BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   SB 441|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 445-6614         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  SB 441
          Author:   Soto (D)
          Amended:  5/3/05
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE ENERGY, UTIL. & COMMUNIC. COMM.  :  7-2, 4/19/05
          AYES:  Escutia, Alarcon, Battin, Bowen, Dunn, Kehoe,  
            Simitian
          NOES:  Morrow, Cox
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Campbell, Murray


           SUBJECT  :    Electricity:  rates:  advanced metering  
          infrastructure

           SOURCE  :     The Utility Reform Network


           DIGEST  :    This bill prohibits the Public Utilities  
          Commission from requiring the installation of advanced  
          metering infrastructure for specified buildings unless  
          certain findings are made and prohibits specified customers  
          from being placed on a default time-differentiated rate  
          schedule without the customer's consent.

           ANALYSIS  :    

          Existing law: 

          1. Requires the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to set  
             the rates (tariffs) charged to customers of  
             investor-owned utilities (IOUs).
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 441
                                                                Page  
          2


          2. Requires the PUC to conduct pilot studies of real-time  
             metering, which authorize the PUC to adopt real-time  
             pricing tariffs.

          3. Requires certain customers using distributed energy  
             resources to participate in a real-time metering and  
             pricing program, when available, in which rates for any  
             energy purchased from the IOU reflect the actual cost to  
             purchase the energy at the time it is consumed by the  
             customer.

          This bill prohibits the PUC from requiring the installation  
          of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), as defined, for  
          any building constructed prior to January 1, 2006, and  
          occupied by a customer with an average usage of less than  
          1,000 kilowatts per moth, unless it first finds that the  
          installation will save each customer class more than it  
          will cost.  The findings must be at a public hearing and  
          based upon the evidence presented at the public hearing.

          The bill prohibits the PUC from placing on a default  
          time-differentiated rate schedule, or other rate schedule  
          using AMI, any customer with average annual usage of less  
          than 1,000 kilowatts per month and occupying a building  
          constructed prior to January 1, 2006, unless the customer's  
          affirmative consent, in writing, is obtained.

          This bill defines "advanced metering infrastructure" to  
          mean interval data recording meters, along with two-way  
          communications and any other equipment necessary for the  
          installation and operation of the meters.

           Background
           
          The value and price of electricity varies by time of day  
          and season.  Consumption of electricity is much lower at  
          4:00 a.m. than it is at 4:00 p.m. and so is the price.   
          Traditional mechanical meters record the total amount of  
          electricity consumed between readings, but do not record  
          actual consumption patterns (temporal data).  Time-of-use  
          (TOU) or real-time meters measure energy as it is being  
          used, providing an exact reading of how much energy was  
          used at any given time.







                                                                SB 441
                                                                Page  
          3


          Time-differentiated pricing (TDP) refers to a system in  
          which customers pay their utility's actual cost of  
          purchasing electricity at the time it is consumed.  To  
          accomplish this, customers must have real-time meters and  
          the utility must have communications equipment to read the  
          meters and tariffs to bill its customers at real-time  
          rates.  Collectively, this constitutes "AMI."

          TDP contrasts with the current rate system used by most  
          residential customers, in which electricity consumption is  
          recorded on a gross monthly basis and customers are billed  
          at rates which reflect the system average cost of  
          electricity, regardless of whether the individual customer  
          consumed it during periods of high or low demand.

          TDP may also differ from TOU rates, currently used by  
          commercial, industrial and agricultural customers, as well  
          as a small number of residential customers.  TOU rates  
          establish two or three different prices for different times  
          of the day, and different rates for different seasons, but  
          do not reflect actual, day-to-day variations in demand and  
          price, which can be significant.

          TDP exposes customers to market price signals and gives  
          them reason to respond to those signals, e.g. by using less  
          electricity at times of peak demand, and more at times of  
          low demand.  The absence of price-responsive demand  
          associated with fixed retail rates has been cited as a  
          contributor to spiking wholesale prices.  TDP supporters  
          believe it will result in reduced demand during peak  
          periods and empower customers to collectively mitigate  
          supplier market power by curtailing use when wholesale  
          prices spike.  Actual customer response to TDP has not been  
          widely tested.  Implementation of TDP for customers of the  
          IOUs requires installation of AMI at significant cost to  
          ratepayers.

          According to The Utility Reform Network (TURN), sponsor of  
          this bill, the PUC is currently considering authorizing or  
          requiring IOUs to install AMI for their customers,  
          including all existing residential and small commercial  
          customers, regardless of their size or location.  The IOUs  
          have requested to spend $120 million in 2005 for AMI.  The  







                                                                SB 441
                                                                Page  
          4

          entire statewide cost of AMI installation is estimated at  
          several billion dollars.  The PUC has not conducted any  
          evidentiary hearings to determine whether universal  
          deployment of AMI for small customers will be  
          cost-effective for ratepayers.  The claimed benefits of AMI  
          include operational benefits, such as outage detection and  
          reduced meter reading costs, as well as reduced costs of  
          generation due to shifting of peak load.  The claimed  
          operational benefits alone have not been sufficient to  
          justify the costs of AMI, and may be achievable through  
          cheaper technologies.  Further, residential peak load  
          reductions may be achievable more cost-effectively and  
          reliably through direct load control programs, appliance  
          efficiency standards and conservation measures.  The PUC  
          has not examined these questions in an evidentiary hearing.  
           

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

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  5/18/05)

          The Utility Reform Network (source)
          Coalition of California Utility Employees

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  5/18/05)

          California Manufacturers and Technology Association
          Pacific Gas and Electric Company
          Sempra Energy


          NC:mel  5/18/05   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****