BILL ANALYSIS Ó 1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
ALEX PADILLA, CHAIR
AB 327 - Perea Hearing Date:
July 2, 2013 A
As Amended: April 23, 2013 FISCAL B
3
2
7
DESCRIPTION
Current law requires the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) to establish the California Alternate Rates for Energy
(CARE) program to discount rates for low-income gas and electric
customers defined as those with incomes no greater than 200
percent of the federal poverty level and permits no more than
three tiers for residential electric rates for CARE enrollees.
(Public Utilities Code 739.1)
Current law , prohibits mandatory "time-variant pricing," which
includes time-of-use rates, critical peak pricing, and real-time
pricing. Default time-variant pricing is permitted until
January 1, 2014 if the customer is guaranteed (called bill
protection) that the total amount paid for electric service will
not exceed the amount that would have been due under the
customer's previous rate schedule. Beginning in 2014, the
customer must be provided with bill protection for the first
year of service and one year of interval usage data from an
advanced meter and associated customer education guarantee.
(Public Utilities Code 745)
Current law limits rate increases on the first two tiers of
electric rates for non-CARE residential enrollees to the annual
percentage change in the Consumer Price Index plus 1%, but not
less than 3% and not more than 5% per year through 2018.
(Public Utilities Code 739.9)
This bill eliminates this restriction.
Current law limits rate increases for CARE enrollees for service
in tiers 1 and 2 to the annual percentage increase in benefits
under CalWorks with a hard cap of three percent through 2018.
CARE rates are also capped at 80% of the corresponding rates
charged to residential customers not enrolled in the CARE
program. (Public Utilities Code 739.1)
This bill eliminates this restriction and states the intent of
the Legislature that the CPUC ensure that CARE program enrollees
receive affordable electric and gas service that does not impose
an unfair economic burden on those enrollees.
Current law exempts CARE enrollees from paying charges to
support generation and public purpose programs including charges
for Department of Resources Water bonds, the CARE, and CSI.
(Public Utilities Code 739.1)
This bill would require the CPUC to determine that any
residential rate changes are reasonable and necessary to ensure
that rates and charges paid by residential customers are fair,
equitable, and reflect the costs to serve those customers.
This bill would require the commission, in approving any changes
to residential rates and charges, to ensure that several
principles are followed including basing rates on marginal
costs; cost-causation, reduction of coincident and noncoincident
peak demand.
BACKGROUND
Residential Electric Rates - Residential electric rates in the
territories of the three largest electric corporations are
generally designed in a four or five-tiered structure based on
the customer's quantity of electricity usage. Within prescribed
usage tiers, the amount of electricity consumed is priced at
increasing per-unit rates. Under current rate structures, energy
charges for residential customers are based on the quantity of
electricity used by a customer, and each successive block of
electricity usage is billed at increased per-unit prices. Each
block is referred to as a tier. Tier 1 is the customer's
"baseline" - the level deemed necessary to supply a significant
portion of the reasonable energy needs of the average
residential customer; Tier 2 applies to usage between the
baseline and 130% of that amount. Baseline levels vary
depending on the climate of the region (e.g. hotter regions have
a higher baseline). This multi-tiered conservation pricing
structure grew out of the energy crisis. Prior to that time, a
two-tier pricing structure was common.
Rate Freezes - During the energy crisis, the Legislature passed
ABx1 1 (Keeley, 2001) to protect California ratepayers from
rampant price fluctuations due to a dysfunctional wholesale
electricity market. ABx1 1 authorized the Department of Water
Resources (DWR) to issue revenue bonds to purchase power at such
prices the department deemed appropriate, on behalf of the
cash-strapped investor-owned utilities (IOUs) which couldn't
keep up with the volatile wholesale prices. Among other
stabilizing efforts, ABx1 1 included a provision that prohibited
the CPUC from increasing rates for usage under 130% of baseline
(tiers 1 and 2) until DWR bond charges were paid off. Those
charges continue.
