A March report from the Natural Resources Defense Council, a supporter of SB 254, examined wildfire-mitigation costs at PG&E, the state’s largest utility, which has doubled rates on average over the past decade and increased them 40% above inflation since 2018. According to that analysis, about 60% of PG&E’s rate increase stemmed from wildfire-related expenses, Merrian Borgeson, NRDC’s California policy director for climate and energy, said during the June town hall.
PG&E, which was forced into bankruptcy in 2019 after its power lines sparked the state’s deadliest wildfire, is under state mandate to invest in preventing its grid from causing more conflagrations. But the utility has also notched record-breaking profits in the midst of its record-breaking rate increases — in large part because of the guaranteed return it’s earning on that wildfire-prevention work.
Customers need quick relief from bearing those costs, and “the things that you can do the fastest to reduce electric rates are to take things out of rates,” Borgeson said.
Freedman of TURN highlighted differences between the securitization approaches of SB 254 and AB 825. AB 825 would apply only to the costs of burying power lines to prevent them from sparking wildfires. These “undergrounding” projects make up a big chunk of the broader wildfire-mitigation spending, particularly for PG&E. SB 254, by contrast, would apply to wildfire mitigation more broadly, as well as to spending to expand utility grids to serve fast-growing demand for electricity from big new loads like data centers and electric-vehicle charging hubs.
But in both cases, replacing utility spending with state borrowing would significantly lower costs to utility customers, he said. First, California can borrow money at lower rates of interest than utilities can. Second, the state can spread out the costs over a longer period of time, and reduce the portion of costs borne in earlier years, compared to how utilities pass on the cost of capital investments to their customers, he said.
It’s also been done before in California. In 2019, lawmakers passed a $21 billion wildfire bill to backstop California utilities’ financial stability in the face of PG&E’s bankruptcy. That bill forbade utilities from recovering a return on $5 billion in investments in wildfire-mitigation spending, but offered them the option of securitizing that spending instead, which they accepted. That’s expected to reduce ratepayer costs by as much as $2 billion over the lifetime of those assets.
Containing costs over the long term
The $15 billion securitization plan in SB 254 and AB 825 is targeted at reducing utility costs and rates in the shorter term. But both bills also propose a longer-term public-financing option aimed at the state’s high-voltage transmission grid.
“The idea here is to establish a state infrastructure authority that would have the capacity to finance and own these lines,” Freedman said.
That’s not a completely novel concept. The state-run New York Power Authority has owned and managed transmission grids since the 1930s, as have federal power-marketing entities such as the Bonneville Power Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority. More recently, New Mexico and Colorado have created transmission authorities to facilitate grid buildouts.
The California Independent System Operator, which manages the state’s grid, estimates that California must spend between $46 billion and $63 billion over the next 20 years to meet its goal of achieving a carbon-free grid by 2045. An October report from Net-Zero California and Clean Air Task Force found that “traditional investor-owned utility financing and development” of those projects “could substantially increase consumer rates,” but that a public-private partnership model could reduce those costs by up to 57%, saving utility customers as much as $3 billion per year compared to a status-quo approach.
“There are lots of institutional changes, and changes to authorities that operate in California, needed to operationalize the full range of those savings,” said Nicole Pavia, Clean Air Task Force’s director of clean energy infrastructure deployment. SB 254 and AB 825 don’t specify what form any future public-private ownership or public-financing structures for transmission might take, she noted. But both “are picking up pieces of the institutional changes that might be needed to advance some of these savings.”
The two bills take different approaches to this issue, Freedman said. SB 254 would establish a new Clean Infrastructure Authority to take on the work, while AB 825 would revitalize the California Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority, a now-defunct entity created after the state’s 2001 energy crisis to finance new power generation, he said.
The move to increase state authority over transmission development would not offer immediate relief to ratepayers, said Vivian Yang, an analyst at the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.
“These are big projects that are regardless going to take five to 10 years,” she said. “It’s not like we can pass those public-financing bills and then the next year our rates will go down.”
Instead, it would help the state position itself to avoid yet another cost crisis in the years to come. Given the massive amount of transmission California will need over the coming decades, “having all these tools to get us there — one of which is public financing for projects — is really important,” she said. California needs to get to work now to “have these structures up and running already and use them more nimbly, and not discover 10 years out that we’re stuck using what we’ve got.”
