Despite Promising Policies, Advocates Are Still Fighting for Community Power — Episode 153 of Local Energy Rules

And in the, in this year’s scorecard – every year we always grade states from A through F and there are always a few states that get an A or a B, that score very highly on the scorecard. Of the four states that got an A in 2022, California was on the list near the top and both Crystal and Al reached out about the scorecard, having seen those grades and their reaction was, I don’t know that grades appropriate or the work that we’re trying to do, actually making sure that this community level policy is effective. And so I would love to hear more about what it is that they see as the shortcomings of the way that we’re doing these grades and see if we can have some conversation about what ways we can more effectively track and understand the progress of energy democracy at the different states.

So, Crystal, I would love to invite you to just talk about kind of, what was your reaction when you saw the scorecard giving such a good grade to California, where you have done so much work trying to advance energy democracy, and what’s the problem that you see there.

This is an effort for private utilities to continue the current central centralized energy system that they get to rake in lots of profit in for, and try to prevent our transition into a decentralized energy system that is centered around justice, that we urgently need to get to. And the hole in California is not just in California. We all know that net energy metering fight is happening all across the country. Florida just a few days ago had passed a bill to gut net metering completely. So this fight is all connected and it’s hard to see it isolated state by state. And when we’re just fighting within California of looking at as an A, and especially coming from a B last year, going into an A it’s very disorienting for me, it makes me question whether the fight is going to actually have any legs. If someone, I mean, we deeply respect ILSR. So like if then people pit ILSR’s grade report against our campaign, what do we do? What does that mean? is a question that we have in mind.

I mean, just, just to say, okay, Florida gets a D for a law. I mean, Florida gets a D on the scorecard and they just passed a law which totally guts net metering. And then they say the inspiration for that law came from California and what’s happening in California, which gets an A, alright, so wait a minute, state that gets a D represents that their draconian measures, regressive, comes from a state that got an A there than somehow a, this, if that’s what’s going on. So, and I think Crystal sort of pointed to the fact that policies in name don’t represent actual political power on the ground. So the strength of utilities in the states is really an important criteria. Like to what extent does the utility sort of dominate a state energy policy and then what the institutions of the state actually represents.

Um, so in California, it’s true. We have many organizations that are doing advocacy around renewable energy and so on and so forth. And you can take about 10 of them. And then they get involved in some 50 proceedings at the state Public Utilities Commission, all of which basically follow this basic principle. They set up a proceeding to deal with an issue. They ask the utilities how they want that utility, that issue to be resolved. They go through a one year or a two year proceeding in which they invite everybody to and waste all their time. And then they decide on what it was that the utilities wanted to do in the first place. Now, you know, if that’s your measure of community power, California gets an E minus, right? Cause the state’s Public Utilities Commission is nothing but, uh, blah, blah, blah, you know, sounding board for what the utilities wanna do. So the notion that the community has any power in this situation, you know, is like, just seems like, it is like, you know, that that situation doesn’t represent an A basically what we’re saying. So it’s, the different policies are important policies, but how they got there, the extent to which they’re functional or the extent to which the community is really benefiting from them, like what metric is really being used at a community level? These are very challenging questions. And it’s not, it’s not about the fault of what the scorecard is doing in principle. That what the extent to which it actually really represents empowerment of communities around energy… I’ll stop there. But I mean, those are some of my thoughts.

And what ended up happening in this article actually talks about a specific story in the El Dorado Park, which is an unincorporated community near Fresno, California. They’ve actually had this amazing community solar project idea that they mobilized the entire community, which by the way, 93% of the community are renters. And they’re all coming together to build a community project, community solar project using the specific policy and program that is designed for disadvantaged communities, just like the residents of El Dorado Park. And their proposal, or the bid got declined, rejected twice. And you can imagine in order to put together a bid, you have to put in a lot of upfront cost and the developers are able to do it because it’s a high volume and very fast moving industry. But if you really wanna move at a speed of a community and actually allow communities to work, you can’t compete with that speed. And despite the difficulty, this group were able to put together the bid twice to move forward. But because the program is being administered by the investor-owned utilities, in this case, PG&E and also in the process in which there’s not designed for the community, it’s not implemented centered around the community.

The policy and program on paper looks great. It falls flat. It ends up wasting a lot of resources for the community and end up creating more hurt than it is useful. And whatever program that comes out will likely continue to push community out and away from the table to make decisions. And they continue to just be pigeonholed as a consumer that get 20% electricity bills savings. The empowerment is completely taken away.

Community choice is another place where you got now about 23 functioning community choice energy programs across the state due largely to, you know, advocacy on part of communities about setting up these programs and whatnot. And for people who don’t know, community choice is basically a kind of program where a state decides that a community or set of communities or some jurisdiction can take over the procurement part of energy and leave the actual delivery of energy up to the utility. You know, the distribution system and whatnot stays. There’s sort of a kind of hybrid system where, okay, now you have a local community agency actually deciding a procurement of electricity and providing energy services to the community. So I mean this on, you know, just in concept is a great opportunity to now really have put communities in the driver’s seat of shaping our own energy future. And so we have both a statewide organization called the California law for community energy that represents organizers and activists across the state, or basically, pushing for a notion of community choice that says, okay, the reason to have these community choice programs is really to basically promote local development of energy resources, like community power in that sense, you know, C community resources, whether it’s, you know, energy generation or storage and energy efficiency and all that stuff, you know, to create those specifically for the economic and environmental and social justice benefits of communities, right?

So that’s, that’s sort of the goal, that’s the notion and it seems like a great thing, but when you actually deal with it in reality, you get these agencies that are set up, they hire people from the utilities who are the technology experts that come in, they could care less about what the community thinks cause they actually know the way to run an energy system, and what do we know in the community. And what they do is they go and they replicate the utility model, almost hook line and sinker, you know, the whole centralized model, based on procurement, electricity and so on and so forth. Now it’s sort of understandable, but it’s understandable from the point of view that the utilities, you know, have been at war with community choice and concept ever since, and the state’s public utilities commission, you know, are sort of the attack dog for the utilities.

So the fact that you have a community choice program and name, even that you have 23 community choice agencies, does not really signify significant motion toward a decentralized energy model and more democratic control of energy. In fact, here’s an example in the central coast of CA, which is a very large community choice district. So the folks in the community really wanted to push very strongly for better workforce standards for work that’s being done around energy development and whatnot. And so they went to the community advisory committee, which is in many cases, these agencies do have advisory committees and they pushed in this direction. And so what did the staff of the agency do? They put forward our proposals to basically gut and neutralize the community advocacy apparatus, because who is the community to suggest that we should have better workforce standards?

You know, so it’s just an example of how, how the agencies don’t function at all in a way that respects and brings in a partnership with communities, but actually it’s hostile to the community. Another example of this was, PG&E, which the largest utility in the state, has all this excess now nuclear power. So what was it gonna do with this excess nuclear power? Let’s push it down onto community choice programs. And you get community choice programs talking about, they can take this, this nuclear power and add it to their mix. I mean, these are community choice programs that are to do renewable, reliable energy. And they’re talking about, you know, taking nuclear power from PG&E as part of their energy mix. It’s just totally outrageous.

And we actually did pretty well in winning that battle. We started in the East Bay and a couple other places and we got 75% of the community choice program that say, no, we’re not gonna take that stuff. But even that ,we even think about it is crazy. So just an example, you know, just examples of how the measure in this particular scorecard is that if you have a law that allows for community choice, you get a seven, but what does that seven really mean in California? Which is quote, “the most advanced community choice,” is really, it’s a big fight. And then you get Illinois getting a seven where community choice in Illinois has been a vehicle for actually increased fossil fuel production in the state. I mean, what does that mean? And so on and so forth. So I guess there’s just a sense to which we need to have a standard of community that somehow captures and represents the actual political fights and the political difficulties that are going on in the state. I talked for too long. I’m sorry about that.

I just thought of another example, you know, around stuff like in California, where people are getting burned out of their houses, having their power shut off. The question of microgrids is a big issue, right? Being able to set out community based microgrids. So even the state legislature passed a law that said, we need to commercialize microgrids in the same way solar has been sort of commercialized. And so the California of Public Utilities Commission took that law, and that was really about communities being able to really establish microgrids, to give them agency to do that. California Public Utilities Commission took that, they asked the utilities what they wanted to do. The utilities said we wanna set our fossil fuel generation at utilities substation so that when we shut down, when we basically, we have these things in California, they called power shutoffs that the utilities do, they shut off power cuz they don’t wanna start a wildfire. So then when they do that, they can keep a distribution system up and running by having a fossil fuel generator.

I mean, it’s like just craziness, you know, to think that we can’t make any headway around trying to get really a community based micro-grids built in California when there’s such a crying need for it. You know? And how do you represent that in a scorecard? It’s, it’s really difficult. So.

And because like, even when we have, like I mentioned earlier with the community solar law in California, every moment you have a community solar law, which by the way, in New Mexico, they just passed a community solar law and what is going to happen as they always do in every single place in this country is that developers are gonna swoop in and walk away with the money in their pocket. And communities are left with just the crumbs: bill savings, and that’s the best they can get. So if we really talk about energy democracy, we really talk about localizing the decision making power. We’re really talking about the forces that is happening. This is not just about investor utilities versus public municipal utility. This is more not just about community solar law versus rooftop solar law. This is not just about like what are the programs and policy that needs to happen, but really recognizing the forces that’s going on.

And Al’s really great storytelling and, and description of what’s happening and community choice energy program is a perfect example. Like when you look at East Bay Community Energy is such an amazing, inspiring example when it started with a local development business plan. But if the force is still in this ideology and framework of a centralized energy model, either we’re talking about a community choice energy program or community solar project, they’re going to just be acting exactly the same thing that they say they’re better at than the investor utility. They’re just gonna treat it as oh some way to get cheaper or decarbonize clean energy, but they’re just as good as the investor utility that’s burning the state down and not actually allowing communities to have a choice and build local economy. And so I think it’s important from like my summary of our conversation so far is really important to look at where are the forces that the decision making power is happening. So then we can actually move. So then the programs that all seem good don’t get co-opted by the false framework of a centralized energy model. So we can look at a decentralized energy model. And I’m talking about decentralized energy model, not about the technology, but really about how decision making power is being made. How are people being invited into at the table to make, to participate and make decisions together?

Hey, thanks for listening to Local Energy Rules. If you’ve made it this far, you’re obviously a fan and we could use your help for just two minutes. As you’ve probably noticed, we don’t have any corporate sponsors or ads for any of our podcasts. The reason is that our mission at ILSR is to reinvigorate democracy by decentralizing economic power. Instead, we rely on you, our listeners. Your donations not only underwrite this podcast, but also help us produce all of the research and resources that we make available on our website and all of the technical assistance we provide to grassroots organizations. Every year ILSR’s small staff helps hundreds of communities challenge monopoly power directly and rebuild their local economies. So please take a minute and go to ilsr.org and click on the donate button. And if making a donation isn’t something you can do, please consider helping us in other ways. You can help other folks find this podcast by telling them about it, or by giving it a review on iTunes, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. The more ratings from listeners like you, the more folks can find this and ILSR’s other podcasts, Community Broadband Bits and Building Local Power. Thanks again for listening. Now, back to the program.

And maybe it’s not even a scoring thing. It’s something where we go out and have some conversations with folks that work in those states. And we say, okay, if we look at the policy environment, it’s an A, but we’re gonna talk to you today about what does it actually feel like when you’re doing this work? Like, what does that look like? So I don’t know. I’m gonna leave it there. I’m gonna stop talking cuz I’m just interested in hearing your feedback about how do you think we capture that in this project in a way that doesn’t leave people feeling like either this doesn’t speak to us or, we’re really disappointed that somebody who talks about being about energy democracy is in fact giving the public impression that we’ve already accomplished it.

