Energy Transition and Social Movements: The Rise of a Community Choice Movement in California

Smith, Ida Dokk

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-14207-0_4

Energy Transition and Social Movements: The Rise of a Community Choice Movement in California

Ida Dokk Smith⁴

Chapter
First Online: 15 June 2019

1062 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

This chapter examines the rise of a community choice movement in California. Here local governments launch community choice aggregation programs, one after the other, that promise higher renewable energy content than the existing investor-owned utilities. I view the movement as an expression of local climate interests fused with anti-utility resentment, and use the three lenses from social movement theory—political opportunities, mobilizing structures and framing processes—to analyze the emergence and development of the movement. This bottom-up process unfolds in a state that has some of the most ambitious climate policies and renewable energy goals in the US. The effectiveness of the community choice model as a climate policy tool is contested. However, the movement’s aim is not only to decarbonize the electricity system but to build an electricity system that utilizes more local renewable energy resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 79.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 99.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Ian Scoones, Melissa Leach, and Peter Newell, “The Politics of Green Transformations,” in The Politics of Green Transformations, ed. Ian Scoones, Melissa Leach, and Peter Newell, Pathways to sustainability series (London: Routledge, 2015).
2.
Elizabeth Shove and Gordon Walker, “CAUTION! Transitions ahead: politics, practice, and sustainable transition management,” Environment and Planning A 39 (2007).
3.
Scoones, Leach, and Newell, “The Politics of Green Transformations.”
4.
Community Choice Aggregator is the most recent actor in California’s electricity market. Most customers have been served by the three IOUs Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), but there is also limited number of retail providers serving commercial and industrial customers. In addition, California has several public owned utilities (POUs) not under CPUC authority that serve about a quarter of electricity supplied in the state.
5.
CPUC, “Consumer and Retail Choice, the Role of the Utility, and an Evolving Regulatory Framework, Staff White Paper ” (California Public Utilities Commission, 2017).
6.
Arnold J. Meltsner, “Political Feasibility and Policy Analysis,” Public Administration Review 32, no. 6 (1972) and Peter J. May, “Politics and Policy Analysis,” Political Science Quarterly 101, no. 1 (1986).
7.
Dough McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, eds., Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
8.
Bang, Victor, and Andresen, “California’s Cap-and-Trade System: Diffusion and Lessons.”
9.
CACE, Position Paper: Retract CPUC Resolution E-4907, December 21, (California Alliance for Community Energy, 2017).
10.
CPUC, “Resolution E-4907. Registration Process for Community Choice Aggregators, Draft February 8,” (California Public Utilities Commission, 2018).
11.
Ibid.
12.
San Diego Energy District. “Community Electricity Choice: History and Developments 2002 through 2016,” Accessed May 24, 2018. http://www.sandiegoenergydistrict.org/cca-history.html.
13.
Steven Weissman and Harry Moren, California’s Proposition 16 June 2010 Primary: An Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Berkeley Law, 2010).
14.
Garance Burke, Chris Finn, and Andrea Murphy, Community Choice Aggregation: The Viability of AB 117 and Its Role in California’s Energy Market, an Analysis Prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission, (Berkeley: The Goldman School of Public Policy, 2005).
15.
George J. Stigler, “The Theory of Economic Regulation,” The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2, no. 1 (1971): 3–21.
16.
Janelle Knox‐Hayes, “Negotiating Climate Legislation: Policy Path Dependence and Coalition Stabilization.” Regulation & Governance 6, no. 4 (2012).
17.
Guri Bang, David G. Victor, and Steinar Andresen, “California’s Cap-and-Trade System: Diffusion and Lessons,” Global Environmental Politics 17, no. 3 (2017): 12–30.
