That person doesn’t exist today because energy policy development is fragmented. The four main energy regulatory entities in the state—the CEC, CPUC, Air Resources Board and CAISO—each have their own leadership, individual boards and set of priorities. In the legislature, a handful of elected officials and staffers, regardless of experience, have significant responsibility and resulting impact on energy policy. One reasonable option is to establish a cabinet-level position dedicated to statewide energy planning, supported by annual funding and staff. This energy policy director could be similar in structure to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, which develops longrange land-use goals and policies, and researches growth and development, among other tasks. If given real authority, a similar energy policy office could evaluate the various agency decisions to ensure they align with the state energy plan. 4. Break Up the CPUC to Make It More Effective This idea isn’t new, but it makes sense. Some critics believe the California Public Utilities Commission regulates too many industries to be effective. It oversees electricity, natural gas and water, telecommunications, wireless and broadband. CPUC also oversees the safety of railroads, rail transit and rail crossings in California, and ridesharing. Breaking out some of CPUC’s portfolio and moving these responsibilities to other agencies would help put more emphasis on matters it does have expertise in, namely the rate and economic regulator for the entities subject to its jurisdiction. The role of CPUC on utility safety matters should be reconsidered, as the track record on a host of issues such as pipeline safety may not warrant continued commitment to CPUC’s preeminent role. Perhaps CPUC would only keep regulatory responsibility over rate regulation of its jurisdictional electric and natural gas utilities, and the rest could be moved to other agencies. Perhaps an ombudsman for consumer protection issues could be 10 CALIFORNIA WATER & POWER SUMMER 2018
"GOV. BROWN HAS REALLY DONE A GREAT JOB IN COALESCING THE REGULATORY AGENCIES AND THE CAISO TO WORK TOGETHER … THE ENERGY PRINCIPALS MEET ON A REGULAR BASIS TO ENSURE THEY ARE ALL HEADED IN THE SAME DIRECTION.” —ASSEMBLYMEMBER CHRIS HOLDEN housed with the attorney general. Many other states have separate consumer advocates, while California houses its main consumer advocate within the very agency—CPUC—from which it is supposed to be independent. These ideas have precedent. Lawmakers during the past few years have taken away CPUC’s oversight of moving companies and ferries, for example. In 2016, the former chair of the Assembly Utilities Committee proposed such a breakdown of the CPUC, but efforts to make widespread changes to its structure have been slow to gain traction. It’s time to revisit this idea—not centering on CPUC’s effectiveness in and of itself, but rather to help California adopt a much-needed energy strategy for decades to come. There would be great value in narrowing CPUC’s scope to only energy and its current jurisdictional utilities. The five CPUC commissioners could focus entirely on IOUs and energy. There’s enough work there alone. 5. Create a Data-Sharing Platform and Convene Facilitated Stakeholder Forums The goal here is to explore ideas and talk with one another about the state-of-the-art programs and technology in the energy industry. California generally does a subpar job of sharing what works and what doesn’t. Energy policy must be examined in a more integrated way, which is hard to do if we don’t share facts and have a mutual understanding of where we’ve been and where we’re going. Instead, we have a lot of selfinterested businesses promoting their particular energy solutions at the expense of California consumers. A new data-sharing platform would help bring together case studies, technical information and
other findings about emerging technologies. Meanwhile, a new series of quarterly stakeholder forums on single topics such as energy efficiency, renewables, end-use and building codes, water-energy nexus, utilities, resource adequacy, storage, transportation electrification, and transmission and generation would bring together users, vendors, local governments and service deliverers. There should be a facilitator and a staff for fact-finding, and the process should lead to recorded outcomes, such as ideas and recommendations for strategic direction. The aim is to encourage cross-pollination that would lead to better, more coordinated energy policy. How to pay for these initiatives? With more than $100 billion spent by Californians annually in the energy space—electric, natural gas and transportation—the savings in providing direction would far outweigh the modest costs of strategic planning and information sharing. The total cost of these efforts would be miniscule compared to the benefits. We need to be conscious of the old adage: If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. And then there’s the corollary: Teamwork makes the dream work. For California’s future, the choice is ours. “We have a lot of great opportunities to excel,” said CMUA’s Moline. “If we continue down our current path, we’ll all keep fighting the good fight, doing the best we can to decarbonize power supply while ensuring high reliability and controlling costs. But we could be developing energy policy much more thoughtfully if we choose to work together. California is the fifthlargest economy in the world, and we’re leaders in clean energy and decarbonization. I think we should raise our game.” CWP