As energy and housing prices soar in San Diego, state policies are being scrutinized by local environmental leaders who hope to mitigate these challenges.
Nicole Capretz, CEO of the San Diego Climate Action Campaign, and Masada Disenhouse, executive director of SanDiego350, recently shared their insights on state proposals designed to cut electric bills and streamline housing construction.
Capretz applauds several legislative efforts that aim to lower electricity rates, including a significant bill preventing power utilities from charging customers for lobbying and advertising expenses.
Another measure aims to slash the costs associated with building new power lines by allowing public financing, and these initiatives have already advanced in either the Assembly or state Senate.
In contrast, Disenhouse expresses concern that proposals intended to simplify housing construction might compromise environmental standards.
She highlights legislation that would freeze building standards and restrict local governments from implementing new construction requirements, warning of inadequate public input due to the expedited budget process.
Construction unions also voiced objections to Governor Gavin Newsom’s plans, asserting that linking housing reforms to the budget could suppress wages.
In 2023, San Diego boasted the highest energy rates in the nation, largely because San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) serves a smaller customer base compared to other California utilities.
The region’s extensive use of rooftop solar means even fewer customers contribute to the power grid.
As a result, SDG&E sells less energy while incurring higher costs for infrastructure maintenance and development.
Additionally, severe wildfires and climate initiatives are pushing electric bills in California to twice the national average, as noted by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Identifying solutions to the rising energy costs remains complex, but Capretz is heartened to see legislative action addressing these issues.
She expresses cautious optimism that meaningful reforms will emerge, benefitting local families.
One notable bill, AB 1167, introduced by Democrats Marc Berman and Dawn Addis, seeks to prohibit utilities from charging ratepayers for political activities and promotional advertising.
The nonprofit Earthjustice highlights that this bill would relieve California households burdened by high energy costs by holding for-profit utilities accountable.
While some state laws already limit utility political expenditures, the California Chamber of Commerce argues that AB 1167 is unnecessary. In response, SDG&E has expressed opposition, claiming the bill imposes excessive accounting responsibilities on utilities.
Another significant initiative, AB 825 by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, aims to establish a fund within the State Treasury to support transmission projects aligned with the state’s clean energy goals.
However, SDG&E raised concerns regarding the need for stakeholder discussions before advancing such policies.
Senate Bill 330, authored by state Senator Steve Padilla, would empower the governor to create pilot projects for electrical transmission infrastructure, but SDG&E has also voiced opposition, questioning the bill’s lack of clarity on safety standards.
These legislative proposals would enable public financing to reduce expenses for vital projects such as undergrounding or constructing new transmission lines.
Capretz emphasizes the importance of reducing energy costs to facilitate the transition to alternative power sources.
She warns that asking residents to adopt electric vehicles and appliances is untenable if their electricity bills remain exorbitant.
“We want their entire lived experience to improve,” Capretz stated.
She underscores the necessity of achieving clean air, water, and communities alongside lower costs for consumers.
On the housing front, there’s a push within the California legislature to simplify and reduce the cost of new housing development.
However, Disenhouse argues that this approach may compromise environmental safeguards.
She comments on a bill, AB 306, authored by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Assemblymember Nick Schultz, which would pause current building standards governing various aspects of new housing until at least 2031.
The bill prevents local governments from implementing new requirements but does not rollback existing standards.
Critics argue that this legislation would leave California’s building code static for an extended period, limiting improvements.
Disenhouse argues this will not only fail to reduce building costs but could worsen climate crisis effects, such as wildfires and extreme heat events.
SanDiego350 shares concerns about two additional bills that would weaken protections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for specific housing developments to accelerate construction.
CEQA has historically acted as a cornerstone for California’s environmental standards.
However, some lawmakers and business advocates contend that it is frequently misused by anti-growth factions to obstruct new housing projects.
Proposed by Assemblymember David Alvarez, AB 609, and a similar initiative by state Senator Scott Wiener, SB 607, intend to exempt certain housing projects from CEQA regulations.
Instead of allowing these bills to proceed through the usual legislative channels, Governor Newsom has included them in the budget bill, prompting criticism from environmental advocates.
Chris Roberts, transportation team leader for SanDiego350, recognizes the necessity for infill and affordable housing but raises concerns about reducing CEQA safeguards for construction.
Disenhouse believes there are valid strategies for expediting housing development but argues that substantial proposals should be evaluated independently, rather than being hastily bundled in a budget deal.
“We fully support more housing and denser housing,” Disenhouse affirmed.
“However, we cannot endorse making these critical decisions through backroom negotiations without adequate transparency.”
In a separate development, Governor Gavin Newsom has taken legal action against Fox News, seeking $787 million in damages.
This lawsuit follows host Jesse Watters’ assertion that Newsom lied about his discussions with former President Trump concerning the National Guard deployment in Los Angeles.
The legal team for Newsom claims the segment constitutes defamation and violates California laws against unfair business practices.
The request includes a demand for an apology and retraction or a substantial financial settlement.
image source from：voiceofsandiego
