BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2313| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 2313 Author: Williams (D), et al. Amended: 8/19/16 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/27/16 AYES: Morrell, Cannella, Gaines, Hertzberg, Hill, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Pavley NO VOTE RECORDED: Hueso, Wolk SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-1, 8/11/16 AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza NOES: Nielsen ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 57-20, 5/23/16 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Renewable natural gas: monetary incentive program for biomethane projects: pipeline infrastructure SOURCE: Bioenergy Association of California DIGEST: This bill (a) increases the monetary incentive amounts available to biomethane projects and (b) directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to consider whether to allow recovery in utility rates the costs of utility infrastructure for biomethane interconnection with the natural gas pipeline network. Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/16 (a) require the CPUC, when considering options to promote the use of in-state biomethane, ensure investments provide "direct" benefits to all class of ratepayers; and (b) clarify that costs for gathering lines are not interconnection costs. AB 2313 Page 2 ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Requires the CPUC to adopt standards that specify the concentrations of constituents of concern that are found in biomethane, and to adopt monitoring, testing, reporting, and recordkeeping protocols, to ensure the protection of human health and the integrity and safety of pipelines and pipeline facilities. (Health & Safety Code §25421 et seq.) 2)Requires CPUC to adopt policies and programs that promote the in-state production and distribution of biomethane. (Public Utilities Code §399.24 ) 3)Requires the CPUC to adopt pipeline access rules that ensure that each gas corporation provides nondiscriminatory open access to its gas pipeline system to any party for the purposes of physically interconnecting with the gas pipeline system and effectuating the delivery of gas. (Public Utilities Code §784.) 4)Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to hold public hearings to identify in its Integrated Energy Policy Report impediments that limit procurement of biomethane in California, including, but not limited to, impediments to interconnection, and to offer solutions. (Public Resources Code §25326.) This bill: 1)Directs the CPUC to modify, and extend until December 31, 2021, the monetary incentive program for biomethane projects as follows: a) Except for a dairy cluster biomethane project, increase, the total available incentive limit from $1.5 million the $3.0 million. b) For a dairy cluster biomethane project, increase the total available incentive limit from $1.5 million to $5 AB 2313 Page 3 million. 2)Sunsets the preceding requirements as of January 1, 2022, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2022, deletes or extends that date. 3)Directs the CPUC, before the exhaustion of the funds and expiration of the program described above, to consider options to further the promotion of the in-state production and distribution of biomethane, including recovery in utility rates the costs of utility infrastructure for biomethane interconnection with the natural gas pipeline network. Background Biogas and biomethane: natural gas by other names. Bioenergy is renewable energy produced from biomass wastes including forest and other wood waste, agriculture and food processing wastes, organic urban waste, waste and emissions from water treatment facilities, landfill gas and other organic waste sources. Biomass waste can be used to generate renewable electricity, liquid fuels and biogas. Statute defines "biogas" as a gas produced from the anaerobic decomposition of organic material. The result is a gaseous mixture composed primarily of carbon dioxide and methane. Depending on where it is produced, biogas can be categorized as landfill gas or digester gas. Landfill gas is produced by decomposition of organic waste in a municipal solid waste landfill. Digester gas is typically produced from livestock manure, sewage treatment or food waste. From an environmental perspective, biogas has several advantages over conventional natural gas. Combustion of natural gas, including biogas, releases carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. However, the combustion of natural gas destroys methane, a gas that is a much more potent GHG than is CO2. In addition to destroying methane, the combustion of biogas, for CO2 accounting purposes, is considered carbon neutral. This is because the carbon in biogas, unlike the carbon in conventional natural gas, was so recently present in the atmosphere. In addition, biogas can be used to displace the use of fossil AB 2313 Page 4 fuels, such as conventional natural gas, thereby further decreasing its carbon intensity. Biogas can be used directly to produce electricity or can be converted to biomethane by removing carbon dioxide and other impurities. Statute defines "biomethane" as biogas that meets the standards, adopted by the CPUC in keeping with statute, for injection into a common carrier pipeline. Biomethane can replace fossil sources of natural gas in homes and factories and compressed or liquefied as natural gas used in vehicles. Biomethane can also be used to produce renewable hydrogen in fuel cells. [2012 Bioenergy Action Plan ] CPUC biomethane standards and subsidies. Statute directs the CPUC to adopt policies and programs that promote the in-state production and distribution of biomethane. In response to statutory mandate, the CPUC, in 2014, adopted health and safety standards that limit the amounts of certain constituents determined to be harmful to either human health or pipeline integrity in pipeline injected biomethane. [See CPUC Decision 14-01-034.] The standards are to address the reluctance of energy utilities to inject biomethane into natural gas pipelines. The CPUC acknowledged that its biomethane standards would increase the costs of a biomethane producer who seeks to inject biomethane into a utilities gas pipeline system. Industry representatives estimate a cost of $1 million per mile to build an interconnection to an existing utility pipeline and another $1.5 million to connect the line and set up testing and monitoring equipment. In 2015, the CPUC found that gas producers should bear all costs relating to the processing and pipeline injection of biomethane. [See CPUC Decision 15-06-029.] To substantiate its conclusion, the CPUC reasoned as follows: Since the Legislature intended in AB 1900 that there be nondiscriminatory open access to the utilities' gas pipeline systems, and because the Legislature intended that the Commission adopt biomethane standards to ensure the protection of human health, and pipeline and pipeline facility integrity and safety, we conclude that the cost of complying with [this AB 2313 Page 5 decision] is to be borne by the biomethane producers. The CPUC's decision went on to note that natural gas producers are responsible for the cost of conditioning their gas to meet