18.
Ibid.
19.
CPUC, “2017 Annual Report: Renewables Portfolio Standard,” (California Public Utilities Commission, 2017).
20.
Severin Borenstein, “Is “Community Choice” Electric Supply a Solution or a Problem?” Energy Institute at Haas, February 8, 2016. https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/is-community-choice-electric-suppy-a-solution-or-a-problem/.
21.
McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald, Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings.
22.
Sidney G. Tarrow, Power in Movement, Social Movements and Contentious Politics, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
23.
Doug McAdam, “Conceptual Origins, Current Problems, Future Directions,” in Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, ed. Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
24.
Ibid.
25.
McAdam, “Social Movement Theory and the Prospects for Climate Change Activism in the United States.”
26.
John D. McCarthy, “Constraints and Opportunities in Adopting, Adapting, and Inventing,” in Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, ed. D. McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 141.
27.
McAdam, “Social Movement Theory and the Prospects for Climate Change Activism in the United States.”
28.
McAdam, “Social Movement Theory and the Prospects for Climate Change Activism in the United States.”
29.
McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald, Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings.
30.
Ibid.
31.
Ibid.
32.
Mario Diani, “The Concept of Social Movement,” The Sociological Review 40, no. 1 (1992): 1.
33.
Note that I understand social mobilization structures to be mainly those resources available prior to the movement. Over time the boundaries between what is the social mobilization structure and the network of actors that constitutes the movement overlap.
34.
McAdam, “Social Movement Theory and the Prospects for Climate Change Activism in the United States.”
35.
Karapin argues that high level of support for climate policy is a result rather than a cause of climate and renewable energy legislation. Roger Karapin, Political Opportunities for Climate Policy: California, New York, and the Federal Government (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
36.
Louise W. Bedsworth and Ellen Hanak, “Climate Policy at the Local Level: Insights from California,” Global Environmental Change 23, no. 3 (2013).
37.
McAdam, “Social Movement Theory and the Prospects for Climate Change Activism in the United States.”
38.
James Meadowcroft, “What About the Politics? Sustainable Development, Transition Management, and Long Term Energy Transitions,” Policy Sciences 42, no. 4 (2009): 323–40.
39.
Scoones, Leach, and Newell, “The Politics of Green Transformations.”
40.
Gerry Braun and Stan Hazelroth, “Energy Infrastructure Finance: Local Dollars for Local Energy,” The Electricity Journal 28, no. 5 (2015): 6–21.
41.
Kacper Szulecki, “Conceptualizing Energy Democracy,” Environmental Politics 27, no. 1 (2018): 21–41.
42.
Andrew Cheon and Johannes Urpelainen, Activism and the Fossil Fuel Industry (London: Routledge, 2018).
43.
Karl E. Weick, “Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems,” American Psychologist 39, no. 1 (1984): 40–49.
44.
David J. Hess, “Industrial Fields and Countervailing Power: The Transformation of Distributed Solar Energy in the United States,” Global Environmental Change 23, no. 5 (2013): 847–55.
45.
Recent wildfires in California have again put the IOU model on the political agenda, which might have implications for the CCAs role in the electricity system. This recent situation is not part of the scope here.
46.
John Gerring, Case Study Research: Principles and Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
47.
Ibid.
48.
I have used the most recent bill analysis that included overview of supporters and opponents. All bills and bill analysis can be found at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/.
49.
Weissman and Moren, “California’s Proposition 16 June 2010 Primary: An Analysis.”
50.
CAL. PUB. UTIL. CODE Sect. 366.2. (c)(1).
51.
Hess, “Industrial Fields and Countervailing Power: The Transformation of Distributed Solar Energy in the United States.”
52.
Ibid.
53.
