BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
ALEX PADILLA, CHAIR
SB 542 - Wiggins/Strickland Hearing
Date: April 21, 2009 S
As Amended: April 2, 2009 FISCAL B
5
4
2
DESCRIPTION
Current law gives responsibility for administering the
California Solar Initiative (CSI) to the California Energy
Commission (CEC) and the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC).
This bill requires the CEC to require that solar energy systems
installed on manufactured homes comply with specified provisions
of the Health and Safety Code and the California Code of
Regulations. Similarly, this bill requires the CPUC to ensure
that solar energy system installers are aware that if the solar
energy system is to be installed on manufactured homes the
installation must comply with the specified provisions of the
Health and Safety Code and California Code of Regulations.
Current law provides for minimum funding of energy efficiency
activities by the investor-owned utilities (IOUs). In
evaluating specific energy efficiency measures, the CPUC is
required to ensure that multifamily dwellings are incorporated
into the program portfolio design. Current law establishes the
CSI to subsidize the installation of photovoltaic systems on
customer roofs.
This bill requires the CPUC, by July 1, 2010, to develop and
implement a strategy to expand the participation rates of
multiunit residential and commercial rental properties in
utility energy efficiency and solar energy programs, and to
report to the Legislature on that strategy. The strategy must
not result in any additional ratepayer surcharges and be funded
through existing programs.
BACKGROUND
Energy Efficiency - Since the 2000-01 energy crisis, California
policy has elevated energy efficiency measures as the highest
priority activity for meeting California's energy needs. Energy
efficiency is often cost effective, cheap, clean, and relatively
quick to implement. The CPUC authorized substantial energy
efficiency programs for the major investor-owned utilities for
the period 2006-08. This program is expected to produce $2.7
billion in net benefits, reducing customer bills. Moreover,
these savings are the equivalent of avoiding three large
powerplants over the next three years, eliminating 3.4 million
tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, equivalent to taking 650,000
cars off the road.<1> For the 2009-2011 period the CPUC has
adopted slightly more ambitious goals.<2> For the longer term
the CPUC has adopted an energy efficiency strategic plan which
dovetails with our AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction goals.<3>
This plan has at its cornerstone four "Big and Bold"
initiatives:
all new residential construction will be zero net energy
by 2020;
all new commercial construction will be zero net energy
by 2030;
air conditioning and heating systems will be performance
optimized for California's climate;
all low-income customers will be provided an opportunity
to participate in California's low income energy efficiency
programs by 2020;
The energy efficiency programs take many forms and target all
customer classes, from residential to commercial. One group of
customers who gets relatively little attention is renters. The
difficulty of reaching out to renters is that while the renter
pays the energy bill, the landlord owns the structure and,
often, the appliances. It therefore makes little sense for a
landlord to install energy-saving double-paned windows when the
cost savings accrue to the tenant. Alternatively, a renter
wouldn't bother paying for a new, energy efficient air
---------------------------
<1> CPUC Decision No. 05-09-043; September 22, 2005, p. 3.
<2> CPUC Decision No. 04-09-060; September 23, 2004, Table 1E;
CPUC Decision No. 07-10-032; October 18, 2007.
<3> California Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan,
September 2008.
conditioner if he had to leave the unit behind once he moved on.
Renters are a large portion of Californians, comprising 43% of
California households. While there are a few programs targeted
at renters, and a special energy efficiency program for
low-income households, renters are, in the words of one of
California's large IOUs, "a very large and largely unserved
market."<4>
Solar - The same financial disconnection that makes it difficult
for renters to participate in energy efficiency programs also
makes it difficult for them to participate in the CSI.
Participation in the CSI also requires energy efficiency
improvements, as determined by the CPUC, making participation by
renters even more costly.
As distinct from renters, the CPUC has a number of solar and
energy efficiency programs for low-income customers, as required
by statute.
COMMENTS
1. Manufactured Homes - The author has had constituents who
have wanted to install photovoltaic systems on their
manufactured homes, but have run into a government
bureaucracy which is unsure of which agency has
jurisdiction and what rules apply. The provisions in
Sections 1 and 2 of the bill are intended to remove the
uncertainty by citing the specific applicable code sections
and regulations.
2. Renters are Customers Too - The author is concerned that
a substantial portion of customers pay for the state's
energy efficiency programs and the CSI, but because of
their housing status cannot participate in either. This
bill is an attempt to focus the CPUC's effort in this area.
3. Must be Cost Effective - Unlike other bills, this bill
requires any program to be cost effective. There can be no
assurance that the CPUC will be able to develop a cost
effective energy efficiency and solar program for renters.
But the CPUC has never been specifically charged with
considering the issue, and perhaps with some ingenuity and
--------------------------
<4> Op cit (D. 05-09-043); attachment 3.
a public hearing process something new and useful can be
created.
4. State Agency Role - The author has given the CEC and
CPUC the responsibility for ensuring that solar installers
comply with the relevant laws when dealing with
manufactured homes. Under this bill the CEC must require
that manufactured homes comply with the applicable laws as
a condition of receiving customer-funded incentives. This
may be too much of a burden to the CEC as they do not have
comprehensive enforcement capabilities. It may be easier,
and just as effective, to have the CEC simply ensure that
solar installers are informed of the particular
requirements for manufactured home installations, as the
author has done with the CPUC. The author and committee
may wish to make this change by replacing lines 31-35 on
page 3 with lines 34 - 38 on page 5.
5. More Money - The bill requires that any funding for the
multiunit residential and commercial rental property energy
efficiency and solar program come from existing energy
efficiency programs and the CSI. The federal stimulus law
provides substantial new funding for energy efficiency and
alternative energy programs, which could well be a funding
source for this bill. The author and committee may wish to
consider adding the federal stimulus funds as a potential
funding source.
6. Similar Legislation - Last year the author introduced SB
1460, a substantially similar measure. That bill passed
this committee with a unanimous vote but was ultimately
held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
R?colte Energy
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Oppose:
None on file
Randy Chinn
SB 542 Analysis
Hearing Date: April 21, 2009