BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
AB 1 - Aanestad Hearing Date:
June 26, 2001 A
As Amended: May 24, 2001 FISCAL B
1
DESCRIPTION
Existing law provides for a surcharge on each utility bill to
fund a series of "public goods" programs. Money collected from
the surcharge is awarded by the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) to the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in
order to implement the requirements of the public goods
programs.
Existing law allows the IOUs to decide how best to implement the
CPUC's requirements. One such program, the Large Nonresidential
Standard Performance Contract Program, provides rebates to
businesses that the install certain types of energy efficient
equipment.
Existing law permits consumers who have disputes with an IOUs to
file a complaint with the CPUC.
This bill creates an expedited process to resolve disputes
between IOUs, businesses, and the contractors those businesses
may hire, over the amount of energy efficiency rebate that the
business is eligible for from the utility. Under the process
created by the bill:
1. The IOU shall promptly attempt to resolve disputes
with a business applying for rebates or incentives under
the Large Nonresidential Standard Performance Contract
Program;
2. The business shall provide the IOU with written
notice of any dispute;
3. Within 10 business days after receipt of the notice,
the parties shall meet to resolve the dispute;
4. If the dispute isn't resolved within 10 business
days, the IOU shall inform the business of its right to
file a complaint with the CPUC's Consumer Affairs
Division;
5. The Consumer Affairs Division is required to issue
its findings within 30 days of receipt of the complaint;
6. Before issuing its findings, the Consumer Affairs
Division is required to provide a copy of the complaint
to the IOU, which shall provide a response to the
complaint within 5 business days of receipt.
BACKGROUND
The public goods surcharge and accompanying programs were
created in the original electric restructuring legislation, AB
1890 (Brulte), Chapter 854, Statutes of 1996. AB 1890 provided
a transition to a competitive marketplace in energy generation,
recognizing certain energy activities which provide a clear
public benefit may not be invested in or funded in a competitive
environment. To support these important activities, AB 1890 set
up a per kilowatt hour surcharge paid by all electric customers
to fund four public goods categories: 1) energy efficiency; 2)
renewable energy sources; 3) research and development of
alternative energy supplies; and 4) assistance to low-income
users.
The public goods surcharge amounts to less than three percent of
an electricity customer's bill. This surcharge was put in place
for a four-year period for three of the programs, (the
low-income program had no sunset date). The public goods
surcharge for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and the
public interest energy research and development programs was
originally supposed to sunset on December 31, 2001, but it was
extended until December 31, 2012 by SB 1194 (Sher), Chapter
1050, Statutes of 2000, and AB 995 (Wright), Chapter 1051,
Statutes of 2000.
According to the CPUC, the energy efficiency programs funded by
the investor-owned utilities generated over $2.7 billion in net
benefits between 1990-1997, and a March 2000 by the Rand
Corporation noted similar benefits.
COMMENTS
1)What Problem Does This Bill Solve? According to information
provided by the author, disputes between an IOU, a business,
and a contractor who may have been hired to make certain
energy efficiency improvements over the amount of a rebate a
business is entitled to can last over a year. The author
notes that while those disputes are being worked out, the
energy efficiency improvements aren't being made, which means
energy is continuing to be wasted and the business can't use
these improvements to reduce its energy bill.
2)Moving To The Front Of The Line . This bill requires specific
complaints made to the CPUC's Consumer Affairs Division to be
handled in a specific manner within a specified time frame (50
days). The Consumer Affairs Division handles a wide range of
complaints from telephone, electricity, and natural gas
customers. Any complaint a customer has with their phone bill
or their natural gas service or services provided by their IOU
is directed to the Consumer Affairs Division.
By putting contractor/business complaints about the Large
Nonresidential Standard Performance Contract Program at the
front of the line, it means every other consumer complaint
will get pushed back further and take longer to resolve. The
author and the committee may wish to consider why this type of
compliant is more important than any other type of customer
complaint and is deserving of unique, expedited treatment at
the expense of every other customer who files a complaint with
the CPUC's Consumer Affairs Division.
3) Creating A Dispute Resolution Process . Currently,
complaints of the nature referenced in this bill are
handled initially at the CPUC's Consumer Affairs
Division, then referred to the Energy Division and worked
out among the various parties. This bill creates a
specific dispute resolution process for one set of
customers and one set of complaints. The author and
committee may with to consider whether it's appropriate
to establish such a process for a select group of
customer complaints.
4) Is The Glass Half-Full Or Half-Empty? According to
the CPUC, complaints about the size of rebate a business
is entitled to under the Large Nonresidential Standard
Performance Contract Program are infrequent (although
that number could increase should more businesses attempt
to take advantage of the program's benefits in light of
recent electricity rate increases).
Assuming the CPUC's assessment is accurate, that arguably
leads to one of two basic conclusions: Either the process
created by this bill will have little, if any, impact on other
customer complaints or on the CPUC's workload because it won't
be used frequently, or that because the complaints are so
infrequent, there's no need to set up a specific dispute
resolution process within the CPUC's Consumer Affairs
Division.
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Assembly Floor (77-0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (21-0)
Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee
(13-1)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
Pacific Gas & Electric
Southern California Edison
Oppose:
None on file
Evan Goldberg
AB 1 Analysis
Hearing Date: June 26, 2001