The opt-out design was also discussed during the deregulation debates. However, at that time the CCA program was designed as an opt-in system.
54.
Weissman and Moren, “California’s Proposition 16 June 2010 Primary: An Analysis.”
55.
Burke, Finn, and Murphy, “Community Choice Aggregation: The Viability of AB 117 and Its Role in California’s Energy Market, an Analysis Prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission.”
56.
A similar bill (AB 9xx (Midgen)) was vetoed by the Governor the year before due concern for cost-shift as CCA-customers would leave IOU service.
57.
Elizabeth Kelly et al., White Paper on the Evolution of Non-bypassable Charges on Community Choice Aggregation, (MCE Clean Energy, 2017).
58.
See ibid. and CACE, Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (Pcia), Letter to California Public Utilities Commission, March 2, 2016, (California Alliance for Community Energy, 2016).
59.
Lisa Kovach, “Power Struggle,” San Diego Business Journal (2004).
60.
Michelle Macado, “Electricity Providers Fight over Customers in Stockton, Calif., Area,” The Record (KRTBN) 2004.
61.
CPUC, “Decisions Resolving Phase 2 Issues on Implementation of Community Choice Aggregation Program and Related Matters,” in Decision 05-12-041 December 15, 2005, ed. CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission, 2005).
62.
Darrell Steinberg, Letter from Senator Darrell Steinberg to PG&E CEO Peter Darbee, (December 22, 2009).
63.
Senate Rules Committee, AB 117 (Midgen), Bill Analysis 091202.
64.
Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, AB 790 (Leon), Bill Analysis 042611.
65.
CPUC, “Letter from Steve Larson Executive Director CPUC to David Orth, General Manager Kings River Conservation District,” (California Public Utilities Commission, 2007).
66.
Power Market Today, “California Community Power Project Set Aside (Again),” July 9, 2009.
67.
Energy Washington Week, “Retail Electric Utility Competition Likely Will Remain Moribund,” April 12, 2006.
68.
Seth Baruch and Shawn Marshall, Community Choice Energy in Silicon Valley 2015 Assessment Report, (Prepared for Silicon Valley Community Choice Energy Partnership (SVCCEP) LEAN Energy US, 2015).
69.
This argument was made by The Utility Reform Network (TURN) at CPUC en banc February 1, 2017 according to the Center for Climate Protection’s comments, accessed January 3, 2019. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/Utilities_and_Industries/Energy/Energy_Programs/Costs_and_Rates/CCA_and_Direct_Access/CPUC%20CCA%20En%20Banc%20-%20Point-by-Point%20Table%20Final.pdf.
70.
CACE, Good Energy Is a Bad Deal, Why Good Energy Inc. Is a Bad Choice for Your Community Choice Energy Program, (California Alliance for Community Energy, 2016), 2.
71.
The County of Marin loaned a total of $540,000 without interest. MEA also issued promissory notes to three individuals for loans totaling $750,000 with interest. MCE, Financial Statement, (MCE, 2010).
72.
I8.
73.
Ibid.
74.
Ibid.
75.
McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald, Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings.
76.
I3.
77.
MCE. “About us.” Accessed May 24, 2018. https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/about-us/.
78.
See, for instance, LEAN Energy’s Description of CCA in California, accessed May 24, 2018. http://www.leanenergyus.org/cca-by-state/california/.
79.
Peter Asmus, Introduction to Energy in California, vol. 97, California Natural History Guides (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), 321.
80.
Lisa Weinzimer, “San Fransisco Bay Area Cities Are Taking Close Look at Community Choice Aggregation,” Electric Utility Week, January 14, 2008.
81.
I2 and I8 also mention the inability of PG&E to meet specific demand.
82.
MCE, Financial statement, (MCE, 2011).
83.
See e.g. Jeremy Hay, “An Energy Community: Defeat of State Prop. 16 Boosts opens for those advocating a locally based electricity supply, more utilization of renewable sources,” The Press Democrat, June 11, 2010.
84.
I8.
85.
Jim Phelps, “MCE’s and Kate Sears’ $500 million deal with Shell Oil—Part 3 of 3 Parts,” April 30, 2016. https://marinpost.org/blog/2016/4/30/kate-sears-and-shell-oil.
86.
Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, SB 790 (Leon), Bill Analysis 050211.
87.
