BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
AB 460 - Wyman Hearing Date:
July 10, 2001 A
As Amended: May 31, 2001 FISCAL B
4
6
0
DESCRIPTION
This bill requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to
allocate $10 million to the Transmission Agency of Northern
California (TANC) to fund "environmental studies" of Path 15.
BACKGROUND
Path 15 lies within the transmission system owned by Pacific Gas
& Electric (PG&E). It extends for approximately 84 miles,
between PG&E's Los Banos and Gates substations, along the state's
major north-south transmission corridor where three high-voltage
lines are reduced to two, creating congestion and making it
difficult to move electricity from south to north.
Congestion along Path 15 bifurcates California's electricity
market, increasing costs and decreasing reliability in northern
California, but it could be remedied by constructing an
additional transmission line between Los Banos and Gates.
Historically, Path 15 congestion has limited the access of
municipal utilities in northern California to power supplies from
the south. Prior to electrical restructuring, PG&E had little
incentive to upgrade Path 15, as expansion would allow other
generators to more effectively compete with PG&E for bulk power
sales to local utilities in Northern California.
TANC is a joint powers authority composed of municipal utilities
in northern California. TANC has proposed to expand Path 15,
indicating it could complete construction of a new transmission
line faster and cheaper than PG&E. TANC estimates total project
cost at $230 million.
In March, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
ordered PG&E to file for authority to construct a Path 15
upgrade. In June, pursuant to President Bush's energy plan, the
federal government, through the Western Area Power
Administration, issued a request for "statements of interest"
from outside parties wishing to finance and co-own the Path 15
expansion.
COMMENTS
1)Bill depends on Budget Act funding. This bill does not itself
appropriate $10 million, it relies on an appropriation for its
purpose in the Budget Act, SB 75 (Peace). However, SB 75 does
not currently contain the appropriation contemplated in this
bill. As such, the bill has no substantive effect. If the
appropriation is included in the Budget Act itself, this bill
would appear to be unnecessary. To the extent this bill has
any effect, it may be to imply a commitment on the part of the
Legislature that TANC should undertake the Path 15 project
itself, which contradicts the actions of the CPUC to order PG&E
to do it.
2)What would funds be used for? According to the author, $10
million will cover the remaining costs to complete a study of
the environmental impact of constructing an upgrade to Path 15.
This bills directs funds to TANC for "environmental studies of
Path 15." The purpose may need to be better defined, for
example, "preparation of environmental review required by the
California Environmental Quality Act and/or the National
Environmental Policy Act for the construction of a high-voltage
transmission line between PG&E's Los Banos and Gates
substations."
3)Question Authority. The entity referenced in this bill should
be changed from the Transmission Authority of Northern
California to the Transmission Agency of Northern California.
4)Related legislation. SB 40XX (Speier) requires the CPUC, in
coordination with the California Energy Commission, to study
the feasibility of state construction of additional
transmission lines parallel to Path 15. SB 40XX is pending in
this committee.
AB 71XX (Wyman) exempts projects associated with Path 15 from
the California Environmental Quality Act. AB 71XX is pending
in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Assembly Floor (76-0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (21-0)
Assembly Natural Resources Committee
(10-0)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
California Association of Realtors
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Transmission Agency of Northern California
Oppose:
None on file
Lawrence Lingbloom
AB 460 Analysis
Hearing Date: July 10, 2001