BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1724
                                                                  Page  1

          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 1724 (Pavley)
          As Amended May 31, 2001
          Majority vote 

           NATURAL RESOURCES   9-2         UTILITIES AND COMMERCE           
          11-5                
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Wayne, Dickerson, Harman, |Ayes:|Wright, Calderon,         |
          |     |Jackson, Keeley,          |     |Canciamilla, Cardenas,    |
          |     |Lowenthal, Negrete        |     |Diaz, Jackson, Nation,    |
          |     |McLeod, Migden, Pavley    |     |Papan, Reyes, Simitian,   |
          |     |                          |     |Wesson                    |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Hollingsworth, Wyman      |Nays:|Pescetti, Bill Campbell,  |
          |     |                          |     |John Campbell, Kelley,    |
          |     |                          |     |Maddox                    |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           APPROPRIATIONS      14-7                                        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Migden, Alquist, Aroner,  |     |                          |
          |     |Cedillo, Corbett, Correa, |     |                          |
          |     |Goldberg, Papan, Pavley,  |     |                          |
          |     |Simitian, Thomson,        |     |                          |
          |     |Wesson, Wiggins, Wright   |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Bates, Ashburn, Daucher,  |     |                          |
          |     |Maldonado, Robert         |     |                          |
          |     |Pacheco, Runner, Zettel   |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Deletes the sunset on customer credits to public  
          entities for the purchase of renewable energy that is not under  
          contract with a utility and provides that only public entities  
          with contracts in force on January 1, 2001 are eligible for the  
          customer credit.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Generally requires State Energy Resources Conservation and  
            Development Commission (CEC) to perform duties relating to the  








                                                                  AB 1724
                                                                  Page  2

            conservation and development of energy resources under the  
            Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and  
            Development Act (Public Resources Code section 25000 et seq.)

          2)Provides customer credits to anyone who purchases renewable  
            energy not under contract with a utility.

          3)Sunsets the customer credit to public entities on January 1,  
            2002.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          committee The total amount to be collected for the next 10 years  
          through a utility surcharge, for the customer credit program and  
          for other energy programs, has been established in prior  
          legislation.  By continuing to allow public entities eligible  
          for the credits, this bill could change the allocation of those  
          credits.  This amount is unknown, but the current credit to the  
          City of Santa Monica exceeds $200,000 annually.

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author's office, AB 1890 (Brulte),  
          Chapter 854, Statutes of 1996, provided $540 million from  
          ratepayers (including local governments) to encourage investment  
          and competition in a renewable energy market during the  
          transition years from 1998 to 2001.  The funds were placed in  
          the Renewable Resource Trust to be administered by the CEC.   
          Last year, AB 995 (Wright), Chapter 1050, Statutes of 2000, and  
          SB 1194 (Sher), Chapter 1050, Statutes of 2000, among other  
          things, extended the collection of funds by the three investor  
          owned utilities for the Renewable Resource Trust for an  
          additional 10 years in five year blocks.  

          Among the various allocations of the funds are customer credits  
          for the purchase of renewable energy that is not under contract  
          with a utility.  The customer's total credit is based on how  
          much electricity was consumed in a one-year period (up to 10  
          cents per kilowatt hour with a $1000 cap per electric meter) and  
          could be incorporated either into the electricity price paid to  
          the provider or itemized separately.  Under existing law, that  
          credit is available through the CEC for both private and public  
          entities that wish to purchase renewable energy.  However, AB  
          995 and SB 1194 sunset the eligibility of public entities for  
          the customer credit on January 1, 2002.  

          According to supporters of the bill, because public agencies  
          regularly pay for the customer credit, they deserve access to  








                                                                  AB 1724
                                                                  Page  3

          its benefits.  In addition, they believe that the sunset on the  
          eligibility prejudices local governments' ability to receive the  
          incentive.

          An example of a community using renewable energy is the City of  
          Santa Monica.  The City of Santa Monica has committed to  
          purchasing 100% of its power for municipal purposes from  
          suppliers of renewable energy.  Under the existing program at  
          the CEC, the city had received approximately $200,000 in  
          reduced-price rates per year to partially offset the higher  
          costs of renewable electricity. 
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :  Kyra Emanuels Ross / NAT. RES. / (916)  
          319-2092 


                                                                FN: 0001368