BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2630
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 25, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2630 (Salas) - As Amended April 13, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Utilities and Commerce |Vote:|15 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Natural Resources | |9 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) to evaluate
potential renewable energy projects in the San Joaquin Valley,
while also taking into consideration ratepayer costs and
benefits. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the evaluation of projects that contain the following
AB 2630
Page 2
benefits to be prioritized:
a) The economically viable and environmentally beneficial
reuse of drainage impaired agricultural lands;
b) The retirement of drainage-impaired agricultural lands;
c) The facilitation of surface water supply redirection
from drainage-impaired agricultural lands to other
productive agricultural lands.
1)Requires the PUC and CEC, by January 31, 2017, to use the
results of the evaluation to recommend to the Independent
System Operator (ISO) an amount of renewable energy production
in the San Joaquin Valley that reasonably maximizes,
consistent with the state's overall need for renewable energy,
the amount of renewable energy produced in the San Joaquin
Valley.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Increased one-time costs of $385,000 (PUC Utilities Fund) to
establish and conduct a proceeding to resolve the differences
between the requirements of this bill and existing regulatory
processes.
2)Unknown, increased costs for the CEC. This bill codifies some
existing activities at the CEC, so, while it is not a
completely new requirement, additional resources would be
required to meet the timelines in the bill.
AB 2630
Page 3
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, Due to the lack of reliable
water supplies, drainage issues and other challenges to
agriculture in the Central Valley, there is a lot of potential
for renewable development on unproductive farmland throughout
the Central Valley and permanently retired lands within
Westlands Water District.
This bill requires the PUC and CEC to evaluate potential
renewable energy projects in the San Joaquin Valley.
2)Background. SB 350 (De León), Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015)
establishes targets to increase sales of renewable electricity
from 33% to at least 50 percent by 2030. This effort will
require extensive planning throughout the state and the
western region of the United States.
To meet the original Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) goals
of 33%, thousands of megawatts of renewable energy projects
have been approved for construction in the Mojave Desert and
Carrizo Plain. The author contends the San Joaquin Valley has
been neglected for their renewable energy potential. The first
San Joaquin Valley area project, known as the Westlands
Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ), has the potential to
contribute clean energy to meet California's carbon reduction
goals.
AB 2630
Page 4
3)Other Communities with Similar Potential. There are numerous
communities throughout the state with similar potential as the
San Joaquin Valley that should also be prioritized for
prospective energy infrastructure projects. If the main
driver to conduct this evaluation is the unemployment rate,
then we would find that Colusa County tops the list with an
unemployment rate of 21.6%, Imperial Valley with 18.6%, Plumas
County with 13.7%, and so on.
Throughout the state there are counties with unique economic
needs, but of course not all of them have the same potential
to produce renewable energy. Two large communities that stand
out with strong solar potential and concentrations of poverty
are the San Joaquin and Imperial Valley. The author may wish
to expand this bill to evaluate other areas of the state.
4)Implementation Concerns. This bill may be inconsistent with
the transition to integrated resource planning required by SB
350 and may result in the duplication of work already
completed. Additionally, the PUC indicates the January 1,
2017, deadline may not be achievable due to the analysis and
required by the bill. The author may wish to work with the
PUC to address these issues.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 2630
Page 5