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