Is Elk Grove City Councilmember Rod Brewer anti-consumer or pro-big-business? Pro developer or pro constituent?
 |
| Who will Elk Grove District 2 City Councilmember Rod Brewer side with - consumers and constituents or investor-owned utilities and real estate developers? | |
One of the most controversial pieces of legislation currently working its way through California's legislative process this year is Assembly Bill 942. That legislation, introduced by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon, who previously worked as a government affairs director for Edison International, a parent company of Southern California Edison, has been viewed as a bill to benefit California investor-owned utilities.
The bill, which has passed the Assembly on June 3 and is now in the State Senate, proposes significant changes, including sunsetting existing net energy metering (NEM) contracts after 10 years and requiring new property owners who inherit solar systems to switch to a less favorable, current tariff. The original version also sought to eliminate the "Climate Credit" for most solar customers.
However, the bill has undergone several amendments. The Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee passed the amended legislation on July 15.
Notwithstanding the modifications, the legislation's controversy continues. On one side are investor-owned utilities, such as PG&E and Southern California Edison, and on the other side is a coalition of consumer advocates, environmental groups, and the solar industry.
The investor-owned utilities argue that current net metering policies create a "cost shift" where non-solar customers effectively subsidize solar customers by covering a disproportionate share of grid maintenance costs. They argue this cost shift amounted to billions of dollars in recent years and disproportionately impacts low-income communities and renters.
Aside from solar power's environmental benefits, opponents dispute the "cost shift" argument, citing studies that suggest rooftop solar saves all ratepayers money by reducing strain on the grid and deferring costly infrastructure upgrades. Furthermore, they state that the real cause of California's high electricity costs is unchecked utility spending and guaranteed profits on grid infrastructure projects.
For Elk Grove residents, especially those with solar panels on their dwellings, there is a local angle to this story. Elk Grove District 1 Councilmember Rod Brewer is a lobbyist for Southern California Edison.
As noted earlier, the California Assembly approved the investor-owned backed legislation on June 3, with Elk Grove's Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen joining the majority. According to a June 4 Los Angeles Times story, Brewer was lobbying for the bill up to at least Monday, June 2.
The story said, "On Monday, Roderick Brewer, an Edison lobbyist, sent an email to Assemblymembers, urging them to vote for the bill known as AB 942. 'Save Electricity Customers Billions, Promote Equity,' he urged in the email."
Interestingly, the Elk Grove News made a public records request to the California Assembly under the Legislative Open Records Act, requesting a copy of Mr. Brewer's email. Even though Brewer is a lobbyist for Southern California Edison, the LORA request was denied, saying Brewer, even in the capacity of an industry lobbyist, was considered a private citizen and thus exempt from disclosure.
So much for transparency of government dealings at the State Capitol.
Regarding Councilmember Brewer, a fair question to ask him is whether he is for big business investor-owned utilities or will he stand for environmental quality and consumer protection? Is he for developers who want to change the city's general plan, or will he stand with his constituents?
It is worth remembering Brewer's comments from a 2023 Elk Grove City Council meeting, where he discussed his activities on the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce's annual Cap to Cap lobby trip. Brewer acknowledged his team's assignment was to seek regulatory relief, which is bureaucratic talk for weakening environmental and consumer protections.
From our perspective, Mr. Brewer stands with the rate-gouging investor-owned utilities. Fortunately, for Elk Grove, the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District is our electrical provider, so we are not subject to the exorbitant rates imposed by investor-owned utilities on most California consumers.
And this question is not an abstraction. There will be a vote in the coming months that will reveal where the first-term city council member stands, and that issue is the proposed Summer Villas at Sheldon project.
The project proposal aims to develop a subdivision in the rural area of Elk Grove. The city's General Plan seeks to protect the rural character of this area, which is characterized by larger parcels.
For that development to proceed, the project proponents will need to amend the General Plan to permit higher-density housing in the District 2 rural area. Many residents in the rural plan argue the general plan should not be amended to accommodate the development, which they say will forever change the area.
As the District 2 representative, Mr. Brewer will be tempted with the friendly persuasion of substantial campaign contributions, which could influence his stance on the project.
The question ultimately becomes, will Brewer stand with his constituents and not support amending the General Plan? Or will he turn away from constituents and stand with business interests?
Brewer's answer will not only determine the future of Elk Grove's rural area, but it could also foretell his political future.
#8647 #NoKings #ProDemocracy
Posts
5 comments
Here is what Brewer will do to get around this. He'll tell Kalwani and Wilson to hold off any campaign money until after the vote on the promise he will vote for the project. Brewer can reason during the meetings he has not taken money and will not have to disclose it during prior to the meeting. Of course, collecting the money after the vote is quite another thing!
If Brewer or Spease votes for this project since they both represent the rural area will be considered a betrayal from the rural citizens. On a personal level note if this project is rammed through without a full dive into the General plan and rural area boundaries I will pull all my support from those that vote for this project. This project doesn’t meet the criteria and should not move forward as presented.
Randy Bekker, the voice of the citizens has spoken. He's not alone. Is anyone at city hall listening? Infringing on the rural area after so many have worked so hard to preserve it is a dangerous step for our electeds. Tread lightly!
As for solar, Mr Brewer knows which side his bread is buttered on and is not going to bite the hand that feeds hiim!
Brewer is one of those wind power politicians--he will stick his finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before he votes on the rural project. Or, you can call him a Monty Hall politician--let's make a deal: Behind Door Number 1 is a Yes vote; Door Number 2 is a No Vote; or behind Door Number 3, he misses the meeting due to an 'out of town committment'!
I knew this day would come. I find myself in agreement with Randy, albeit for a slightly different reason. I don't know anyone in the rural area and rarely venture over there, but the city should keep its word and not change the general plan. I would expand Randy's sphere to include the mayor. As the only city council member elected city wide, she needs to look out for the rural area residents as well. She doesn't get a pass.
Post a Comment