Because rates in the two lowest tiers were frozen, increased
costs for generation, distribution, transmission and new
programs created by the Legislature and the CPUC, have been
disproportionately borne by those customers whose electricity
usage falls in the upper tiers.
Freeze Lifted - In 2009 SB 695 (Kehoe) was signed into law as an
urgency statute. Among its provisions, the bill removed the
freeze on tier 1 and tier 2 rates and intended to allow for
gradual rate increases through 2018 at which time the caps for
those increases would sunset. Different formulas were created
for Non-CARE customers and CARE enrollees.
As a consequence, beginning January 1, 2010, the CPUC could
grant increases in rates charged to non-CARE residential
customers for tier 1 and 2 rates by the annual percentage change
in the Consumer Price Index from the prior year plus one
percent, but not less than three percent or more than five
percent per year. Increases in tier 1 and 2 rates for the
residential CARE program were statutorily tied to annual cost of
living adjustments for CalWork's benefits not to exceed three
percent per year. The IOUs were also permitted to add a third
tier of rates for CARE enrollees. Prior to SB 695, CARE
enrollees were subject to charges under only the first two rate
tiers.
The provisions of SB 695 resulted in three to five percent
increases on tier 1 and 2 rates for non-CARE customers and
resulted in a commensurate decrease in rates for tiers 3, 4, and
5. The rates for CARE enrollees in tiers 1 and 2 have not
increased due to the suspension of COLAs for the CalWork's
program, except for the addition of a third tier for CARE
enrollees in the PG&E service territory. The rate adjustments,
overall, were revenue neutral to the IOUs.
Current residential and past rates for the electric
corporations:
----------------------------------------------------------------
|SDG&E | Non-CARE | | CARE |
----------------------------------------------------------------
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Year | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Jan-10 | 13.412 | 15.489 | 27.162 | 29.162 | | 10.048 | 11.710 | 17.076 | 17.076 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Jan-11 | 13.810 | 15.949 | 28.145 | 30.145 | | 9.959 | 11.621 | 16.988 | 16.988 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Jan-12 | 14.334 | 16.580 | 24.834 | 26.834 | | 9.946 | 11.608 | 16.975 | 16.975 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Jan-13 | 14.764 | 17.077 | 26.498 | 28.498 | | 9.946 | 11.607 | 16.974 | 16.974 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
|Sep-13<1>| 14.764 | 17.077 | 34.368 | 36.368 | | 9.946 | 11.607 | 16.974 |16.974 |
| | | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
| PG&E | Non-CARE | | CARE |
------------------------------------------------------------------
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Year | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Mar-10 | 11.877 | 13.502 | 28.562 | 42.482 | 49.778 | | 8.316 | 9.563 | 9.563 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Jan-11 | 12.233 | 13.907 | 28.011 | 38.978 | 38.978 | | 8.316 | 9.563 | 9.563 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Jan-12 | 12.845 | 14.602 | 29.518 | 33.518 | 33.518 | | 8.316 | 9.563 | 12.474 |
---------------------------
<1> A rate increase was authorized by the CPUC on May 9, 2013 in
SDG&E's general rate case. Rates are effective September 1 and
retroactive to January 1, 2012.
