BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2523
                                                                  Page  1

          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 2523 (Canciamilla)
          As Amended May 16, 2002
          Majority vote 

           UTILITIES AND COMMERCE     16-0 APPROPRIATIONS      20-2        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Wright, Pescetti,         |Ayes:|Steinberg, Bates,         |
          |     |Calderon, Bill Campbell,  |     |Alquist,                  |
          |     |John Campbell,            |     |Ashburn, Cohn, Correa,    |
          |     |Canciamilla, Cardenas,    |     |Daucher, Diaz, Firebaugh, |
          |     |Diaz, Horton, Kelley, La  |     |Maldonado,                |
          |     |Suer, Maddox, Nation,     |     |Negrete McLeod, Robert    |
          |     |Papan, Reyes, Simitian    |     |Pacheco, Papan, Runner,   |
          |     |                          |     |Simitian, Keeley,         |
          |     |                          |     |Wiggins, Wright, Zettel,  |
          |     |                          |     |Chan                      |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |Nays:|Aroner, Goldberg          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

           SUMMARY  :  Requires the California Public Utilities Commission  
          (PUC), if it determines that electric rate increases adopted in  
          May 2001 should be reduced, to ensure that the rate reduction  
          occurs in the same proportion as the percentage increases it  
          adopted in the rate increase order. Specifically,  this bill  :

          1)Refers to a PUC decision that was adopted in May 2001 that  
            increased retail electric rates to recover the electricity  
            procurement costs incurred by the electrical corporations and  
            the Department of Water Resources (DWR).

          2)Requires PUC, should it determine that rates authorized by  
            that decision should be reduced for any reason consistent with  
            the law, to ensure that the rate reduction occurs in the same  
            proportion as the percentage rate increases by customer class,  
            rate schedule, and rate option that it adopted in the  
            decision. 

          3)Sunsets on January 1, 2006.

           EXISTING LAW  authorizes PUC to establish rates for electrical  








                                                                  AB 2523
                                                                  Page  2

          corporations.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Absorbable special fund costs to PUC.  [Public  
          Utilities Reimbursement Account]

           COMMENTS  :  In May 2001 PUC approved a 3.5-cent/kWh rate increase  
          to provide revenue to cover the costs incurred by DWR in  
          assuming net power purchase costs of the IOUs.  PUC decision,  
          and statutory provisions of AB X1 1 (Keeley), Chapter 4,  
          Statutes of 2001, prohibit PUC from imposing electric rate  
          increases for residential consumption below 130 percent of the  
          customer's baseline level, medical baseline customer usage, and  
          for the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) customers. 

          Income eligibility level for the CARE program is 175% of the  
          federal poverty guidelines, and the rate discount for CARE  
          customers is 20%.  On April 9, 2002, PUC adjusted baseline  
          levels for most of PG&E's 4.5 millions residential customers.   
          Beginning May 1, 2002, baseline usage quantities increased for  
          the summer season up to 16%.

          Purpose :  The author notes the exemptions to last year's rate  
          increase shifted the burden of the increase to some residential  
          users (those consuming above 130% of baseline), but mostly to  
          commercial and industrial users-particularly large users, who  
          experienced increases of 40% to more than 70%.  This bill is  
          intended to provide policy guidance to the PUC that refunds  
          should be allocated to affected customers in proportion to the  
          manner in which the burden was assumed.  


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Paul Donahue / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083


                                                                FN: 0005161