BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
ALEX PADILLA, CHAIR
SB 14 - Simitian, Kehoe, Padilla, Steinberg
Hearing Date: February 10, 2009 S
As Amended: January 29, 2009 FISCAL B
1
4
DESCRIPTION
Renewable Energy
Current law requires investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and energy
service providers (ESPs) to increase their existing purchases of
renewable energy by 1% of sales per year such that 20% of their
retail sales, as measured by usage, are procured from eligible
renewable resources by December 31, 2010. This is known as the
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
Current law exempts publicly owned utilities (POUs) from the
state RPS program and instead requires these utilities to
implement and enforce their own renewable energy purchase
programs that recognize the intent of the Legislature to
encourage increasing use of renewable resources.
This bill requires IOUs, POUs, and ESPs to increase their
purchases of renewable energy such that at least 33% of retail
sales are procured from renewable energy resources by December
31, 2020. For IOUs and ESPs, this is required only if the CPUC
determines that achieving these targets will result in just and
reasonable rates.
This bill directs the California Energy Commission (CEC) (for
POUs) and the PUC (for IOUs) to work with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) to establish penalties for failure to
comply with the RPS.
This bill requires POUs to annually report to the CEC and
customers the resource mix, RPS compliance status, ratepayer
charges and expenditures to comply with the RPS.
Current law requires the CPUC to develop, by rulemaking, a
procurement process for renewable resources by IOUs which
includes the determination of a benchmark for the market price
(market price referent or MPR) for energy against which
renewable contracts are evaluated for reasonableness in price.
If the costs of those contracts exceeds specified thresholds
then the IOU's RPS purchase mandate is waived (aka cost cap).
This bill eliminates the calculation and use of the MPR and the
cap on costs and instead directs the CPUC to continue its
prudency review of contracts and also consider the cost impact
of procuring renewable resources as part of the IOU procurement
process, the rate impacts, effects on system reliability and the
environment and economic benefits of renewable procurement.
Current law requires renewable resources to be generated in, or
delivered to, the California grid.
This bill clarifies that, for electricity to be considered
delivered to the state, the generation of the resource must be
simultaneous with the delivery to the California grid.
Current law requires an electrical corporation to file for and
obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN)
from the CPUC in order to construct a transmission line.
This bill requires the CPUC to approve a CPCN for a line that
will facilitate the transmission of renewable generation within
one year of the filing of a completed CPCN application as long
as the CPUC has not made specified findings including
substantial harm under the California Environmental Quality Act
or that the line is not reasonable and necessary for grid
reliability.
Current law creates the Independent System Operator (ISO) as a
nonprofit, public benefit corporation to ensure efficient use
and reliable operation of the California transmission grid.
This bill directs the ISO to adjust its market structure to meet
33% and, in an effort to mitigate the cost and aggregate amount
of new transmission, work with public and private operators and
builders of transmission, and pursue joint ownership of
transmission by IOUs, merchant operators, and POUs.
This bill directs the CEC to facilitate: the development of
annual statewide transmission plans with the ISO that
incorporate all planned and existing publicly and privately
owned transmission with the goal of minimizing the aggregate
amount and cost of new transmission; siting and approval of new
transmission that can be jointly owned, utilized and/or
operated; and seams agreements between the ISO, POUs and IOUs
that optimize the available transfer capacity of all
transmission grid systems.
Rate Issues
Current law freezes the rates for residential electric service
for usage up to 130% of baseline levels.
This bill replaces the rate freeze with a index based on an
inflation rate. For residential low income customers, a
separate index is established based on increases to the CalWORKs
grant.
Current regulation recovers the cost of the electric and natural
gas low income rate assistance program from all customers,
including commercial and industrial customers, at a fixed rate
per kilowatt-hour or therm.
This bill codifies current regulation.
This bill prohibits mandatory time-of-use rates for residential
customers. Time-of-use rates may be offered to residential
customers on a voluntary basis until 2016 and on a default basis
after.
Direct Access
Current law suspends the ability of electric retailers, other
than investor-owned utilities, to offer service until the
California Department of Water Resources ceases to provide
electricity to retail customers.
This bill authorizes those electric retailers to offer service
to new customer locations if they already provide service to
that customer.
CPUC Reform
Current law establishes the offices of the California Public
Utilities Commission in San Francisco.
This bill requires the CPUC to meet at least once per month in
the City of Sacramento.
Current law provides that the Attorney and the Executive
Director of the CPUC are directed by the CPUC President.
