BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1073
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1073 (Fuentes)
As Amended February 23, 2012
2/3 vote. Urgency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 19, 2011) |SENATE: |28-2 |(March 26, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: U. & C.
SUMMARY : 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.
The Senate amendments :
1)Specify 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.
2)Add an urgency clause, which would allow the bill to take
effect immediately.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill required incentive
applicants to self-certify that they have obtained appropriate
building permits from the local jurisdiction having authority and
received final permit approval in order to qualify for
ratepayer-funded energy efficiency incentives if a project
requires a permit from the local jurisdiction. Also, the bill
applied to energy efficiency incentive programs administered by
electric, gas, and municipal utilities.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to Senate Appropriations Committee,
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.
AB 1073
Page 2
COMMENTS : 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, allowed 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. SB
226 explicitly excluded 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 California Supreme Court dismissed the challenge.
Analysis Prepared by : Susan Kateley / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083
FN: 0003166