BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                              1
          1





                SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
                            MARTHA M. ESCUTIA, CHAIRWOMAN
          

          AB 515 -  Richman                                 Hearing Date:   
          June 30, 2005              A
          As Amended:         June 23, 2005            FISCAL       B
                                                                        
                                                                        5
                                                                        1
                                                                        5

                                      DESCRIPTION
           
           Current state policy  encourages the installation of photovoltaic  
          (PV) panels on state buildings, and provides a subsidy for the  
          installation of PV systems.
           
           This bill  authorizes the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to  
          establish a program for leasing space above or adjacent to State  
          Water Project (SWP) conveyance facilities for installing PV  
          panels.  DWR must evaluate any proposal for installing PV  
          panels, the cost of which is paid by the project proponent.  DWR  
          may negotiate a charge for use of its facilities and right of  
          way.  

                                      BACKGROUND
           
          The SWP is a series of reservoirs, dams, aqueducts, and  
          powerhouses which transfer water from Northern California south  
          through the Central Valley primarily to irrigation districts and  
          the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.  Costs  
          of building and operating the SWP are born exclusively by its  
          users, not state taxpayers.  Because it is one of the primary  
          means of supplying southern California with water (the others  
          being the Los Angeles aqueduct to the Owens Valley and the  
          Colorado River aqueduct), the SWP is considered a critical  
          infrastructure for homeland security purposes.

                                       COMMENTS

             1.   Why Here?  -- The SWP is likely to be one of the more  
               costly locations for installing PV systems.  Access for  
               builders and maintenance staff will be very limited for  











               safety and security reasons, there is generally poor access  
               to electric lines for distributing the generated  
               electricity, and the plot of land where the PV system can  
               be installed is very narrow with an inconvenient wide,  
               slow-moving river right in the middle.  Nevertheless, if a  
               developer wants to pay to use this property and there is no  
               jeopardy to southern California's water supply, why not?

              2.   Been There, Done That  -- DWR already has authority to  
               permit leases on SWP property.  An example of this is a  
               request to use the SWP right of way by a telecommunications  
               company in the early 1990's.  A deal was struck to permit  
               the company to install fiber optic cable in exchange for  
               in-kind communications and surveillance services by the  
               company.  The SWP recovered much more than it's cost to  
               provide the right of way.  






































               DWR also has had some experience with allowing  
               third-parties to utilize SWP facilities for energy  
               purposes.  Apparently SWP negotiated agreements with wind  
               energy producers to install facilities near the SWP  
               aqueduct near the windy Altamont area.  That endeavor did  
               not work out and cost SWP contractors more than $3 million  
               in litigation expenses.

               The author carried a similar bill in 2004 (AB 426) which  
               passed this committee.  That bill was gutted to deal with  
               an unrelated energy issue.

               This bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Natural  
               Resources and Water.  

                                   ASSEMBLY VOTES
           
          Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee                    
          (11-0)
          Assembly Floor                     (78-0)
          Assembly Appropriations Committee  (18-0)
          Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee                    
          (13-0)
          Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee                       
          (10-0)

                                       POSITIONS
           
           Sponsor:
           
          Author

           Support:
           
          Environmental Entrepreneurs
          Natural Resources Defense Council

           Oppose:
           
          None on file

          



















          Randy Chinn 
          AB 515 Analysis
          Hearing Date:  June 30, 2005