Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ab 813 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco LAFCO votes to oppose AB 813, directs staff to prepare letter and resolution
Summary
LAFCO voted to oppose Assembly Bill 813 after staff described the bill as potentially transferring governance of Western grid functions to a regional structure and raising risks to local CCA procurement, consumer protections and decarbonization goals. The commission directed the executive officer to draft a letter to the Legislature and a resolution for the Board of Supervisors.
San Francisco LAFCO on June 29 voted to oppose Assembly Bill 813 after a staff briefing and public comment that described the bill as the start of a process to create a Western regional transmission system.
Executive Officer Brian Goebel summarized AB 813 and its supporters' arguments that regional transmission could expand renewable sharing across the West. He also summarized opponents’ concerns, including reduced consumer protections, potential increases in transmission costs, risks to local renewable jobs in disadvantaged communities and the chance that federal oversight could allow greater fossil-fuel generation into California’s mix. "Based on my review, I am recommending that SF LAFCO direct me, the executive officer, to write a letter to the legislature opposing AB 813," Goebel said.
Public commenters reinforced those worries. Loretta Lynch, former president of the California Public Utilities Commission, urged LAFCO to recommend action that includes suggested positions for the city attorney and the Board of Supervisors, warning that AB 813 would cede significant California control to a regional operator and could risk increased fossil fuel reliance. "This is a key and critical change in California's energy policy," Lynch said. "It would cede our power to the Western states. Think about who they are. They're coal states."
Commissioner Pollock moved to oppose AB 813 and to direct staff to prepare a memo and a draft resolution for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors; the motion was seconded and taken without objection. Commissioners asked staff to consult with advocates on cc lists and to consider publishing the commission’s letter more broadly.
