BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2593
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 2593 (Calderon)
As Amended June 15, 2004
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |77-0 |(May 10, 2004) |SENATE: |35-0 |(August 9, |
| | | | | |2004) |
|-----------+-----+----------------+--------+-----+---------------|
| | | | | | |
|-----------+-----+----------------+--------+-----+---------------|
|ASSEMBLY: |79-0 |(August 16, | | | |
| | |2004) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: U. & C.
SUMMARY : Specifies that the California Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) has the option to suspend for a year the
collection of the surcharge for the Self-Generation Incentive
Program (SGIP) when it determines it has sufficient funds to
meet current year demand for incentives.
The Senate amendments delete the language as passed by the
Assembly that exempts San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) from the
requirements of this bill.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill exempted the ability of PUC
from suspending the collection of the SGIP surcharge for SDG&E.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to suspend the collection of funds
for the support of SGIP in any year PUC determines that the
program has sufficient funds to meet the reasonably anticipated
demand for incentives for that year. The sponsors argue that
the reasons for the suspension stem from the fact the total
amount of incentives paid to eligible participants since the
program inception is approximately $15 million, even though $104
million has been collected in rates. To reduce the impact on
ratepayers, Southern California Edison (Edison) argues that SGIP
should be funded on a forecasted need.
AB 2593
Page 2
Pacific Gas & Electric's (PG&E's) successful implementation of
SGIP: In PG&E's case they had notified the Governor's Office in
March of this year regarding the overwhelming volume of
commercial scale photo voltaic applications in their service
territory, causing applications in Level 1 of SGIP to be
oversubscribed for the first time. In order to meet this
unexpected demand PG&E transferred $10 million (Level 2 budget)
and $5 million (administrative/measurement and evaluation
budget). PG&E's chart on the number of applications submitted
shows that a dramatic spike had occurred at the end of the
calendar year in November and December that was unanticipated by
the utility.
Why is there such a high surplus in this program for Edison? As
a result of the growing success of SGIP, and in particular the
Level 1 incentive program, in PG&E's service territory the
question that needs to be answered is why is Edison is having so
much difficulty disbursing the funds for these incentives and
what should the utility and PUC be doing differently to ensure
greater success for this program in Edison's service territory.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
This bill is not necessary. The Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) has been successfully administering
the Self-Generation Incentive Program, offering
financial incentives to utility customers that
install new equipment to meet all or a portion of
their facilities' electric energy needs. The PUC
through Public Utilities Code Section 379.5, 379.6
and 701 grants authority to adjust that program.
Therefore, this bill duplicates the PUC's existing
authority.
The PUC already has the authority to rescind their
collection of funds for the SGIP. Southern
California Edison, the sponsor of this measure, is
the only one of the investor-owned utilities whose
SGIP program is over-funded. For example, Pacific
Gas & Electric Company has transferred over $ 15
million into this fund to meet program demand. The
AB 2593
Page 3
issue here may be over collection or it may be
program implementation, however this is an issue that
the PUC can resolve. This would duplicate existing
PUC authority.
Analysis Prepared by : Daniel Kim / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083
FN: 0009127