BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   March 3, 2011

                    ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
                               Steven Bradford, Chair
                SB 2 X1 (Simitian) - As Introduced:  February 1, 2011

          SENATE VOTE  :   26-11
           
          SUBJECT  :   California Renewable Portfolio Standard.

           SUMMARY  :  Increases California's renewables portfolio standard 
          (RPS) to require all retail sellers of electricity and all 
          publicly owned utilities (POUs) to procure at least 33% of 
          electricity delivered to their retail customers from renewable 
          resources by 2020.  Specifically,  this bill  :

          1)Requires all retail sellers of electricity and all POUs to 
            procure renewable energy resources with the following targets:

             a)   20% by December 31, 2013;

             b)   25% by December 31, 2016; and,

             c)   33% by December 31, 2020, and each year thereafter.

          2)Authorizes the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) 
            to waive enforcement and allow retail sellers to delay 
            compliance with the renewable procurement requirement if the 
            retail seller demonstrates that any of the following 
            conditions are beyond its control and will prevent timely 
            compliance:

             a)   Inadequate transmission capacity for delivery of 
               sufficient renewable energy;

             b)   Unanticipated permitting, interconnection or other 
               related delays for renewable energy projects or an 
               insufficient supply of eligible renewable energy resources 
               available to the retail seller; or,

             c)   Unanticipated curtailment of renewable energy necessary 
               to address the needs of a balancing authority.

          3)Revises eligibility conditions to allow various electricity 
            products from eligible renewable energy resources located 








                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  2

            within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council 
            transmission network service territory and differentiates the 
            products based on the following three categories of renewable 
            energy products:

             a)   Products that have the first point of interconnection 
               with a California balancing authority or other criteria 
               primarily scheduled to serve California load at  not less 
               than  the following procurement targets:

               i)     50% by December 31, 2013;

               ii)    65% by  December 31, 2016; and,

               iii)   75% thereafter.

             b)   Firmed and shaped renewable energy products providing 
               incremental electricity and scheduled into a California 
               balancing authority; or,

             c)   Renewable energy products that do not meet either 
               condition above, including unbundled renewable energy 
               credits at not more than the following procurement targets:

               i)     25% by December 31, 2013;

               ii)    15% by December 31, 2016; and,

               iii)   10% thereafter.

          4)Requires the CPUC to adopt a process for the rank ordering and 
            selection of least-cost and best-fit eligible renewable energy 
            resources.
           
           5)Requires the CPUC to adopt rules that permit retail sellers to 
            accumulate excess procurement of more-than-10-year contracts 
            in one compliance period to be applied to any subsequent 
            compliance period.
           
           6)Sets aside 25% of the 33% renewable market for IOU-owned 
            generation by requiring the CPUC to approve an application by 
            an IOU to construct, own and operate a renewable energy 
            facility until IOU-owned renewable facilities equal 8.25% of 
            the IOU's anticipated 2020 retail sales.









                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  3

          7)Requires the CPUC to establish a cost limit for each IOU 
            according to specified criteria. 
           
           8)Prescribes factors that the CPUC must consider when 
            establishing a feed-in tariff for electricity generated from a 
            renewable generating facility that is less than 3 megawatts 
            (MW). 
           
           9)Requires the CPUC to determine the effective load carrying 
            capacity of wind and solar energy resources on the grid and 
            use those values in establishing the contribution of wind and 
            solar energy toward meeting resource adequacy requirements.

          10)Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to refer the 
            failure of a POU to comply with the RPS to the Air Resources 
            Board, which may impose penalties and requires the penalties 
            to be expended for reducing emissions of air pollution or 
            greenhouse gases within the same geographic area as the local 
            publicly owned electric utility.

          11)Appropriates $322,000 from the CPUC Utilities Reimbursement 
            Account to the CPUC for additional staffing related to 
            transmission lines.

           EXISTING LAW   requires IOUs and certain other retail sellers to 
          achieve a 20% RPS by 2010 and establishes a process and 
          standards for renewable procurement.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   Unknown.

