California’s energy future is at a crossroads. The state is both a renewable energy powerhouse and a major producer and consumer of fossil fuels. California’s leaders must decide if the state will provide a model for the nation by replacing its fossil fuels with renewable energy to avoid climate disaster, or stay hooked on dirty energy.

Gov. Jerry Brown has tried to have it both ways. Despite preaching about climate change as our greatest challenge, he has supported fracking and a cap-and-trade system that allows the oil-and-gas industry to pay to continue business as usual, rather than reduce its pollution at the source. Brown has allowed the dangerous Aliso Canyon gas storage facility to remain open, even after it had the worst blowout in our nation’s history and still springs leaks.

Now, California faces its biggest test yet over whether it will truly advance to become a renewably powered economy.

The Legislature is considering legislation, including Assembly Bill 813, to turn over the management of the California energy grid to an unelected regional board that would govern a single energy market across the Western United States. The regional board would replace California’s Independent System Operator and would ultimately answer to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, now under the Trump administration.

This move could result in a severe setback to California’s renewable energy future. A regional board comprising largely out-of-state interests could load the grid with fracked gas and coal produced by Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico and Colorado. Trump’s FERC, which is unabashedly pro-fossil fuel, would have the final say and has already imposed its agenda on other regional systems in the country.

Regionalizing California’s grid would increase speculation and raise energy bills for Californians. The proposal would transfer the California-based market for buying and selling electricity to a Western interstate market. While speculation in a financial instrument pegged to electric transmission is already costing Californians more than $700 million, the problem could grow worse in a Western market with even less oversight.

The plan is similar to the electricity deregulation of the 1990s that allowed corporations such as Enron to treat California’s energy system like a casino, which resulted in Californians being overcharged and blackouts caused by manipulation.

Deregulation, which allowed private utilities to separate transmission and power production, has also resulted in California ratepayers paying billions of dollars for unnecessary gas-fired power plants, and profits for energy speculators.

The NRG corporation’s announcement that it plans to close three gas-fired power plants on the Southern California coast shows that state regulators allowed the industry to build more power plants than were needed. Meanwhile, California leads the country in solar production but has to give away solar power to neighboring states because our grid has too much natural gas — a problem that a Western grid would prolong and worsen.

The Legislature is being heavily lobbied by many of the same special interests that supported deregulation in the 1990s, including out-of-state utilities and the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental organization that supports markets and energy trading.

Instead of approving risky market schemes, California should instead lead the nation by example to a 100 percent renewable future. Cities including San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego are taking steps to lead by example. A new report commissioned by Food & Water Watch shows that Los Angeles can power its electric grid entirely on clean, renewable energy by 2030. This plan would emphasize energy efficiency, increased storage and smart management of the grid, and would cost ratepayers about the same as staying on fossil fuels.

The benefits of such a transition would be enormous, as closing power plants, gas fields and other fossil-fuel facilities would free nearby residents of respiratory problems, nausea, headaches, rashes and nosebleeds caused by emissions.

California’s choice is stark: The state will either give up control of its grid and energy future — jeopardizing public health, clean air, clean water and the climate — or California will control its destiny and lead the nation to a transition to clean, renewable energy. The Legislature must not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Wenonah Hauter is executive director of the national advocacy organization Food & Water Watch.