BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1
Author: Aanestad (R)
Amended: 7/17/01 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENERGY, U.&C. COMMITTEE : 5-0, 7/10/01
AYES: Morrow, Battin, Murray, Speier, Vincent
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-0, 8/20/01
AYES: Alpert, Battin, Burton, Johnson, Karnette, Murray,
Perata, Poochigian
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 6/4/01 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Electrical restructuring: energy efficiency
programs
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill establishes a process to resolve
disputes between an applicant and an electrical corporation
in the Large Nonresidential Standard Performance Contract
Program, an energy efficiency program funded by the public
goods surcharge on electricity consumption.
ANALYSIS : 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.
CONTINUED
AB 1
Page
2
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 the date of 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.
5. The CPUC is required to issue its findings within 30
days of receipt of the complaint.
6. Before issuing its findings, the CPUC is required to
provide a copy of the complaint to the IOU, which shall
provide a response to the complaint within five 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
AB 1
Page
3
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
Increased costs to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
are unknown and depend on the number of complaints it
receives, but are probably not significant. Public
Utilities' Reimbursement Account revenues are derived from
an annual charge to public utilities, therefore, any
increased costs to the PUC should be recovered through
increased fee revenues.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/20/01)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Southern California Edison
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to information provided
AB 1
Page
4
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn, Bates, Bogh,
Briggs, Calderon, Bill Campbell, John Campbell,
Canciamilla, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Chan, Chavez,
Chu, Cogdill, Cohn, Corbett, Correa, Cox, Daucher, Diaz,
Dickerson, Dutra, Firebaugh, Florez, Frommer, Goldberg,
Harman, Havice, Hollingsworth, Horton, Jackson, Keeley,
Kehoe, Kelley, Koretz, La Suer, Leach, Leonard, Leslie,
Liu, Longville, Lowenthal, Maddox, Maldonado, Matthews,
Migden, Nakano, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Robert Pacheco,
Rod Pacheco, Papan, Pavley, Pescetti, Reyes, Richman,
Runner, Salinas, Shelley, Simitian, Steinberg,
Strickland, Strom-Martin, Thomson, Vargas, Wayne, Wesson,
Wiggins, Wright, Wyland, Wyman, Zettel, Hertzberg
NC:sl 8/21/01 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****