           COMMENTS  :   This bill was introduced as part of a budget package 
          introduced in the first extraordinary session that is intended 
          to address a fiscal emergency under the State Constitution, 
          Article IV, Section 10 (f).  

          1)   Overview  :  Over the past few years, there have been a few 
          attempts to increase the RPS.  The original reason for the RPS 
          was to diversify the state's generation sources.  The California 
          Air Resources Board (CARB) is implementing a similar program 
          with the intent to reduce greenhouse gases.  The author and 
          members of the Legislature have convened numerous stakeholder 
          meetings to try to reconcile divergent concerns over some 
          significant barriers.  Some of the most unsurpassable 
          impediments have included cost containment, transmission and 
          siting constraints, the location of eligible generation and 








                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  4

          whether it is in-state or out-of-state, and how much flexibility 
          the utilities will be granted given anticipated or unanticipated 
          circumstances.  

          The utilities' ability to comply with an increased RPS differs 
          based on geographic attributes of their service territories.  
          While San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) is relatively 
          transmission-constricted, any increase in its RPS would need to 
          be both in-basin and reliant on significant transmission 
          investment.  Southern California Edison (SCE) service territory 
          is replete with sunshine and windy passes, however, to access 
          the huge quantity of renewable energy an increased RPS demands 
          also requires investment in transmission infrastructure.  
          Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in Northern California, 
          as a gift of geography, just happens to be endowed with a clean 
          and relatively dispatchable watershed in its backyard (RPS 
          eligibility only includes hydroelectric facilities under 30 MW). 
           Nevertheless, even PG&E needs transmission upgrades to increase 
          its generation portfolio to 33% renewables.  

          2)   Groundhog Day  :  In 2002, the Legislature approved SB 1078 
          (Sher), Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002, which created RPS.  Under 
          RPS, IOUs and competitive energy service providers (ESPs) of 
          electricity were required to increase their renewable 
          procurement each year by at least 1% of total sales, so that 20% 
          of their sales are from renewable energy sources by December 31, 
          2017.  This goal was accelerated to 20% renewable power by 2010 
          by SB 107 (Simitian), Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006.  

          In 2008, SB 14 (Simitian) and AB 64 (Krekorian) proposed to 
          increase the RPS to 33% by 2020.  Each bill took a different 
          approach, but was similar in overarching goals.  AB 64 was 
          dropped, and the Governor vetoed SB 14.  The Governor stated 
          that, although he supports the intent of increasing the RPS to 
          33% by 2020, the provisions in SB 14 would make achieving that 
          goal difficult and too costly.  The Governor's veto message 
          added that an RPS should provide a streamlined regulatory 
          processes and compliance flexibility that facilitates the timely 
          construction of in-state resources.  The Governor stated that he 
          remains ready to sign legislation that codifies a workable 33% 
          RPS mandate.  

          Instead of signing SB 14, the Governor issued an executive order 
          (S-21-09) with the same RPS goals and directed the CARB to adopt 
          regulations using its authority for greenhouse gas reduction 








                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  5

          efforts provided by AB 32 (Nunez), Chapter 488, Statutes of 
          2006.  The executive order referred to the standard as the 
          Renewable Electricity Standard (RES).  The CARB was expected to 
          complete the regulations implementing the 33% RES by July 31, 
          2010.  (The CARB authority to impose penalties for 
          non-compliance of RES continues to be questioned.  Although CARB 
          estimates that the RES may reduce greenhouse gas emission from 
          California's electricity sector by about 12 to 13 million metric 
          tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
          (MMT CO2) per year by 2020, actual emission reductions may not 
          be realized due to dirtier-burning gas-fired quick-start 
          generation needed to firm and shape the intermittent 
          renewables.)

          In 2009, SB 722 (Simitian) also attempted to increase the RPS to 
          33% by 2020.  That bill passed both houses; however, due to the 
          legislative calendar, the Senate adjourned before it could vote 
          on concurrence.  This year, SB 23 (Simitian) is virtually 
          identical to this bill and was introduced in the regular 
          session.

