BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       


           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   SB 772|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 445-6614         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                              UNFINISHED BUSINESS


          Bill No:  SB 772
          Author:   Bowen (D)
          Amended:  4/29/04
          Vote:     27 - Urgency

           
           PRIOR SENATE VOTES NOT RELEVANT

          SENATE ENERGY, UTIL. AND COMM. COMMITTEE  :  5-0, 5/18/04
          AYES:  Bowen, Morrow, Alarcon, Battin, Vasconcellos
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Dunn, McClintock, Murray, Sher

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  69-2, 5/10/04 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Electricity:  financing energy recovery

           SOURCE  :     Author


           DIGEST  :    This bill authorizes Pacific Gas and Electric  
          Company (PG&E) to issue recovery bonds, secured by a  
          dedicated rate component (DRC), to refinance, and lower the  
          costs of, its $2.21 billion regulatory asset" established  
          by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)  
          pursuant to its bankruptcy settlement with PG&E.

           Assembly Amendments  delete the prior version.  As it left  
          the Senate, the bill established the test to be used by the  
          State Energy Resources Conservation and Development  
          Commission in granting a written request for disaggregated  
          or unmasked records of confidential information it has  
          received or developed.

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 772
                                                                Page  
          2

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law establishes the California  
          Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank.  The existing  
          restructuring of the electric services industry provides  
          for the issuance of rate reduction bonds by the bank for  
          the recovery of transition costs by electrical  
          corporations.

          Under existing law, CPUC has regulatory authority over  
          public utilities, including electrical corporations.

          This bill:

          1. States the Legislature is not ratifying or endorsing any  
             particular outcome of PG&E's bankruptcy proceeding, but  
             rather is authorizing a means by which the CPUC can  
             reduce ratepayer costs.

          2. Requires PG&E, within 120 days of the bill's enactment,  
             to apply to the CPUC for a financing order to facilitate  
             the issuance of recovery bonds.  PG&E must specify that  
             the issuance of recovery bonds will reduce its  
             customers' rates.

          3. Requires the CPUC, within 120 days of PG&E's  
             application, to approve or disapprove a financing order.  
              In approving a financing order, the CPUC must find that  
             the issuance of recovery bonds will reduce PG&E  
             customers' rates.  The financing order establishes a  
             property right for PG&E in rates sufficient to repay  
             recovery bonds.

          4. Requires the CPUC to ensure collection of "recovery  
             costs" (the balance of the regulatory asset refinanced  
             by recovery bonds, associated taxes, and transaction  
             costs) from all electric consumers in PG&E's current  
             service territory, defined as the area PG&E provided  
             with electric distribution service as of December 19,  
             2003, with the following exceptions:

             A.   New or expanded load of a customer served via  
               direct transaction which does not use PG&E's  
               transmission or distribution facilities (e.g. "over  
               the fence" sales).








                                                                SB 772
                                                                Page  
          3

             B.   Load served by new customer generation to the  
               extent the load is exempt from existing cost  
               responsibility surcharges [e.g. for State Department  
               of Water Resources (DWR) costs] under existing CPUC  
               decisions.

             C.   DWR, for State Water Project load which is located  
               within PG&E's service territory, but does not receive  
               retail service from PG&E.

             D.   Load continuously served by a local publicly owned  
               (i.e. municipal) utility since January 1, 2000 (that  
               therefore didn't contribute to PG&E's  
               procurement-related debts).

             E.   New load in an area annexed by a city-owned  
               electric utility, where the city provides all its  
               usual municipal services.  This exemption is subject  
               to a total limit of 50 megawatts.

          1. Requires the CPUC to determine the extent to which  
             recovery costs are recoverable from new load served by a  
             municipal utility within PG&E's current service  
             territory.  The CPUC's determination must be consistent  
             with its pending determination of new municipal load's  
             responsibility for DWR costs.

          2. Provides that recovery costs are otherwise unavoidable  
             by customers taking service from a municipal utility  
             that forms in, or expands into, PG&E's current service  
             territory.

          3. Generally prohibits the CPUC from altering the terms of  
             an approved financing order.

          4. Provides the CPUC's authority to issue financing orders  
             terminates December 31, 2006.

          5. Requires the CPUC to credit ratepayers with any refunds  
             obtained by PG&E from electricity suppliers.

          6. Exempts regulations adopted to implement this bill from  
             the Administrative Procedures Act.








                                                                SB 772
                                                                Page  
          4

          7. Provides for expedited and limited rehearing and  
             judicial review of CPUC decisions pursuant to this bill,  
             similar to provisions applicable to AB 1X (Keeley),  
             Chapter 4, Statutes of 2001 1st Ex. Session.  A request  
             for rehearing must be filed within 10 days and decided  
             within 20 days.  Petitions for judicial review are  
             limited to the Supreme Court and must be filed within 10  
             days (this provision sunsets January 1, 2008).

