BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1771
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 16, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
Steven Bradford, Chair
AB 1771 (Valadao) - As Amended: February 17, 2012
SUBJECT : Renewable Portfolio Standard: Hydroelectric
Generation Eligibility
SUMMARY : This bill removes the 30 megawatt or less criteria
for eligibility as a renewable energy resource counted under the
California Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program.
Specifically, this bill : revises the definition of an eligible
hydroelectric renewable resource under the RPS program to
include a hydroelectric generating facility of any size instead
of just those 30 megawatts or less.
EXISTING LAW
1)States the California's RPS program requires all investor
owned utilities (IOUs), local publicly owned utilities (POUs)
and energy service providers (ESPs) to increase purchases of
renewable energy such that at least 33% of retail sales are
procured from an eligible renewable energy resource by 2020.
2)Requires all retail sellers of electricity and all POUs to
procure renewable energy resources using the following RPS
eligibility targets:
a) 20% by December 31, 2013;
b) 25% by December 31, 2016; and,
c) 33% by December 31, 2020, and each year thereafter.
1)States under the RPS program, an eligible renewable energy
resource includes:
a) An existing small hydroelectric generation facility of
30 megawatts or less if a retail seller or local POU
procured the electricity from the facility as of December
31, 2005;
b) A small hydroelectric generation unit with a nameplate
capacity not exceeding 40 megawatts that is operated as
part of a water supply or conveyance system if the retail
seller or local POU procured the electricity from the
facility as of December 31, 2005; and,
c) A new hydroelectric facility that commences generation
of electricity after December 31, 2005, provided it doesn't
AB 1771
Page 2
cause an adverse impact on instream beneficial uses or
cause a change in the volume or timing of streamflow.
1)States under the RPS program, an eligible renewable energy
resource shall include:
a) A conduit hydroelectric facility of 30 megawatts or less
that commenced operation before January 1, 2006; and,
b) A conduit hydroelectric facility of 30 megawatts or less
that commences operation after December 31, 2005, provided
it does not cause an adverse impact on instream beneficial
uses or cause a change in the volume or timing of
streamflow.
1)Requires California Energy Commission (CEC), by June 30, 2011,
to study and provide a report to the Legislature that analyzes
run-of-river hydroelectric generating facilities, as defined,
in British Columbia, including whether these facilities are,
or should be, included as renewable electrical generation
facilities should be eligible renewable energy resources for
purposes of the RPS program.
2)Deems eligible for the RPS those renewable projects that are
located in California or near the border with a first point of
interconnection to a California balancing authority area or
have the first point of interconnection to the transmission
system network outside the state, but within the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) service area.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : Assembly Member Valadao states, "AB 1771
would revise the definition of an eligible renewable energy
source - hydroelectric - for the purposes of the California
renewable portfolio standard program (RPS) to include a
hydroelectric facility of any size. According to the PUC,
California's three large investor-owned utilities collectively
serve 17% of their 2010 retail electricity sales from
renewable power - just over half of the 2020 required standard
of 33%. PG&E alone provided 15.9% of their total energy
production in eligible renewable resources (a portion of that
is small hydroelectric power), however, they generated an
additional 15.6% of their overall energy in large
hydroelectric power, which is currently not eligible under the
AB 1771
Page 3
RPS program. Allowing for large hydroelectric in the RPS
program would clearly help California meet their renewable
energy goals."
2)Background: California has a history of protecting the
environment and striving for clean water, air and land. In
the energy arena, this preference resulted in two prominent
measures: AB 32 (Núñez) Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006, known
as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and the
California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program SB 1078
(Sher), Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002 which set the 20% by
2017 goal. So much progress was made towards the goal that it
was accelerated four years later by SB 107 (Simitian), Chapter
464, Statutes of 2006, moving the 20% deadline to 2010.
Then in April 2012, the California Legislature expanded and
refined the RPS in SB 2 X1 (Simitian) Chapter 1, Statutes of
2011-12 First Extraordinary Session, which recasts the State's
annual renewable energy goal from 20% to 33%. These
accelerations of the goal have been realistic and possible in
part due to rapid expansion of solar, wind, geothermal and
biomass in-state.
3)2012 Report Card : San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) reported
to the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that 20.8%
of the energy delivered to its retail customers in 2011 was
provided by renewable energy sources, such as wind,
geothermal, biomass, hydroelectric and solar facilities. This
was up from renewable energy deliveries reported for 2010 at
12% of its retail sales. Almost 40% of the overall 20.8% is
from geothermal, biomass, biogas, and solar projects and about
60% can be attributed to wind power.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) also announced that it
was making significant progress towards meeting the RPS goals
and was on track to achieve the state's target of 33% percent
by 2020. It estimated that 19.4% of the electricity it
delivered to its customers in 2011 came from renewable
resources up from 15.9% in 2010.
4)Small versus Large Hydro : SB 2 X1 was the culmination of many
years of meetings, hearings, versions of draft language and
negotiations. Fundamental precepts included saving and or
AB 1771
Page 4
improving the environment as well as developing new renewable
energy sources. While the legislation had to be limited to
the borders of California, concern for damaging the
environment outside California was also considered and
weighed. Setting such standards for California to the
detriment of others was not a preferred option.
Many environmental groups expressed their concerns that states
other than California did not have stringent laws on
protecting river flow and that significant damage would be
done to the region's rivers and watershed to maximize the
amount of hydroelectricity that could be sold to California.
These concerns in part led to the RPS language that
electricity generated from hydropower would be limited to
small (30 MW or less) hydro generators and to exclude large
out of state hydropower where California had no control over
the damage to the environment.
5)WECC regions. WECC is geographically the largest and most
diverse of the eight Regional Entities that have Delegation
Agreements with the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC). WECC's service territory extends from
Canada to Mexico. It includes the provinces of Alberta and
British Columbia, the northern portion of Baja California,
Mexico, and all or portions of the 14 Western states between.
6)Run-of-the-River Report. The statute requires the CEC to
report to the Legislature on Run-of-the-River Hydro by June
2011. At the time this provision was enacted, in April 2011,
the CEC expressed concern that it would not be able to meet
the June 2011 deadline. The CEC now estimates that the report
will be available by the summer of 2012.
The CEC is working with their counterparts in British Columbia
to understand the regulatory, permitting, and monitoring
requirements for run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects. The
CEC will be studying a variety of possible impacts:
Construction impacts; Water levels/ water diversion impacts;
Fish and wildlife habitat impacts; Fish migration impacts; and
performing a Cumulative Effects Analysis.
The author may wish to consider an amendment that would
postpone eligibility until after the Legislature has
determined that the findings of the CEC report have satisfied
AB 1771
Page 5
the Legislature's concerns regarding the construction, water,
fish and wildlife, and cumulative effects of hydroelectric
facilities.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber)
Opposition
American Rivers
American Whitewater
British Columbia Creeks Protection Society
California Hydropower Reform Coalition
California Outdoors
California Sportfishing Protection Society
California Trout
California Wind Energy Association
Environment California
Foothills Conservancy
Friends of Butte Inlet
Friends of the River
Large Scale Solar Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club
South Yuba River Citizens League
Trout Unlimited
Union of Concerned Scientists
Water and Power Law Group
Western Canada Wilderness Committee
Analysis Prepared by : Susan Kateley / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083