BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2390
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 16, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 2390 (Chesbro) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
SUBJECT : Electricity: biomass: incentive programs
SUMMARY : Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to
provide incentives to producers and collectors of biomass
material associated with forest fuel reduction and fire
prevention activities.
THIS BILL :
1)Defines "community scale biomass facilities" as a biomass
electric generation facility under three megawatts located in,
and that uses as a fuel source only forest biomass materials
from, an area identified as high or medium-priority landscapes
at risk of wildfire.
2)Defines "eligible biomass facility" as a biomass electric
generation facility that uses as a fuel source forest biomass
materials from an area identified as high or medium-priority
landscapes at risk of wildfire.
3)Requires the CEC, in consultation with CalFire, to establish
an incentive program to compensate producers and collectors of
biomass material associated with forest fuel reduction and
fire prevention activities which is delivered to eligible
biomass facilities for use as a fuel source.
4)Requires the CEC to encourage the maximum amount of hazardous
forest fuels removal.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Background. This bill directs the CEC to establish an
incentive program to compensate producers and collectors of
biomass material related to forest fuel reduction and fire
prevention activities delivered to eligible biomass
facilities. According the sponsor, Independent Energy
Producers:
AB 2390
Page 2
a) Combined fire suppression and restoration costs
(CALFIRE, USFS, BLM) have averaged (over 5 years) $1.2
Billion a year.
b) Downed power lines comprise one significant ignition
source of these fires causing ratepayer/utility exposure
to litigation costs, utility equipment replacement costs
and increased insurance premiums.
c) Vegetation management in High and Medium Priority
Landscapes can reduce fire occurrence and impacts, as
well as ratepayer exposure to these costs.
d) Biomass generation can use this waste material in
RPS-certified facilities. However, the costs of handling
biomass fuels can be substantial. Adding an economic
value to removing this waste can reduce the costs of
vegetation management, provide renewable energy fuel and
provide local economic development in rural areas.
e) Existing funding from the Energy Programs Investment
Charge (EPIC, the successor to the Public Goods Charge
adopted by the PUC) could be used to fund this program.
This will require no rate increase to utility customers.
2)Opposition. Southern California Edison opposes this bill on
the basis that it is a "technology specific carve-out,"
creating a subsidy for biomass material and giving an unfair
advantage to biomass generators relative to other renewable
technologies. Additionally, the bill does not specify a
funding source.
3)Funding source needed. As Edison points out, this bill needs
funding source. A logical source of funds to support biomass
fuel collection to produce additional renewable energy and
associated benefits is the renewable energy program funded by
the EPIC charge adopted by the PUC in December as a successor
to the Public Goods Charge. The PUC has proposed using EPIC
funds to support a CEC-administered renewable energy program,
with a specific program dedicated to support bioenergy, which
appears to be fully consistent with this bill.
4)Assuring responsible harvesting. Consistent with the author's
AB 2390
Page 3
intent, the bill should include language to assure that
biomass fuel production and collection activities are
conducted according to responsible forestry practices and
respect the preferences of public land managers and private
land owners.
5)Linkage to new community-scale biomass facilities? The bill
defines "community-scale biomass facilities" but provides no
linkage to the incentive program, which speaks only in general
to eligible biomass facilities, which would include existing,
larger-scale facilities which are fueled by a combination of
forest, agricultural and municipal waste material. If the
incentive program established by the bill is intended to
support new community-scale biomass facilities, their role
needs to be articulated.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Independent Energy Producers (sponsor)
California Biomass Energy Alliance
Placer County Air Pollution Control District
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Sierra Pacific Industries
Trinity Public Utilities District
Opposition
Southern California Edison
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092