By Stephanie Sierra, ABC7
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — As California faces worsening climate disasters, Silicon Valley Democrats are pushing a bill that could give control of the state’s energy markets to the Trump administration.
But the controversy over the legislation is only half the story.
Questions are being raised about a potential conflict of interest involving the Bay Area politician behind it.
Senate Bill 540 is raising eyebrows at the state capitol, not just because of its potential economic and environmental consequences, but the money trail following the bill’s author.
According to public records, State Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) is receiving a sizable annual check from his other employer — an artificial intelligence company that would directly benefit from his legislation.
Becker doesn’t view it as a conflict, but his critics are raising that question. Especially now, as the Silicon Valley Senator appears to be conveniently unavailable for a five minute discussion to get clarity about his own bill.
SB 540
Becker is the chair of the Senate Energy Committee and describes himself as a longtime advocate for clean energy solutions. So, his fellow environmentalists ask: why is he authoring a bill that would allow California to give control of its state-run energy markets to an independent federal agency under the Trump administration?
An independent analysis from the Senate Judiciary Committee found it’s a move that would bring devastating impacts to California’s fight for clean energy.Senator Becker promises to be transparent. Yet, he canceled our interview that was scheduled a week in advance due to an “unforeseen scheduling change.” So we asked if we could speak briefly for five to ten minutes sometime over the next several weeks, and we never got a straight answer.
The Controversy
We did get ahold of State Sen. Henry Stern, a joint author of the bill and former environmental attorney. He represents the northern suburbs of Los Angeles devastated by the January wildfires.
STEPHANIE SIERRA: “Senator, would you consider yourself an environmentalist?”
SEN. STERN: “Yes.”
SIERRA: “Tell us why you’re backing this bill.”
SEN. STERN: “I’m hopeful that it will prove itself out that renewables are the lowest cost so that everyone’s emissions go down, but who knows… sometimes dumb politics get in the way.”
Sen. Stern and Sen. Becker argue this bill would bring down consumer costs by allowing the state to export excess renewable energy and import cheaper energy from a wider set of western resources.
They cite studies that found the energy system would be less stressed, potentially leading to fewer blackouts. The studies claim gas generation could drop by 31% while solar and wind sources increase by 10%.
An independent legislative analysis contradicts that arguing this bill could actually increase greenhouse gas emissions across the west, jeopardize California’s clean energy laws, and even curtail the state’s fight against climate change.
SIERRA: “What’s your response to this report?”
SEN. STERN: “I get the anxiety – we get the distrust right now for anything to do with the federal government… One of the hard parts about this bill is it’s a bit of a trust exercise.”
A trust exercise on a plan that opponents argue simply isn’t working.
SIERRA: “Critics say these regional markets operating elsewhere in the country haven’t worked – in all or parts of 13 different states. In fact, there’s several governors wanting to withdraw from it. Why do you think this will work here if it doesn’t work there?”
SEN. STERN: “We’ve designed ours a little differently, so it’s not our entire grid being integrated. It’s less than 5% of power for the year… We’ve really limited what it can be used for.”
Loretta Lynch says that’s not true.
She’s the former president of the California Public Utilities Commission who served during the Enron energy crisis.
“We should not ever give away California’s authority to protect our consumers, public health, and to protect our environment – and this bill does all three things,” said Lynch.
Lynch worries this bill would reverse all the protections implemented since the historic scandal.
“Our electricity markets must follow California law and this bill would eliminate that requirement,” Lynch said. “We would hand over our authority to the Trump administration or to any federal government in the future…they will be in the pilot seat… and we’ll be in the backseat going wherever they take us.”
Other California lawmakers have doubts as well.
“This is one of those bills where there’s a clash of interests!” said State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange County). “Once we’re in… it may be very difficult to leave, either legally or practically.””This proposal promises too much,” said State Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-Silicon Valley), one of the only legislators to vote against the initiative.
Fear of limited control, high costs, and the loss of tens of thousands of labor jobs are all reasons opponents argue against this bill.
SIERRA: “Doesn’t it give you pause that these efforts in other states have cost ratepayers even more money?”
SEN. STERN: “Uhhh… yes. We certainly don’t want to pay for other people’s costs… we think this will save costs.” Stern says the bill has protections in the event consumer rates go up – but control over that remains unclear.
SIERRA: “And you’re sure you would have the authority – California, in this sense – to pull the plug under the Trump administration?”
SEN. STERN: “You’re raising a great question… it’s the right question. You can never be 100% sure.”
And if it doesn’t work?
Lynch says other states that have tried to “get out” of these regional markets were punished with high costs. “They will control whether you leave – and that means California will never leave, because we will be handing Trump the stick to beat California up whenever they want,” said Lynch.
SIERRA: “It just seems like there’s a lot of ‘IFs’.”
SEN. STERN: “Totally… I’m not 100% this is going to work out…but we want to take a shot.”
Conflict of Interest?
Opponents ask: why push this bill forward if there’s so much uncertainty? 7 On Your Side followed the money.
STEPH: “Big Tech is in support of this bill. Why?”
SEN. STERN: “Yeah… I’ve heard this big tech line. I didn’t know so much about it… ” According to a letter listing all the the bill’s supporters, companies like, “Google, Microsoft, and Amazon” are plastered on the front.
But it’s also well known in Silicon Valley that Big Tech supports the bill given the rising demand for energy supply to AI data centers.
“I guess the tech people like this too?… I don’t know – I don’t know exactly why…” said Sen. Stern.
A 7 On Your Side analysis of state finance records shows Senator Becker has up to $3.4 million invested in various tech and artificial intelligence companies.
Sen. Becker also currently has a consulting contract for an AI company that pays him more than $100,000 a year — however, he couldn’t specify exactly how much.
Plus, he receives stock options from the company worth up to $1 million.
In a statement, Becker wrote, “I advise a company that does cancer drug discovery. It makes use of AI and quantum algorithms in its cancer drug discovery work.”
“When you’re in government full time, then you should spend full time working for the people and not working a side gig,” said Lynch.
According to financial records, Becker has received at least $85,000 in campaign donations since 2023 from industry groups and tech companies that support this bill. That’s 21 times more than what he received from opponents of the bill.
Stern received roughly 20% of what Becker got from industry supporters – with no contributions from those opposing it.
“I hate all the corporate money, period. I don’t have good things to say about it,” said Sen. Stern.
Sen. Becker was unable to provide ABC7 a copy of his contract with SB Technology nor share how many hours he spends working in that position.
He also says he’s not willing to put his stock into a blind trust to avoid these concerns moving forward.
“I have never had a conflict and will never need to claim ignorance,” Becker wrote in an email to ABC7.
Meanwhile, the bill has passed its first floor vote and is now headed to the Assembly.
We’ll be following it.
