BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 581| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: SB 581 Author: Leno (D) Amended: 5/14/09 Vote: 21 SENATE ENERGY, U.&C. COMMITTEE : 7-3, 5/5/09 AYES: Padilla, Corbett, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Simitian, Wiggins, Wright NOES: Benoit, Cox, Strickland NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon SUBJECT : Hetch Hetchy Water and Power: renewable generation SOURCE : San Francisco Public Utilities Commission DIGEST : This bill expands a state statute relating to San Francisco which limits their ability for having electrical energy projects limited only to photovoltaic solar, by giving them the ability to have more of a variety of renewable energy projects such as ocean power, in-line hydro, small urban wind, geothermal, and large and small scale solar projects. ANALYSIS : Existing law requires PG&E to credit the City and County of San Francisco (City) for any excess electricity exported to the PG&E grid from up to 15 megawatts of solar generation facilities owned by the City that would serve its municipal facilities. The required credit is equivalent to the generation component of the CONTINUED SB 581 Page 2 appropriate time-of-use rate for the electricity. Facilities must be located within 20 miles of the Hetch Hetchy Water and Power electric generation facility or in, or within 20 miles of, the City which operates as the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Background For nearly 100 years federal law (The Raker Act of 1913) has granted the City water and power resource rights-of-way in Yosemite National Park and Stanislaus National Forest and permitted the City to generate hydroelectric power through the Hetch Hetchy system. The City is also required to sell excess Hetch Hetchy power at cost, when available above the City's own municipal needs, to Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts for agricultural pumping and municipal needs. The SFPUC sells Hetch Hetchy power, in excess of its Raker Act obligation to Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts and its own municipal needs, to public agencies and/or private commercial users. The power system delivers an average of 1.7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity annually to the City and County of San Francisco, the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts and tenants at the San Francisco International Airport. As a result of legislation in 2004 and 2006 the SFPUC has been authorized under state law to build solar generation at remote sites, deliver the power to PG&E, and net that generation out against its municipal load at a generation rate. The result is a surrogate net metering program designed only for San Francisco's municipal load in which the generation from City owned solar facilities is credited for excess electricity production under a limited form of net-metering, in which PG&E pays for excess electricity at the time-of-use generation rate, rather than the full retail rate. Because of AB 2573 (Leno), Chapter 786, Statutes of 2006, the SFPUC and PG&E were finally able to resolve years of heated negotiations concerning the interconnection of solar facilities and related costs and obligations. The 184 page agreement was finalized in October 2007 and remains in CONTINUED SB 581 Page 3 effect until July 1, 2015. According to the parties, this bill does not directly affect any provision of that agreement. It could however result in pressures to reopen the negotiations. This bill requires PG&E to accept any electricity from any renewable resource owned, leased, or under contract with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission that is located within the electric service territory of PG&E. It specifies that a renewable electricity generation facility as used in the bill meet the requirements for in-state renewable electricity generation facilities for the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard in the Public Resources Code Section 25741 (b) and located under the electric service territory of PG&E. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 5/14/09) San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (source) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO Association of California Water Agencies The Solar Alliance Vote Solar Initiative OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/14/09) Pacific Gas & Electric ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, then Assembly Member Leno successfully authored district bill in 2004 (AB 594) and 2006 (AB 2573) that have enabled SFPUC to develop solar photovoltaic power in order to help meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements. This bill builds on those two bills. The primary objective of this bill is to enable SFPUC to develop other forms of renewable energy that meet RPS standards, and to develop renewable energy on property owned by San Francisco outside the City's boundaries. SFPUC generates its own energy for municipal load, such as energy for City Hall and San Francisco CONTINUED SB 581 Page 4 International Airport, but SFPUC is not permitted to serve retail load. PG&E provides energy for retail load and, consequently, owns the distribution system in San Francisco. No other local publicly owned electric utility finds itself in this situation. Therefore, much of the law that enables local publicly owned utilities to develop renewable energy does not apply to SFPUC. This bill will enable SFPUC to develop more RPS compliant renewable energy. This bill only applies to projects that serve San Francisco's municipal load, such as City Hall or San Francisco International Airport. There will be no impact to PG&E and its ratepayers. The current statute prohibits the shifting costs to PG&E's bundling service customers and requires San Francisco to pay PG&E for use of its transmission and distribution facilities. Renewable energy generation projects authorized under this bill would be subject to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and California Public Utilities Commission regulations and San Francisco would compensate PG&E for any impacts from interconnection or distributions. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : PG&E opposes this bill because they believe it reopens discussions on the 2007 negotiated interconnection agreement dealing with the location of renewable generating facilities owned or under lease or contract to the City and County of San Francisco. PG&E states that, "While SB 581 has been amended to address some of our concerns, there is still a provision that is in conflict with the negotiated interconnection agreement dealing with the location of renewable generating facilities owned or lease or contract to the CCSF [City and County of San Francisco]. AB 2573 (Chapter 786, Statutes of 2006), and the amended interconnection agreement implementing that bill, limited location of renewable facilities to locations within 20 miles of the City and County of San Francisco or their load centers. The transmission rates negotiated as part of the interconnection agreement were based on the limitation and as such provided a rate discount of .8cents/kWh. Elimination of the 20-mile restriction, which was agreed to by all parties on October 25, 2007, would allow the CCSF to CONTINUED SB 581 Page 5 operate facilities anywhere in the PG&E service territory and not in their own backyard. Given the difficulties in siting transmission facilities, in part due to NIMBY concerns, we cannot support elimination of the 20-mile restriction especially given the rates negotiated for service to the CCSF. In addition, allowing the CCSF to locate facilities anywhere within the PG&E service territory could allow them to increase the existing subsidy that results from their ability to bank additional resources during spring runoff when the value of energy is low and withdraw the same energy during summer and fall when the value of energy is high, increasing CCSF's benefits due to the arbitrage potential built in the banking arrangement." DLW:nl 5/15/09 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED