BILL ANALYSIS
AB 51
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 51 (Blakeslee)
As Amended June 1, 2009
Majority vote
UTILITIES AND COMMERCE 13-0 APPROPRIATIONS
15-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Tom Berryhill, |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, |
| |Blakeslee, Buchanan, | |Ammiano, |
| |Carter, Fong, Furutani, | |Charles Calderon, Davis, |
| |Huffman, Krekorian, | |Fuentes, Hall, Harkey, |
| |Skinner, Smyth, Swanson, | |John A. Perez, Price, |
| |Torrico | |Skinner, Solorio, Audra |
| | | |Strickland, Torlakson, |
| | | |Krekorian |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to limit
to 10% the administrative costs of energy efficiency programs
funded and operated by the investor-owned utilities (IOUs). For
this purpose, administrative costs include personnel and overhead,
but not marketing, outreach, and program evaluation.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires each electrical corporation to first meet its resource
needs through all available energy efficiency and demand
reduction resources that are cost effective, reliable, and
feasible, before it can procure other resources.
2)Establishes a Public Goods Charge (PGC) that consumers pay on
electricity and natural gas consumption for cost-effective energy
efficiency, renewable technologies, and public interest energy
research.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
PUC will incur one-time costs of $200,000 in 2010-11 for a database
consultant and ongoing costs of $80,000 for one position.
COMMENTS : According to the author, the purpose of this bill is to
ensure that more ratepayer funds for energy efficiency programs are
accessible to ratepayers, while maintaining flexibility for
AB 51
Page 2
utilities to manage the programs at their discretion.
PUC rules required IOUs to spend $2.7 billion for energy efficiency
programs over a three-year period. When PUC approved these
programs, they anticipated that the programs would result in a
1,448 MW savings and $4.9 billion in savings to the utility. This
would be a net savings of $2.7 billion ($4.9 billion in overall
savings - $2.2 billion in expenditures).
According to information provided by PUC in the 2006 - 2008 program
cycle IOUs on average spent 12.4% of the program funds on the
categories PUC defined as administrative costs. IOUs spent an
additional 12% of the funds on marketing and outreach. IOUs spent
75.6% of the funds on actual energy efficiency incentives and
rebates.
In the past, this committee has generally capped allowable
administrative expenses for programs using public or ratepayer
funds at 10%.
Analysis Prepared by : Edward Randolph / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083
FN: 0001254