Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee advances bill to convert California Climate Credit into summer volumetric electricity rate cuts
Summary
The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy voted to pass AB 745 to the floor after testimony that the bill would redirect the California Climate Credit from lump‑sum bill rebates to lower summer volumetric electricity rates to help households facing extreme heat and high bills.
Assemblymember Laura Petrae Norris's Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy on an aye vote moved AB 745, a bill by Assemblymember Buffy Erwin, to the Assembly floor. The bill would reconfigure the California Climate Credit so electricity customers in investor‑owned utility territory receive a summer volumetric rate reduction rather than two lump‑sum bill credits in April and October.
AB 745 is aimed at improving affordability during high‑use summer months. "Rather than receiving a flat on bill credit in off peak months, our constituents would pay noticeably less per kilowatt hour for electricity during the high demand summer months," Erwin said when presenting the bill.
The bill would use proceeds from allowances under California's cap‑and‑trade program that utilities currently sell and distribute as the climate credit. Dr. Kyle Meng, professor of economics at UC Santa Barbara, told the committee the credit could be used more effectively as rate relief: "If this $1,200,000,000 were used to reduce rates for all households served by PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E for just the summer months, electricity rates were lower by 13 to 19%." He also described larger reductions if the credit were targeted at low‑income (CARE) households.
Supporters who spoke included Michelle Canales of the Union of Concerned Scientists and Joe Guardia of the Natural Resources Defense Council, both urging changes to apply the credit volumetrically and to consider redirecting the gas climate credit. Representatives of investor‑owned utilities noted they were still reviewing the bill: Brandon Ebit of Pacific Gas & Electric said PG&E had no position while it reviewed the measure; Laura Parr of Southern California Edison asked to work with the author on low‑income provisions. Scott Wetscher, representing the California Coalition of Utility Employees and related electrical worker organizations, said the bill should be amended to protect CARE customers and to account for customers with net energy metering.
Committee members asked a few clarifying questions, then the committee voted to pass AB 745 to the floor. The committee called the roll and recorded a majority of ayes; the clerk later reopened the roll for absent members to add their votes. The motion was reported out of committee as passed to the floor.
The bill in committee testimony repeatedly tied its authority and funding source to the state cap‑and‑trade program and the existing California Climate Credit. The bill text and committee discussion did not adopt a new statute beyond those programmatic changes; it would change how existing proceeds are applied on electric bills.
AB 745 now heads to the Assembly floor for further consideration and potential amendments.
