EV San Jose

California greenlights electric vehicle charging program for 38,000 new charging stations

from The Sierra Club, Clean Technica


Highlights

  • Southern California Edison’s (SCE) Charge Ready 2 program was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission which will result in the addition of 38,000 new charging stations across Southern California over the next four years
  • The program aims to increase clean transportation options particularly in underserved communities by using some of the $437 million allocated to the program to implement electric vehicle infrastructure in workplaces and multi-unit dwellings
  • Nearly $15 million will be used on education and outreach
  • The Charge Ready 2 program is the largest single program for any utility in the country and builds off of the Charge Ready program that SCE initiated in 2014

Increased air pollution from fossil fuel emissions– including tailpipes– makes all of us more vulnerable to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The Climate Center’s Climate-Safe California Platform includes solutions for clean mobility to cut greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.


Read More: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/27/california-greenlights-electric-vehicle-charging-program-for-38000-new-charging-stations/

Defying Trump, California locks in vehicle emission deals with major automakers

by David Shepardson, Reuters


Highlights

  • The California Air Resources Board (CARB) along with Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, Volvo, and BMW finalized agreements that create low vehicle emissions standards for cars in California
  • According to The Center for Biological Diversity, the deal will improve fuel economy by an estimated 3.7% year over year between 2022-2026
  • These new emissions standards come after the Trump administration finalized rollbacks that required on 1.5% annual increases in efficiency, compared to the 5% annual increases the Obama administration set
  • There are 13 other states that use California’s emissions standards, representing 40% of the US auto market
  • GM, Fiat Chrysler, and Toyota have not agreed to the standards and are in a lawsuit with the federal government to strip California of the right to set zero emission vehicle requirements

Increased air pollution from fossil fuel emissions makes all of us more vulnerable to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The Climate Center’s Climate-Safe California Platform includes solutions for clean mobility to cut greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.


Read More: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-california/defying-trump-california-locks-in-vehicle-emission-deals-with-major-automakers

Congressional climate action plan

Congressional Climate Crisis Action Plan would decarbonize U.S., add $8 trillion in benefits by 2050

by Megan Mahajan, Forbes


Highlights

  • The U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis has released their climate policy report titled Solving the Climate Crisis: The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient and Just America 
  • Climate policy firm Energy Innovation modeled a subset of the Select Committee’s recommendations using a simulator and found it will hit net zero carbon dioxide emissions before 2050 and slash net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 88% from 2010 levels by 2050
  • This policy could prevent 62,000 premature deaths annually from pollution, while generating nearly $8 trillion in cumulative monetized health and climate benefits by 2050
  • Under this model, the electricity sector could reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 and 100% clean energy by 2040
  • Electrifying buildings with clean energy can deliver much-needed emissions reductions within that sector
  • 100% zero-emission vehicle sales for light-duty vehicles by 2035 and for heavy-duty vehicles by 2040 would help the transportation sector meet 2050 net-zero targets
  • More than 70% of voters support legislation targeting a 100% clean economy according to new polling

The Climate Center’s Climate-Safe California Platform advocates for a formal California State commitment by 2022 to 80% below 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions and net negative emissions by 2030 for a climate-safe future.


Read More: https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2020/06/30/congressional-climate-crisis-action-plan-would-decarbonize-us-add-8-trillion-in-benefits-by-2050/#56af4e331381

ACT electric vehicles to help stabilize power grid in first Australian research trial of its kind

by Craig Allen and Marcus Mannheim, ABC News Australia


Highlights

  • The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) government is providing 50 Nissan Leaf vehicles in efforts to see if the fleet can help maintain the electricity grid through blackouts
  • The Leafs have a two-way battery, meaning they can both be charged from the grid and provide power to the grid
  • This resilience effort comes after massive brushfires knocked out powerlines, causing blackouts
  • Australia’s main source of energy is black coal, while renewable energies like solar, hydro, and wind slowly come on to the grid
  • Todd Eagles, executive director of utility company ActewAGL, says electric vehicles are going to very important to Australia’s energy future.

The Climate Center’s Climate-Safe California Platform includes an initiative for Community Energy Resilience with clean microgrids that can employ “batteries on wheels” for energy storage.


