BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1979
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
1979 (Bigelow)
As Amended August 19, 2016
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |72-0 |(May 27, 2016) |SENATE: |37-0 |(August 23, |
| | | | | |2016) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: U. & C.
SUMMARY: Makes an exception to the feed-in-tariff (FIT) program
three megawatt (MW) limit on the generating capacity of an
eligible electric generation facility to newly allow
participation by a conduit hydroelectric facility with a
nameplate generating capacity of up to four MWs that meets
certain conditions
The Senate amendments make minor, non-substantive changes and
relocate the content of the bill to a different section within
the California Public Utilities Code.
FISCAL EFFECT: None.
AB 1979
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1)Feed-in tariffs: According to the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), a FIT offers a guarantee of payments to
renewable energy developers for the electricity they produce.
NREL reports that FITs are used in many United States states
and around the world. California, too, offers a FIT program.
State law requires all investor-owned utilities and
publicly-owned utilities that serve more than 75,000 retail
customers to develop a standard FIT contract available to
renewable energy facilities up to three MW. Statewide
participation is capped at 750 MW.
2)Effective capacity versus nameplate capacity: As described
above, existing statute limits participation in the bioenergy
FIT program to electric generation facilities with an
"effective capacity" of three MW. This bill creates a
conditional exception to the existing FIT program eligibility
limit of three MW to allow a conduit hydroelectric facility
with a "nameplate generating capacity" of up to four MW. So,
what's the difference between effective capacity and nameplate
capacity? The practical answer: there is none. The CPUC
determined, in Decision 12-05-035, that the three MW
effective-capacity limit corresponds to the nameplate capacity
of the facility, meaning the capacity stamped on the metal
nameplate attached to the generation facility by the
manufacturer.
3)A little bit too big: Statute, declares that small projects
of less than three MW that are otherwise eligible renewable
energy resources may face difficulties in participating in
competitive solicitations under the RPS program. Bill
proponents object to the exclusion of facilities that have a
nameplate capacity of greater than three MW but that are
incapable of exporting more than three MW to the grid. As a
particular example, proponents point to the Utica Water and
Power Authority (UWPA), which owns and operates a small
conduit hydroelectric generator with a nameplate capacity of
3.6 MW. Proponents assert that, despite its nameplate
AB 1979
Page 3
capacity, the generator will never produce more than three MW
of electricity because of existing water system constraints.
This bill crafts a narrow exemption to the FIT program
capacity limitation for hydroelectric facilities like that
UWPA's, as characterized by bill proponents. In fact, the
exemption is so narrowly crafted that it is unlikely that any
facility other than UWPA's will qualify for the exemption. In
any case, the effect of the exemption should be minor from the
perspective of both ratepayers and grid operators.
Analysis Prepared by:
Sue Kateley / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083 FN:
0004864