BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 33 (Quirk) - California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
Energy Sector Emissions Reduction Advisory Council
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: August 18, 2015 |Policy Vote: E., U., & C. 11 - |
| | 0, E.Q. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 24, 2015 |Consultant: Marie Liu |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 33 would create the Energy Sector Emissions
Reduction Advisory Council (council) which would be charged with
making recommendations on reducing GHG emissions associated with
electricity generation in order to inform the next scoping plan
update by the Air Resources Board (ARB).
Fiscal
Impact:
One-time costs between $400,000 and $900,000 to the Energy
Resources Programs Account (General Fund) for the California
Energy Commission (CEC) to conduct the required analyses.
One-time costs of approximately $61,000 to the Public
Utilities Reimbursement Account (special) for the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to participate in the
council.
One-time costs of $50,000 from the Cost of Implementation
AB 33 (Quirk) Page 1 of
?
Account (special) for the ARB to comply with Bagley-Keene
requirements.
Background: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (referred
to as AB 32, HSC §38500 et seq.) requires the ARB to determine
the 1990 statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions level, to
approve a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to that level
that will be achieved by 2020, and to adopt GHG emissions
reductions measures by regulation. ARB is required to adopt, by
January 1, 2009, a scoping plan for achieving the maximum
technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG
emissions by 2020 and to update the scoping plan at least once
every five years. The first scoping plan was completed in 2008
and the first update was adopted on May 22, 2014.
In preparing and approving a scoping plan, the ARB must consult
with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the
California Energy Commission (CEC) on all elements of its plan
that pertain to energy-related matters.
Proposed Law: This bill would create the Energy Sector
Emissions Reduction Advisory Council (council) which will be
responsible for recommending strategies to reduce GHG emissions
associated with the electricity sector to be incorporated into
the scoping plan. The council would consist of the chair of the
California Energy Commission, president of the California CPUC,
president of the CAISO, chair of the SWRCB, and chair of the
ARB.
To determine its recommendation, this bill would require the
council to consider the following strategies:
Increasing the volume of renewable energy generation
Deepening regional coordination
Increasing energy storage
Increasing operational flexibility of natural gas-fired
electrical generation facilities
Using renewable energy generation to provide operational
flexibility
Deploying GHG emission reduction technology at existing fossil
fuel-fired facilities
Increasing the role of demand response
Increasing energy efficiency.
AB 33 (Quirk) Page 2 of
?
Ensuring adequate generating capacity is available through
measures such as multi-year capacity or reliability payments.
The analysis of the strategies would be required to include an
economic analysis and an analysis of the benefits to the health,
safety, and welfare of the state residents, worker safety, and
the environment.
The council must convene by February 1, 2016 and finalize its
recommendations early enough to be considered in the next
scoping update. Its recommendations must be available for public
comment for at least 30 days before becoming public. The council
would cease to exist as of December 31 after completing its
recommendations.
Staff
Comments: The idea that the CEC and the CPUC should be
consulted in the scoping plan update as it pertains to the
electricity sector and the requirement to consider the
technological feasibility and cost-effectiveness of potential
GHG emission reduction measures are already in existing law.
This bill, however, adds specificity to how the council members
must satisfy its existing statutory requirements. In particular,
this bill would require that certain analyses, such as the
economic analysis, be conducted on the various listed strategies
before the strategy is recommended for inclusion in the scoping
plan, which is a departure from existing practice.
The CEC estimates that the required analyses will cost between
$400,000 to $900,000 depending on which council member is
responsible for conducting the analyses. These costs are
elevated because of the very short timeframe in the bill. The
next update is planned for the end of 2016 according to the ARB.
This bill would require the council to submit its
recommendations in time for it to be considered in the next
update, which will likely be summer 2016. To avoid impacting the
release date of the next scoping plan, the council would likely
have no more than five months to complete the required analyses
and release the draft for 30 days of public review. This short
timeframe may result in the council members having to contract
AB 33 (Quirk) Page 3 of
?
out much of the work at a higher cost.
The CPUC estimates that it would need half of a position to
participate in council activities. Costs for the CAISO and the
SWRCB are likely to be minor and absorbable.
The involved agencies al may have some costs associated with
Bagley-Keene compliance. Since this work is to inform the
Strategic Plan, presumably any workloads associated with
ensuring meetings of the council are compliant with open
meetings laws would be undertaken, and paid for, by the ARB. The
ARB estimates that it may need up to one Executive Assistant
classification position for one year for Bagley Keene compliance
at a one-time cost of approximately $50,000.
-- END --