BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS Senator Ben Hueso, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: SB 723 Hearing Date: 4/21/2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Pavley | |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------| |Version: |4/13/2015 As Amended | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant:|Jay Dickenson | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Energy efficiency: United States Armed Forces bases and facilities DIGEST: This bill seeks to increase the availability of funds for energy efficiency upgrades at military facilities. Most significantly, this bill authorizes military facilities to calculate the savings from energy efficiency measures on military facilities differently than savings for other energy efficiency projects are calculated. ANALYSIS: Existing law requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to identify all potentially achievable cost-effective electricity and natural gas efficiency savings and to establish energy efficiency procurement targets and ratepayer-funded programs for electrical and gas corporations. (Public Utilities Code §§ 454.55 and 454.56.) This bill: 1. Requires the CPUC to approve financial incentives for energy efficiency upgrades at military facilities through existing energy efficiency programs administered by the investor-owned utilities (IOUs). The bill also requires the CPUC to encourage the IOUs to expedite implementation of energy efficiency measures at military facilities and to enable achievement of additional energy goals by the military, including demand response, self-generation, and energy storage. The bill directs the CPUC to identify other potential sources of funding to achieve energy efficiency SB 723 (Pavley) Page 2 of ? goals in military facilities, should it determine there are insufficient ratepayer funds available to achieve the military's energy efficiency goals. 2. Authorizes military facilities to calculate their energy savings by comparing the facilities' existing energy usage, as a whole, with the facilities' projected energy usage that would be achieved from the implementation of the energy efficiency measures. Background Energy Efficiency Sits Atop California Energy Policy . The "loading order" guides the state's energy policies and decisions according to the following order of priority: (1) decreasing electricity demand by increasing energy efficiency; (2) responding to energy demand by reducing energy usage during peak hours; (3) meeting new energy generation needs with renewable resources; and (4) meeting new energy generation needs with clean fossil-fueled generation. This policy has been adopted by the energy agencies - the California Energy Commission (CEC) and CPUC - and its principles guide all energy programs. California's IOUs administer energy efficiency programs with ratepayer funds approved by the CPUC. Currently funded at about $1 billion per year, the programs include a portfolio of financial incentives, loans, and rebates for installing energy efficient appliances, lighting, windows, HVAC systems, whole-house retrofits, and specialized programs aimed at a variety of sectors. Military Receives Ratepayer Support for Energy Efficiency . According to the CPUC, existing IOU programs already target military facilities for efficiency improvements. In the 2010-2012 program cycle, military facilities in California received over $3 million dollars in energy efficiency incentives resulting in almost 4,000 kW in peak savings and almost 350,000 therm in natural gas savings. The table below breaks out, by IOU, the level of incentives, number of projects, amount of anticipated savings, and number of military participants. ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | |US Military Customer Energy Efficiency Participation by | | SB 723 (Pavley) Page 3 of ? |IOU (2010 - 2012) | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |------+----------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------| | |# of | # of |Incentives| kW | kWh | Therm | | |Customers |Projects| $| Savings| Savings| Savings| | | | | | | | | |------+----------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------| |SDG&E | 8| 285|$ | | | | | | | | 2,400,925 | 1,716 | 14,329,133 | | | | | | | | | 293,567 | |------+----------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------| |SCE | 8| 27|$ | 1,183| 5,383,919| N/A| | | | | 434,316 | | | | |------+----------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------| |SCG | 1| 1|$ | N/A| N/A| | | | | | 12,420 | | | | | | | | | | | 14,966 | |------+----------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------| |PG&E | 15| 88|$ | 957| 3,413,104| 38,567| | | | | 383,282 | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Total:| 32| 401| $3,230,942| 3,856| 23,126,156|347,100 | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: For the 2013 - 2014 (and the SB 723 DA) staff is waiting for the results of a data request to confirm expenditures which are expected to be similar annually to the 2010 - 2012 program cycle. A Different Measure . This bill has four provisions, all related to energy efficiency projects on military bases. First, it allows military facilities to calculate their energy efficiency savings by comparing the facilities' existing energy usage, as a whole, with the facilities' projected energy usage that would be achieved from the implementation of the energy efficiency measures. Second, it directs the CPUC to encourage electrical and gas IOUs to expedite the implementation of energy efficiency measures on military facilities and to enable the achievement of additional energy goals, for example, microgrids, demand response, self-generation, and energy storage, at Armed SB 723 (Pavley) Page 4 of ? Forces bases and facilities. Third, it directs the CPUC to approve financial incentives for energy efficiency upgrades at military facilities through existing energy efficiency programs administered by electrical and gas IOUs. Finally, it directs the CPUC, working with the CEC and United States Armed Forces, to identify other potential sources of funding to supplement funds collected from ratepayers to achieve energy savings goals. Of these four provisions, the first is, by far, the most significant. The third provision is, essentially, existing CPUC practice, consistent with existing law. The second and fourth provisions are not inconsequential and may be helpful to efforts by the military to increase energy efficiency at its facilities. But the first provision is the heart of the bill. The bill requires a calculation of the savings from IOU-funded energy efficiency projects at military bases that differs from the methodology by which other IOU-funded energy efficiency projects calculate such savings. As explained by the CPUC, the current method for calculating energy savings for a given energy efficiency measure compares energy use in absence of the energy efficiency measure and energy use with the energy efficiency measure. In contrast, this bill requires, for military facilities only, comparison of current energy use with projected usage that would follow implementation of the efficiency measure. In other words, the bill requires use of a special energy efficiency baseline for military facilities. Use of a different baseline at military facilities has consequences. Existing law requires the IOUs to capture all cost-effective energy efficiency. Use of the more-generous measurement required by this bill would likely result in more energy efficiency projects at military facilities being "cost effective." There is a good argument for changing the methodology for calculating the energy savings from efficiency measures. In fact, the CPUC is considering such a change as part of its current energy efficiency proceeding. However, there is nothing to that argument that is specific to military facilities. If it makes sense to measure the energy efficiency savings of measures based SB 723 (Pavley) Page 5 of ? upon current use, then it makes sense generally. That said, the military can be an effective partner in pursuit of California's energy and environmental goals. As the author notes, the US military is undertaking ambitious, mission-driven energy efficiency and alternative energy efforts. The author also notes that the CPUC has authorized the IOUs to undertake pilot projects that will use a baseline measurement similar to that required by this bill. Those pilot projects - still under development - are very limited in scope and designed to evaluate the effects of using an alternative baseline energy efficiency methodology. The author and the committee may wish to require the CPUC to authorize a similar IOU-funded pilot project for military facilities. Prior/Related Legislation AB 2229 (Bradford, 2014) was identical in effect to this bill. AB 2229 was held by this committee. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes SUPPORT: Sierra Club California US Air Force US Army US Marine Corps US Navy OPPOSITION: Office of Ratepayer Advocates, unless amended ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author and supporters contend this bill will allow achievement of additional energy efficiency and related projects at California military facilities, thereby helping California reach its energy and environmental goals. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents protest the use of a measure of energy efficiency savings for projects at military facilities that differs from the measure used for similar IOU-funded SB 723 (Pavley) Page 6 of ? projects. ORA fears the use of the military-specific measure may reduce funding for non-military projects that, when consistently measured, are more cost effective. -- END --