BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 1979


                                                                    Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB  
          1979 (Bigelow)


          As Amended  April 26, 2016


          Majority vote


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Utilities       |14-0 |Gatto, Patterson,     |                    |
          |                |     |Burke, Chávez, Dahle, |                    |
          |                |     |Eggman, Cristina      |                    |
          |                |     |Garcia,               |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,       |                    |
          |                |     |Hadley,               |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |Roger Hernández,      |                    |
          |                |     |Obernolte, Quirk,     |                    |
          |                |     |Santiago, Williams    |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow,    |                    |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonilla,       |                    |
          |                |     |Bonta, Calderon,      |                    |
          |                |     |Chang, McCarty,       |                    |
          |                |     |Eggman, Gallagher,    |                    |








                                                                    AB 1979


                                                                    Page  2





          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia, Chau, |                    |
          |                |     |Holden, Jones,        |                    |
          |                |     |Obernolte, Quirk,     |                    |
          |                |     |Santiago, Wagner,     |                    |
          |                |     |Weber, Wood           |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Requires the California Public Utilities Commission  
          (CPUC) to direct electrical corporations to authorize a  
          hydroelectric generation facility with a nameplate (total  
          possible output) generating capacity of up to five megawatts  
          (MWs) to participate in the feed-in tariff, if the facility  
          delivers no more than three MWs to the grid at any time and  
          complies with specified interconnection and payment  
          requirements.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, one-time, short-term increased Public Utilities  
          Commission (PUC) workload absorbable within existing resources.   
          However, this increased workload may potentially delay  
          implementation of other Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)  
          programs and policies.


          COMMENTS:


          1)Purpose:  According to the author, the feed-in tariff program  
            has proven to be underutilized, especially with baseload power  
            like small hydropower.  There are only about 14 small  
            hydropower facilities throughout California that have a  
            nameplate value between three to five MWs, are certified  
            renewable, and that might otherwise be eligible for the  
            renewable Feed-In Tariff (FIT). 
            By narrowly expanding eligibility for the FIT program, some of  








                                                                    AB 1979


                                                                    Page  3





            these facilities will be able to participate as long as they  
            commit to generating less than three MW.  According to the  
            author, this will provide an essential lifeline for some of  
            these small hydropower companies


          2)Background:  A FIT is a contract that provides a guaranteed  
            fixed payment for the energy produced.  All investor-owned  
            utilities (IOUs) and publicly owned utilities (POUs) that  
            serve more than 75,000 retail customers are required to  
            develop a standard contract or tariff available for renewable  
            energy facilities up to three MWs capped at 750 MWs statewide.
            Existing law limits hydroelectric facility eligibility to  
            projects with an effective capacity of not more than three  
            megawatts.  The CPUC, in Decision 12-05-035, stated that this  
            capacity shall be determined by the "nameplate" - the metal  
            plate attached to a generator by the manufacturer listing  
            model number and other details.  If a hydroelectric generator  
            has a nameplate of over three MWs it is prohibited from  
            participating in the FIT even if generator will never actually  
            run above the three MWs threshold. 


            This bill limits this provision to single hydroelectric  
            facilities that are eligible under the Renewable Portfolios  
            Standard and are not under a long-term contract prior to  
            January 1, 2017.


          3)Similar Legislation:  AB 1923 (Wood) of the current  
            legislative session expands the three MWs limit for biomass  
            facilities.  This bill is pending in the Senate Energy,  
            Utilities, and Commerce Committee.




          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Sue Kateley / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083  FN:  








                                                                    AB 1979


                                                                    Page  4





          0003014