          8. Exempts security interests created pursuant to the bill  
             from Civil Code provisions regarding perfection of  
             security interests as to third parties/creditors and  
             Commercial Code provisions containing consumer  
             protection provisions related to security interests.

          9. Contains other technical bond provisions similar to the  
             rate reduction bond statutes enacted by AB 1890  
             (Brulte), Chapter 854, Statutes of 1996, and SB 477  
             (Peace) Chapter 275, Statutes of 1997.

           Background
           
          On December 18, 2003, the CPUC approved a settlement  
          between itself and PG&E in PG&E's federal bankruptcy court  
          proceeding.  Prior to the settlement, PG&E and the CPUC had  
          been proponents of competing plans of reorganization.  The  
          settlement and a plan of reorganization based on the  
          settlement have since been approved by the bankruptcy  
          court.

          The settlement commits approximately $4 billion in  
          accumulated cash from excess rates collected from PG&E's  
          customers through 2003 to partially pay off the bankruptcy  
          claims.  The settlement provides for the issuance of new  
          debt to pay off the remaining bankruptcy claims and  
          expenses, with the cost collected in rates until 2013.

          The key financial feature of the settlement is the addition  
          of $2.21 billion to PG&E's rate base in the form of a new  
          "regulatory asset."  According to the settlement, the  
          regulatory asset will be amortized between 2004 and 2013  
          and will earn no less than PG&E's current equity return of  
          11.22 percent.  The regulatory asset effectively obligates  
          PG&E customers to borrow $2.21 billion and pay it back with  







                                                                SB 772
                                                                Page  
          5

          the equity return, plus taxes and amortization.  The total  
          ratepayer cost of the regulatory asset over its nine-year  
          amortization is estimated at $5.27 billion.  The revenues  
          generated by the regulatory asset will support the issuance  
          of new debt by PG&E.  The after-tax amount of any refunds  
          from generators or other energy suppliers will offset the  
          regulatory asset.

          The CPUC decision approving the settlement (Decision  
          03-12-035) contemplates refinancing the regulatory asset  
          with proceeds of bonds secured by a DRC, if certain  
          conditions are met, including passage of enabling  
          legislation.  However, implementation of the settlement is  
          not conditioned on passage of legislation or issuance of  
          bonds to refinance the regulatory asset.

          The purpose of this bill is to authorize the issuance of  
          recovery bonds to refinance the $2.21 billion regulatory  
          asset established by the settlement.  Statutory procedures  
          for issuing the bonds, including the creation of a property  
          right in the rates necessary to repay the bonds and  
          limitations on the degree to which PG&E customers can avoid  
          those rates, improve security and lower costs.  Substantial  
          ratepayer savings would result from the lower rate  
          associated with the bonds (perhaps five percent), compared  
          to the regulatory asset (at least 11.22 percent plus  
          taxes).  The sooner the regulatory asset is refinanced, the  
          greater the total savings - proponents of the bill estimate  
          savings of $1 billion, compared to the cost of the  
          regulatory asset.

          Under the bill, the CPUC would issue a financing order  
          authorizing a special financing entity established by PG&E  
          to issue recovery bonds to refinance the unamortized  
          portion of the regulatory asset.  The financing order would  
          set a charge - equal for all customers and within PG&E's  
          overall rates - which would be dedicated for the sole  
          purpose of repaying the bonds over their established term.   
          The financing order would provide for any necessary  
          adjustment to the charge to ensure the bond payments are  
          made according to schedule.  The charge would be  
          "nonbypassable" - that is, all customers taking electric  
          service within PG&E's service territory, as defined, would  
          pay the charge, with specified, limited exceptions.







                                                                SB 772
                                                                Page  
          6


          The bill provides for a second bond issuance - up to one  
          year later - to pay for taxes associated with the  
          regulatory asset, which are estimated at $800 million.   
          Both the regulatory asset and the associated taxes - and  
          hence the bond size - could be reduced via refunds from  
          generators.  These refunds would benefit ratepayers  
          directly.  The deadline in the bill for CPUC to issue a  
          financing order, and for issuance of bonds, is December 31,  
          2006.  

           Comments  

           Impact on potential future municipal utility customers  .  In  
          order to ensure predictable revenues for the repayment of  
          recovery bonds, this bill generally provides that recovery  
          costs are "nonbypassable" by electric consumers within  
          PG&E's current service territory, whether they are served  
          by PG&E or not.  The municipal utilities' opposition to the  
          bill has focused on the fact that this could lead to PG&E  
          billing customers served by a municipal utility that  
          annexes or overlaps a portion of PG&E's current service  
          territory.

          For a PG&E customer who may be taken over by a municipal  
          utility in the future, the bill clearly indicates the  
          customer remains responsible for paying recovery costs.   
          The bill doesn't specify a mechanism for collecting  
          recovery costs from non-PG&E customers, but it requires the  
          CPUC to establish an "effective mechanism that ensures  
          recovery?from existing and future consumers in the service  
          territory."

          For new customers who come to take service from a municipal  
          utility in what is currently PG&E's service territory, but  
          where PG&E has not provided service (i.e. "greenfields"),  
          the bill doesn't resolve whether those customers have to  
          pay recovery costs.  Instead, it reserves the decision to  
          the CPUC, which has considered similar issues in the  
          "municipal departing load" phase of its direct access  
          proceeding (Rulemaking 02-01-011) and has a decision on  
          rehearing pending.  The bill directs the CPUC to decide the  
          extent recovery costs are recoverable from new municipal  
          utility-served load, consistent with its pending rehearing  







                                                                SB 772
                                                                Page  
          7

          decision.

          In July 2003, the CPUC issued a decision excluding new load  
          served by a municipal utility providing service as of  
          February 1, 2001 from the cost responsibility surcharge  
          (Decision 03-07-028).  In August, the CPUC granted  
          municipal utilities' request for rehearing of Decision  
          03-07-028, but limited review to the issue of where to draw  
          the line on new load (Decision 03-08-076).  The decision  
          granting rehearing asked for more evidence on how to  
          allocate the exemption for new load.  The rehearing is  
          pending.

          In February 2004, the CPUC approved PG&E's rate design  
          settlement (Decision 04-02-062).  The decision adopted the  
          settlement's provision that the regulatory asset charge be  
          nonbypassable, except for specified customer generation,  
          but tied the final outcome on new municipal load  
          responsibility to the outcome of the rehearing referenced  
          above.  

          In the Assembly, this bill alternately included, then  
          excluded, greenfields from the obligation to pay recovery  
          costs.  In a compromise, the bill ultimately was amended to  
          not decide the issue.  Instead, except for a limited  
          exemption for greenfield load served by city-owned  
          utilities, the bill deliberately requires the CPUC to  
          decide the greenfield issue by applying its pending  
          decision on responsibility for DWR costs.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  Yes

          Absorbable costs to PUC to review the request for recovery  
          bond financing and to determine the allocation of bond  
          repayment costs through the dedicated rate component.

          According to the State Department of Finance, "such bonds  
          would benefit ratepayers by reducing the cost of servicing  
          this debt by a cumulative total of about $1 billion."

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  5/18/04)

          California Film Extruders and Converters Association







                                                                SB 772
                                                                Page  
          8

          California Large Energy Consumers Association
          California Manufacturers and Technology Association
          California Public Utilities Commission
          Coalition of California Utility Employees
          Office of Ratepayer Advocates
          Pacific Gas and Electric Company
          The Utility Reform Network (TURN)

          OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  5/18/04)

          Agricultural Energy Consumers Association
          California Municipal Utilities Association
          City of Alameda
          City of Gridley
          City of Roseville
          City of Santa Clara
          Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce
          Golden Valley Engineering and Surveying
          Hilltop Ranch
          Joseph Gallo Farms
          Maxwell Homes
          Merced Irrigation District
          McRoy-Wilbur Communities
          Modesto Irrigation District
          Northern California Power Agency
          On Target Marketing
          Sacramento Municipal Utility District
          Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
          South San Joaquin Irrigation District
          Truckee Donner Public Utility District

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 
          AYES:  Aghazarian, Bates, Benoit, Berg, Bermudez, Bogh,  
            Calderon, Campbell, Canciamilla, Chavez, Chu, Cogdill,  
            Cohn, Corbett, Cox, Daucher, Diaz, Dutra, Dutton,  
            Dymally, Frommer, Garcia, Goldberg, Hancock, Harman,  
            Haynes, Jerome Horton, Shirley Horton, Houston, Jackson,  
            Keene, Kehoe, Koretz, La Malfa, La Suer, Laird, Leno,  
            Leslie, Levine, Lieber, Longville, Lowenthal, Maddox,  
            Maldonado, Maze, McCarthy, Mullin, Nakano, Nation,  
            Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Pacheco, Parra, Pavley, Plescia,  
            Reyes, Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Runner, Salinas,  
            Samuelian, Simitian, Strickland, Vargas, Wiggins, Wolk,  
            Wyland, Yee, Nunez







                                                                SB 772
                                                                Page  
          9

          NOES:  Matthews, Steinberg
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Chan, Correa, Firebaugh, Liu, Montanez,  
            Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Spitzer, Wesson


          NC:sl  5/19/04   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****