This bill provides that the Attorney and the Executive Director
are directed by the commission.
Current law subjects CPUC Commissioners to confirmation by the
Senate.
This bill also requires that the President of the CPUC be
separately confirmed by the Senate.
BACKGROUND
Renewable Energy
In 2002 legislation was enacted to require the IOUs (e.g.
Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, San Diego
Gas and Electric Company) and the private companies that compete
with the utilities to increase their annual purchases of
electricity from renewable resources by at least 1% so that 20%
of their sales would come from renewable sources by 2017. In
2006 legislation was enacted to accelerate the 20% requirement
to the end of 2010 (SB 107, Simitian).
The RPS program does not require renewable energy purchases
irrespective of cost. Each contract for the development and
purchase of renewable energy is submitted to the CPUC for
review. Any contract below the market price is deemed per se
reasonable. Any contract above the market price is submitted to
a procurement review group to consider the reasonableness of
costs. To address the overall costs of the RPS, an above-market
cost cap was determined for each IOU. If the IOUs costs reach
that cap in any given year, then the requirement for additional
renewable energy purchases at above-market costs is waived.
However, an IOU can still, voluntarily, propose to procure
renewable resources at above-market prices outside of the cost
cap (referred to as bi-lateral contracts) which calls into
question whether a cost cap really exists. The cost cap has not
been triggered and the IOUs continue to pursue renewable
contracts to meet the 2010 goal.
Since the initial adoption of the RPS program, the necessity of
bringing more renewable resources to the grid has been
heightened as a result of the mandate that the state reduce its
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In fact
the CARB scoping plan adopts a statewide 33% by 2020 renewable
energy mix in order to achieve the GHG goals.
Progress toward 2010 goal -- The CPUC reports that, for 2007,
the IOUs have achieved varying levels of progress toward the 20%
goal: PG&E - 11.4%; SCE - 15.7%; SDG&E - 5.2. The numbers
actually declined from 2006 due primarily to load growth. All
agencies and stakeholders agree that the IOUs will not meet the
2010 deadline. However, the CPUC reported in October, 2008 that
an evaluation of the IOUs progress, including generation
developed and contracted for, would result in compliance in or
around 2013.
How much do we need ? -- The CPUC also reported that 29,000 GWh
(gigawatt hours) of renewable energy is in existence today. An
additional 31,000 GWh is necessary to reach the 20% RPS goal for
a total of 60,000 GWh. To reach 33% an additional 41,000 GWh
would be needed for a total of 101,000 GWh. Is it available?
Yes. The Phase 1B Report of the Regional Energy Transmission
Initiative indicates that more than 208,000 GWh of
"cost-effective large scale" renewable resources are available
in concentrated areas (identified as Competitive Renewable
Energy Zones [CREZ]) within the State of California and
immediately adjacent areas in bordering states, thus identifying
resource areas to bring renewable resources far in excess of
California needs.
Siting New Generation -- It is important to recognize that the
scale of renewable development being pursued by California is
unprecedented. It is more aggressive than any other state in
the union and perhaps the world. To put this into context, the
committee is aware of only two significantly sized, concentrated
solar thermal energy sources in the country - Southern
California Edison's 640 MW SEGS units which came on line in the
late 1980s and the Nevada Solar One unit near Boulder City,
Nevada at 64 MW which came on line in 2007. The CEC now has six
solar thermal projects in permitting totaling more than 2,500 MW
and impacting more than 21,000 acres of land. The CEC is in
uncharted territory. The staff demands, careful agency
coordination (e.g. State Department of Fish & Game, Federal
Bureau of Land Management, and Department of Defense), CEQA
implications and other planning challenges are only just now
coming to the fore.
The RETI -- The Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI)
is a statewide initiative to help identify the transmission
projects needed to accommodate these renewable energy goals,
support future energy policy, and facilitate transmission
corridor designation and transmission and generation siting and
permitting. RETI will is intended to be an open and transparent
collaborative process in which all interested parties are
encouraged to participate.
RETI has assessed all competitive renewable energy zones in
California and some in neighboring states that can provide
significant electricity to California consumers by the year
2020. RETI has also identified those zones that can be developed
in the most cost effective and environmentally benign manner and
will prepare detailed transmission plans for those zones
identified for development.