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| May-13 | 13.230 | 15.040 | 31.114 | 35.114 | 35.114 | | 8.316 | 9.563 |13.974 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| SCE | Non-CARE | | | CARE |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Year | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Jan-10 | 12.162 | 14.153 | 20.822 | 24.323 | 27.823 | | 8.533 | 10.668 | 16.039 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Jan-11 | 12.351 | 14.342 | 23.799 | 27.299 | 30.799 | | 8.533 | 10.668 | 18.238 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Jan-12 | 12.597 | 15.511 | 23.801 | 27.301 | 30.801 | | 8.533 | 10.668 | 18.165 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------|
| Jun-13 | 12.849 | 15.976 | 27.22 | 31.22 | 31.22 | | 8.533 | 10.668 |20.76 |
| | | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPUC Rate Deliberations - The CPUC initiated a rulemaking on
policy guidance for rate design in the summer of 2012
(R.12-06-013). They intend to consider how the state's energy
policy goals for 2020 are affected by retail rate design and how
rate design policies can and should be used to meet long-term
climate and energy policy goals in an effort to align rates with
policy objectives. More specifically, the proceeding will
examine "whether the current tier structure continues to support
the underlying statewide-energy goals facilitates the
development of customer-friendly technologies, and whether the
rates result in inequitable treatment across customers and
customer classes." In 2007 the commission adopted principles
for rate design and expressed intent to use those as guidance in
this proceeding:
1) Rates should be based on marginal cost;
2) Rates should be based on cost-causation principles;
3) Rates should encourage conservation and reduce peak
demand;
4) Rates should provide stability, simplicity and customer
choice; and
5) Rates should encourage economically efficient
decision-making.
The CPUC's rulemaking on residential rate design continues with
a decision planned for late summer or early fall of this year.
In June the parties to the proceeding, which include the IOUs,
ratepayer advocates, environmental groups, and renewable
developers, submitted residential rate design proposals. All
parties to the proceeding generally agree that the limits on
rates for tier 1 and 2 customers and CARE enrollees must be
lifted but there are varying opinions on other elements which
include the support needed for CARE enrollees, the mandate of
time variant pricing, and the inclusion of fixed charges.
Time-of-Use Rates - With time-based rates, utilities charge
different prices based on the time of day electricity is used.
The different charges should reflect the ups and downs of
wholesale power prices due to supply and demand. In hot
climates, power is typically most expensive late summer
afternoons and early evening hours, when heavy air-conditioning
use causes spikes in electricity use. With time-based pricing,
also called time-of-use or TOU rates, energy charges are higher
during the hours of peak demand but lower at all other times.
This creates financial incentives for consumers to shift energy
use to the less expensive off-peak hours, which relieves the
strain on energy supplies. However, customers in the hot
climates cannot shift air conditioning use to another time of
the day like they can their laundry.
Peak demand dictates the size of generators, transmission lines,
transformers and circuit breakers for utilities even if that
amount lasts just a few hours a day. Power generation which is
able to quickly ramp-up for peak demand often uses more
expensive fuels, is less efficient and has higher marginal
carbon emissions. Most natural gas plants in California's fleet
are older and lack the fast-start technology, consequently they
must idle until needed to meet peak demand and in that stand-by
mode continue to produce emissions.
TOU rates are advocated by many environmental groups who argue
that the rates help rein in peak demand and avoid building new
power plants. Some electric utilities similarly advocate for
TOU because the rate reflects the principle of cost-causation
and requires customers to make decisions about energy use when
it has the highest cost and encourage customers to shift
significant amounts of energy use away from the peak hours when
power is most costly.
Fixed Charges - In the spring of 2010 PG&E, as part of its
triennial rate case, PG&E applied to the CPUC to establish a
fixed customer charge of $3 for all non-CARE residential
customers, and $2.40 for all CARE enrollees. Although the CPUC
recognized a growing disparity in rates, they rejected the
charge on legal and policy grounds and characterized it as "the
most significant change in residential electric rate design in
the last decade."
Legally the CPUC opined that the statutory caps on rate
increases for tier 1 and 2 residential customers included any
new or increased fixed rate charges. They specifically found
that the commission was "prohibited by law from approving PG&E's
customer charge to the extent the total bill impacts exceed
these statutory limitations on baseline rate increases."