          3)   The Utilities' Report Card  :  The CPUC reports that since the 
          RPS statute took effect in 2003, 1,702 MW of actual capacity has 
          come on-line.  The IOUs, which provide service to about 
          three-fourths of California utility customers, served 15% of 
          their 2009 retail electricity sales with renewable power, with 
          the breakdown as follows:

          Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 14.4%;
          Southern California Edison (SCE) 17.4%; and, 
          San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) 10.5%.

          The CPUC has approved 181 contracts for about 14,000 MW of new 
          and existing eligible renewable energy capacity, with another 
          4,000 MW of contracts under review.  The 2009 bids alone would 
          meet half of IOUs' 33% target.  However, contracting continues 
          due to anticipated challenges of bringing all of that generation 
          online.

          The CPUC expects to see an even greater increase in 2010; 
          estimated to reach approximately 18% for the three largest IOUs. 
           Utilities will file their 2010 compliance reports on March 1, 
          2011, which should disclose actual percentages for 2010. 

          California has 46 local POUs which include municipal utilities, 








                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  6

          irrigation districts, and joint powers authorities.  They 
          collectively serve approximately 25% of California's retail 
          electrical load.  

          The POUs are required to implement a RPS differently.  SB 107 
          requires that the governing board of a local POU annually report 
          the utility's status in implementing a RPS and progress toward 
          attaining the standard to its customers.  In addition, the 
          governing board is require to report to the CEC the information 
          that the governing board is required to annually report to their 
          customers.  

          Most POUs have adopted a RPS target of 20% but the dates for 
          achieving that goal varies greatly starting in 2010 for some and 
          going out as far as 2020 for others.  Some POUs (14) have 
          already adopted a 33% (or more) by 2020 target.

          Compliance data through 2009 and reported by the CEC in November 
          2010 show that the POUs' RPS deliveries range from zero to 61%.  
          Collectively those data show:  

          Northern California Power Authority20%;
          Sacramento Municipal Utility District21%;
          L.A. Department of Water & Power14%; and,
          Southern California Power Authority2% - 20%. 

          4)   Why Feed-in tariffs  :  This bill requires the CPUC to 
          consider specific findings when developing the feed-in tariff 
          for renewable facilities that are less than 3 MW in size.  
          Feed-in tariffs requires the utility to purchase all electricity 
          produced by eligible renewable generation and is located within 
          the service territory of that utility.  

          Feed-in tariffs may have been pre-empted by federal law in 
          certain circumstances.  On July 15, 2010, the Federal Energy 
          Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order regarding the 
          combined heat and power (CHP) feed-in-tariff program.   FERC 
          established that the rate established by the CPUC cannot exceed 
          the avoided cost of the purchasing utility.   Under state law, 
          the price paid by an IOU for electricity purchased under this 
          program is determined by the CPUC.  

          To find a way to comply with the FERC order while still 
          requiring a "must-buy" program similar to a feed-in tariff.  On 
          December 16, 2010, the CPUC adopted the Renewable Auction 








                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  7

          Mechanism (RAM) decision.  The RAM allows renewable distributed 
          generation (DG) projects up to 20 MW on the system side of the 
          meter to bid its electricity to the utility and the utility can 
          select the least cost with the best fit with CPUC review and 
          oversight.  

          5)   Why aren't all renewables counted  :  The CPUC notes that it 
          and the utilities are increasingly focused on tapping the 
          wholesale DG market for renewables (under 20 MW in size) to 
          allow for faster delivery schedules and interconnection at the 
          distribution level, without the need for transmission upgrades 
          (hence, the RAM).   The California Solar Initiative (CSI) and 
          SelfGeneration Incentive Program (SGIP) are in place to 
          facilitate this mission.  Nevertheless, the generation they 
          finance do not count toward the utilities' RPS requirements.  
          (Under the current feed-in tariff statute, each kWh purchased by 
          the utility from the electric generation facility counts toward 
          the IOUs' RPS obligations.)

          The CSI and SGIP provide incentives to customers to install DG 
          consisting of solar photovoltaic, small wind, fuelcells, or DG 
          technologies the CPUC determines will support the state's goals 
          for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.  According to the 
          CPUC, the CSI and SGIP indirectly contribute to the RPS by 
          reducing electricity demand when serving customer load. 
          Furthermore, the CPUC states that it provides the customer 
          clean, renewable, carbonfree electricity.