And I think when we’re talking about a scorecard and creating a change, it’s all about how can we actually create a condition in which people can show up and participate and build power. So how can a tool like a scorecard create a condition in and engagement that people are like, okay, now I have the information I need. So I’m going to participate and be part of it. I think the danger of scorecards in general is that it creates a bystander relationship of my relationship with whatever I’m assessing. I’m just here watching and I feel good or bad, but that’s just their thing. And I judge you and I walk away, how can we actually create an environment in which the scorecard can allow people to lean in and participate more?

And I I’ve seen scorecards done like that very rarely, but like Emerald City Collaborative’s energy democracy scorecard is designed in a way with facilitation guide that community, any community members can come together and start to look at the different pillars of energy democracy, and then do assessments. And an assessment is not just, oh, is it good or bad? Oh no, it sucks. Cuz it always sucks. We live in a, our condition today right now is not good. So how can I actually create a condition where people look at the scorecard, just feel depressed and go home and cry, but really feel like, okay, well this is a situation and here are the strategic points of intervention that I can start to participate in with the community that I feel pulled in and actually create that tool to allow people to participate even more is, is how I, I look at a potential for scorecard that could really, it’s all about power building. How can we actually allow more people to lean in and participate and be the hope that we are hoping for.

One of the things I wanted to ask about in relation to that actually is, and this just comes of some of my own personal education in the past few years about the results of historical discrimination. So we talk about things like redlining from time to time, we talk about things like Jim Crow laws and whatever. And there is, I think this impression certainly given when I was in school, that like we solved those problems and that problems that we have today about discrimination don’t have as much of a basis in history or there’s no reason that we have to address them. And I guess one of the things I’m curious about is when we think about looking at policy implementation, one of the things that we’re also trying to overcome is not just that barrier in terms of like who has the power and the – I can’t remember how you described it earlier, Crystal. I think I really liked the way that you said it basically about this idea of how the power structure in the system still works. I guess I’m kind of curious how we think about all of the historical harms that have sort of accumulated, especially in communities of color and how policy has to be designed to expressly address that if it’s gonna be successful. And that if it isn’t, if it’s just sort of generic and like this applies to everybody that it’s likely to fall short.

So for example, in California, where you have this whole centralized energy model and the abuse of it, you know, leading to wildfires and whatnot, who is impacted by the wildfires, also low income people and people of color who get burned down, whose rates get thrown up and whatnot in every, every impacted manifestation of the centralized energy model, including the fact that climate change. I mean, if you really wanna address climate change, then building long power lines, you know, that are affected and attacked by the elements, by floods and wind and fires. And I mean, you would really want to have resources close to home. The shutting off of power to millions of people really hurts low income people, the hardest and the worst.

So I mean every aspect of the impact, from rising temps to fires, to deaths and whatnot impacts low income people and people of color most strongly. And that is an institutionalized form of racism that we have with a centralized energy model. So, this is just the way of saying that, that this whole racialized impact any every economic sphere is certainly true within the energy system. And so people who talk about addressing climate change without addressing the racialized impacts of climate and energy are essentially just saying, well, the main dynamic that’s shaping power in America, we’re gonna ignore that in order to try to save the planet that, that doesn’t work, that that doesn’t really work.

So the whole notion of a decent energy model is its ability to empower communities at the local level, and to be able to address racialized forms of discrimination by empowering, not just communities in general, but by empowering those communities who have been excluded from power. I think what I’m just trying to say is that the racial dynamic is a predominant dynamic within energy. And so when we are talking about any form of community benefits, we have to be talking about the racialized impacts, not just the impacts in general. So it has to do with how any policy or whatnot.

So let’s say take net metering just as an example like net metering is a, is a policy framework that in terms of its design was really meant to utilize investment in capital from our affluent family. So the direct impact of having solar on rooftops has now been shared equally across all populations, but has been largely focused and, and more affluent household. We’re talking about, you know, residential rooftop, solar, and that’s a real problem. And it’s an example of how policies that are implemented without an eye to racial discrimination end up just increasing racial discrimination. And that’s a problem. So Shalanda Baker and her book, Revolutionary Power really talks a lot about dynamic and people should be encouraged to read it. It’s about the centrality of race in terms of trying to have policies that are really effective and really work. And so thinking about race as a secondary question is to make a big mistake.