COMMENTS
1. Author's Purpose . During the energy crisis in 2001, the
Legislature passed ABx1 1 to protect California ratepayers
from rampant price fluctuations due to a dysfunctional
wholesale electricity market. ABx1 1 capped rates in the
lowest two tiers of residential electric service in
addition to rates for low income customers on the CARE
program. Since the energy crisis, the cost of electricity
has increased due to rising fuel prices and state mandated
and CPUC created programs. As a result of the rate caps in
tiers 1 and 2, these increased costs have shifted to
customers in the upper tiers. SB 695 provided limited
relief by allowing rates in Tier 1 and Tier 2 to increase
by 3 to 5 percent annually through 2018 based on the
Consumer Price Index (CPI). A separate formula was
established for CARE enrollees. However, this gradual rate
increase does not address the issue of the increased costs
of providing electric service.
AB 327 would eliminate the rate restrictions adopted during
the energy crisis and would provide the CPUC the
flexibility to implement what they determine to be the
appropriate course of action on rate design and approve
rate structure modifications, which are fair and
reasonable, and are in line with the state's energy policy
goals and objectives. The bill would also provide that any
changes in the rate structure shall be implemented over a
reasonable time frame.
2. Impact of Bill . This bill would authorize the CPUC
modify the rates charged for all customers, regardless of
usage, and to impose fixed charges. Remaining in law would
be the 20% discount for CARE enrollees, baseline
requirements<2>, restrictions on default time variant
pricing and a prohibition on mandatory time variant
pricing.
3. Something's Got to Give . If a family can't buy or lease
solar to shave the tier 3 and 4 electricity rates off of
their bill, and if they don't qualify for enrollment in the
CARE program, the cost of electricity, particularly in hot
climates, can be a tremendous burden. The problem is not
going to go away and is going to get worse for those
customers as evidenced by SDG&E rates which take effect on
September 1. The rates for tiers 3 and 4 will increase
more than 20% going to more than $0.34 per kWh in tier 3
and $0.36 in tier 4. (See chart on page 3.) A recent
notice to customers from SDG&E's president reported the
expected impacts - if a bill is now $250, then it will
increase to $325 in September. A $100 electric bill will
rise to $115. It should be noted that some of the increase
is due to retroactive application of the rate increase to
January of 2012.
4. But Everybody Else is Doing it . The imposition of fixed
charges on all residential customers is restricted in
current law as a result of the limits on tier 1 and 2
rates. If those limits are repealed the law would be
silent on fixed charges and the CPUC would be free to adopt
any amount. The IOUs argue that fixed charges are necessary
to "fulfill the very important ratemaking principle of cost
causation." They report that "there are a number of
--------------------------
<2> Establishes a baseline quantity of gas and electricity which
is necessary to supply a significant portion of the reasonable
energy needs of the average residential customer based on
climate zone. The use of baseline rates results volumetric
pricing with the first or lowest block of an increasing block
rate structure utilizing the baseline quantity.
categories of costs that do not vary with the volumes of
kWh consumed by customers" including interconnection of
residential customers, sending bills, metering,
capacity-related costs associated with generation,
transmission, and distribution assets, and the costs of
various programs such as energy efficiency and CARE. All
of these charges are currently covered through volumetric
rates.
These charges are in vogue with electric utilities. In
California, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District
imposed, for the first time, a fixed charge of $10 per
residential customer in 2012, which was increased to $12
this year, and there are plans increase the charge $2 per
year for 3 to 4 years. Why the tool is critical now is not
readily apparent; the costs of electric service now labeled
as "fixed" are not new. The IOUs argue that the lack of a
fixed charge has caused high usage customers to pay
unfairly high bills and created an artificially attractive
market for customer-owned generation because the highest
tier rates are far in excess of cost. A fixed charge would
bring down upper tier rates but the lack of a fixed charge
didn't exacerbate the upper tier rates, the rate freeze on
tier 1 and 2 customers is largely to blame. California's
IOUs do not appear to have suffered without fixed charges
on residential customers for decades.<3>
Large fixed charges can undermine customer incentives to
reduce consumption and undertake energy efficiency
improvements. The NRDC, which has not commented on this
bill, provides the following illustration:
What would a fixed customer charge do to your ability
to control your bill? Bear with me as we take a look
at the math. If you used 500 kilowatt-hours of
electricity per month (about average for a California
customer) and your rate was 15 cents for each of those
kilowatt-hours, it might take two years to recover
your investment in new energy efficient lighting.