specifications that allow injection into a utility gas pipeline system. The CPUC concluded that the statutory principal of nondiscrimination dictates that biomethane producers be responsible for such costs, too. Yet, the CPUC, in the same decision, acknowledged the statutory requirement that that it adopt policies and programs that promote the in-state production and distribution of biomethane. Pursuant to this statutory requirement, the CPUC adopted a $40 million ratepayer-funded program to offset a portion of the costs to gas producers of connecting to utility pipelines. Program funding will pay up to 50 percent of a biomethane project's interconnection cost, up to $1.5 million per project. The CPUC did not explain how subsidizing the interconnection costs of some gas producers jibed with the statutory mandate of nondiscrimination treatment of gas producers. The CPUC did, however, note that such subsidies would "limit the financial exposure of utility ratepayers." To-date, the CPUC has not received any applications for the biomethane subsidy program. According to the CPUC, there are no biomethane facilities currently being built in the state of California, partly due to high costs of cleaning up raw biogas and partly due to low conventional natural gas prices. Bill proponents contend this absolute lack of program activity indicates the subsidy amounts available are too small. Staff of the CPUC seem to agree with that assessment. This bill would modify the program by doubling the program incentive per-project limit to $3 million, except in the case of a dairy cluster biomethane project, for which the limit would be $5 million. The author justifies the generosity shown to the latter category of project by noting the higher cost associated with such projects, which achieve greater efficiencies through economies of scale. In any case, this bill maintains the overall program cap of $40 million. Consider, again, ratebasing the interconnection costs. As described above, the CPUC balked at allocating some or all of AB 2313 Page 6 the costs of complying with its biomethane standards onto a utility and its shareholders. To do so, the CPUC concluded, would discriminate between different classes of gas producers, and such discrimination is prohibited by Public Utilities Code §784. In any case, the bill directs the CPUC, prior to the exhaustion of the funds or expiration of the program authorized by this bill, to consider options to promote the in-state production and distribution of biomethane, including the recovery in utility rates the costs of utility infrastructure for biomethane interconnection with the natural gas pipeline network. The bill directs the CPUC, in doing so, to ensure that investments for biomethane infrastructure provide a direct benefit, such as safety, reliability, affordability, or greenhouse gas reduction, to, and are in the interests of, all classes of ratepayers. Related/Prior Legislation AB 1900 (Gatto, Chapter 602, Statutes of 2012) required the CPUC to adopt new health and safety standards for landfill gas, to hold public hearings to identify impediments to in-state biomethane use, and develop policies and programs to increase the in-state use of biomethane. AB 2196 (Chesbro, Chapter 605, Statutes of 2012) clarified the definition of an eligible renewable electrical generation facility to include a facility that generates electricity utilizing biomethane delivered through a common carrier pipeline if the source and delivery of the fuel can be verified by the CEC. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: Yes According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations: One-time costs of approximately $550,000 and ongoing costs of approximately $60,000 (Utilities Reimbursement Account) to the CPUC. Unknown, potentially significant costs to the state as a AB 2313 Page 7 ratepayer. SUPPORT: (Verified8/19/16) Bioenergy Association of California (source) Bloom Energy Agricultural Energy Consumers Association All Power Labs American Biogas Council Atlas ReFuel California Air Pollution Control Officers Association California Special Districts Association Clean Energy Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas CR&R, Inc. Eisenmann Corp. Harvest Power Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force Organic Waste Solutions Pacific Gas and Electric Company Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Solid Waste Association of North America Southern California Gas Company TSS Consultants Victor Valley Water Reclamation Authority West Biofuels OPPOSITION: (Verified8/19/16) None received ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author: AB 1900 (Gatto, Chapter 602, Statutes of 2012) was passed to facilitate in-state biogas production by enabling it to be transported in common carrier pipelines. In 2014, the CPUC adopted standards for the protection of both public health and AB 2313 Page 8 pipeline and end-use equipment. The CPUC also adopted a decision that considered the costs associated with injecting biomethane into natural gas pipelines and assigned those to biomethane producers as is consistent with the statutory requirement to provide nondiscriminatory access to common carrier pipelines. However, in the same decision, the CPUC recognized that AB 1900 specifically required adoption of "policies and programs that promote the in-state production and distribution of biomethane" and adopted a ratepayer funded program that will offset a portion of the costs to gas producers of connecting to utility pipelines. The program is capped at a total of $40 million and will pay up to 50 percent of a project's interconnection cost but not exceed to $1.5 million. Since the new standards were adopted, not one new pipeline biogas project has been built or applied for the financial incentive. While a program like this is important to supporting and promoting biomethane, the individual project cap of $1.5 million isn't reflective of the actual cost to interconnect. The Bioenergy Association estimates the cost to interconnect is $1.5-$3 million per mile. Recently, SoCalGas gave a producer in Riverside County an initial estimate of $5 million for a one-mile pipeline. Another project in Tulare County received an estimate of $1.5 million for a 100-foot interconnection. A decarbonized gas supply is essential in order to meet the state's goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, short-lived climate pollutants, and the state's goals for promoting the use of renewable energy resources in place of burning fossil fuels. AB 2313 addresses what has been a significant challenge to truly decarbonizing the gas sector - biomethane is an under-utilized resource and the market has been slow to develop in California because the collection, purification, and pipeline injection of biomethane is cost prohibitive. ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 57-20, 5/23/16 AYES: Alejo, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo AB 2313 Page 9 Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Olsen, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Steinorth, Wagner NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Eggman, Patterson Prepared by:Jay Dickenson / E., U., & C. / (916) 651-4107 8/22/16 22:10:22 **** END ****