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