Opinion: Irvine Faces Energy Crossroads: Mayor-Elect Agran Pushes to End Affordable, Clean Power Choice
Energy choice and rooftop solar in Irvine are under threat, and Irvine families are being shut out. Irvine Mayor-elect Larry Agran is expected to secretly push a vote this week to remove Irvine from participating in the Orange County Power Authority (OCPA), a not-for-profit energy provider that offers lower rates and larger amounts of clean renewable power.
If he succeeds in withdrawing from OCPA, Irvine families will be forced back to Wall Street-owned SoCal Edison, a monopoly that has hiked electricity rates by 90% in the last decade alone while offering as little clean electricity as possible. And there is no end in sight to their rate increases. Last year, the State of California Auditor report said the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has failed to provide adequate oversight and transparency in approving rate increases from corporate-owned utilities. The audit found that the CPUC has failed to hold utilities accountable for overspending on distribution infrastructure, an unethical practice known as “gold-plating,” where unnecessary infrastructure is installed to increase charges to customers.
In contrast, the Orange County Power Authority is proven to provide lower rates than SoCal Edison. There are currently 25 operational CCA programs in California serving more than 14 million customers—about one-third of the state’s population—in 200+ cities and counties throughout the state. Community Choice Energy (CCE) providers have amassed a total of 346 long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), amounting to 18,285 MW of new-build clean energy resources. CCE contracts include over 10,500 MW in renewable energy and more than 7,600 MW in energy storage—with standalone energy storage capacities more than doubling in the last year.
Hybridized/Co-Located storage is the amount of total energy storage that is paired with solar.
Hybridized/Co-Located solar is the amount of total solar that is paired with energy storage.
SoCalEdison has one mission — to provide profits for their shareholders. The company reported $1.2 billion in 2023 net income—double the previous year—while its CEO pocketed $15 million.
SoCal Edison also had the highest electric bills in the state in July 2024, according to a presentation by the state’s Public Advocates Office.
Rooftop solar cuts the need for expensive and unsightly power lines, reducing utility profits. That is why SoCal Edison spends millions lobbying to knee-cap solar policy, making it harder for residents to afford solar. SoCalEdison wants to keep everyone reliant on the grid to maximize profits while also creating harmful policies like the utility tax and others that hurt ratepayers.
Source: California Public Utilities Commission, “Increasing Rates Threaten California’s Equity and Environmental Goals,” Feb. 2021
Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs like OCPA also provide major climate benefits. A UCLA report shows that local, not-for-profit CCEs provide 25% more renewable energy than Wall Street-owned utilities while generating millions for local programs. From 2011 to 2019, CCEs, purchased twice as much renewable energy as required by the state. In contrast, SoCalEdison offers the minimum amount of clean electricity required by law — 33.2% in the last year reported.
Backed by Sierra Club, The Climate Center, and other environmental groups, CCE is championed for enhancing consumer choice, local control, community-focused programs, renewable energy use, economic development and investment, reductions in climate pollution and better air quality.
Withdrawing from OCPA would strip Irvine residents of access to hundreds of millions in local energy programs, redirecting those funds to SoCal Edison shareholders and executives.
SoCal Edison has failed to deliver affordable, reliable, and clean energy, proving itself unworthy of its government-backed monopoly. OCPA is Irvine’s sole path to energy choice, stable rates, and a clean energy future—leaders should strengthen it, not dismantle it.
Tomas Castro is a Woodbridge resident, graduate of UC Berkeley, former intern for Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, longtime climate activist, and current OC Climate Equity Advocate and Organizer with Climate Action Campaign, a nonprofit climate policy watchdog.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of Irvine Watchdog or any of its volunteers.
6 Comments
No to OCPA
December 10, 2024 at 7:37 amOCPA started service in 2022 but has already lost half its customers. Huntington Beach pulled out July 30, 2024, saying OCPA was deceptive. It’s time for Irvine to exit too. The OCPA has cost Irvine customers tens of millions because it charges more than SCE for electricity, month after month.
Everyone in Irvine was forced into OCPA’s electricity default plan that costs more than SCE – about $7/month more for an average $200 bill. OCPA is just a middleman, producing no energy themselves – they just upsell. That’s how in two short years OCPA has stashed nearly $100M into a reserve fund. They could have given each customer back hundreds of dollars.
No grift lasts forever, apparently their fortunes are turning and OCPA now wants to downgrade what it sells to the city but still charge more than SCE.
So what does OCPA sell? They won’t disclose their energy purchases. They say they provide 100% renewable energy but (1) no way can solar or wind provide power 24/7 to Irvine and (2) nothing new gets delivered to your home anyway. All the energy on the grid is commingled. An OCPA customer gets the same energy mix as their neighbor on SCE. OCPA has to buy fossil fuels when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow so it buys paper energy called Renewable Energy Certificates to greenwash the fossil fuels.
Castro bashes SCE, whose rates and return on investment are regulated. OCPA can change rates on a whim and charge more than SCE forever, and accumulate unlimited reserves. SCE pays taxes, unlike OCPA. Worst of all, Irvine ratepayers are liable if OCPA goes belly up. SCE has a massive number of shareholders to spread out the risk.
Beware, Irvine! Get out now!
edmondsmeyerson
December 10, 2024 at 1:02 pmWhen managed and run properly CCE’s may be a great choice. Unfortunately OCPA has neither of those quality’s.
