{"id":247563,"date":"2014-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2014-07-18T07:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sdnews.com\/lawmakers-scrap-controversial-section-of-energy-bill\/"},"modified":"2014-07-18T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2014-07-18T07:00:00","slug":"lawmakers-scrap-controversial-section-of-energy-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/lawmakers-scrap-controversial-section-of-energy-bill\/","title":{"rendered":"Lawmakers scrap controversial section of energy bill"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>McKenna Aiello |\u00a0Uptown News<\/p>\n<p>Environmental advocates and opponents of Assembly Bill 2145, a proposal that would make it more difficult for San Diego and other municipalities to provide alternative utility services, were pleased to see a controversial measure in the bill stripped out by the Senate\u2019s Energy Committee on June 21.<!--more--><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_17872\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-17872\" style=\"width: 650px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><a href=\"https:\/\/sduptownnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/IMG_1829CMYKWEB.jpg\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-17872 lazyload\" alt=\"Environmental activists protest at Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins\u2019 office in Downtown San Diego. (Photo by McKenna Aiello)\" data-src=\"https:\/\/sduptownnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/IMG_1829CMYKWEB.jpg\" width=\"650\" height=\"371\" src=\"data:image\/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAAAAACH5BAEKAAEALAAAAAABAAEAAAICTAEAOw==\" style=\"--smush-placeholder-width: 650px; --smush-placeholder-aspect-ratio: 650\/371;\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-17872\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Environmental activists protest at Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins\u2019 office in Downtown San Diego. (<em>Photo by McKenna Aiello<\/em>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Community Choice Aggregation permits cities and counties to purchase electricity for residents alternate from the energy provided by investor-owned utility companies. Under current California law, utility customers may be automatically enrolled in CCA programs, but the legislation approved by the Assembly in May would have required customers to actively register or \u201copt-in\u201d in to CCAs.<\/p>\n<p>The opt-in provision was fought by environmental groups and associations supporting clean-energy, claiming that the \u201copt-in\u201d requirement would mean grass-root CCA efforts would have to organize major marketing campaigns against well-backed utility giants \u2014 an unwinnable fight claim environmental groups.<\/p>\n<p>Proponents of the bill, on the other hand, argued the legislation would only provide a more transparent picture of the choices customers had. Indeed, much of what remains in AB 2145 are more reporting requirements for CCAs, including where they get their energy from.<\/p>\n<p>Opponents of the controversial bill made their voices heard in early June by protesting Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) vote in favor of AB 2145 and urging the San Diego City Council to pass a resolution against the legislation.<\/p>\n<p>The Council did vote in opposition of the bill, along with more than 40 other cities in California, including Chula Vista and Los Angeles, and the section of the bill considered most detrimental to clean energy programs was removed from the proposed legislation even prior to the Senate Committee\u2019s vote.<\/p>\n<p>While San Diego County is currently assessing potential CCA adoption, new language added to the bill would limit the size of a CCA agency to no more than three contiguous counties.<\/p>\n<p>AB 2145 is now on to the Senate Appropriations Committee where a hearing date has not yet been scheduled.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>McKenna Aiello |\u00a0Uptown News Environmental advocates and opponents of Assembly Bill 2145, a proposal that would make it more difficult for San Diego and other municipalities to provide alternative utility services, were pleased to see a controversial measure in the bill stripped out by the Senate\u2019s Energy Committee on June 21.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1213,"featured_media":247564,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"11555","_seopress_titles_title":"Lawmakers scrap controversial section of energy bill","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":[],"jnews_primary_category":[],"jnews_social_meta":[],"jnews_override_counter":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[11547,11551,11555],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-247563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-features","category-news","category-uptown-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247563","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1213"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=247563"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247563\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/247564"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}