          The CSI Program has a budget of $3.35 billion over 10 years, and 
          the goal is to reach 1,940 MW of installed solar capacity by the 
          end of 2016. The goal includes 1,750 MW of capacity from the 
          general market program, as well as 190 MW of capacity from the 
          low-income programs. The general market program is the main 
          incentive program component of the CSI and is administered 
          through three program administrators: PG&E, SCE, and California 
          Center for Sustainable Energy in SDG&E territory.

          The SGIP incentive program has funded over 1,270 on-line 
          projects and over 337 MW of rebated capacity.  In 2008 alone, 
          these projects delivered over 718,000 MWh of electricity to 
          California's electricity grid, enough to power nearly 109,000 
          homes for a year.  Thermal cogeneration systems (fuel cells, 
          engines, and turbines) provided over 63% of the electricity. 
          Photovoltaic projects were the second largest supplier at 27%.









                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  8

          6)   How effective is "effective"  :  AB 380 (Nunez), Chapter 367, 
          Statutes of 2005, requires the CPUC, in consultation with the 
          CAISO, to establish resource adequacy requirements for all 
          load-serving entities.  AB 380 requires each load-serving entity 
          to maintain physical generating capacity adequate to meet its 
          load requirements including peak demand and planning and 
          operating reserves, and meet the most recent minimum planning 
          reserve and reliability criteria approved by the Western Systems 
          Coordinating Council or the Western Electricity Coordinating 
          Counsel.  

          Resource adequacy requires the load-serving entities to procure 
          sufficient resources so that it is available to the when and 
          where needed, in real time, to ensure the safe and reliable 
          operation of the grid.   Each load-serving entity is required to 
          file with the CPUC demonstrating that they have procured 
          sufficient capacity resources including reserves needed to serve 
          its aggregate system load on a monthly basis.  Each entity's 
          system requirement is 100 percent of its total forecast load 
          plus a 15% reserve, for a total of 115%.  In addition, each 
          load-serving entity is required to file with the CPUC 
          demonstrating procurement of sufficient local resource-adequacy 
          resources to meet their obligations in transmission-constrained 
          local areas.

          In a 2009 preceding the CPUC established the wind and solar load 
          carrying capacity for the peak demand hours of the day. The CPUC 
          established capacity value use production output data for 
          January to determine a capacity value for January, February data 
          for February capacity value, etc.  This bill, by inserting the 
          word "effective" in front of load carrying capacity, will likely 
          require the CPUC to undertake a new proceeding to determine the 
          contribution of wind and solar energy resources during peak 
          demand hours.  This allows some parties to argue that the CPUC 
          should use annual data for an annual value. The result could 
          lead to shortages in months when recorded production data 
          indicates that capacity value is much lower than the annual 
          Effective Load Carrying Capacity method's results.  

          Accurate counting of wind and solar production during the peak 
          hours is critical for grid reliability. The CPUC should have the 
          discretion to utilize the counting methodology that meets the 
          need of California.  If intermittent resources aren't available 
          the CAISO may have to procure backstop resources (if available) 
          which will result in duplicative capacity payments and 








                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  9

          unnecessary increased cost to ratepayers.  

          7)   The meter is already running  :  Current law requires a 
          limitation of the total costs of renewable energy at 
          above-market prices (market-price referent, or MPR) for 
          conventional energy.  Although each IOU has statutorily 
          prescribed above-market funds, all IOUs exhausted their funds in 
          2009.  The MPR is no longer used to evaluate whether a contract 
          price is reasonable.  Instead, the CPUC compares RPS contracts 
          to costs of relevant technologies and utilities' other renewable 
          opportunities, and allows the utilities to recover the costs in 
          rates.   According to the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), 
          above-market funds through September 2010, amount to 
          $6,007,377,760 or over $6 billion to date. 

