Huffman clarifies on CCA

I just spoke with Assemblymember Jared Huffman, who was concerned about my post the other day suggesting he’d be up for changing the rules for Community Choice Aggregation. I’d parroted a Marin Independent Journal report that said he’d work to change the CCA law so that people have to “opt in” to the power co-op, rather than being automatically enrolled – which is how it currently works.

Huffman said the IJ didn’t put the full context around his quote – he’d only do it if the people in his district said that’s what they wanted, because that’s his job. “I want to be supportive. I represent this district and if the people in this district tell me they want the law changed, then that’s what I’ll do,” he said, adding that no, his constituents hadn’t been asking for him to change it.

But apparently there’s been a lot of hype in Marin over this provision, with the IJ editorializing against it.

In an April 20 editorial they said the opt-out provision was “… akin to the government deciding your Internet provider. Or who holds your mortgage or insures your car. The law uses "opt-out" for a simple reason: If customers have to decide which power source they want, there's a good chance too few users will switch for the power authority to be viable. The law should be changed to allow "opt-in" - to force consumers to make their own choice.”

They also think it should go on the November ballot. “Otherwise, our government is saying: "We know what is best for you and we don't care what you think."

But isn’t that why we have “representatives” – because we can’t vote on every little thing? Polls show 74 percent of Marin residents supported local government taking over the power system if it could provide more green energy than PG&E.

But the IJ knows what this is really about: “A major reason for resistance to an advisory vote is officials correctly fear Pacific Gas & Electric will pour millions into a campaign opposing Marin Clean Energy. There is nothing wrong with proponents having to explain and defend their plan. A spirited debate is a good thing. Advocates should relish taking on PG&E, which has its own image problems. An advisory vote also would be the best way to get the word out to residents about the plan.”

Yeah, and a long, exhausting fight against PG&E’s lies. Lew Tremaine, a Fairfax council member, summed it up well in a rejoinder to the editorial. “We don't need costly and unnecessary elections every time we take a bold step in sustainability's direction.”

As far as PG&E and elections are concerned, Huffman shrugged off the cash he’s received from the utility company. “It means nothing. It doesn’t make a difference,” he said, openly wishing for publicly financed elections and noting that PG&E sprinkles cash into nearly every campaign. Huffman considers the corporation just another stakeholder that he works with sometimes and against other times. “I respect PG&E a lot, but we do battle on issues a lot. Right now they’re opposing my bill, 1920.” Huffman is “cautiously optimistic” about getting the bill passed, which would reform net metering so people could make a little cash off their solar panels and windmills.

Post a comment