Jeremy Hay, “An Energy Community: Defeat of State Prop. 16 Boosts Opes for Those Advocating a Locally Based Electricity Supply, More Utilization of Renewable Sources,” The Press Democrat, June 11, 2010.
88.
Debra Kahn, “Electricity; Calif. Rebukes PG&E for Anti-competitive Tactics,” Greenwire, May 4, 2010.
89.
See CaliforniaChoices.org for information and link to campaign documentation, accessed January 3, 2019. https://www.californiachoices.org/proposition-16.
90.
Ventura County Star, “A corporate bet that will keep losing,” June 16, 2010.
91.
Ventura County Star, “A corporate bet That will keep losing.”
92.
See, for instance, Cal-Tax Position note, http://www.caltax.org/Proposition16SUPPORT.pdf.
93.
Ventura County Star, “A corporate bet That will keep losing.”
94.
Steinberg, “Letter from Senator Darrell Steinberg to PG&E CEO Peter Darbee.”
95.
For full list of supporters Local Clean Energy Alliance, The Coalition Opposing Proposition 16, (Local Clean Energy Alliance, 2010).
96.
The Local Clean Energy Alliance provide overview over activities and documents from the campaign on their website, accessed May 24, 2018. http://www.localcleanenergy.org/powergrab/prop-16/alliance-role.
97.
Marc Lifsher and Dianna Klein, “PG&E’s customers vote down Prop. 16,” Los Angeles Times, June 10, 2010.
98.
Senate Rules Committee, SB 790 (Leon), Bill Analysis 090911.
99.
Senate Rules Committee, AB 976 (Hall), Bill Analysis 080812.
100.
Jake Macekzie Sonoma County officials, quote from Jeremy Hay, “An Energy Community: Defeat of State Prop. 16 Boosts Opes for Those Advocating a Locally Based Electricity Supply, More Utilization of Renewable Sources,” The Press Democrat, June 11, 2010.
101.
See the Local Clean Energy Alliance for a detailed description of the process. Local Clean Energy Alliance. “Victory! AB 2145 Defeated in the California Senate.” Accessed May 24, 2018. http://www.localcleanenergy.org/AB-2145Victory.
102.
Quote from Roy L. Hales, “California’s ‘Monopoly Protection Act,’ AB 2145, Is Dead,” The ECOReport, September 3, 2014.
103.
I10.
104.
Hess, “Industrial Fields and Countervailing Power: The Transformation of Distributed Solar Energy in the United States.”
105.
I10.
106.
See e.g., California Association for Energy Choice position on transmission access charges (TAC) and CALISO regionalization, accessed May 24, 2018. http://cacommunityenergy.org/.
107.
In California TAC is charged on electricity consumed, independent of the use of the transmission grid. This, the sponsor argues, creates a subsidy for utility scale power supply.
108.
E.g., Carbon Free Mountain View, Carbon free Palo Alto, East Bay Clean Energy Alliance, San Diego Electric District. Senate Rules Committee, SB 692 (Allen) Bill Analysis 050117.
109.
I10.
110.
I10, I11.
111.
See, for instance, Baruch and Marshall, “Community Choice Energy in Silicon Valley 2015 Assessment Report” and Fosterra Clean Energy Consulting, Community Choice Energy: What Is the Economic Impact of Local Renewable Power Purchasing? San Joaquin Valley Case Study, (Center for Climate Protection, 2017).
112.
Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce, AB 2145 (Bradford), Bill analysis 042514.
113.
The author of AB 2145 refers to a survey of 400 residents in the City of Richmond where almost 75% of the responders were not familiar with MCE.
114.
Sempra Services. “Community choice aggregation.” Accessed June 8, 2018. https://www.sempraservices.com/community-choice-aggregation.
115.
I7.
116.
CACE, “Good Energy Is a Bad Deal, Why Good Energy Inc. Is a Bad Choice for Your Community Choice Energy Program.”
117.
G. Patrick Stoner, John Dalessi, and Gerald Braun, Community Choice Aggregation Pilot Project (California Energy Commission [CEC], 2009).
118.
Hess, “Industrial Fields and Countervailing Power: The Transformation of Distributed Solar Energy in the United States.”
119.
I8.
120.
Volkmar Lauber, “Political Economy of Renewable Energy,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., James D. Wright (Oxford: Elsevier, 2015).
121.
I8.
122.
See e.g., Center for Climate Protection, Comments: CPUC Community Choice Aggregation En Banc February 1, 2017, accessed January 3, 2019. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=6442453177.
123.
Interview 7.
124.
I2.
125.
I7.
126.
MCE. “Learning Center.” accessed June 2017. https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/learning-center/.