          In June 2009, the CPUC published its 33% RPS Implementation 
          Analysis Preliminary Results.   The CPUC implies that 
          electricity costs will increase significantly in 2020 compared 
          to 2008, regardless of whether California mandates a 33% RPS or 
          not.  The CPUC calculated the cost impacts in differing 
          scenarios.

          Under the all-gas scenario (no more renewables after 2007), on 
          the natural, average electricity costs per kilowatt-hour (kWh) 
          are expected to increase 16.7% or by $49.2 billion from 2008 to 
          2020. This increase results from the need to maintain and 
          replace aging transmission and distribution infrastructure, 
          anticipated investments in advanced metering infrastructure, and 
          other smart-grid capabilities.

          Under the 20% RPS reference case (current law) the average 
          electricity costs per kWh increase would be 19.7% or $50.6 
          billion compared to 2008.

          From the 20% to the 33% RPS case, the CPUC estimates a cost 
          increase of 7.1%, or a total of $54.2 billion more by 2020.  
          This increase included the costs associated with more expensive 
          generation resources, new transmission, and other resources that 
          will be needed to provide back-up generation when renewable 
          electricity is not available.  The estimate assumes the 
          utilities will continue the same balance of renewable 
          technologies, which includes a large reliance on wind and solar 
          energy, and that the direct costs of building new renewable 
          facilities remains unchanged over time and thus does not account 
          for potential technology-related decreases in costs over time.








                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  10


          The high-distributed generation case is significantly higher 
          than the 33% RPS reference case, with a 14.6% cost premium 
          compared to the 20% RPS case, and a 7% cost premium compared to 
          the 33% RPS reference case.  This is due to the heavy reliance 
          on solar PV resources, which are currently much costlier than 
          wind and central station solar.  

          The CAISO, in its 2008 Report on Preliminary Renewable 
          Transmission Plans, identified six 500 kV transmission lines 
          that, if built and brought on-line by 2020, can help the state 
          meet the 33% renewable standard in 2020 and for several years 
          beyond. These potential transmission projects, intended to 
          connect and deliver renewable resources to the grid, were 
          estimated to cost a total of approximately $6.5 billion (+/- 50% 
          accuracy) in 2008 dollars.  

          Since then, the CAISO performed a more rigorous analysis and 
          determined that renewable generation development is "highly 
          aligned" with CAISO approved transmission.  In a December 2010 
          presentation, the CAISO identified 7 transmission upgrades that 
          are under contract and/or in the CAISO interconnection queue.  
          It also itemized a list of "other" CAISO grid upgrades.  If all 
          projects are completed by 2017, if fully utilized, they can meet 
          the CAISO net short for the load-serving entities' forecasted 
          retail sales under a 33% RPS.  The CAISO did not provide a cost 
          estimate for the transmission upgrades or the new transmission 
          line needed for a high out-of-state scenario.  The costs for the 
          upgrades are currently being incurred by the transmission 
          owners, mostly the IOUs, which are recovering the costs in 
          rates.

          The Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) supports the RPS 
          program, however, it is concerned that the "perceived urgency to 
          comply with the RPS and continuing CPUC approval of high-priced 
                                             contracts has created an inelastic demand and subsequently 
          driven the renewable market to yield very high prices."  DRA 
          continues to state that the above-market funds intended to cover 
          the costs of renewable energy that exceed the costs of 
          comparable conventional generation, have failed as a 
          cost-containment mechanism, having been fully allocated in 2009. 
            The DRA states that the CPUC has approved nearly every 
          renewable contract filed by the utilities, even when contracts 
          rate poorly on a least-cost, best-fit criteria.









                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  11

          At the urging of this committee in last year's predecessor to 
          this bill (SB 722), an amendment was included to require the 
          CPUC to establish a limitation for each electrical corporation 
          on the procurement expenditures for all eligible renewable 
          energy resources used to comply with the RPS.  In addition, the 
          amendment prescribes factors on which the CPUC shall rely when 
          establishing the cost limitations.  Those amendments are both 
          included in this bill.  However, this bill does not include 
          adequate provision to monitor the costs for direct access 
          providers and to adjust the goals of the program if costs are 
          too high.