The RETI effort is supervised by a coordinating committee
comprised of California entities responsible for ensuring the
implementation of the state's renewable energy policies and
development of electric infrastructure, namely:
California Public Utilities Commission
California Energy Commission
California Independent System Operator
Publicly-Owned Utilities (SCPPA, SMUD, and NCPA)
http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_14&sess=C
UR&house=S&site=senTransmission Progress -- Three new
transmission lines have been approved for California or are
nearing approval - Tehachapi, Sunrise, Devers-Palo Verde 2. The
CPUC's October 2008 RPS status report indicates that two new
transmission lines are necessary to meet the 20% goal. An
additional five lines would be needed to achieve 33% by 2020.
Rate Issues
130% of Baseline -- One of the most public consequences of the
2000-01 energy crisis was skyrocketing energy prices. In 2000
California consumers and industry paid $27 billion for energy,
more than triple the $7.4 billion they paid in 1999.<1> Retail
electric rates for investor-owned utility customers increased
10% in January 2001 and another 30% in March.
In an effort to protect residential customers from the worst of
those increases, the Legislature approved a rate freeze for a
portion of residential usage equal to 130% of the baseline
quantity. (The baseline quantity of electricity is established
by the CPUC and is intended to meet roughly 60% of the average
residential usage. It varies by region and by season.) The
effect was to keep electric rates affordable for those using
moderate amounts of electricity, primarily lower income
households, while increasing the bills of the largest
residential energy consumers. This rate freeze will remain in
effect until the bonds which were sold to finance the energy
purchases are retired, probably after 2020.
---------------------------
<1> Attorney General's Energy White Paper: A Law Enforcement
Perspective on the California Energy Crisis, by Attorney General
Bill Lockyer. April 2004, p. 18.
The investor-owned utilities have expressed concerns that the
rate freeze for usage up to 130% of baseline is causing rates
for residential usage greater than 130% of baseline to increase
beyond reasonable levels. Below is a comparison of electric
rates for usage below 130% of baseline and for the highest cost
tier of residential usage:
cents per kwh PG&E SCE<2> SDG&E
Lowest cost tier 12 12 13
Highest cost tier 41 30 24
The residential rate provisions in this bill replace the freeze
with an index based on inflation, with a minimum increase of 3%
and a maximum increase of 5%. After January 1, 2019 this index
is repealed and rates may be set by the CPUC without
restriction.
Low income customers can participate in a rate discount program
known as CARE (California Alternative Rates for Energy).
Customers whose household income is less than 200% of the
federal poverty level (e.g. $43,200 for a family of 4) get a 20%
discount on their electric bill. The cost of the CARE program
is recovered through a surcharge on all non-CARE electric rates.
Under this bill the CPUC may increase the rates for usage up to
130% of baseline for CARE customers by the rate of increase for
CalWORKs grants. (CalWORKs is the state version of the federal
Temporary Aid for Needy Families program which provides aid for
low income families with children. CalWORKs grants have not
increased over the past decade.)
CARE Cost Allocation -- The cost of the CARE program is
currently recovered from all non-CARE customers through a
surcharge. Some parties are attempting to revise the formula
for assessing the surcharge to increase the amount of costs
recovered from smaller customers. A CPUC Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) has issued a decision which declines to revise the
formula. That decision is pending before the CPUC.<3> The cost
allocation in this bill represents current practice and is
consistent with the ALJ decision.
---------------------------
<2> SCE has a 20% revenue increase pending before the CPUC, so
the highest cost tier will increase. A decision is expected in
February.
<3> A.07-12-006.
Direct Access
Another aspect of California's response to the 2000-01 energy
crisis was to suspend the authority of electric retailers and
marketers to sell to retail customers. Certain electric
retailers manipulated the electricity market, driving up prices
and causing widespread electricity shortages and rolling
blackouts.<4> By suspending the authority of those electric
retailers to acquire new customers, California created a more
stable marketplace, which was a prerequisite for the state to
contract for and finance adequate electric supplies. The
suspension of direct access is lifted when the state, through
the California Department of Water Resources, is no longer
providing electricity to California electric customers. These
contracts expire toward the end of the next decade, though the
CPUC, over the objection of the Senate leadership, has commenced
an effort to end or transfer those contracts much earlier.
CPUC Reform
There have been concerns raised about the CPUC's lack of
responsiveness to the Legislature and, at times, the lack of
collegiality among commissioners. A number of bills have been
introduced to rectify these concerns though none have been
enacted. The CPUC reform provisions in this bill, as well as
other provisions not in this bill, were contained in AB 1973
(Ruskin), which passed the Senate last year as an urgency
measure but was held in the Assembly.