But if the utility charged you a $25 fixed charge per
month, and reduced your rate to 10 cents per kilowatt
----------------------
<3> Southern California Edison does have a fixed charge of less
than $1.00 on residential customers.
hour to compensate, it would now take three years for
that same energy efficiency investment to pay back
because you cannot avoid that $25 charge and you would
have to save 50 percent more kilowatt hours to recover
your investment.
Similar impacts would occur for consumers considering the
installation of rooftop solar.
5. Should Peak Demand Drive Rate Design ? Meeting
California's peak electric demand is expensive in dollars
and emissions and, on paper, reducing peak with TOU rates
sounds great. More expensive rates during peak will more
closely track the actual costs of meeting that demand,
discourage use and shift it to off-peak hours, and reduce
emissions. In practice, TOU rates will require consumers
to monitor their electric use much more closely or suffer
the consequences. The impacts of TOU rates would be
especially felt by inland climates where air conditioning
use is the highest and drives peak demand in the state.
TOU is argued to promote greater energy conservation than
volumetric rates. Some argue that with volumetric pricing
customers have no way of knowing when they cross the
threshold from tier to tier triggering kWh increases but
customers can easily tell what time it is. It follows that
time-based rates would be a more effective way to encourage
conservation and control peak demand.
TOU rates have figured prominently in the CPUC's rate
design deliberations and are advocated for my many
environmental groups and solar developers. However, if not
managed well, the imposition of mandatory TOU rates on
customers will result in a significant customer revolt.
Even with effective notice and education of customers about
how to manage TOU rates, the inland regions of California
will be hit the hardest due to their reliance on air
conditioning during the summer months.
6. The Time Has Come . The IOUs and consumer groups have
been meeting for several months to discuss and study the
impacts of rate re-design and the degree to which some or
all of the statutory restrictions on rates should be
modified so that the CPUC can consider rate modifications
that reflect energy policy in the 21st century and balance
the costs of service more equitably.
There is no disagreement between these parties that the
indices and freezes on tier 1 and 2 residential rates must
be eliminated and that any modification for those rates
must be gradual so as to prevent ratepayer shock. But
should the Legislature provide some framework for rate
design to reflect and protect its priorities? Some argue
that restrictions in statute amount to "legislative
ratemaking" but the Legislature has taken action in several
policy areas such as energy efficiency and renewable
procurement mandates the growth of which could be
undermined without the right balance in the design of
rates. To strike that balance the committee may wish to
consider amendments to AB 327 as follows:
With the elimination of all restrictions on
tier 1 and 2 rates for CARE enrollees and non-CARE
customers, require a reasonable phase-in schedule of
rate changes,
Increase the statutory CARE program discount
to a range of 30-35%, including fixed charges, if any,
determined by the CPUC, which would reduce the
effective discount from as high as 60% in some regions
due to the impacts of rate freezes. This range is
based on discussions and analysis by the IOUs and
ratepayer and consumer groups.
If TOU rates are adopted by the commission,
customers will need advance notice and time to adapt
to switching from a volumetric to a time-based rate
structure. Locally, SMUD announced its TOU rate
structure this year but customers will not be switched
to TOU until 2018. To ensure that customers have
adequate notice and education and to gain customer
acceptance, delay default TOU and permit mandatory TOU
with bill protection beginning in 2020.
To ensure that fixed charges do not affect
customer decisions for energy efficiency or
self-generation, authorize the CPUC to impose fixed
charges but only up to a cap of $10 per month, per
customer and permit increases in those fixed charges
indexed to increases in the residential class average
revenue requirement.
Strike the ten stated principles for
ratemaking at page 7, which would allow the CPUC to
establish those principles with the remaining guidance
in current law that rates be just and reasonable and
utilize baseline quantities.