          8)   How many departments does it take to?  :  This bill requires 
          the CPUC to review and approve the IOUs' RPS contracts and 
          costs.  POU oversight and enforcement is bifurcated.  The CEC is 
          required to adopt regulations to enforce the RPS on the POUs.  
          The CARB is allowed to impose penalties to enforce the RPS on 
          the POUs.  If CARB imposes penalties, this bill requires those 
          penalties to be deposited into the Air Pollution Control Fund in 
          the State Treasury.  Upon appropriation by the Legislature, this 
          bill requires the funds to be expended for reducing greenhouse 
          gas emissions in the same geographic area as the POU.

          Last year, this committee raised concerns about the POU 
          penalties being deposited in the State Treasury.  First, POUs 
          are not investor-owned and do not have "shareholder" funds or 
          different revenue streams to be tapped for penalties.  
          Ratepayers will pay for all penalties.  Second, once funds are 
          deposited into the State Treasury, the department administering 
          the fund will likely need around 10% - 15% of the funds for 
          support.  In addition, current law provides for the recovery of 
          General Fund costs for statewide general administrative 
          expenditures (Pro Rata) from special funds.  Third, there is no 
          indication that the CARB will choose projects that directly 
          benefit the ratepayers who pay the penalty.  As such, the value 
          ratepayers are supposed to get back in "projects" may be less 
          than what was paid in penalties.

          9)   Concerns about the bill  :  The opposition received by the 
          committee has expressed broad concerns about the costs to comply 
          with the programs and perceived barriers to compliance for ESPs. 
           

          The most prominent concern is the restrictive "banking" 
          provisions.  In 2006, the CPUC allowed unlimited forward banking 








                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  12

          of surplus procurement.  This bill restricts the ability for 
          utilities to bank RPS-eligible energy deliveries from contracts 
          that are shorter than 10 years.  The Sacramento Municipal 
          Utility District (SMUD), PG&E, and others have over-procured 
          renewables due to either getting a good price or to "hedge" in 
          anticipation of declining prices in out years.  PG&E states that 
          this limitation picks winners and losers by discriminating 
          between existing generators who often sign shorter contract 
          extensions and new developers seeking longer-term contracts to 
          finance their projects.

          This bill does not permit banking of generation earned prior to 
          January 1, 2011.  The ratepayers in the POU and SMUD territories 
          that have adopted RPS goals prior to 2011 would be penalized 
          because they could not carry forward their generation from prior 
          years to meet the goals of future years.  SMUD's actual 
          renewable generation was above the 20% goals totaling about 561 
          GWh of surplus through 2010.  SMUD's practice has been to apply 
          excess procurement in one year first in the following year, so 
          there is no excess procurement over one year old.  SMUD 
          estimates the cost of its early compliance at up to $50 million, 
          which would be spread across its ratepayer base.  SMUD estimates 
          a 1% electricity rate increase to SMUD customers would be 
          assessed to generate approximately $12.5 million annually, 
          exclusively due to this restriction.

          Second, this bill limits the amount of renewable energy credits 
          the utility may use to comply to just 10% after 2016.  PG&E 
          states that this limit does not provide procurement flexibility 
          and proposes that the bill be modified to reflect the recent 
          CPUC tradable renewable energy credit decision (D.11-01-025) 
          that limits procurement to no more than 25% of its annual RPS 
          requirement.   The Alliance for Retail Energy Markets and other 
          direct-access participants are concerned that the bill would 
          impose higher than necessary costs by restricting the use of 
          western state renewable resources that could provide more 
          supply, increase competition, and lower costs to consumers.

          PG&E and SMUD state that the requirement that the CPUC set 
          procurement goals within each of the three compliance periods is 
          unrealistic.  The utilities state that development does not 
          occur in regular intervals and tends to be "lumpy."  Current law 
          set a one-time goal of 20% by 2010 with flexible compliance out 
          to 2013.  However the utilities were also required to increase 
          renewable generation equal to 1% of retail sales each year.  








                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  13

          This bill eliminates the annual goal and replaces it with the 
          three compliance windows of an average of 20% between 2011 and 
          2013, 25% by 2016, and 33% by 2020.  

