BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1 (Aanestad)
As Amended July 17, 2001
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |77-0 |(June 4, 2001) |SENATE: |30-0 |(September 4, |
| | | | | |2001) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: U. &. C.
SUMMARY : Requires the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) to establish a single, universal rebate rate for all
energy efficiency technologies used for large nonresidential
standard performance contract programs allocated funds under the
rate component.
The Senate amendments make technical clarifying changes to the
language regarding the dispute resolution process at CPUC and
the timeframe for responses to complaints about the rebate
program.
EXISTING LAW requires electrical corporations to identify a
separate rate component to collect a system benefits charge to
fund energy efficiency, renewable energy, and research,
development and demonstration programs.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially the same,
except that it specified a division within CPUC to handle
complaints rather than CPUC itself. This bill provides for a
standard rebate rate for all customers participating in energy
efficiency programs through investor owned utilities.
FISCAL EFFECT : Additional special fund costs to CPUC would
depend on the number of unresolved disputes forwarded to CPUC
for resolution. Given the 10-day response time provided in this
bill, however, any additional costs should be absorbable.
COMMENTS : Among the many programs initiated and supported under
the system benefits charge contained in Public Utilities Code
Section 399.8, are energy efficiency programs specified funding
levels. This bill would establish a single rebate rate to pay
to large nonresidential customers under performance contract
programs for energy efficiency technologies used by these
AB 1
Page 2
customers.
This bill provides a specific, additional incentive for the
largest users of electricity, and the group most likely to
benefit from the overall demand reduction efforts in the state
by implementing energy efficiency technologies. The rebate rate
would be standardized across this customer class and provide
financial incentive for investment in energy efficient
technologies in a uniform manner. The specifics of what the
rebate rate should be and how they should be paid out to
customers of investor owned utilities (IOUs), specifically,
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric
(SDG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE) would be left to
CPUC to determine. This bill ensures that all large
nonresidential customers receive the same incentive and rebate
for investment in energy efficient technologies and simplifies
the process under which rebates are implemented for this
customer class.
This bill does not stream off any specified funds from current
disbursements and earmark them for the rebates; it leaves that
sort of latitude with CPUC. It is certainly true to infer that
this bill takes away flexibility from IOUs in how they provide
rebates or other incentives directly to customers in this class
from the system benefits program. However, there is fairness in
uniformity and there is institutional knowledge at CPUC which is
retained to determine how much of the benefits program funds
should be set aside for these uniform rebates. This bill seems
to specify a single, equitable delivery mechanism for one type
of benefit to be paid to large nonresidential customers of IOUs
under the existing program without eliminating or altering any
other existing delivery mechanisms.
This bill also provides for an expedited dispute resolution
process through CPUC if an entity has a dispute with an
electrical corporation regarding the Large Nonresidential
Standard Performance Contract Program and payment of any
benefits thereunder.
Analysis Prepared by : Kelly Boyd / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083
FN: 0002483
AB 1
Page 3