BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
AB 1 - Aanestad Hearing Date:
July 10, 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 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 3% 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 resolved, 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.
However, the supporters of this bill have been unable to provide
any examples of disputes over the size of an energy efficiency
rebate beyond the one example cited by the author. The CPUC
says it's received few, if any, complaints about the amount of
an energy efficiency rebate a business is entitled to receive
under the Large Nonresidential Standard Performance Contract
Program.
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. At the June 26 hearing on this bill,
the CPUC stated that it was attempting to work with the
author to determine whether there was a more appropriate
place to create the dispute resolution process mandated by
this bill.
Regardless of where the dispute resolution process is placed,
the author and committee may wish to consider whether its
appropriate to create a specific dispute resolution process for
one set of customers and one set of complaints, especially in
light of the fact that the CPUC has received few, if any,
complaints about the program itself or the current process for
resolving complaints.
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: July 10, 2001