batteries that need to be plugged in for recharging FCEVs generate their own electricity onboard in their fuel cells. Within a fuel cell, hydrogen is combined with oxygen (O2) from ambient air. The process generates electricity, heat, and water as its byproducts. As a result, it can power the electric motor without any greenhouse gas emissions. The only emissions released from the vehicle are water and heat.
Fueling an FCEV is similar to fueling a gasoline powered vehicle. First, tanker trucks designed to deliver gaseous hydrogen arrive at the site. At first, it is anticipated that this would occur approximately once a week but would increase as FCEVs become more common. At most, vehicles would make one delivery a day. Gaseous hydrogen is delivered from the truck through a connection to the supply cabinet. The system then transfers the gas to the storage tubes. When a vehicle arrives, the station module transfers the hydrogen from the storage tubes to the dispenser. The storage module is connected to and controlled by the station module via valve panels. The valve panel has a built-in jet fire protection panel, double block and bleed valves and other safety features. The equipment required for fueling is integrated into the station module, which is also connected to the dispenser. The dispenser looks similar to a standard gasoline dispenser but is about one third the footprint because only type of hydrogen is dispensed, as opposed to various grades of gasoline. The dispenser includes safety features that detect physical problems and would automatically shut off.
H2Station Site Elements. Source: City of Antioch
Why is Chevron Developing H2 Stations?
According to Chevron’s presentation, the company is developing H2 stations “To meet the California Air Resource Board Low Carbon Fuel Standards and to support Advanced Clean Fleets. Through its AB 8 program, the State of California co-funds the deployment of at least 100 hydrogen fueling stations to enable the launch of a consumer FCEV market. CARB provides annual evaluations of the status of deployment of fueling stations and FCEVs and analysis of needs for further development. CARB also coordinates with the California Energy Commission to annually report on the progress metrics of the Commission-led station funding program. In order to develop its recommendations for areas that require further hydrogen station development, CARB developed the California Hydrogen Infrastructure Tool (CHIT), a geospatial analysis tool built on publicly vetted data and methodologies.”
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “California is leading the nation in building hydrogen fueling stations for FCEVs. As of mid-2021, 47 retail hydrogen stations were open to the public in California, as well as one in Hawaii, and 55 more were in various stages of construction or planning in California. These stations are serving over 8,000 FCEVs.
California continues to provide funding toward building hydrogen infrastructure through its Clean Transportation Program. The California Energy Commission is authorized to allocate up to $20 million per year through 2023 and is investing in an initial 100 public stations to support and encourage these zero-emission vehicles.”
Planning Commissioners Vote 4-0 to Approve
In response to questions by commissioners, Snelling explained that the hydrogen fueling network was guided by the state air resources board program and they looked at existing assets that could accommodate the use and provide adequate supply. He also stated there were no other hydrogen stations in Antioch and noted the idea was to bring in hydrogen based on demand.
The Planning Commission members present unanimously adopted a resolution approving the Use Permit, Variance, and Design Review application subject to the attached conditions of approval (DR20230006, UP-2023-0003, VAR2023-0008) with the additional condition of approval, including to direct the applicant to work with staff regarding native plant species as well as the addition of native plant species and vegetation to the screen wall.