          The POUs are concerned that the mandates of the first compliance 
          period (an average of 20% renewables between 2011 and 2013) is 
          too onerous.  Instead they have requested amendments to extend 
          the deadline and establish a flat mandate of 20% by 2014 in lieu 
          of the first compliance period.  Los Angeles Department of Water 
          and Power (LADWP) requests that they be allowed to calculate an 
          average over each of the compliance periods to equal the 
          respective RPS target for the period.

          The California Municipal Utilities Association is concerned that 
          the bill would mandate RPS compliance, in detail, on the POUs 
          for the first time.  The POUs were called upon in 2002 to adopt 
          RPS goals which reflected the program adopted by the Legislature 
          for retail sellers.  Most POUs then adopted a goal of 20% by 
          2017 as originally called for.  However, when the Legislature 
          accelerated the 2017 deadline to 2010, some municipal utilities 
          did not follow and retained their 2017 goals.

          The Energy Service Providers are concerned about the bill's 
          intent to require the utilities to engage in long-term 
          contracts.  Since deregulation of the electricity market in 1996 
          a certain number of businesses have procured electricity on the 
          wholesale market and delivered that power directly to wholesale 
          customers such as Safeway.  They generally operate on short-term 
          contracts (6 to 12 months in duration) and argue that they have 
          limited access to renewable development which is largely tied-up 
          in long-term commitments and therefore restricts their access to 
          renewables.


           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support 
           
          3Degrees
          Abengoa Solar
          AES
          American Lung Association in California
          American Wind Energy Association
          Amonix
          Applied Materials








                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  14

          BrightSource Energy
          California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA)
          California Biomass Energy Alliance (CBEA)
          California Center for Sustainable Energy
          California Interfaith Power & Light
          California Labor Federation
          California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA) (if amended)
          California State Association of Electrical Workers 
          California State Pipe Trades Council
          California Wind Energy Association (CalWEA)
          Calpine Corporation
          Catholic Charities Diocese of Stockton
          Clean power Campaign
          CleanTech San Diego
          Coalition of California Utility Employees (CCUE)
          Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA)
          Element Power
          Energy Independence Now (EIN)
          Environmental Defense Fund
          Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2)
          enXco
          First Solar
          FRV Renewables
          FuelCell Energy
          GE Energy
          Horizon Wind Energy
          Iberdrola Renewables
          Independent Energy Producers Association
          Infinia
          Large-Scale Solar Association (LSA)
          League of California Cities (if amended)
          LS Power Development, LLC
          Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
          NextEra Energy Resources
          Northern California Power Agency (NCPA)
          NRG
          Oak Creek Energy Systems, Inc.
          Ormat Technologies
          Recurrent Energy Suntech
          San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)
          San Joaquin Valley Regional Green Jobs Coalition
          Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
          Schott Solar
          Sempra Energy Utilities
          Sierra Club California








                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  15

          Solar Millennium
          Southern California Edison
          Southern California Gas Company
          State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
          SunPower
          Terra-Gen Power
          Tessera Solar
          The Solar Alliance
          Union of Concerned Scientists
          Vestas-American Wind Technology, Inc.
          Vote Solar
          Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
          Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF) (if amended)


           Opposition 
           
          Air Liquide Industrial U.S. LP
          Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
          Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM)
          Anheuser Busch
          California Alliance for Choice in Energy Solutions
          California Business Properties Association
          California Grocers Association
          California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA)
          California League of Food Processors
          California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA)
          California Retailers Association
          California Steel Industries, Inc.
          CalPortland Company
          CEMEX California Cement
          Chemical Industry Council of California
          Direct Energy Services, LLC
          Kinder Morgan Energy Partners
          Lehigh Hanson
          Linde
          Mitsubishi Cement Corporation
          National Cement Corporation
          Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (unless amended)
          Praxair, Inc.
          Schnitzer Steel Industries
          School Project for Utility Rate Reduction
          Specialty Minerals, Inc.
          TXI Riverside Cement
          Western States Petroleum Association








                                                                  SBX1 2
                                                                  Page  16





           Analysis Prepared by  :    Gina Adams / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083