BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                           Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair


          AB 1755 (Perea) - Electricity: rates
          
          Amended: June 6, 2012           Policy Vote: EU&C 9-3
          Urgency: No                     Mandate: Yes
          Hearing Date: August 16, 2012                               
          Consultant: Marie Liu/Bob Franzoia
          
          SUSPENSE FILE.  AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
          
          
          Bill Summary: AB 1755 would allow the California Public 
          Utilities Commission (PUC) to approve a fixed per-customer 
          charge, not based on usage, which applies to all residential 
          electrical customers, in order to recover fixed costs of 
          providing service. 

          Fiscal Impact: Potential costs of $150,000 to $300,000 from the 
          Public Utilities Commission Utilities Reimbursement Account 
          (special fund) beginning in FY 2013-14.

          Background: Residential electric rates are generally designed in 
          a four or five-tiered structure based on the customer's 
          electricity usage with each successive tier of electricity usage 
          having an increased per-unit price. Tier 1 is the customer's 
          "baseline" and is the level deemed necessary to supply a 
          significant portion of the reasonable energy needs of the 
          average residential customer. Tier 2 applies to usage between 
          the baseline and 130% of that amount. The average customer 
          charges reach tier 3. Baseline levels depend on the climate of 
          the region. This multi-tiered pricing structure grew out of the 
          energy crisis. Prior to that time, a two-tier pricing structure 
          was common. 

          Also as a result of the energy crisis in 2001, the Legislature 
          prohibited the PUC from increasing rates for tiers 1 and 2. 
          Since the energy crisis, the cost of electricity has increased 
          as a result of rising fuel prices and legislative mandated and 
          PUC-created programs. As a result of the rate freezes in tiers 1 
          and 2, these costs have disproportionally borne by customers who 
          have electric usage in the upper tiers. In 2009, SB 695 (Kehoe) 
          Chapter 337/2009 allowed for a gradual rate increase for tier 1 
          and 2 rates as well as for rates under the California 








          AB 1755 (Perea)
          Page 1


          Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program. The controlled 
          increases in rates under SB 695 will sunset in 2018. Tier 1 and 
          2 rates have modestly increased (and tiers 3, 4, and 5 have 
          decreased) as a result of SB 695. CARE customers, however, have 
          still not seen any rate increases for more than ten years, as 
          CARE rate increases are linked to annual cost of living 
          adjustments for the CalWORKs program. 

          The PUC is aware that the existing tiered rate structure may not 
          be ideal for supporting the state's energy goals and may result 
          in inequitable treatment across customers and customer classes. 
          At its June 21st hearing, the PUC voted to open a rulemaking to 
          conduct a comprehensive examination of Investor-owned utilities' 
          (IOU) residential rate design, including the residential tier 
          rate schedule, the state of time variant and dynamic pricing, 
          potential pathways from tiers to time variant and dynamic 
          pricing, and preferable residential rate design to be 
          implemented when statutory restrictions are lifted. Rate 
          redesign will be made under the five following principles: (1) 
          rates should be based on marginal cost; (2) rates should be 
          based on cost-causation principles; (3) rates should encourage 
          conservation and reduce peak demand; (4) rates should provide 
          stability, simplicity, and customer choice; and (5) rates should 
          encourage economically efficient decision making. It is 
          anticipated that a significant element of these discussions will 
          be fixed charges. 
          
          Proposed Law: This bill would allow the PUC to approve a flat 
          rate charge on all residential electrical customers, including 
          CARE customers, in order to recover fixed costs of providing 
          service. This bill declares Legislative intent that any fixed 
          per-customer charge be used to decrease the rates paid by 
          residential customers who have usage in excess of 130% of 
          baseline amounts. 

          Staff Comments: Small flat rate charges can lead to significant 
          reduction high electricity users and modest decreases in the 
          average customer's bill. According to Pacific Gas and Electric 
          (PG&E), for every dollar of a fixed charged imposed on both CARE 
          and non-CARE customers, the tier 5 rate will be reduced 0.7 
          cents (from 33.9 cents currently). This translates to a net 
          decrease in the average customer's bill (Tier 3 user) of $6 to 
          $15 depending on what climate zone they live in. High-use 
          customers, who have usage in tier 5, may see savings in the 








          AB 1755 (Perea)
          Page 2


          range of $20 to $35 per month for every dollar in a flat rate 
          charge. In 2010, PG&E applied to the PUC to establish a fixed 
          customer charge of $3 for all non-care residential customers. 
          The PUC opined that they did not have legal authority to approve 
          a flat rate charge given the statutory limitations on baseline 
          rate increases. While these figures are for PG&E customers, they 
          are likely representative of impacts to Southern California 
          Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) customers as 
          well. While a flat-rate charge may bring down monthly bills, 
          especially for higher usage customers opponents to the bill note 
          concerns on the impact of fixed rate charges on low income 
          customers and the ability for customers to retain control over 
          their bills through energy efficiency and conservation measures. 
          Staff notes that this bill addresses only one of the potential 
          rate design changes that the PUC is likely to consider in its 
          recently opened rulemaking.

          IOUs regularly take up rates before the PUC once every three 
          years in their General Rate Case. SDG&E and SCE are likely to 
          finish their triennial rate case soon. PG&E's General Rate Case 
          is scheduled to begin in November. Given the timing of the 
          General Rate Cases of the three large IOUs, it is very 
          conceivable, should this bill pass, that at least one of the 
          IOUs may come forward with a request to implement a flat rate 
          charge outside their General Rate Case, which would cause the 
          PUC to incur costs for an extra proceeding or two.at a cost of 
          $150,000 to $300,000.

          The proposed amendments would address the PUC's concerns about 
          cost and flexibility.