BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                              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