BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2390
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2390 (Chesbro)
As Amended May 1, 2012
Majority vote
NATURAL RESOURCES 7-1 UTILITIES AND COMMERCE 11-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Chesbro, Brownley, |Ayes:|Bradford, Garrick, |
| |Dickinson, Halderman, | |Buchanan, Fong, Gorell, |
| |Huffman, Monning, Skinner | |Huffman, Ma, Nestande, |
| | | |Skinner, Swanson, Valadao |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Knight | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |
| |Bradford, Charles | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | |
| |Gatto, Ammiano, Hill, | | |
| |Lara, Mitchell, Solorio | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, | | |
| |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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. Specifically, 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
AB 2390
Page 2
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 : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1)Cost pressure of an unknown amount, but potentially in the
millions of dollars, to fund incentives for biomass producers and
collectors (special fund, bond funds).
2)Annual costs of approximately $300,000 (equivalent to two staff
members) to CEC to develop and implement the incentive program
(special fund).
3)Minor, absorbable costs to CalFire to consult with CEC.
COMMENTS : 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:
1)Combined fire suppression and restoration costs (CALFIRE,
USFS, BLM) have averaged (over 5 years) $1.2 Billion a
year.
2)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.
3)Vegetation management in High and Medium Priority Landscapes can
reduce fire occurrence and impacts, as well as ratepayer exposure
to these costs.
4)Biomass generation can use this waste material in RPS-certified
facilities. However, the costs of handling biomass fuels can be
AB 2390
Page 3
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.
5)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.
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.
As Southern CaliforniaEdison 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 Electric
Program Investment Charge (EPIC) adopted by the Public Utilities
Commission (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.
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0003873
AB 2390
Page 4