BILL ANALYSIS SB 418 Page 1 Date of Hearing: September 3, 1999 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Carole Migden, Chairwoman SB 418 (Polanco) - As Amended: August 19, 1999 Policy Committee: Utilities and Commerce Vote: 9-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:NoReimbursable: SUMMARY : This bill, as proposed to be amended , authorizes the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to order any credit to ratepayers for the excess rate reduction bonds issued by San Diego Gas and Electric Company that the commission determines is fair and reasonable. FISCAL EFFECT : No fiscal impact on the PUC's operations. COMMENTS : 1) Background . As part of electrical restructuring-Chapter 854, Statutes of 1996 (AB 1890, Brulte)-electric corporations were required to provide residential and small commercial customers with a 10% rate reduction until either March 31, 2002, or when the PUC-authorized net costs of utility generation-related assets and obligations were fully recovered, whichever came first. AB 1890 also authorized the electrical corporations to finance the rate reduction through bonds that would be repaid by utility ratepayers over a ten-year period. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) obtained PUC approval to issue $658 million in rate reduction bonds to support its rate reduction to its customers. On June 30, 1999, SDB&E completed its transition from a monopoly provider of service in a regulated market to a fully competitive market. Because SDG&E completed the transition period early, a significant amount of the bond proceeds originally thought necessary to finance the rate reduction are not needed. Under the terms of SDG&E's SB 418 Page 2 financing order, the PUC ordered that SDG&E is obligated to return any excess bond proceeds at its authorized rate of return of 12.54 percent. SDG&E asserts that because they are not earning an amount equivalent to their rate of return for the rate reduction bonds they should not be penalized and required to use shareholder profits to make up the difference. 2) Purpose . The proposed amendment, which would entirely replace the current version of the bill, represents language essentially agreed to by the sponsor-Sempra Energy (parent company of SDG&E)-and the PUC. The bill would authorize the PUC to consider the issue raised by SDG&E and to determine whether an alternative disposition of the excess rate reduction bonds is appropriate. 3) Opposition . The Utility Reform Network (TURN) opposes the amended version of the bill because they assert that complying with the PUC's Financing Order (FO) provides the greatest benefit to ratepayers. TURN asserts that SDG&E's decision to issue all of the rate reduction bonds at once was a decision made at its own risk, thus the company should be required to refund the bond in full compliance with the FO. Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)319-2081