With San Diego energy and housing prices soaring, local environmental leaders are weighing in on state policies they think could help the situation or make it worse.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Nicole Capretz, CEO of the San Diego Climate Action Campaign, and Masada Disenhouse, executive director of SanDiego350, reached out to me this week to discuss some state proposals to cut electric bills and streamline housing construction.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Capretz is cheering on legislation that could trim electricity rates, including a bill to prevent power utilities from charging ratepayers for lobbying and advertising, and another that could cut the cost of building new power lines by authorizing public financing for the process. These bills have already passed either the Assembly or state Senate and will go to a vote in the opposite house this summer.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Disenhouse, however, is worried that bills aimed at trimming red tape around housing construction could undermine environmental protection. She points to legislation that would freeze building standards and prevent local governments from tacking on new construction requirements. She warns it\u2019s being fast-tracked through the budget process without enough public input. \u00a0<\/p>\n
She\u2019s not the only one raising that complaint; construction unions also pushed back on Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s effort to tie housing to the budget, saying his plan would suppress wages.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Cutting Energy Costs<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n San Diego had the highest energy rates in the nation in 2023, our MacKenzie Elmer reported.<\/a> SDG&E is smaller than other California utilities, so costs are spread out among a smaller customer base, and our region\u2019s high use of rooftop solar means even fewer customers are paying into the power grid. \u201cSDG&E is selling less energy while spending more building and protecting infrastructure to transport it,\u201d Elmer wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n Severe wildfires and\u00a0climate action programs are also driving Californians\u2019 electric bills to twice the national average, the California Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office<\/a> concluded in a report I covered earlier this year.\u00a0The cost of catastrophic wildfires, and efforts to prevent future fires, along with renewable energy projects, make California\u2019s rates double that of the rest of the country, the report found.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The problem is obvious to anyone paying a power bill in San Diego, but solutions aren\u2019t easy to come by. So Capretz was pleasantly surprised to see lawmakers take on the issue.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cPeople in Sacramento are seizing this moment, and it\u2019s important,\u201d she said. \u201cSo, I\u2019m cautiously optimistic. I think there\u2019s going to be some meaningful reform and that\u2019s a huge win for families.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n One of the bills, AB 1167<\/a>, by Democrats Marc Berman and Dawn Addis, would prohibit utilities from using ratepayer dollars for political activities such as lobbying, or for promotional advertising.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAs California households continue to be crushed under the weight of skyrocketing energy bills, this legislation offers relief by holding for-profit utilities accountable when they slip the cost of political lobbying, pricey public relations advertising, or shareholder-related expenses like travel on private jets into customers\u2019 bills,\u201d the nonprofit Earthjustice<\/a> stated in a press release.\u00a0<\/p>\n The California Chamber of Commerce said the bill is unnecessary, since some state laws already limit power companies\u2019 ability to charge ratepayers for political communications. SDG&E also opposed the bill, stating that it would impose onerous accounting tasks on utilities.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Capretz is also encouraged by AB 825<\/a>, by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, which would create a fund within the State Treasury to finance transmission projects and meet the state\u2019s clean energy goals. SDG&E\u00a0opposed it, arguing that it \u201cwould rush adoption of substantive new policies without the benefit of stakeholder discussion.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n A similar bill by state Sen. Steve Padilla, SB 330<\/a>, would authorize the governor to create pilot projects for electrical transmission infrastructure.\u00a0SDG&E opposed Padilla\u2019s bill, stating that the bill \u201cdoes not offer clear guidance on safety standards for potential operators and owners of transmission assets.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The bills would enable the use of public financing to cut costs for projects such as undergrounding transmission lines or building new ones. \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe use public financing so there\u2019s lower interest rates, so the utility doesn\u2019t have to pass on expenses to consumers,\u201d Capretz said.\u00a0<\/p>\n SDG&E opposed Padilla\u2019s bill and said in a statement that it could compromise safety standards for its facilities, arguing that the bill \u201cdoes not require the state or other competing governmental entities to follow the same rigorous standards, including maintaining these facilities against catastrophic weather events and having wildfire protections in place.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n She said paring down energy costs is crucial for the transition to alternative power; you can\u2019t ask people to buy electric cars and appliances while electric bills are going through the roof.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThat tradeoff is not okay,\u201d she said. \u201cWe want to make their whole lived experience better. We want them to have clean air, clean water, and clean communities. But at the same time, we want them to have lower costs.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Rewriting Housing Rules<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n State lawmakers are also trying to make it easier and cheaper to build new housing, but Disenhouse thinks they\u2019re cutting corners by rolling some of the proposals into the budget process, instead of passing them as standalone bills.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Labor unions jumped into that fight this week<\/a>, storming budget hearings to denounce Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s plan to tie the budget to housing reform. They argue that new rules to expedite housing would cut wages for construction workers.\u00a0<\/p>\n A bill by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Assemblymember Nick Schultz, AB 306<\/a> would pause building standards that govern the architecture, layout, plumbing, energy use and safety features for all new housing through at least 2031. It would also keep local governments from tacking on their own new requirements.\u00a0<\/p>\n The bill wouldn\u2019t roll back current standards, but \u201cthe California building code would be set on cruise control for the better half of a decade,\u201d CalMatters\u2019 Ben Christopher wrote<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Disenhouse thinks it would weaken environmental protections without expediting construction or cutting housing costs.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cEvery analysis I\u2019ve seen says it would not bring down building costs, it would not make it easier to build, but would exacerbate climate change effects like the fires in LA and extreme heat,\u201d she said.\u00a0<\/p>\n SanDiego350 is also concerned about a pair of bills that would dial back protections under the California Environmental Quality Act for some new developments, to speed housing construction in California.\u00a0<\/p>\n CEQA has long been a Holy Grail in California, where it has helped maintain the state\u2019s strict environmental standards. But some lawmakers and business leaders say that anti-growth groups use it to scuttle new home construction, as I covered earlier this year.<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n Assemblymember David Alvarez\u2019 bill AB 609<\/a>, and a similar bill by state Sen. Scott Wiener, SB 607<\/a>, aimed to exempt housing development projects from CEQA requirements for certain housing projects. But instead of letting them continue on the usual legislative track, Gov. Gavin Newsom has wrapped those proposals into a budget bill, the Los Angeles Times<\/a> and KCRA<\/a> reported.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Chris Roberts, transportation team leader for SanDiego350, said the organization supports infill development and affordable housing, but is wary of peeling back CEQA protections for construction.\u00a0<\/p>\n Disenhouse said there could be valid ways to speed up housing development, but argued that the complicated proposals should be decided on their own merits through the normal legislative process, not as part of a massive budget bill.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe totally support more housing, denser housing, but not making these decisions in a rushed way in backroom budget deals when they should be a thoughtful, transparent discussion,\u201d Disenhouse said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Newsom Takes on Fox<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n As Trump goes on a vengeance campaign against news outlets including ABC and CBS over stories that angered him, Gov. Gavin Newsom is following suit. On Friday he sued Fox for $787 million after host Jesse Watters claimed Newsom lied about his phone calls with Trump regarding the National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles. His lawyers say the segment represents defamation and violates California laws against deceptive and unfair business practices. Newsom is demanding an apology and retraction, or a big payout.\u00a0<\/p>\n