In summary this framework would allow the CPUC to modify
the rates charged for all customers, regardless of usage,
authorize fixed charges of up to $10 per month, increase
the safety net of CARE and raise the 20% discount to
30-35%, delay default TOU rates and permit mandatory TOU
rates in 2020. These elements represent the threshold
issues for resolution in rate design. Further discussions
will be necessary this summer to refine framework.
1. Ratepayer Impact . This bill will not increase revenues
to the utilities; it is intended to however increase rates
on CARE enrollees and decrease rates on non-CARE customers
in upper tiers. Additionally, the cost of the CARE
assistance program is funded by a surcharge assessed on all
IOU customers including residential, commercial,
agriculture, and industrial. To the extent that the costs
of the CARE program are reduced as the tier 1 and 2 rates
increase, the surcharges paid by all customers would see a
commensurate reduction. However, as tier 1 and 2 rates
grow, the costs of the CARE program could increase whether
the discount is 20% as required under current law or the
range of 30-35 percent as proposed in the amendments above.
2. Related Legislation .
SB 743 (Steinberg/Padilla) - modifies the index to
which CARE enrollee rate increases are tied to strike
CalWorks and add the Consumer Price Index. Status: Set
in Assembly Utilities & Commerce Committee July 1, 2013.
SB 142 (Rubio, 2011) - eliminated the cost cap on
CARE rate increases in effect through 2018. Status:
Held in Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications.
AB 1755 (Perea, 2012) - authorized the CPUC to
approve a fixed charge for residential customers beyond
the statutory caps on rate increases for Tier 1 and Tier
2 customers. Status: Senate Floor Inactive File.
SB 695 (Kehoe) - revised all three of the
legislative actions taken in ABx1 1 (Keeley, 2001) by
eliminating the rate freeze for electricity usage for
residential customers of up to 130% of the baseline rate,
lifting the suspension and providing limited expansion of
direct-access electricity service, restricting the
deployment of mandatory time-variant pricing, and
providing a number of other measures to stabilize rates,
protect low-income customers, and address emergency
measures instituted during the 2001 energy crisis.
(Chapter 337, Statutes of 2009)
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Assembly Floor (66-4)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (17-0)
Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee
(15-0)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|1st Guaranty Mortgage and Realty |Cody Campbell, City of Vista |
|100 Black Men of Long Beach, Inc. |Councilmember |
|Adelanto Chamber of Commerce |Community Women of San Gabriel |
|Age Well Senior Services |Valley |
|Alliance for Retail Energy |Congress of California Seniors |
|Markets, if amended |Cortes Communications, LLC |
|American Family Housing |Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce |
|Angel View, Inc. |County of Tulare |
|Antelope Valley Board of Trade |Cyber Risk Insurance Brokers |
|Asian Americans for Community |Delhi Center |
|Involvement |Downtown Pomona Owners |
|Asian Business Association |Association |
|Assured Coin and Loan |Ed Gallo, City of Escondido |
|Barstow Community Hospital |Councilmember |
|Auxiliary |El Concilio - Council for the |
|Barstow Unified School District |Spanish Speaking |
|Blong Xiong, City of Fresno |Energy Communications Corp. |
|Councilmember |Ernest Ewin, City of La Mesa |
|Border Transportation Council |Councilmember |
|Building Industry Assn. of |Escondido Mercado Business |
|Fresno/Madera Counties |Association |
|Building Industry Association of |Filipino-American Chamber of |
|the Greater Valley |Commerce of San |
|Business Resource Group | Diego |
|C & C Development |Focuscom, Inc. |
|CAPC, Inc. |Fresno Barrios Unidos |