COMMENTS
Renewable Energy
1.Ratepayer Protections -- The goal of the RPS procurement
process is to ensure that program rules maximize competitive
market forces in order to promote long-term reduction of
renewable costs and to keep prices paid to producers in line
with their actual costs. How to achieve that goal is the
subject of great debate. One end of the spectrum argues that
the current use of the MPR to establish a benchmark price for
renewable resources, coupled with an overall cost cap,
---------------------------
<4> A reminder of the avariciousness of some of these retailers
is The Rolling Blackout Theme Song, a sophomoric ditty hailing
blackouts as creating great wealth opportunities for electricity
sellers, unearthed during the investigation into wrongdoing by
Enron.
provides cost certainty and transparency. TURN opines that
"mandating a hard target for renewable energy purchases
inherently creates the ability for a seller to drive up prices
if there is insufficient renewable power supply to meet the
requirements of all buyers."
The other end argues that renewable resource procurement
should be no different than procurement for any other type of
electricity; any attempt to set any price whether as a
benchmark, a floor, a cap, or in between, will act to deter
price competition between renewable resource developers and
act as a price-driver. Consequently, the procurement process
should set no benchmark prices, cost cap, or any other hard
number and rely on the CPUC to reject proposed contracts that
it considers excessively expensive and not viable which is
similar to the procurement process for fossil-fueled
generation (e.g. natural gas fired plants).
This bill leans toward the latter approach by eliminating
prescriptive elements of the RPS procurement process, removing
all price signals and hard cost caps, and providing more
flexibility to the CPUC to evaluate costs in the context of an
IOU's entire portfolio.
It is critical to note that no person or entity has been able
to quantify the costs of complying with the RPS mandate at
20%, 33% or any other level. Of course no one can accurately
predict the price of natural gas into the future either.
Natural gas is the main source for the state's electricity at
45.2% of the total system power.
The author has expressed his intent to continue to work with
the parties to find the right balance between market forces
and ratepayer impacts.
2.Impact of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) -- The
adoption of a 33% mandate as a component of the CARB scoping
plan significantly alters the goals of the RPS program and
should be considered in evaluating the procurement process and
costs. When the RPS goal was originally adopted the benefits
of renewable resources were localized - reduced emissions,
green jobs, energy independence. The RPS is now a key
strategy to reduce GHG emissions. Returning to the issue of a
cost cap - can and should the RPS program be suspended if a
hard cost cap is reached or the CPUC determines that costs are
unreasonable? Currently RPS costs are measured against the
costs of natural gas. Is this the correct measure? If a cost
cap is reached, can we afford to put our GHG reduction goals
at risk by suspending RPS compliance? Should RPS costs be
measured against the costs of other GHG reduction measures?
3.Publicly Owned Utilities -- For the first time this bill would
mandate that POUs meet a firm RPS goal of 33%. The committee
has received no opposition to the goal of 33% for the POUs.
Those groups have however expressed concern about enforcement
of the mandate and the possibility that state authorities
would be permitted to control procurement policies and costs.
Adding to the debate, the IOUs firmly argue that the mandate
and its enforcement should apply equally to all load serving
entities. This bill addresses that issue by directing the CEC
(for the POUs) and the PUC (for the IOUs) to develop
compliance penalties for all entities under the CARBs existing
AB 32 enforcement authority. The bill also attempts to
address a concern by the POUs that a state regulating entity
would extend its reach into the elements of a POUs procurement
plan. The bill may go too far and open the door for a POU to
make determinations that it cannot comply with the RPS that
would supersede the CEC/CARB enforcement authority. The
author has expressed his intent to continue to work with the
parties to find the right balance between local and state
control.
4.Renewable Energy Credit and Deliverability -- A Renewable
Energy Credit (REC) generally represents the environmental and
renewable attributes of renewable electricity as a separate
commodity from the energy itself. In concept and under current
law, a REC can be sold either "bundled" with the underlying
energy or "unbundled" into a separate REC trading market. In
general, RECs can be traded in voluntary markets or compliance
markets. In the voluntary market, any company (e.g. a grocery
store chain) that wishes to claim that it is powered by clean
energy may buy non-renewable power from its local energy
provider and also buy an equivalent amount of RECs that have
been "unbundled" from renewable energy produced elsewhere. In
some RPS compliance markets, the load serving entities can use
unbundled RECs, rather than actual renewable energy, to comply
with their RPS goals. In either case, once the RECs are
unbundled from the energy, the energy is considered
non-renewable power.
In the Western region of the U.S., RECs (both voluntary and
compliance) are tracked using the Western Renewable Energy
Generation Information System (WREGIS) as called for under
current law. WREGIS was launched in mid-2007.
This author, who also authored the legislation permitting the
trading of RECs, states that the intent was to only allow the
trading of RECs - bundled or unbundled - within the state.
However, an attenuated interpretation of the definition of
"delivered" under current law by the CEC, has resulted in
contracts for renewable generation from as far away as
Montana. This out of state generation can never be physically
delivered to the California grid because of its remote
location and the fact that the ISO has no ability to monitor,
control or schedule the generation. The consequence is that
the renewable resource would be generated out of state at one
time and sold to a third party, not delivered to California
and might be referred to as a bait and switch. The third
party would later deliver "system power" to the California
grid when scheduled by the IOU and ISO. As TURN notes "since
a significant amount of firm imports into California are from
coal plants, it is now likely that utilities and load serving
entities will be getting RPS credit for importing coal power."
Coal contracts of greater than five years duration are
prohibited under state law. System power contracts are not
prohibited.
Additionally, a pending rulemaking by the CPUC couples the
CECs attenuated definition of "delivery" with the REC
authority resulting in a pending decision to permit the
trading of unlimited RECs to achieve RPS compliance from
anywhere in the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC).
(The WECC works with regional transmission operators to ensure
the reliability and market efficiencies of the bulk power
system in 14 western states, Alberta and British Columbia. It
does not schedule or control power on California's
transmission lines.)
The author has clarified the definition of "delivered" and
"delivery" in this bill so that any renewable resource
generated out of state would be required to be simultaneously
delivered to the California grid. The result would
effectively eliminate contracts for renewable resources in
remote out of state locations to be used for RPS compliance.
Existing contracts would not be affected; it would only be
ineligible for California RPS compliance. The author is not
resistant to permitting the use of some amount of "unbundled"
out of state RECs for compliance with the RPS but the
"bundling" of the RECs with out of state, nonrenewable
generation is inconsistent with California's broader
environmental goals. He further notes that, although the
development of out of state renewable resources with
California ratepayer funds does address the state's goal of
reducing GHG emissions, it does not support he state's goals
of reducing in-state emissions from fossil-fueled plants or
the development of green jobs.
The author has expressed his intent to continue to work with
the parties to find the right balance between California's
environmental and workforce goals and to permit the use of
some quantity of unbundled RECs.
5.Flexible Compliance -- The CPUC is required to adopt, by
rulemaking, flexible rules for compliance with the RPS
including rules permitting the application of excess
procurement from one year to subsequent years, or makeup
inadequate procurement in one year within no more than the
following three years. The CPUC is also required to ensure
that the rules address situations of insufficient
transmission. This bill proposes to eliminate what has become
more commonly known as the "transmission offramp" from the
flexible compliance rules. The author's intent is to again
reduce the prescriptive elements of the RPS program.
The IOUs argue that they need the specific assurance that lack
of transmission will be an excuse for failure to comply with
the RPS goals. They note that the CPUC has reported that the
lack of transmission is the single largest barrier to bringing
more renewable resources online and that it should therefore
be acknowledged and not ignored in the meeting the RPS.
6.Utility-Owned Generation -- The increasingly widespread
interest in renewable energy has created a sellers market.
This creates the incentive for more renewable energy projects,
but it can also result in unduly high costs for renewable
energy as the suppliers exercise their market power. One
mechanism for mitigating that market power, and additionally
ensuring that in-state renewable energy projects are built, is
to authorize or encourage the investor-owned utilities to own
their own renewable energy generation projects. Utility-owned
projects can be less expensive for customers because the power
is priced at the utility's cost, rather than what is likely to
be a far higher market price. Moreover, utilities still have
excellent access to capital, and their cost of capital is
commensurately low. However, care would need to be exercised
to ensure that the utility doesn't favor a project it owns
over a competing project that is better for utility customers.
7.What Counts ? -- Current law specifies the fuels and generating
technologies that are eligible under the RPS. The most common
renewable resources being contracted for are solar, wind,
geothermal, biomass, biogas and small hydroelectric (less than
30 MW). Several groups have called for an expansion of the
limit on small hydro from 30 MW to 50 MW and to also grant the
CEC the broad authority to add new technologies to the program
as they come to market.
It generally takes a great deal of time to move a technology
from the research and development phase to commercial
viability. Consequently, it is not clear that there wouldn't
be sufficient time for the Legislature to respond and expand
the list of eligible resources. Additionally, the Legislature
may be best positioned to consider new technologies in the
broader context of the state's environmental goals. An
example would be the burning of landfill waste to create
energy which is generally precluded under current law. The
policy has significant implications for the state's waste
management policies and its goals to "reduce, reuse, recycle."