And we have actually seen that in this country where, you know, to address climate change, we’ve basically failed, right? I mean, we have not really moved to a renewable energy structure and that’s because a majority of the folks in this country, largely low income and people of color, don’t see this as in a really like that policy is a key issue for them. And so they haven’t joined a white movement to decarbonize because what’s in it for them? And so to that extent, this question to race is the key question, you know, social and economic, we’ll put it as an energy justice, is key solving the climate problem. It’s key to any really sustainable energy policy that measure. So one way that we could capture this is like within, within the scorecard, for example, where is the measure of equity as an example, right? There is no specific measure equity and some of the, and some of the scoring, there is a notion about some equity within some of the categories, but like equity should really be a primary way of measuring community empowerment, because if it doesn’t empower low income communities and communities of color, well, then it’s not really community of empowerment in any real sense.

So to separate the systemic racism from how we treat, how we wanna redesign our energy system is missing the point of what democracy really looks like. I’m just affirming that. I’m pretty sure your audience already understand all of this. And the fact that we, any thought of trying to separate them is falling into the current economic framework and the culture in which we should separate everything and having conversations that connect all of these like we are having here is the answer to advancing energy democracy, to truly understand the background, the systemic racism, and how history continues to repeat its until we come together and reach that common understanding.

And I think about that when you come back to what Al was saying about net metering, for example, right? That the, the notion of the policy is that private capital can do something in the energy system for their own benefit. And it’s a beautiful idea. I love the sort of like market, you know, competition concept there. Like it’s not just about the monopoly utility, but it’s also very impractical and very inequitable. If that’s all there is knowing that the system on which it’s built has already been inequitable. So another book recommendation for folks, if in terms of like understanding this been very illuminating for me.

I know we don’t have much time left. We’ve literally only got five minutes before I have another podcast, but I wanna ask about this tension, I think that I see sometimes, and it’s not necessarily tied to the scorecard, but I think it’s sort of incorporated in this idea of implementation and something that I think you said earlier, Crystal, kind of how we involve communities at the pace of decision making, you know, the climate crisis is really urgent. I think one of the successes of the climate and energy movement in the past few years has been to help people understand that we really have some serious deadlines here that we have to meet that maybe the electricity system needs to be a hundred percent renewable by 2030, or maybe even sooner. And so I think I see, I see increasingly orientation around the idea that we are in a hurry from a climate standpoint to decarbonize. And I wonder how that works with the idea of, and I just wanna say this for myself. I don’t see it as incompatible with how we have conversations about involving communities. But I also feel like there’s a, there’s a potential for that or sense of urgency to allow our bias toward like centralized decision making to continue.

So when we’re talking about urgency, it was already the urgency of needing to produce agricultural based society and removing indigenous people from the land and do whatever it is. The colonizers need that urgency mindset that divides people and separate people from the relationship with the land with the world is the problem that is causing us to be in the climate disaster. So if we continue to move from fear from urgency, we are continuing to move in the exact same mental framework that got us to where we are today. And I’m talking about mental framework. We’re still in some way in the middle of a pandemic. And, and on top of is systemic racism, climate crisis. All these are creating a lot of stress and we’re also seeing on the news the way people react, unfortunately, all these crises that is continuing to bring bear down in our communities instead of trying to move in a way that is rooted in community and love. We are seeing so many people who are moving in one that’s rooted in fear and zero sum gain. I’m gonna shut my door. I’m gonna stop talking to people. I’m going to divide up. I’m going to protect my thing as opposed to, how can we lean in and build. And until we can figure out how to heal that trauma and move that fear away and start to lean in is the only way we can get out of this. I think if we keep thinking that this is an urgent thing and I don’t have time to talk, I have to protect my property. I have to protect my thing and my legacy for my children and forgetting that all of us as human species, we need to move together. We’re never going to get out of suicide mission that we’re on right now.