|CTI Environmental, Inc. |Fresno Metro Black Chamber of |
|California Apartment Association |Commerce |
|California Asian Pacific Chamber |GRCN Connecting Communities |
|of Commerce |Gardena Valley Chamber of |
|California Association of |Commerce |
|Community Managers |Gary Kendrick, City of El Cajon |
|California Biomass Energy Alliance |Councilmember |
|California Black Chamber of |Gi & Associates |
|Commerce |Greater Antelope Valley |
|California League of Food |Association of REALTORS |
|Processors |H.O.P.E. of the Mountain Empire |
|California Manufacturers & |Habitat for Humanity in San |
|Technology Association |Diego County |
|California Retailers Association |Harvey L. Hall, City of |
|California State Conference of the |Bakersfield Mayor |
|National Association |Hawthorne Chamber of Commerce |
| for the Advancement of Colored |Helpline Youth Counseling |
|People |Hilltop Group, Inc. |
|Central Valley Opportunity Center, |Hispanic Outreach Taskforce |
|Inc. |Independent Energy Producers |
|City Fabrick |Association |
|City of Reedley |Inland Valley Business Alliance |
|City of San Joaquin |International Brotherhood of |
|City of Selma |Electrical Workers #47 |
|Coalition of California Utility |International Brotherhood of |
|Employees |Electrical Workers#465 |
|Support: (Cont.) |International Brotherhood of |
| |Electrical Workers#569 |
|Jess Van Deventer, Sweetwater |Jerome M. Kern, City of |
|Authority Board |Oceanside Deputy Mayor |
| Member | |
|Jose Antonio Ramirez, City of | |
|Livingston City Mgr. |Q & A Insurance Compliance |
|Kalusugan Community Services |Specialist |
|Kathleen J. DeRosa, Cathedral City |Robert Silva, City of Mendota |
|Mayor |Mayor |
|Kern Council of Governments |Rich Volker, Save Our Rural |
|Kern County Board of Supervisors |Economy |
|Kern County Taxpayers Association |Ron Lander, City of Coalinga |
|Kings County Board of Supervisors |Mayor |
|Kings County Economic Development |Sacramento Black Chamber of |
|Corp |Commerce |
|Lao American Coalition |Sam Abed, City of Escondido |
|Ledford Enterprises |Mayor |
|Leticia Perez, Kern County 5th |San Diego Gas and Electric |
|District Supervisor |San Diego Port Tenants |
|LifeHouse Health Services |Association |
|Lumber Estimating Service |San Diego Regional Minority |
|MainStreetChamber Pancho |Supplier Development |
|Cucamonga/Upland | Council |
|Mark Muir, City of Encinitas |San Luis Obispo County Builders |
|Councilmember |Exchange |
|Martinez Supply |San Mateo County Hispanic |
|Meals On Wheels West |Chamber of Commerce |
|Mercado Business Association |San Ysidro Health Center |
|Mike Murphy, City of Merced |Sempra Energy Utility |
|Councilmember |Southern California Edison |
|Mountain Health & Community |Stalwart Communications |
|Services |Sylvia V. Chavez, City of Huron |
|Oliver L. Baines III, City of |Mayor |
|Fresno District Three |The Center Long Beach |
| Councilmember |Thomas W. Amend Drywall |
|Operative Plasterers' and Cement |Contractor |
|Masons' |Trilogy PR Group |
| International Association |Union of Pan Asian Communities |
|Orange County Hispanic Chamber |United Assn. of Food Trucks of |
|Orange Senior Center |San Diego |
|Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce |United Assn. of Plumbers & |
|Pacific Gas and Electric Company |Steamfitters, # 230 |
| |United Cambodian Community |
| |United Communities Network |
| |US Green Chamber of Commerce |
| |Vista LifeHOUSE |
| |Western Region Asians in Teleco |
| |and Energy |
| |Whittier Uptown Association |
| |6 Individuals |
| | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oppose:
AARP California
Division of Ratepayer Advocates
Latin Business Association
The Greenlining Institute
The Utility Reform Network
Neutral:
American Federation of State, County and municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
Kellie Smith
AB 327 Analysis
Hearing Date: July 2, 2013