BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1073|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1073
Author: Fuentes (D)
Amended: 2/23/12 in Senate
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE ENERGY, UTIL. & COMMUNICATIONS COMM. : 8-0, 3/12/12
AYES: Padilla, Fuller, Berryhill, De Le�n, DeSaulnier,
Emmerson, Rubio, Wright
NO VOTE RECORDED: Corbett, Kehoe, Pavley, Simitian,
Strickland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 3/19/12
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Dutton, Lieu, Price,
Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not relevant
SUBJECT : Energy: solar thermal powerplants:
conversion to solar photovoltaic technology
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill specifies that the California Energy
Commission (CEC) may retain jurisdiction over the siting of
specific solar thermal powerplants that seek to convert to
solar photovoltaic (PV) technology, even if the siting of
that powerplant has been challenged in court, so long as
that challenge has been dismissed by the California Supreme
Court.
CONTINUED
AB 1073
Page
2
ANALYSIS : The CEC has exclusive jurisdiction over the
certification (siting) of thermal powerplants, including
solar thermal, but not solar PV facilities. Last year, the
passage of SB 226 (Simitian), Chapter 469, Statutes of
2011, allows the CEC to retain jurisdiction over certain
powerplants that were originally designed as a solar
thermal facility, but now the applicant wishes to convert
the facility to PV technology. The bill explicitly
excludes projects whose CEC certification has been
challenged in court. This exclusion affected one proposed
facility, K Road Calico Solar. While there was a legal
challenge filed against the Calico facility, the Supreme
Court dismissed the challenge.
This bill specifies that certain facilities are eligible to
be permitted by the CEC as a PV facility even if there was
a legal challenge to the certification, so long as the
California Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the
challenge.
Related Legislation : SB 226 (Simitian), Chapter 469,
Statutes of 2011.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Likely one-time costs of at least $150,000 for additional
project application review due to project design changes,
from the Energy Resources Programs Account (ERPA), which
can be used for General Fund purposes.
SUPPORT : (Verified 3/19/12)
K Road Calico Solar
OPPOSITION : (Verified 3/19/12)
Audubon California
Defenders of Wildlife
NRDC
The Nature Conservancy
The Wilderness Society
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The proponent states, "Last year,
CONTINUED
AB 1073
Page
3
SB 226 (Simitian) authorized a small group of solar
projects that were certified by the California Energy
Commission (CEC) to petition to the CEC for an amendment to
their certificate if they switched their technology from
solar thermal to solar photovoltaic (PV). The change from
solar thermal to PV can lessen environmental impacts, is
cost-effective for ratepayers and still creates significant
new jobs. The bill prescribed criteria for those projects
that could participate in this process and K Road's Calico
project was initially thought to be among them. However,
the legislation contained a phrase that specifically barred
projects whose CEC Certificate was timely challenged in
court from participating, regardless of the outcome of that
challenge. Given that the bill was passed on the last day
of session there was not time to amend the bill. However,
in his letter to the Senate Journal, Senator Simitian
clarified the intent relative to the language that barred
projects stating it was not his intent to bar projects
'?whose certificate was challenged and subsequently
dismissed by the California Supreme Court.' This spoke
directly to the situation that K Road was in with their
project. The project certification had been challenged but
was dismissed by the Supreme Court. AB 1073 simple seeks
to clarify this point in statute to ensure there is no
ambiguity. The bill uses the same language as the letter
submitted to the Senate Journal and further clarifies that
nothing in the new law abrogates a party's right to
continue existing legal proceedings in any venue or to
challenge projects going forward."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The opponents are opposed to
the bill's exemption for the Calico Solar Project. They
are concerned that if the Legislature grants a special
exemption to this highly controversial project, it will
undermine the incentives for establishing a strong
framework of good planning, siting and permitting.
RM:kc 3/20/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 1073
Page
4
CONTINUED