BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1979
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1979 (Bigelow)
As Amended May 23, 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, | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, Chau, | |
| | |Holden, Jones, | |
| | |Obernolte, Quirk, | |
AB 1979
Page 2
| | |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 CPUC workload
absorbable within existing resources. However, this increased
workload may potentially delay implementation of other Renewable
Portfolios 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
these facilities will be able to participate as long as they
commit to generating less than three MWs. According to the
author, this will provide an essential lifeline for some of
these small hydropower companies.
AB 1979
Page 3
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 RPS and are not under a
long-term contract prior to January 1, 1990.
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:
0003015
AB 1979
Page 4