BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 802
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
802 (Williams)
As Amended May 28, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Utilities |15-0 |Rendon, Patterson, | |
| | |Achadjian, Bonilla, | |
| | |Burke, Dahle, | |
| | |Eggman, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Hadley, Roger | |
| | |Hernández, | |
| | |Obernolte, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago, Ting, | |
| | |Williams | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
AB 802
Page 2
| | |Gordon, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) to authorize electrical or gas corporations to recover the
reasonable costs of energy efficiency programs in their rates.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the CPUC to authorize the inclusion of reasonable costs
for energy efficiency incentive or rebate programs for existing
buildings in a separate or existing proceeding by July 1, 2016.
2)Requires the CPUC to authorize electrical and gas corporations
to count all energy savings achieved toward overall energy
efficiency goals or targets established by the CPUC.
3)Authorizes the CPUC to adjust the energy efficiency goals and
targets of electrical and gas corporations to reflect the energy
savings achieved in meeting or exceeding energy efficiency
requirements in existing buildings.
4)Specifies this bill does not require the CPUC to increase
funding for energy efficiency programs.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Increased annual costs to the CPUC (special fund) in the range
AB 802
Page 3
of $1.4 million to $2.8 million for staffing to provide
oversight
2)Potential increased customer rates offset by potential energy
reductions.
The CPUC establishes the budgets for the ratepayer funded
incentive programs. This bill does not require an increase in
those budgets, thus a rate increase is not guaranteed. Instead,
the CPUC could incorporate the provisions of this bill into the
existing program portfolio and reduce or de-fund less productive
programs.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, current policy leads to a
large pool of stranded energy efficiency savings potential
because program administrators can only target energy savings
attributable to the installation of equipment above current code
levels. This bill will allow electrical and gas corporations to
provide incentives for any improvements and count all savings
that show up at the meter as decreased use, including savings
achieved by process changes and maintenance.
2)Background. Two recently completed studies in the Pacific Gas
and Electric (PG&E) service area found that the savings
potential for bringing a building to current code standards are
higher than the potential savings from above-code only programs.
One study found that as much as 75% of potential savings were
stranded under current policies. The second study found similar
results: 71% of the total potential electric savings, equating
to 781 gigawatt hours, were below-code, while the remainder was
above-code.
AB 802
Page 4
Under the current code baseline rules, in most cases, investor
owned utilities (IOUs) can only offer an incentive for the
portion of savings that occurs from code to super-efficient.
PG&E found that this is particularly challenging for schools
receiving funding under Proposition 39, which also adopts the
above-code approach to funding energy efficiency improvements at
schools.
PG&E found through a 2006 survey of existing site conditions at
19 schools; two of the 19 schools are more efficient than code,
while the remainder range from slightly less efficient to
significantly less efficient. The survey also found the least
efficient schools are poor candidates for IOU programs because
the majority of the savings potential cannot be counted or
receive incentives, leaving these schools with a significant
investment of their own before they could benefit from incentive
assistance.
Analysis Prepared by:
Sue Kateley / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083 FN:
0000704
AB 802
Page 5