Sacramento’s secretive approach to governing yields harmful and costly legislation

Two years ago, the secretive California budget process yielded a lengthy and last-minute energy “trailer bill” that contained a provision requiring investor-owned utilities to charge for electricity based partly on household income.

That was an admission by lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom that the high and constantly rising cost of electricity in California is likely to prevent many households from converting from gas furnaces, stoves and water heaters to electric replacements. High electricity bills are also a disincentive to buying electric cars.

So the plan was to force investor-owned utilities to charge a little less for the volume of electricity used and to take the cap off the “fixed” charge for being connected to the grid. Then the fixed charge would be based on household income, turning utility bills into yet another progressive income tax.

This new law ran into furious opposition from the public. The heat was so intense that nearly two dozen Democratic lawmakers who had voted for it decided to strike a pose of outrage and support a bill that would reverse the income-graduated rate requirement. The bill didn’t go anywhere, but in May the California Public Utilities Commission adopted a revised plan that will hit most customers with a monthly fixed charge of $24. Low-income households will pay less.

If California had a rational budget process, residential electricity bills would not be overhauled by one provision in an omnibus amendment to a previously blank “trailer bill” and then passed in 72 hours without debate as part of the last-minute budget wrap-up.

Now it’s budget “trailer bill” season again. This year, Gov. Gavin Newsom has said he wants to do something to reduce electricity bills. Meanwhile, the Senate’s Democratic leader is circulating language for bills that would enable more and faster spending on so-called “clean energy” infrastructure, costly projects certain to increase electricity bills.

Don’t expect a robust public debate or cost-benefit analysis. Newsom’s proposal hasn’t even been made public. We may see it introduced on the Department of Finance website as trailer-bill language, or it could find its way into a gut-and-amend of an unrelated bill on the floor of the legislature. The only transparency to the public is the requirement for bills to be in print and published on the internet in their final form 72 hours before the legislature may vote on them. That includes nights and weekends.

The Sacramento Bee reported that Newsom’s proposal, “according to two sources familiar with the plan but unauthorized to discuss details,” would end a state program that pays for upgrades to school heating and air conditioning systems. It would also reduce “utility wildfire mitigation costs,” which sounds like it might be a really bad idea. And it would lower “the price of needed grid infrastructure investments,” apparently with creative financing that somehow allows utilities to issue lower-cost bonds secured by future revenue from ratepayers, instead of selling bonds to investors who are paid a little more to bear the risk of default.

A spokesperson for the governor’s office told the Sacramento Bee it has “no comment on pending or hypothetical legislation.”

So if you have any questions about the governor’s proposal, too bad. Be sure to stay awake late at night to read whatever is posted on the website of the Department of Finance or the legislature. You may have only 72 hours to contact your representatives and leave a screaming voicemail.

Meanwhile, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire is circulating language for five bills that would “streamline” the approval process for solar farms, offshore wind projects and other “clean energy” infrastructure. Streamlining is another word for curtailing the ability of cities, counties, groups and individuals to raise objections to having these projects built. One of the bills would also enable generous government grants and tax credits to support projects that meet a laundry list of special-interest demands.

Like the governor’s proposal, these bills were not made public. CalMatters obtained copies of the draft legislation and published them online.

This is an irrational method of legislating energy policy that endangers the future safety and prosperity of the entire state population.

The only recourse is at the ballot box. If we put these elected officials on trial, the defense could credibly plead insanity.

Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on Twitter @Susan_Shelley