If California wants power company executives from coal-happy states like Wyoming and Utah to run energy policy in this state, then the state Senate should pass a proposed law called SB 540, sponsored by Silicon Valley Democrat Josh Becker.

Similarly, if California wants its most important environmental decisions to be made by a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) controlled by President Trump, pass this bill.

But if California wants to continue controlling its own destiny in deciding what kinds of energy sources to employ as power needs expand, then a no vote is needed.

Make no mistake, large companies like Google in and near Becker’s district want this bill, which would probably allow it and similar firms operating insatiably power-hungry artificial intelligence (AI) plants going up in many rural parts of the West to use all the coal-fired energy they like, and hang the smog effects — which California has resisted for decades.

Becker chairs the state Senate Energy Committee, where his bill is due for its first vote April 8. Ironically, on accepting that job, he promised to push for clean energy.

This is actually the second big effort in the last eight years to have California join something informally called a Western regional electric grid. Like current Gov. Gavin Newsom, ex-Gov. Jerry Brown also pushed the idea.

The advantage: New power supplies could become available to California more quickly. The disadvantage: much of that power would be from “dirty” sources, plants fired by coal, oil and natural gas. Especially coal, which is favored heavily by regulators in states with large coal reserves, like Montana and Wyoming.

No question, Idaho and Utah are not as coal dependent as they once were, but they remain far more reliant on that source than California. Utah, especially, has plants itching to export coal energy to California.

So, says Jamie Court, director of the Consumer Watchdog public advocacy group and the most vocal opponent of the Western grid, “Sovereignty issues that have doomed the Western Regional Transmission Organization and prevented it from becoming law have not gone away. In fact, they are more perilous than ever.”

Advocates against the regional grid contend flatly that “This…would place control over California’s energy market in the hands of an (organization) heavily dominated by coal interests. California would be subject to…a market authority not interested in either California or its policies.”

One reason this plan has a better chance of passage today than in 2017 is increased union domination of the California legislature, achieved mostly via campaign donations.

Back in 2017, the similar earlier plan was opposed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), which issued dire warnings about loss of California authority. Now the IBEW sports contracts with big AI farms and with PacificCorp, an Oregon-based utility that controls vast coal resources from Montana to Texas, the nation’s largest coal using state.

The regional grid, said Court, could completely control how California’s Independent System Operator manages this state’s grid. “California,” he said, “would give up its right to demand that its own environmental, consumer and health laws be followed.”

What’s more, California consumers could be forced to help pay for construction of new transmission lines all over the West. Building new power lines is already a major part of most utility bills here.

The new plan does contain so-called guardrails aiming to protect California, including a “statement of governance” saying the new regional grid would “respect California’s right to set policies.” But that statement could be overridden by a simple order from FERC whenever Trump desires.

What’s more, there is no realistic way to escape this deal, once made. Any attempt for California to get out would need approvals both by the regional grid’s officers and by FERC.

It’s as if California were considering inviting Enron to move in and take over the state’s grid again, even if that turns out to be as crooked and disastrous as when it happened during the early 2000s energy crunch.

No, this proposal is not labelled “Coal, Coal, Coal,” but reality is that a lump of worthless coal is just what California would likely end up holding.

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net