This is not a policy or law under the purview of the CEC
which has as its primary focus energy.
The municipal utilities and PG&E argue that the 30 MW cap on
small hydroelectric should be expanded to 50 MW which would
allow the capture and development of additional non-GHG
emitting resources at a minimum of environmental disruption.
The California Hydropower Reform Coalition strongly opposes
this change because it would result in "increased dams to
impound and divert water to off-river bypass reaches, some of
which are miles long."
The author has expressed his intent to continue to work with
the parties to achieve the appropriate balance of technologies
in the program to ensure compliance with the RPS.
8.Effective Date -- Current law requires that compliance with
the 20% RPS goal be achieved by December 31, 2010. This bill
continues that goal but makes several program changes,
particularly impacting procurement policies, which would
become effective on January 1, 2010. Although some changes
could take effect immediately there may be the need to clarify
how and when other program changes would take affect and how
they would apply to the 33% goal.
9.Unmet Need -- Current law requires the IOUs to procure
renewable resources "in order to fulfill unmet long-term
resource needs." This language does not appear in this bill.
Its inclusion would ensure that an IOU is not obligated to
procure renewable resources beyond its retail electricity
needs. The author may wish to consider reinstating this
provision to Public Utility Code Sections 399.15 (a) and
454.15 (b)(9)(A).
10. Above and Beyond 33% -- Some
municipal utilities have reported that their current portfolio
takes them far beyond the 33% mandate. They are concerned
that the law could be read to preclude them from going beyond
the 33% mandate. The author may wish to clarify that any
utility could choose to go beyond the mandate but a regulatory
agency could not mandate it.
11. Similar Legislation -- A
similar bill, AB 64 (Krekorian et al) has been introduced in
the Assembly and is pending referral to a policy committee.
12. Double Referral -- This bill
has been double referred to the Senate Rules Committee.
Rate Issues/Direct Access
Expanding a Consensus -- The combination of rate issues and
direct access provisions is the product of lengthy negotiations
between the investor-owned utilities and consumer advocates that
began in early 2008. The agreement was amended into SB 1536
(Kehoe) toward the end of last session and represented a
consensus among those parties at that time. However, SB 1536
was not permitted a hearing in the Assembly. The investor-owned
utilities and consumer groups are working to extend the
consensus to include additional parties, including large
consumer and retail electric seller interests.
CPUC Reform
Finding the Right Balance -- By making the CPUC Executive
Director and Attorney subject to the direction of the
commissioners rather than the President, this bill is
reinstating the chain of command that existed prior to 2000.
By making the key staff positions report to the President,
current law gives the President strong control. This can
facilitate decisiveness and action, necessary in times of
crisis. But at its worst, it can lead to a stifling of debate
and a lack of consideration for other points of view.
Developing an organizational structure that strikes the
appropriate balance between the extremes is the difficult
challenge. The reform measures in this bill dilute the
President's authority, though the President clearly remains the
first among equals at the CPUC because s/he is selected by the
Governor.
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:*
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
American Lung Association of California
Breathe California
California Biomass Energy Alliance
Clean Power Campaign
Coalition of Utility Employees
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Division of Ratepayer Advocates (with amendments)
Environment California
First Solar (with amendments)
GreenVolts
Independent Energy Producers (if amended)
Large-Scale Solar Association (with amendments)
Natural Resources Defense Council (if amended)
RightCycle Enterprises
Sierra Club California (if amended)
Southern California Public Power Authority (if amended)
State Building and construction Trades Council
The Solar Alliance (with amendments)
Union of Concerned Scientists (if amended)
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Concerns:*
California Hydropower Reform Coalition
Northern California Power Agency (with amendments)
The Greenlining Institute
The Utility Reform Network
Oppose:*
Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (unless amended)
BP America Inc. (unless amended)
California Chamber of Commerce (unless amended)
California Large Energy Consumers Association (unless amended)
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
California Wind Energy Association (unless amended)
Direct Energy (unless amended)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (unless amended)
PetSmart, Inc.
RBS Sempra Commodities
Safeway
School Project for Utility Rate Reduction
Shell Energy North America
Southern California Edison (unless amended)
Western States Petroleum Association
*All correspondence was received prior to the January 29th
amendments of the bill.
Kellie Smith and Randy Chinn
SB 14 Analysis
Hearing Date: February 10, 2009