References

Asmus, Peter. Introduction to Energy in California. California Natural History Guides, vol. 97. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.
Google Scholar
Bang, Guri, David G. Victor, and Steinar Andresen. “California’s Cap-and-Trade System: Diffusion and Lessons.” Global Environmental Politics 17, no. 3 (2017): 12–30.
Article Google Scholar
Baruch, Seth, and Shawn Marshall. “Community Choice Energy in Silicon Valley 2015 Assessment Report.” Prepared for Silicon Valley Community Choice Energy Partnership (SVCCEP) LEAN Energy US, 2015. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/files/managed/Document/86/SVCCEPAssessmentReport-LEANEnergyMay2015.pdf.
Bedsworth, Louise W., and Ellen Hanak. “Climate Policy at the Local Level: Insights from California.” Global Environmental Change 23, no. 3 (2013): 664–77.
Article Google Scholar
Borenstein, Severin. “Is ‘Community Choice’ Electric Supply a Solution or a Problem?” Blog. In Energy Institute at Haas, Accessed 8 February 2016. https://www.energyathaas.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/is-community-choice-electric-suppy-a-solution-or-a-problem/.
Braun, Gerry, and Stan Hazelroth. “Energy Infrastructure Finance: Local Dollars for Local Energy.” The Electricity Journal 28, no. 5 (2015): 6–21.
Article Google Scholar
Burke, Garance, Chris Finn, and Andrea Murphy. “Community Choice Aggregation: The Viability of AB 117 and Its Role in California’s Energy Market, an Analysis Prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission.” Berkeley: The Goldman School of Public Policy, 2005. http://www.local.org/goldman.pdf.
CACE. “Good Energy Is a Bad Deal, Why Good Energy Inc. Is a Bad Choice for Your Community Choice Energy Program.” California Alliance for Community Energy, 2016. http://cacommunityenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Good-Energy-is-a-Bad-Deal_10-7-16.pdf.
———. “Position Paper: Retract CPUC Resolution E-4907, December 21.” California Alliance for Community Energy, 2017. http://cacommunityenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CACE-E-4907-Response_final.pdf.
———.“Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), Letter to California Public Utilities Commission, March 2, 2016.” California Alliance for Community Energy, 2016. http://cacommunityenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/CACE-PCIA-position-3-2-16.pdf.
Cheon, Andrew, and Johannes Urpelainen. Activism and the Fossil Fuel Industry. London: Routledge, 2018.
Chapter Google Scholar
CPUC. “2017 Annual Report: Renewables Portfolio Standard.” California Public Utilities Commission, 2017.
Google Scholar
———. “Consumer and Retail Choice, the Role of the Utility, and an Evolving Regulatory Framework, Staff White Paper.” California Public Utilities Commission, 2017.
Google Scholar
———. “Decisions Resolving Phase 2 Issues on Implementation of Community Choice Aggregation Program and Related Matters.” In Decision 05-12-041 December 15, 2005, edited by CPUC: California Public Utilities Commission, 2005.
Google Scholar
———. “Letter from Steve Larson Executive Director Cpuc to David Orth, General Manager Kings River Conservation District.” California Public Utilities Commission, 2007. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/general.aspx?id=2567.
———. “Resolution E-4907. Registration Process for Community Choice Aggregators, Draft February 8.” California Public Utilities Commission, 2018. http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/publisheddocs/published/g000/m208/k956/208956263.pdf.
Diani, Mario. “The Concept of Social Movement.” The Sociological Review 40, no. 1 (1992): 1–25.
Article Google Scholar
Energy Washington Week. “Retail Electric Utility Competition Likely Will Remain Moribund.” April 12, 2006. Factiva.
Google Scholar
Fosterra Clean Energy Consulting. Community Choice Energy: What Is the Economic Impact of Local Renewable Power Purchasing? San Joaquin Valley Case Study. Center for Climate Protection, 2017. https://climateprotection.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CCE-Benefits-Report-for-San-Joaquin-Valley-June-1-2017.pdf.
Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511803123.
Hales, Roy L. “California’s ‘Monopoly Protection Act,’ AB 2145, Is Dead.” The ECOReport, September 3, 2014. https://theecoreport.com/california-assembly-bill-2145-is-dead/.
Hay, Jeremy. “An Energy Community: Defeat of State Prop. 16 Boosts Opes for Those Advocating a Locally Based Electricity Supply, More Utilization of Renewable Sources.” The Press Democrat, June 11, 2010. Factiva.
Google Scholar
Hess, David J. “Industrial Fields and Countervailing Power: The Transformation of Distributed Solar Energy in the United States.” Global Environmental Change 23, no. 5 (2013): 847–55.
Article Google Scholar
Kahn, Debra. “Electricity; Calif. Rebukes Pg&E for Anti-competitive Tactics.” Greenwire, May 4, 2010. Factiva.
Google Scholar