Johnson
December 11, 2024 at 1:52 amOCPA is at fault for recently creating a bad situation for Irvine and itself.
OCPA announced at the Irvine City Council on 11/26/24 that OCPA was going to downgrade Irvine’s default service from 100% renewables to 55% because OCPA is facing a future $125M loss under the status quo. No prior warning had been given. OCPA is moving backwards on renewables. The city council was dismayed for multiple reasons, including the timing.
Then OCPA announced a board meeting on 12/6/24, to approve changes to the default rate policy (written in 2022) to give OCPA itself powers to change service plans and rates without a city’s permission.
So OCPA wants to unilaterally reduce renewable percentages way down, is facing a $125M shortfall, and it wants to make its own rules when Irvine balks.
Hence the discussion to withdraw, which I support.
T Michelle Miller
December 11, 2024 at 1:27 pmOCPA is serving our community well with renewable energy and keeping our ratepayer dollars in our community. Leaving OCPA would mean Irvine ratepayers would no longer have the right energy choice, local control, no competition, and no 100% renewable energy plan for ratepayers. SoCal Edison (SCE) would be the only choice. SCE’s rates have skyrocketed by 90% in the last decade, yet it only offers 33% renewable energy, while OCPA offers 100% renewable energy plans to businesses and residents. Competition is good and we all deserve freedom of choice.
Rresearch by UC Berkeley, SoCalEdison rates are higher than every municipal utility in Southern California. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/en-banc/rates-en-banc_panel-1_updated.pdf
Harvey Liss
December 13, 2024 at 5:26 pmUnfortunately, OCPA does not help the environment at all. Much of what is written in the opinion is unsupported by evidence. As far as lower rates, only at the Basic Rate is OCPA cheaper than SCE, and that is only about 1.2% cheaper. And that’s because that rate is subsidized. OCPA, which keeps its energy purchases secret cannot prove they purchase renewable energy. And, in any case, the electric grid is saturated with renewables during the day, when the sun is shining. SCE cannot currently purchase more renewable energy contracts, and their purchases are verified by a nonprofit created by the State Legislature, so what makes anyone think that OCPA, with negligible experience compared to SCE can? What’s required is energy during the evening hours when the sun isn’t shining.
In any case, on December 12th, in a Special Meeting required by OCPA to have the City’s electric ratepayers opted down to prevent a financial calamity at OCPA, the City Council voted to put everyone currently enrolled in OCPA down to the basic level. That will save quite a bit of money for every ratepayer. And it will have NO impact on consumption of fossil fuel. What would have a direct impact on reducing fossil fuel consumption is for the ratepayers with City help to purchase solar panels with battery backup, rather than spending the money on a scam.
Further, the City Council voted to authorize the City Manager to submit a notification to OCPA in 2025 that the City will withdraw from OCPA if its so-called transparency continues to remain opaque and its real financial problems are not revealed.
I’ve been getting a discount from SCE for having enrolled in their 100% green rate program at an ever increasing rate that is currently 19%!! So, why has OCPA always been charging a premium for their 100% renewables program? Therein lies a great mystery. I was fortunate that I opted out of OCPA at the very beginning when I knew it was a scam, but many ratepayers did not opt out because they had no idea they were enrolled in OCPA and that they could opt out, even after receiving the initial postcard that announced in micro-type near the end of a large paragraph of micro-type with instructions on how to opt out. OCPA’s mailouts have always been deceptive.
CCW
December 20, 2024 at 12:31 amI’m an outsider to this whole OCPA debate, but this article is really not helping. OCPA really sounds good on paper. But (again, maybe I’m wrong here) I checked the CPUC website you linked comparing the rates of OCPA and SCE, and it seems like a negligible difference; with OCPA at times being more expensive than SCE.
I think you missed the bigger picture here. OCPA is not perfect, and many city councilmembers and Irvine residents have pointed that out. Maybe some have ulterior motives, but I’d like to believe we live in a progressive enough city that most of us don’t want to perpetuate climate change and remain reliant on fossil fuels. The CAAP was adopted with unanimous praise, the City constantly takes (admittedly, possibly unwarranted) pride in its climate goals. I think a majority of people are just fed up with this big governmental organization not living up to its promises after taking millions of dollars from the City. Your misidentification of the problem here is really evident by putting the blame on Vice Mayor Agran. Yes, he has been an ardent opponent of OCPA and was the one that agendized the item. But just watch the city council meeting. In their presentation, City staff clearly have so many frustrations with OCPA and their lack of transparency and communication that halfway through I was starting to think they were the ones that encouraged Agran to agendize this item and make it a big part of his campaign—maybe that’s even true!
Again, as an outsider, I agree that OCPA seems like a great idea de jure. But de facto, it seems like Irvine has constantly been getting the cold shoulder from OCPA with little to no concrete benefits in regard to the environment or rates, despite our large stake in the organization. While I can’t speak on the legitimacy of that viewpoint or the debate itself, from a journalistic standpoint I feel like you really should’ve gone deeper into what can be done to solve the problems that, you have to admit, do exist within OCPA, and how Irvine can get a better return on investment. By pinning the blame on Agran and avoiding talking about the practical problems with OCPA, you make your article read like a political mailer.
Comments are closed.