BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                SB 2 X1
                                                                Page  1


        SENATE THIRD READING
        SB 2 X1 (Simitian, et al.)
        As Introduced  February 1, 2011
        Majority vote 

         SENATE VOTE  :26-11  
         
         UTILITES & COMMERCE          10-3                   NATURAL 
        RESOURCES      6-3              
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Ayes:|Bradford, Buchanan, Fong, |Ayes:|Chesbro, Brownley,        |
        |     |Fuentes, Furutani, Roger  |     |Dickinson, Huffman,       |
        |     |Hernández, Huffman, Ma,   |     |Monning, Skinner          |
        |     |Skinner, Swanson          |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
        |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
        |Nays:|Gorell, Knight, Valadao   |Nays:|Knight, Grove, Halderman  |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         APPROPRIATIONS           12-3                                    
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield,     |     |                          |
        |     |Bradford, Charles         |     |                          |
        |     |Calderon, Campos, Davis,  |     |                          |
        |     |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara,  |     |                          |
        |     |Mitchell, Solorio         |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
        |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
        |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, Nielsen |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         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;









                                                                SB 2 X1
                                                                Page  2


           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 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 








                                                                SB 2 X1
                                                                Page  3


             than the following procurement targets:

             i)     25% by December 31, 2013;

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

             iii)   10% thereafter.

        4)Requires CPUC to adopt a process for the rank ordering and 
          selection of least-cost and best-fit eligible renewable energy 
          resources.
         
         5)Requires 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 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 IOU's anticipated 
          2020 retail sales.

        7)Requires CPUC to establish a cost limit for each IOU according to 
          specified criteria. 
         
         8)Prescribes factors that CPUC must consider when establishing a 
          feed-in tariff for electricity generated from a renewable 
          generating facility that is less than three megawatts (MW). 
         
         9)Requires 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 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 CPUC Utilities Reimbursement Account 
          (PURA) to CPUC for additional staffing related to transmission 








                                                                SB 2 X1
                                                                Page  4


          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  :   

        1)California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

           a)   Ongoing annual special fund costs of approximately $650,000, 
             equivalent to 5.0 positions, to implement RPS provisions for 
             retail sellers, including developing new interim goals, 
             developing cost limitations on renewable electricity 
             procurement, communicating with retail sellers regarding new 
             requirements, developing requirements for approval of IOU-owned 
             electricity generating facilities, and reporting to the 
             Legislature.   (PURA)

           b)   Ongoing annual special fund costs of approximately $650,000, 
             equivalent to 5.0 positions, for transmission planning and 
             expedited review of applications to construct new transmission 
             lines. (PURA)

           c)   Ongoing annual special fund costs of approximately $1 
             million for contracts for program evaluation and technical 
             assistance, such as analysis of program implementation options. 
              (PURA)

           d)   Appropriation of $322,000 from PURA for additional staff for 
             transmission line applications that facilitate RPS compliance.

           e)   Potential revenue from fines levied against retail sellers 
             that fail to meet RPS targets.  (General Fund (GF))

        2)California Energy Commission

          Ongoing annual special fund costs in the range of $1 million to 
          $1.5 million, equivalent to no more than 9.0 positions, to CEC to 
          adopt regulations, assess and modify tracking systems and 
          programs, and monitor RPS compliance among POUs.  (Energy 
          Resources Program Account (ERPA))

        3)Department of Fish and Game








                                                                SB 2 X1
                                                                Page  5



          Ongoing annual costs of $350,000 to $600,000 to the Department of 
          Fish and Game (DFG) to establish an internal division to conduct 
          planning and environmental compliance services.   (GF or Fish and 
          Game Preservation Fund)

        4)Air Resources Board

           a)   Ongoing annual special fund costs of approximately $290,000, 
             equivalent to 2.0 positions, to enforce renewable energy 
             resources procurement requirements on POUs.  (Air Pollution 
             Control Fund (APCF))

           b)   Potential revenue from fines levied against retail sellers 
             that fail to meet RPS targets.  (APCF)

        5)Other Costs
         
         According to a 2009 CPUC report, achievement of a 33% RPS by 2020 
        will have the following effect on capital costs and electricity 
        rates when compared to a baseline scenario in which the state 
        receives 20% of its electricity from renewable energy resources: 

           a)   Tens of billions of dollars in one-time costs over the 
             period 2011-2020 to construct capital projects, such as 
             transmission lines and electricity generation facilities.  
             Presumably, those costs will be paid by the ratepayers and 
             customers of the state's IOUs, POUs and other providers of 
             electricity service.  

           b)   A 7.1% increase in statewide electricity expenditures.

        CPUC notes it has revised downward its projected energy demand for 
        2020.  Accordingly, this downward projection should revise the cost 
        CPUC associates with a 33% RPS.  While CPUC has yet to conduct an 
        analysis that would allow it to revise its project costs of a 33% 
        RPS, it contends the estimates from its 2009 report are "a useful 
        reference" nonetheless.

         COMMENTS  :  Over the past few years, there have been a few attempts 
        to increase the RPS.  The author and members of the Legislature have 
        convened numerous stakeholder meetings to try to reconcile divergent 
        concerns over some significant barriers.  By the end of session last 
        year, stakeholders acquiesced and compromised on certain provisions 








                                                                SB 2 X1
                                                                Page  6


        in SB 722 (Simitian) that brought them to a tenuous détente.  Some 
        of the compromises have included the use of in-state, out-of-state, 
        or renewable energy credits as procurement categories; the decline 
        of flexible compliance mechanisms in subsequent compliance periods; 
        and, the requirement for cost containment.  

        SB 722 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 SB 722 and was 
        introduced in the regular session.  This bill also mirrors SB 722.

        Although some stakeholders are concerned that this bill is not 
        "perfect," there is discussion of a "clean-up" RPS bill to address 
        some of the technical and outstanding issues.  Some of the reports 
        and findings required by state agencies will need to be updated.  In 
        addition, provisions may need clarity on how POU penalties will stay 
        in the service territory of POU to assist with it attaining its RPS 
        goals, how many state agencies will regulate compliance, how CPUC 
        will interpret resource adequacy metrics, and other unresolved 
        fixes.


         Analysis Prepared by  :    Gina Adams / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083
             
                                                                    FN: 
                                                                    0000048