BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1059|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1059
Author: Escutia (D) and Morrow (R)
Amended: 04/04/05
Vote: 21
SEN. ENERGY, UTIL. & COMMUNICATIONS COMM. : 10-0, 4/5/05
AYES: Escutia, Alarcon, Battin,Bowen, Campbell, Cox, Dunn,
Kehoe, Murray, Simitian
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 9-0, 4/20/05
AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Ackerman, Kuehl, Machado, McClintock,
Perata, Soto, Torlakson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 13-0, 5/26/05
AYES: Migden, Aanestad, Alarcon, Alquist, Ashburn, Battin,
Dutton, Escutia, Florez, Murray, Ortiz, Poochigian,
Romero
SUBJECT : Electric transmission corridors
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the California Energy
Commission to designate electric transmission corridor
zones, according to a specified process, in which
high-voltage electric transmission lines may be built in
the future.
ANALYSIS : Under current law, cities and counties are
required to adopt general plans for land use.
CONTINUED
SB 1059
Page
2
Existing law also provides that the construction of
transmission lines is subject to certification, by the
Public Utilities Commission (PUC), of public convenience
and necessity. The certification process includes such
things as environmental review, and confers eminent domain
authority for the project.
Existing law, SB 1565 (Bowen), Chapter 692, Statutes of
2004, requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to
include in its biennial Integrated Energy Policy Report
(IEPR) a strategic plan for the state's electric
transmission grid. The next IEPR is due November 1, 2005.
This bill, in order to identify and reserve for future use
land that is suitable for high-voltage transmission lines,
authorizes the CEC to designate electric "transmission
corridor zones", according to a specified process in which
high-voltage electric transmission lines may be built in
the future. The CEC may make such a designation on its own
motion or in response to an application of a person who
plans to build a transmission line.
The bill authorizes the CEC to charge the applicant a fee
sufficient to cover all costs associated with reviewing the
application. Further, if the CEC initiates the designation
of a transmission corridor on its own, the CEC may set the
electricity surcharge on consumption at a level sufficient
to recover its costs.
This bill also requires a city or county, within 12 months
of receiving a notice from the CEC that a transmission
corridor zone has been designated, to update its general
plan accordingly. In addition, cities and counties will be
required, under certain circumstances, to notify the CEC
within 10 days of accepting an application for a
development project within a designated transmission
corridor zone.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/14/05) (Unable to reverify at time
of writing)
SB 1059
Page
3
California Energy Commission
California Chamber of Commerce
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Sempra Energy
OPPOSITION : (Verified 4/14/05) (Unable to reverify at
time of writing)
League of California Cities
California State Association of Counties
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Southern California Edison
Cities of Costa Mesa and Murrieta
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents argue the CEC has
identified a gap in logic between its long-term strategic
planning and the physical construction of high-voltage
electric transmission lines. There is no intermediate
process or document to identify the routes that utilities
will need in the future. Further, there's no way to
protect those increasingly scarce routes from encroachment
by incompatible development. Once buildings go up and
people move in, an area is no longer suitable for
high-voltage lines.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The League of California Cities
oppose the bill for a number of reasons, including local
land use preemption, and increased costs for general plan
revisions.
NC:cm 5/28/05 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****