BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1947|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1947
Author: Fong (D) and lieu (D), et al
Amended: 6/17/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENERGY, U.&C. COMMITTEE : 6-2, 6/29/10
AYES: Corbett, Florez, Kehoe, Lowenthal, DeSaulnier,
Simitian
NOES: Dutton, Strickland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Padilla, Cox, Wright
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-24, 6/2/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Solar energy
SOURCE : Sacramento Municipal Utility District
DIGEST : This bill permits a publicly owned utility to
implement a solar program that allows customers to offset
part or all of their electricity demand, with a solar
energy system not located on the premises of the consumer
ANALYSIS : Current law establishes the California Solar
Initiative (CSI), a $3.3 billion program to subsidize the
installation of photovoltaic (PV) systems for customers of
the state's investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and publicly
owned utilities (POUs).
Current law requires that the CSI solar system offset part
or all of the consumer's own electricity demand and that
CONTINUED
AB 1947
Page
2
the system be located on the same premises of the end-use
consumer where the consumer's own electricity demand is
located.
This bill eliminates those requirements for systems in the
territories of the POUs under specified conditions.
Background
California Solar Initiative . Effective in 2007, the CSI
calls for the installation of 3,000 megawatts (MW) of new,
solar-produced electricity by 2016. Targeted expenditures
under the CSI, funded by ratepayers, are $3.3 billion over
ten years, distributed among three distinct program
components: IOUs, $2.167 million/1940 MW; New Solar Homes
Partnership, $400 million/360 MW; and POUs $784 million/700
MW.
California now has over 736 MW of solar PV in the IOU
territories at over 43,000 residential, commercial and
governmental sites. This includes installed generation and
pending applications. The POUs have installed 26 MW of
generation at 7,712 sites and the NHSP reports 7.8 MW of
solar PV at 3,002 sites.
All CSI programs combined, California has approximately
installed 770 MW of solar generation on the customer's side
of the meter - 27 percent of goal.
SolarShares . Marketed as an alternative to the
installation of solar on a customer's roof, the SolarShares
program is offered to customers in the territory of the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). For a fixed
monthly price over 20 years, the participating SMUD
customer pays a fee of $258 to $396 per year to the utility
and in turn receives a bill credit for the production of
solar at a SMUD-owned site. The bill credit ranges from
$174 to $313 in the first year of participation depending
on the level of participation chosen by the customer and
the energy produced by the central solar farm. Over the
course of 20 years, the customer's fee remains the same but
the bill credit is scheduled to increase.
The central solar facility is located within the SMUD
AB 1947
Page
3
territory and the power generated at the local solar farm
is like any utility-owned generation and generally provides
service to all customers except for purposes of customer
billing for participants. This program does however make
the participating customer feel like they are paying for
and receiving green power. In reality this power is just
like any other green power on the grid under the Renewable
Portfolio Standard.
Comments
Author's purpose . Most utilities are making progress
towards meeting their share of the CSI's 3000 megawatt
goal. However, after four years of CSI experience and data
collection it has become clear that many ratepayers who are
paying the solar surcharge remain unable or unwilling to
install solar on their rooftop for the following reasons:
(1) Renters - ratepayers who rent and businesses who lease
commercial space are all paying the solar surcharge but do
not own any roof space to install solar; (2) Incompatible
roofs - ratepayers with tile roofs, steeply pitched roofs,
north or east facing roofs are paying the solar surcharge
but may not have the right orientation for installing
solar; (3) Shading - ratepayers with rooftops that are
shaded by trees or other adjacent buildings are paying the
solar surcharge but may be prohibited from installing
solar; (4) Cost - the upfront cost of purchasing a solar
system may be cost prohibitive for some ratepayers who
nonetheless are paying the solar surcharge; and (5) Payback
- Ratepayers who pay relatively low rates for electricity
and/or use less electricity have a harder time justifying
the cost of solar yet they too must pay the solar
surcharge.
This bill places downward pressure on rates by allowing
POUs to reach their SB 1 goal using larger solar systems
that cost less to build on a per kilowatt basis.
Participating solar customers likewise will benefit under
this bill through their ability to subscribe to a larger
solar energy system that in many instances provides a
shorter payback period than traditional rooftop solar. The
participating customer also benefits by receiving all the
solar attributes without the maintenance requirements of a
AB 1947
Page
4
rooftop system. The sponsor of the bill have provided the
committee with a cost/benefit comparison spreadsheet of
their SolarShares pilot project.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/30/10)
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (source)
Sierra Club
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Blakeslee, Block,
Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero,
Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La
Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes,
Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jones, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Nava, Niello, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres,
Torrico, Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Conway, DeVore,
Emmerson, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller,
Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Smyth, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Tom Berryhill, Cook, Lieu, Monning,
Audra Strickland, Vacancy
DLW:do 7/2/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****