Karapin, Roger. Political Opportunities for Climate Policy: California, New York, and the Federal Government. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Google Scholar
Kelly, Elizabeth, Shalini Swaroop, Nathaniel Malcolm, and Camille Stough. White Paper on the Evolution of Non-Bypassable Charges on Community Choice Aggregation. MCE Clean Energy, 2017.
Google Scholar
Knox‐Hayes, Janelle. “Negotiating Climate Legislation: Policy Path Dependence and Coalition Stabilization.” Regulation & Governance 6, no. 4 (2012): 545–67.
Article Google Scholar
Kovach, Lisa. “Power Struggle.” San Diego Business Journal. 2004. Factiva.
Google Scholar
Lauber, Volkmar. “Political Economy of Renewable Energy.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd Edition), edited by James D. Wright, 367–73. Oxford: Elsevier, 2015.
Chapter Google Scholar
Lifsher, Marc, and Dianna Klein. “PG&E’s Customers Vote Down Prop. 16.” Los Angeles Times, June 10, 2010. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/10/local/la-me-california-prop16-20100610.
Local Clean Energy Alliance. The Coalition Opposing Proposition 16. Local Clean Energy Alliance, 2010. http://www.localcleanenergy.org/files/NoProp16-Coalition.pdf.
Macado, Michelle. “Electricity Providers Fight Over Customers in Stockton, Calif., Area.” The Record (KRTBN), 2004. Factiva.
Google Scholar
May, Peter J. “Politics and Policy Analysis.” Political Science Quarterly 101, no. 1 (1986): 109–25.
Article Google Scholar
McAdam, Doug. “Conceptual Origins, Current Problems, Future Directions.” In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by D. McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Google Scholar
———. “Social Movement Theory and the Prospects for Climate Change Activism in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 20, no. 1 (2017): 189–208.
Article Google Scholar
McAdam, Dough, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, eds., Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Google Scholar
McCarthy, John D. “Constraints and Opportunities in Adopting, Adapting, and Inventing.” In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by D. McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Google Scholar
MCE. Financial Statement. 2010. https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/financial-statements-2010.pdf.
———. Financial Statement. 2011. https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/financial-statements-2011.pdf.
Meadowcroft, James. “What About the Politics? Sustainable Development, Transition Management, and Long Term Energy Transitions.” Policy Sciences 42, no. 4 (2009): 323.
Article Google Scholar
Meltsner, Arnold J. “Political Feasibility and Policy Analysis.” Public Administration Review 32, no. 6 (1972): 859–67.
Article Google Scholar
Phelps, Jim. “MCE’s and Kate Sears’ $500 Million Deal with Shell Oil—Part 3 of 3 Parts.” The Marin Post, Blog. April 30, 2016. https://marinpost.org/blog/2016/4/30/kate-sears-and-shell-oil.
Power Market Today. “California Community Power Project Set Aside (Again).” July 9, 2009. Factiva.
Google Scholar
Scoones, Ian, Melissa Leach, and Peter Newell. “The Politics of Green Transformations.” In The Politics of Green Transformations, edited by Ian Scoones, Melissa Leach and Peter Newell. Pathways to sustainability series. London: Routledge, 2015.
Google Scholar
Shove, Elizabeth, and Gordon Walker. “CAUTION! Transitions Ahead: Politics, Practice, and Sustainable Transition Management.” Environment and Planning A 39 (2007): 763–70.
Article Google Scholar
Steinberg, Darrell. “Letter from Senator Darrell Steinberg to PG&E CEO Peter Darbee.” December 2, 2009. http://www.localcleanenergy.org/files/Steinberg_a_Darbee-16.pdf.
Stigler, George J. “The Theory of Economic Regulation.” The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2, no. 1 (1971): 3–21.
Google Scholar
Stoner, G. Patrick, John Dalessi, and Gerald Braun. “Community Choice Aggregation Pilot Project.” California Energy Commission CEC, 2009. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-500-2008-091/CEC-500-2008-091.PDF.
Szulecki, Kacper. “Conceptualizing Energy Democracy.” Environmental Politics 27, no. 1 (2018): 21–41.
Article Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney G. Power in Movement, Social Movements and Contentious Politics. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Google Scholar
Ventura County Star. “A corporate bet that will keep losing.” June 16, 2010. Factiva.
Google Scholar
Weick, Karl E. “Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems.” American Psychologist 39, no. 1 (1984): 40–49.
Article Google Scholar
Weinzimer, Lisa. “San Fransisco Bay Area Cities Are Taking Close Look at Community Choice Aggregation.” Electric Utility Week, January 14, 2008. Factiva.
Google Scholar
Weissman, Steven, and Harry Moren. “California’s Proposition 16 June 2010 Primary: An Analysis.” Berkeley: University of California Berkeley Law, 2010.
Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

