H.R. 3699 is an assault on local power, safety and affordability

Art: [DC1] https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/heat-pump-airwater-technology-home-splittype-2318255183?trackingId=3e0bc8d4-7733-4051-9473-1889abc21f6b&listId=highlights-suggestedSearches

Headline: H.R. 3699 is an assault on local power, safety and affordability

NETHEAD: H.R. 3699 is an assault on local power, safety and affordability

SUMMARY/TEASE: H.R. 3699 would broadly block state and local governments from most forms of energy regulation[DC2] --potentially disrupting electrification efforts, safety rules, wildfire protections and utility cost oversight.

BYLINE: Daniel Carpenter-Gold

In California and across the country, state and local governments are leading an effort to upgrade buildings to use modern electric appliances. These appliances, including heat pumps and induction stoves, are both cheaper and healthier than their older counterparts: they are more efficient, reducing household energy costs and the need for new grid infrastructure, and they virtually eliminate on-site emissions of harmful air pollutants. Government action to encourage or require these upgrades is crucial because future homebuyers and renters have to live with the decisions made when the building is originally built or renovated--and no one gets to choose their neighbors' appliances.

The U.S. House of Representatives is considering a bill, H.R. 3699, that would block these commonsense regulations. But that's not all: the bill would also eliminate state and local authority in the areas of safety and affordability and leave communities unable to block or even slow experimental fuels, like hydrogen. Although titled the "Energy Choice Act" and advertised as a response to all-electric building codes, H.R. 3699 is in fact an attack on the power of state and local governments to serve their constituents.

Specifically, H.R. 3699 blocks adoption or enforcement of any state or local regulation "that prohibits or limits, or has the effect of directly or indirectly prohibiting or limiting the connection, reconnection, modification, installation, transportation, distribution, expansion, or access to an energy service based on the type or source of energy." In other words, any regulation that reduces the availability of any specific type of energy--even if it only does so indirectly or unintentionally--would be preempted. (While this collateral damage may be unintentional, amendments to narrow it were rejected in committee.)

This drastic approach threatens basic energy, health and safety regulations. For example, essentially all building-safety codes in California come from state law or from local amendments to state codes. Many of these arguably "limit[] the connection[ or] reconnection" of certain types of energy by penalizing or prohibiting unsafe gas infrastructure or improper connections to the electric grid--and if they didn't, they would be no better than guidelines. Similarly, the state's Public Safety Power Shutoff system relies on cutting off electricity to some homes during high-risk periods, to prevent wildfires being sparked by utility infrastructure. Those shutoffs clearly "limit[]...access" to electricity and therefore would be prohibited by H.R. 3699.

H.R. 3699 could also cut off the state's ability to keep gas and electricity prices low, at a time when many Californians are already struggling to pay their utility bills. Because utilities earn a guaranteed return on infrastructure investments, and have essentially no competition, they are incentivized to expand their infrastructure as much as possible and pass costs on to the ratepayers. The state Public Utility Commission can block utilities from recovering the costs of unnecessary investments, which is the primary check on utilities' profit motive. But such an action could "indirectly...limit[] the...expansion" of the energy the utility provides, meaning that it would be blocked by H.R. 3699.

Even if the bill were limited to only "blanket" prohibitions on specific fuels, as its supporters claim, it would still be a major health and safety risk for Californians. Our state suffers from the worst air pollution in the country--the result of burning fossil fuels, in combination with specific geographic and climatic factors. Reducing the contaminants in our air to a safe level has been a generational effort, and transitioning away from fossil fuels in residential use has been crucial to improving air quality. Fresno, for example, has prohibited coal stoves and heaters for decades, and several air districts have put in place pollution limits that could not be satisfied with continued residential coal use. Under H.R. 3699, limits on future, less well tested fuels like hydrogen would also vanish: even under the rosiest reading of the bill, neither California nor any city or county within it would be able to decide whether to allow hydrogen to be used, processed or transported.

And while these unspoken impacts are important, the stated purpose of H.R. 3699--preventing state and local governments from passing laws that would prevent new gas installations within their jurisdiction--is also hostile to Californians. There are sound reasons behind prohibiting the expansion of gas to new buildings: gas infrastructure is expensive and effectively duplicative of the electric connections buildings have already, gas appliances are unavoidably less efficient than modern electric appliances and the air pollution created by burning gas is a public-health hazard for all. These public health and energy affordability considerations are compounded by the imperative to avoid catastrophic climate change.

State and local governments are best positioned to decide when and how to place limits on gas fuel in residential buildings and have long had the authority to do so. To that end, I'll end with a quote from Mayor Mike Cahill of Beverly, Massachusetts: "Local governments are responsible for keeping our residents safe. The Energy Choice Act would only make that work harder, replacing our authority and on-the-ground knowledge with a one-size-fits-all federal mandate. We need partnership from Washington, not interference in the basic powers that protect our communities."

Daniel Carpenter-Gold is staff attorney at the Public Health Law Center.

Art:

Headline: Gov. Newsom will probably go to the appellate bench for the next SCOCA justice

NETHEAD: Gov. Newsom will probably go to the appellate bench for the next SCOCA justice

SUMMARY/TEASE: Governor Gavin Newsom is almost certain to fill the California Supreme Court vacancy with a safe, experienced Court of Appeal justice--one who works quietly, avoids controversy and won't disrupt his political future.

BYLINE: David A. Carrillo, Stephen M. Duvernay and Brandon V. Stracener