II. Kyes' Motion

Kyes' motion asserts that by amending Section 366 as part of AB 117, the Legislature intended to reauthorize private aggregation of electrical load, or direct access, as well as addressing the "opt out" issue for CCAs.

Kyes states that aggregation of electrical load would benefit California customers by promoting more a reliable electrical infrastructure. The motion refers specifically to renewable energy generation systems, suggesting that aggregation would promote the installation of photovoltaic energy systems.

Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed a reply in opposition to Kyes' motion. They argue that the suspension of Section 366(b) remains in effect under Section 80110 of the Water Code.

Kyes filed a response to the utilities' reply. Kyes distinguishes Section 366(a) from Section 366(b). He believes that while Section 366(a) refers explicitly to "direct transactions" between customers and suppliers, Section 366(b) refers only to the "aggregation of customer electrical load." He states that the latter does not anticipate a change in the entity that provides power: it merely changes the method of billing. Kyes believes aggregation would promote cost-effective power production and delivery by permitting customers to take advantage of economies of scale.