I want to thank the American-Scandinavian Foundation and Centre for International Climate and Energy Policy (CICEP) for financial support to conduct fieldwork in California spring 2017. I am grateful to all of those whom I interviewed for taking the time out of their busy schedules and to Jeremy Waen for commenting on an early draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Ida Dokk Smith

Authors

Ida Dokk Smith
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ida Dokk Smith .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
Dmitry Kurochkin
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
Elena V. Shabliy
George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
Ekundayo Shittu

Appendices

Appendix 1: Interviews California, Spring 2017

I1.
City government official, June 28
I2.
Consumer protection organization, June 6
I3.
Community Choice Aggregation, June 13 (Phone)
I4.
Community Choice Aggregation July 6
I5.
Community Choice Aggregation, July 3
I6.
County supervisor, June 20
I7.
Energy expert, June 8 (Phone)
I8.
Energy expert, June 23
I9.
Solar advocacy organization, June 29
I10.
Solar company, July 4 (Phone)
I11.
Solar company, July 4 (Phone)

Appendix 2: Legislative Review

2002::: AB 117 (Midgen) authorize local governments, independent or together through a joint power authority, to aggregate consumer electric load and purchase electricity from consumers designed as an opt-out program. The bill describes essential CCA program elements, requires the state’s utilities to provide certain services to CCAs, and establishes methods to protect existing utility customers from liabilities that they might otherwise incur when a portion of a utility’s customers transfer their energy services to a CCA.
2004::: CPUC decision D.04-12-046 address rates, cost and tariff allocation issues.
2005::: CPUC Decision 05-12-041 establish rules and procedures for the implementation of CCA programs. The Commission determined that AB 117 does not confer general jurisdiction over CCAs but requires the Commission to take certain actions to protect utility bundled customers and assure reasonable service to CCAs.
2007::: CPUC authorize the first CCA in California, San Joaquin Valley Power Authority, located in San Joaquin Valley. The application was submitted by the Kings River Conservation District (KRCD) in April 2007. In addition to the Kings River Conservation District, Kings County and 12 cities were behind the initiative the CCA was temporarily suspended in 2009 and formally dissolved in 2013.
2010::: Marin Clean Energy (MCE) start serving customers and become the first active CCA in California. Expanded into three other counties. When launched the Member Agencies of MCE included eight of the twelve municipalities located within the geographic boundaries of Marin County. During the second half of 2011 the four remaining municipalities joined. Since 2011 MCE has expanded into three other counties: Contra Costa County, Napa County and Sonoma County (City of Benicia).
2010::: The ballot initiative Proposition 16 sponsored by PG&E result in 52.3% against and 47.7% in support. If the initiative had succeeded the constitution would be amended by altering the necessary qualifications for CCA programs. Under the act, a potential local municipal utility and/or CCA (establishment and expansion) would need to gain approval of two thirds of the voters who live in the area the utility would cover.
2011::: SB 790 (Leon) adopted by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. Directs CPUC to institute a procedure to develop a code of conduct to govern the act of IOUs in relation to communities that consider, form or implement a CCA and to implement this code of conduct. Particularly the bill limits the IOUs ability to use ratepayer funds to market against CCAs. The bill also regulates data sharing from IOUs to CCAs, and allow CCAs to become administrators of public purpose funds for energy efficiency programs .
2011::: AB 976 (Hall) passed both houses in the Legislature. Vetoed by the Governor. The bill would have prohibited consultancies providing advice on the feasibility of forming a CCA to apply for contracts for services during implementation of the same CCA.
