BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 284
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 284 (Quirk) - As Amended: April 8, 2013
SUBJECT : Energy: Road to 2050 Board
SUMMARY : Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to
convene the Road to 2050 Board (2050 Board) to commission
studies to determine the best process for meeting the "2050
goal" [i.e., reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80
percent by 2050].
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the CEC to assess energy infrastructure trends and
issues facing California and develop and recommend energy
policies for the state to address and resolve such issues as
part of the biennial Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR).
2)Pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB
32), requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt a
statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to 1990 levels by
2020 and to adopt rules and regulations to achieve maximum
technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission
reductions.
3)Requires electric utilities and certain other retail sellers
of electricity to procure eligible renewable energy resources
to meet the following portfolio targets:
a) 20 percent on average from January 1, 2011 to December
31, 2013.
b) 25 percent by December 31, 2016.
c) 33 percent by December 31, 2020 and each year
thereafter.
THIS BILL :
1)Requires the CEC to convene the 2050 Board to contract with an
independent research group to determine the best process for
meeting the "2050 goal," which the bill defines as reducing
AB 284
Page 2
GHG emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.
2)Provides that the 2050 Board consists of representatives from
the CEC, ARB, Public Utilities Commission, California
Environmental Protection Agency, California Independent System
Operator and the Governor's Office.
3)Requires the 2050 Board to adopt a 2050 Report by January 1,
2015 and every four years thereafter to provide guidance to
state and local infrastructure decision-making processes. The
2050 Report must contain:
a) An overview of the overall GHG reductions as a result of
California's energy and environmental policies.
b) Consistent metric integration among the state agencies
to ensure the analysis of the information included in the
report is reliable and determines cost-effectiveness.
c) Milestones to represent the progress made towards the
2050 goal and a determination if a change in course of
action is appropriate.
d) Different scenarios describing the best possible roadmap
to achieve the 2050 goal. The scenarios shall (1) be based
on policies in effect, and existing technologies and
infrastructures at the time of the report, (2) contain
separate roadmaps to determine the best process towards the
2050 goal, and (3) include a marginal cost curve analysis
to better assess the cost-effectiveness of each given
scenario.
4)Authorizes the 2050 Board to contract with an independent
research group to prepare the report.
5)Requires the 2050 Board to hold a public hearing every two
years regarding the 2050 Report.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's statement :
Strategies to achieve AB 32 goals have varied in scope,
AB 284
Page 3
length and complexity. One strategy has been the creation
of different programs to incentivize the use of energy
efficiency, alternative energy and alternative fuel
technologies. However, there lacks a state-wide strategic
or cohesive structure to encourage communication and
coordination on AB 32-associated programs.
Furthermore, the implementation of California's ambitious
energy and environmental goals are the responsibility of a
group of fragmented state agencies that lack a
comprehensive plan to effectively move forward and
synchronize to ensure maximum efficiency.
According to a recent Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO)
report, Energy Efficiency and Alternative Energy Programs,
"the state currently lacks a comprehensive framework that
fully coordinates these activities to help ensure that the
state's goals are being met in the most cost-effective
manner."
Furthermore, a December 2012 report by the Little Hoover
Commission, Rewiring California: Integrating Agendas for
Energy Reform, states, "the state lacks the ability to
impose order on the multitude of proceedings that determine
how these policies unfold, order which is essential to
ensuring the state maximizes progress toward each of its
policy goals."
2)Visions of 2050. The prevailing opinion among climate
scientists is that achieving an 80 percent reduction in GHG
emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2050 is necessary to
stabilize the global climate. Questions about what it may
take to achieve such dramatic reductions have been asked
before. In the California context, the 2011 report
California's Energy Future - The View to 2050 was sponsored by
the California Council on Science and Technology and funded by
the CEC and the Stephen Bechtel Fund.
The View to 2050 report assessed technology requirements for
reducing GHG emissions in California to 80 percent below 1990
levels by 2050, a target established by Executive Order S-3-05
in 2005. The following information is excerpted from the
report:
By 2050, California's population is expected to grow
AB 284
Page 4
from the 2005 level of 37 million to 55 million. Even with
moderate economic growth and business-as-usual efficiency
gains, we will need roughly twice as much energy in 2050 as
we use today.
To achieve the 80 percent reduction goal, California's
GHG emissions will need to fall from 470 MtCO2e/yr (million
metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year) in 2005 to 85
MtCO2e/yr in 2050, with most of those emissions (77
MtCO2e/yr) coming from the energy sector. Accomplishing
this will require a reduction from about 13 tons CO2e per
capita in 2005 to about 1.6 tons CO2e per capita in 2050.
The following four key actions can feasibly reduce
California greenhouse gas emissions to roughly 60 percent
below 1990 levels (150 MtCO2e/yr) by 2050:
o Aggressive efficiency measures for
buildings, industry and transportation to
dramatically reduce per capita energy demand.
o Aggressive electrification to avoid fossil
fuel use where technically feasible.
o Decarbonizing electricity supply while
doubling electricity production, and developing
zero-emissions load balancing approaches to manage
load variability and minimize the impact of variable
supply for renewables like wind and solar.
o Decarbonizing the remaining required fuel
supply where electrification is not feasible.
Leaving any of these off the table will significantly
increase the 2050 emissions.
We could further reduce 2050 greenhouse gas emissions to
80 percent below 1990 levels with significant innovation
and advancements in multiple technologies that eliminate
emissions from fuels. All of these solutions would require
intensive and sustained investment in new technologies plus
innovation to bridge from the laboratory to reliable
operating systems in relatively short timeframes.
There are many additional technologies that reduce
AB 284
Page 5
emissions from fuels. In combination these could achieve
the required additional emission cuts from 60 to 80
percent. Many require multiple simultaneous strategies,
some are industrially complex and costly and some are
actually offsets, but all of them require research and
innovation.
Possible breakthrough technologies such as carbon
neutral fuel from sunlight or advances in nuclear power
could be game changers. These would allow us to produce
abundant electricity or fuel with nearly zero emissions.
1) Meanwhile, back in 2013. Notwithstanding the
big-picture significance of the analysis proposed by this
bill, the bill itself prompts several practical questions
that should be addressed.
It's not clear what the Board's powers and duties are. If the
Board's primary function is to hire the research group, and
the likely source of funds is from the CEC, then it would seem
to be more efficient and straightforward to simply authorize
the CEC hire the research group. On the other hand, if the
Board is intended to have broader decision-making authority,
then its powers and procedures should be clearly delineated.
Its composition should also be carefully examined. For
example, the CAISO should not be a voting member on a public
decision-making body because it is not a public agency. It
also seems unusual, and awkward, to have the Governor's Office
on the board because the Governor's interests would be
represented already by the agency members.
If the report's purpose goes beyond information, it's not
clear. To the extent the report may be interpreted to have
any binding effect on state and local decisions, a host of
issues will be raised. First is that the report may be
prepared under contract by a private entity without all the
usual process checks that apply to public agencies.
The intended number and frequency of reports and hearings is
also unclear.
2) Double referral . This bill has been doubled-referred to
the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 284
Page 6
Support
California Municipal Utilities Association
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092