Read More: https://amp-abc-net-au.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/12436224

California set to require zero-emissions trucks but timeline lags science

by Hiroko Tabuchi, The New York Times


Highlights

The California Air Resource Board unanimously voted in a new rule requiring more than half of all trucks sold in the state to be zero-emissions by 2035

  • This rule is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and establish California as an EV manufacturing hub
  • 100% of trucks on the road will be electric by 2045
  • The Inland Empire in Southern California has been exposed to high levels of pollution due to mass amounts of delivery trucks, reaching up to 1,200 per hour
  • Due to increases in online shopping, areas such as the Inland Empire, that have many warehouse facilities will continue to experience emissions from diesel trucks
  • Though diesel trucks only make up 7% of vehicles registered in California, they cause 70% of smog and 80% of particulate matter pollution in the state
  • The removal of diesel trucks will eliminate 60,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, preventing more than 900 premature deaths and delivering at least $9 billion in public health benefits

Science demands that we eliminate the use of fossil fuels by 2030 to avoid worst-case climate impacts. The Climate Center’s Climate-Safe California campaign calls for clean mobility solutions, including a phase-out of all gas-powered vehicles to reach net-negative emissions by 2030.


Read More: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/climate/zero-emissions-trucks-california.html?referringSource=articleShare

Cities are leading on clean mobility during the COVID and climate crises. They need help.

Take action today: Ask your electeds to commit to a phase-out of dirty, gas-powered vehicles and invest in sustainable mobility as part of COVID-19 stimulus funding.

On March 30th, The Climate Center and our partners sent a letter to the California Air Resources Board asking them to hold firm on clean air regulations during this pandemic. The fossil fuel industry has used the pandemic to try to halt clean air regulations that protect millions of Californians– right when we need them most for both public health and to get on the path to a climate-safe future.

California’s pre-pandemic transportation habits were a disaster for the climate and public health. Even without a deadly respiratory illness, our rampant fossil fuel use compromised air quality and the lung health of our most vulnerable, and GHG emissions from transportation remained stubbornly high.

Tackling these emissions from transportation requires both a reduction in vehicles on the road and electrification of virtually all of the vehicles remaining. Sadly, COVID-19 will not do the job for us.

The pandemic’s effect on traffic and related emissions is already wearing off, with gasoline use rebounding and some commuters choosing to drive their cars over using public transit.

Ridership on buses and trains in major cities in the U.S., Europe, and China is down by 50-90% from pre-crisis levels. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) in the U.S. has provided some relief with $25 billion for public transit, but we must do much more for climate-safe mobility.

In addition to transit, converting car lanes to bike and pedestrian pathways can help. Many European cities are adding miles of new bike lanes, with French officials aiming to create more than 400 miles of bike lanes throughout the greater Paris metropolitan area.

And the City of Oakland took steps to accommodate car-free travel by opening 74 miles of streets to pedestrians, scooters, and bikes!

California legislators must seize the moment to incentivize cities to remove cars from the road and to start the process of phasing out fossil fuel vehicles.

We at The Climate Center are committed to working with lawmakers to move us forward for climate-safe mobility.

We hope you will join us. Take action today.

Endorse our Climate-Safe California campaign and support The Climate Center’s bold efforts today. 

Note: There are new additional tax benefits for charitable giving in 2020 due to COVID 19. Read more.

Additional Reading:

Expansion of fossil-fuel vehicle phase-outs moves world one step closer to a climate-safe future 

By Buddy Burch, The Climate Center

In March 2020, we launched an update to the Survey of Global Activity to Phase Out Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Vehicles. This survey, which details leadership and innovation in pursuit of electrifying the transportation sector for a climate-safe future, has been an ongoing effort at The Climate Center. We are thrilled at the readership and the response to the survey, and we will continue to ensure that the document serves as a resource for folks working towards zero-emission transportation. 

Below are  changes identified in this update. First, Egypt, Iceland, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, and Sweden have been added to the list of countries working to phase out ICE vehicles. The report now features major players from Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Northern Africa, and South America, making this a global effort. The “countries” section also features an ongoing discussion within the EU. Countries within this economic bloc are currently discussing whether or not to roll out a ban as a single actor, or if the decision will be made on a county-by-country basis. 

Cities are also expanding their efforts to phase out ICE vehicles. This update to the survey included the addition of Amsterdam, Berlin, Birmingham, Honolulu, Jakarta, Liverpool, Greater Manchester, Medellin, Rio de Janeiro, Rotterdam, Santiago, Santa Monica, Seoul, Warsaw, West Hollywood, Bogotá, Bristol, British Columbia, and New York City as cities taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles. In the private sector, we also observed an exciting change in marketing strategies. Most notably, four auto manufacturers (Audi, General Motors, Porsche, and Ford) bought advertisements to showcase their electric cars during the past year’s Super Bowl. The event, which aired with 102.1 million viewers, is an example of a space that holds great potential for creating culture change around consumer preferences. 

The push to electrify transportation will continue as we work together toward net negative emissions by 2030 for a climate-safe future. We welcome your questions and updates as we strive to support speed and scale solutions with the best information available. Future updates to the “Survey on Global Activities to Phase out ICE Vehicles” will be shared at theclimatecenter.org

CARB Chair: 100% Zero Emission Vehicle sales target in 2030 could be reality

By John Boesel, CALSTART


Highlights

California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chairman Mary Nichols emphasizes the importance of banning internal combustions engine (ICE) vehicles during the CALSTART California 2030 Policy Summit.

  • Nichols was previously opposed to the ban of ICE vehicles due to the potential backlash but stated at the Summit:

“I’ve become convinced of the need to send a longer-term signal of where we’re heading…If we can make it clear that it is the will of the legislature and [CARB], then there should be a clear end to [internal combustion engine] sales.”

  • California historically sets ambitious climate goals and targets and an ICE ban would be a major step for the state’s emissions reductions
  • If carmakers keep to their promise to produce more EVs, by 2023 there will be many more long-range electric and fuel cell vehicles available for sale 
  • Policy firm Energy Innovations issued a report suggesting California would need to establish an 80% Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) sales target by 2030 to meet its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target
  • California produces more electric vehicles and has more electric vehicle-related jobs than the rest of the country

The Climate Center’s Climate-Safe California campaign calls for investments and bold policies to support clean mobility, including a phase-out of all gas-powered vehicles.


Read more: https://calstart.org/100-zev-sales-target-in-2030-reality/

Electrify everything, or aim for beneficial electrification?

My how things have changed. Back in the day, when most of the electricity we used was derived from fossil energy sources, any reduction of electricity use was considered a good thing by those concerned about emission. Now that the grid is on a trajectory toward ever cleaner sources, the dynamic has changed. Fuel switching from fossil gas powered systems to electric systems can, and most often is, a cleaner way to go.

But does this mean that we should electrifying everything, always, everywhere? Or is there a more thoughtful, measured approach that prioritizes electrification that brings the most benefit, socially and environmentally, and leaves room for other clean systems? Let’s also not forget age old common sense: it is rarely ever a great idea to put all your eggs in one basket. Consistent with that wisdom, electrifying everything may leave those who have electrified everything with nothing when there is no, or limited, electricity to be had.

Let’s start by defining these terms. When we say electrify everything, that can easily be construed to mean what it appears to say, that the aim is to simply electrify everything that requires power. For the sake of this article, that is the definition we will use. Beneficial electrification means identifying systems that run on dirty power that can be switched to use electricity with no detrimental social or environmental impacts, thus providing multiple benefits to direct users and others. Beneficial electrification is not necessarily at the exclusion of other options, both powered, and non-powered.

The Regulatory Assistance Project, an independent nonprofit organization, points to three criteria that electrification should meet to count as beneficial. It should:

  • Reduce harmful environmental impacts;
  • Save consumers money over the long run; and
  • Enable better grid management.

If we abide by these criteria, we can identify many candidates for electrification. And if we abide by our non-exclusionary principle, other non-electrified options can be considered. Let’s take a look at few use cases.

Buildings

Solar water heating is the lesser-known solar technology. When most folks think of solar power, they think of solar photovoltaics, the conversion of sunlight to electricity. Solar hot water is the conversion of solar energy to heat and it works without a need for gas or electric power. Solar water heating is a well-established and proven technology has been around since the 19th century and is used widely in many parts of the world. In Israel for example, it is estimated that 90% of households use solar water heating. Although it has significant upfront installation costs, solar water heating meets our three criteria.

I use a solar oven. I have been using it – the same one – since 2008. It is a wonderful way to avoid using gas or electricity and it is downright fun. In full sun, it rapidly shoots to over 300 degrees, hot enough for many cooking tasks including baking. Come over some time and I’ll make you a wild blackberry pie. It is also a great rice cooker – set it and forget it. Just put it out on the deck with the pot of rice & water aimed toward the south. The sun arcs across the sky in just the right amount of time to cook the rice and to then “turn off” as the angle of solar radiance becomes so steep that the temperature drops. When we are ready for dinner the rice is usually still warm enough to just scoop out onto a plate. Solar ovens meets our three criteria.

Lastly, it is critically important to remember to not electrify inefficiency. “Efficiency first,” so the loading order goes. (1. energy efficiency, 2. demand response, 3. clean distributed energy resources). Simply electrifying a bad or inefficient system is not the best way to go about things. The obvious case is solar photovoltaics (PV). Although PV costs have dropped precipitously over the past 15 years, solar panels are still expensive. It makes sense to look at ways to maximize efficiency, which often costs far less than PV, prior to calculating the size of PV array needed.

It is important to consider that a key benefit is in the specific cases where the technology itself is much more efficient. Resistance electric heaters are electric, but not efficient. They use a lot of energy, and potentially can burn more natural gas and have higher greenhouse gas emissions, than burning natural gas in a home heater. Electric heat pump space and water heaters are helpful because they are two to three times more efficient than a gas or resistance electric heater. So it is important to consider what kind of electrification technology we are talking about.

Transportation

Simply electrifying transportation will still leave us with congestion and a system that does not meet the needs of a large portion of the population. To address the transportation question adequately, investments not just in electrification, but in public transit, pedestrian and bicycling amenities should be considered. Beyond that, we can look at advancing ways to reduce the need for travel at all, such as teleworking, and redesigning our urban environments to be more conducive to non-powered transit. This is not to say that powered transportation should not be electrified. It should. The point is that we should look at these systems holistically and aim to address some of the problems that won’t be solved by electrification alone.

For greater penetration of variable clean energy sources (wind and solar), there is a critical need for tandem technologies to be deployed. A clear example is the abundance of solar PV available but not always needed during the day. We need a place to store that energy. So in the same breath that we talk about electrification we need to talk about technologies such as energy storage and automated demand response in order to realize the full benefits.

Let’s not forget about conservation. With the world population projected to reach about ten billion by 2050, resources required for the batteries and other technologies that make electrification possible will not be infinite. Conservation means reducing energy consumption by simply using less of a service, especially where that service itself is frivolous, wasteful, or not really benefiting people.

Lastly, as we consider beneficial electrification, the social, political, economic, and cultural contexts of energy use should be taken into account. Energy democracy, social justice, affordability, and concern for the effect on communities, wildlife habitat, and natural resources must be included as part of the analysis. Yes, we need to scale up renewable energy in the built environment and expand electric vehicle adoption. But if the broader context is not brought to the center of the discussion, a blind push to electrify everything could ultimately be counterproductive to the main problem that electrify everything claims to solve – addressing the climate crisis.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – March 27, 2020

Due to the COVID-19 disruption, the legislature has gone into recess until April 13 at the earliest. While the legislature is on recess, The Climate Center continues to analyze the bills that were introduced in February, and is in the process of determining positions on many of them. Below are several, but not all, of the key bills we are tracking. For a complete list of the 112 bills we are currently tracking in 2020, click HERE. Our next update will be published here on April 9. Please send updates, suggestions, corrections to woody@theclimatecenter.org

 

Assembly Bills

AB 345 (Muratsuchi) SUPPORT – This bill will, if enacted, establish regulations to protect public health and safety near oil and gas extraction facilities,  including a minimum setback distance between oil and gas activities and sensitive receptors such as schools, childcare facilities, playgrounds, residences, hospitals, and health clinics. See The Climate Center’s Letter of Support. STATUS: In the Senate. Read first time. Sent to the Senate Rules Committee for assignment to a policy committee.

 

AB 1839 (Bonta) WATCH – The “Green New Deal” bill. Introduced on January 6, this bill would create the California Green New Deal Council with a specified membership appointed by the Governor. The bill would require the California Green New Deal Council to submit a specified report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2022. So far the plan is scant on specifics including how goals will be met or how much the State will pay to meet those goals. STATUS: Introduced in January 6. No committee assignment yet. The bill has not been scheduled for a hearing.  The Climate Center is still assessing the bill and has not yet taken a position.

AB 1847 (Levine) WATCH – This bill would authorize the CPUC (contingent on the Commission finding that an electrical corporation is not complying with State law, rules, or regulations) to appoint a public administrator to the electrical corporation for a period not to exceed 180 days. The bill would vest the public administrator with oversight authority over the electrical corporation’s activities that impact public safety. See the bill author’s factsheet. STATUS: In the Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee. No hearing date set.

AB 2145 (Ting) WATCH – This bill would state the intent of the legislature to enact legislation to reform the electric vehicle charging infrastructure approval process employed by the CPUC to help ensure that by 2030 California will safely install enough EV charging ports to meet the demand through public and private investment.

 

AB 2689 (Kalra) Likely Support. – This bill updates Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) confidentiality provisions to allow a broader range of market experts to participate in complex IOU cost recovery proceedings and supports California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) oversight to protect customers from unreasonable or unjustified IOU rate increases. California IOU electric generation rates have increased 49% since 2013. Between 2008 and 2018, IOU customer rates doubled from $29.3 billion to $59.3 billion per year. AB 2689 would result in greater IOU accountability and improved consumer protection, safety, and affordability. The California Community Choice Association is a sponsor of this bill. STATUS: In the Assembly Rules Committee.
AB 2789 (Kamlager) WATCH – This bill would appropriate $1,500,000 and require the CPUC, in consultation with the CA Energy Commission, to request the California Council on Science and Technology to undertake and complete a study, as specified, relative to electrical grid outages and cost avoidance resulting from deployment of eligible renewable energy resources, battery storage systems, and demand response technologies. The bill would require the PUC to report the results of the study to the Legislature by January 1, 2022. STATUS: Awaiting a hearing in the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee.
AB 3014 (Muratsuchi) WATCH – This bill aims to improve the reliability of California electric supply by reforming the State’s resource adequacy (RA) program. Specifically, this bill creates the Central Reliability Authority (CRA), a non-profit public benefit corporation, to purchase residual RA needed to meet state requirements while still allowing load-serving entities (LSEs), such as Community Choice Agencies (CCAs), to maintain their procurement autonomy. The newly created CRA also reduces costly RA purchases currently undertaken by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and greatly enhances the RA market. The California Community Choice Association is a sponsor of this bill. STATUS: In the Assembly Rules Committee.

AB 3021 (Ting) SUPPORT – This bill would appropriate $300,000,000 per fiscal year in the 2020–21, 2021–22, and 2022–23 fiscal years from the General Fund to the California Energy Commission to administer a program to provide resiliency grant funding and technical assistance to local educational agencies for the installation of energy storage systems. STATUS: Double-referred to Education and Natural Resources committees.

 

AB 3251 (Bauer-Kahan) WATCH – This bill would require that charging of energy storage systems be treated as load in calculations for demand response programs, and that capacity from energy storage systems installed on the customer side of the meter be allowed to be aggregated for purposes of determining resource adequacy capacity; and electricity exported to the grid from the customer side of the meter be allowed to count toward the capacity obligations of load-serving entities. STATUS: In Assembly, referred to Asm Energy Committee.

 

Senate Bills

SB 45 (Allen, et al) SUPPORT – Dubbed the “Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation, and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2020.” This is a proposed $5.51 billion general obligation bond to be placed on the November 3, 2020 statewide general election. Specifically, $570 million will be made available for climate resiliency initiatives including microgrids, distributed generation, storage systems, in-home backup power, and community resiliency centers such as cooling centers, clean air centers, hydration stations, and emergency shelters. STATUS: Passed out of Senate, in the Assembly, held at the desk.

 

SB 378 (Wiener) WATCH – Would establish customer and local government protections related to Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) incidents. Specifically, the bill requires IOUs to provide annual reports to the Wildfire Safety Division within the CPUC on the condition of their electrical equipment and provide maintenance logs to assess fire safety risk. The bill also requires the CPUC to develop procedures for consumers and local governments to recover costs from IOUs accrued during PSPS events, improves PSPS notification procedures, and makes IOUs subject to civil fines if the CPUC determines that the IOU failed to act in a reasonable and prudent manner. STATUS: In the Assembly, pending committee referral.

SB 774 (Stern) WATCH – SB 774 would require IOUs to collaborate with the State’s Office of Emergency of Services and others to identify where back-up electricity sources may provide increased electrical distribution grid resiliency and would allow the IOUs to file applications with the CPUC to invest in, and deploy, microgrids to increase resiliency. Concerns focus on too much control being placed in the hands of the IOUs over microgrid development when other LSEs and stakeholders can and should play a role. STATUS: In the Assembly committee process with no committee assignment and no hearing date.

 

SB 917 (Wiener) WATCH – This bill renames the California Consumer Energy and Conservation Financing Authority and via eminent domain takes control of PG&E to create the Northern California Energy Utility District and a public benefit corporation, Northern California Energy Utility Services, to carry out day to day operations. The key provision of the bill that is relevant to Community Choice Energy is: “10623: The authority of a community choice aggregator to provide electric service within the service territory of the district shall remain as if the district were an electrical corporation.” STATUS: Triple-referred to Senate Energy, Govt & Finance, and Judiciary Committees.
SB 947 (Dodd) SUPPORT – This bill would require the California Public Utilities Commission to evaluate financial performance-based incentives and performance-based metric tracking to identify mechanisms that may serve to better align electrical corporation operations, expenditures, and investments with public benefit goals. STATUS: In the Senate Energy & Utilities Committee.
SB 1215 (Stern) – SB 1215, the “California Emergency Services Act” establishes the Office of Emergency Services in the office of the Governor and provides that the office is responsible for the state’s emergency and disaster response services for natural, technological, or manmade disasters and emergencies. Creates a grant program for microgrids. STATUS: In Senate, double-referred to the Governmental Organization and Energy Committees.
SB 1240 (Skinner) SUPPORT – This bill would require the California Energy Commission, in consultation with the California Independent System Operator, to identify and evaluate options for transforming the electrical corporations’ (Investor Owned Utilities’) distribution grids into more open access platforms that would allow local governments and other third parties to participate more easily in grid activities, as provided. The bill would require the commission to update the identification and evaluation at least once every two years. The bill would require the commission, beginning January 1, 2022, and biennially thereafter, to submit to the Legislature a report on the identification and evaluation of options. The Climate Center is a sponsor of this bill. For more details, see Kurt Johnson’s blog about this bill. STATUS: In Senate – referred to Senate Energy Committee.
SB 1258 (Stern) WATCH – Titled the California Climate Technology and Infrastructure Financing Act, this bill would enact the California Climate Technology and Infrastructure Financing Act to require the California Infrastructure Bank (IBank), in consultation with specified agencies to administer the Climate Catalyst Revolving Fund, which the bill would establish to provide financial assistance to eligible climate catalyst projects. STATUS: In the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee.
SB 1314 (Dodd) SUPPORT – SB 1314, the Community Energy Resilience Act of 2020, would require the Strategic Growth Council to develop and implement a grant program for local governments to develop community energy resilience plans. The bill would set forth guiding principles for plan development, including equitable access to reliable energy, as provided, and integration with other existing local planning documents. The bill would require a plan to, among other things, ensure a reliable electricity supply is maintained at critical facilities and identify areas most likely to experience a loss of electrical service. The bill would require the council to establish a stakeholder review board to provide statewide oversight for purposes of the grant program. The bill would require a local government, as a condition of receiving grant funding, to submit its plan and a report of project expenditures to the stakeholder review board within six months of completing the plan. The bill would require the stakeholder review board to annually report specified information about the grant program to the Legislature. The Climate Center is a sponsor of this bill. For more details, see Kurt Johnson’s blog about this bill. STATUS: Double-referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committees.