2014::: Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) in Sonoma County becomes the second CCA to start serving customers. Initially its members consisted of five cities and the unincorporated area of Sonoma County. By 2016 the CCA had expanded to serve the remaining cities in the county, and into Mendocino County.
2014::: Lancaster city in Southern California become the first city to launch its own CCA program.
2014::: AB 2145 (Bradford) introduced in the Assembly. Initially the policy would change the design of CCA programs to an opt-in system. The bill is later changed to limit CCAs from exceeding a certain geographical boundary. The bill passed the Assembly but did not come up for a vote in the Senate.
2015::: SB 350 (Leon) increases the states renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to 50% renewable by 2030. The bill state that CCAs are required to participate in the RPS under the same terms as other electrical corporations. Give the CPUC authority to require CCAs to sign long-term contracts if needed.
2016::: CleanPowerSF the San Francisco’s CCA started serving customers. It took over a decade for the city to get the program up and running. CleanPowerSF is administered by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC).
2016::: Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) in San Mateo County start serving customers. The first feasibility study was done on behalf of 20 cities and the unincorporated San Mateo County. According to their website PCE now serve all of San Mateo County.
2016::: California Community Choice Association (CalCCA) was formed to represent the interest of CCA providers in the state legislature. Since formed operational members have grown to 16 CCAs.
2016::: AB 1110 (Ting) modifies disclosure requirement to retail supplier of electricity. Every retail supplier is required to annually report to its customer the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of the supplier’s electricity source, and the GHG emission associated with all statewide retail electricity sales . Directs California Energy Commission to adopt accounting guidelines through a proceeding. CCAs established after January 1, 2016 is exempt for up to three years.
2017::: Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) in Santa Clara County start serving customers. The CCA is the first to offer 100% GHG-free electricity as their default option. The joint power authority, Silicon Valley Community Choice Energy Partnership (SVCCEP), consisted initially of three cities and the unincorporated Santa Clara County. The partnership was extended and by the time the CCA started serving customers all cities were members of the joint power authority.
2017::: San Diego Gas & Electric’s parent company, Sempra Energy, sets up the state’s first shareholder-funded lobbying group on CCA.
2017::: En banc organized by CPCU in February. Participants from TURN, CCAs, Clean Coalition, Utilities, CPUC, as well as Shell North America Energy and LEAN Energy U.S.
2017::: SB 692 (Allen) sponsored by the Clean Coalition directs CAISO initiate a stakeholder initiative to consider modifications to the methodology to calculate transmission and wheeling access charges. Passed the Senate.
2017::: SB 618 (Bradford) specifies existing obligation to file integrated resource plans (IRP) to CPUC, by requiring such integrating resource plan to contribute to a diverse and balanced portfolio of resources. When introduced the bill also expanded CPUC authority over CCAs by requiring CPUC to approve the IRP submitted.
2018::: CPUC resolution E-4907. The resolution modifies CCA implementation. After 2019 a CCA would have to submit implementation plans one year before launching. The rule only applies to CCAs that had not filed implementation plans by December 8, 2017.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smith, I.D. (2019). Energy Transition and Social Movements: The Rise of a Community Choice Movement in California. In: Kurochkin, D., Shabliy, E., Shittu, E. (eds) Renewable Energy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14207-0_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14207-0_4
Published: 15 June 2019
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14206-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14207-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics