BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1935
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1935 (Campos)
As Amended May 6, 2014
Majority vote
NATURAL RESOURCES 9-0 UTILITIES & COMMERCE 13-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Chesbro, Dahle, Bigelow, |Ayes:|Bradford, Patterson, |
| |Garcia, Muratsuchi, | |Bonilla, Buchanan, Dahle, |
| |Patterson, Skinner, | |Fong, Beth Gaines, |
| |Stone, Williams | |Garcia, Robert Hern�ndez, |
| | | |Jones, Mullin, Quirk, |
| | | |Rendon |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, | | |
| |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, | | |
| |Holden, Jones, Linder, | | |
| |Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, | | |
| |Weber | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Revises the scope of an existing biennial report on
the electricity grid impacts of distributed generation (DG) to
focus on "clean distributed energy resources" and defines this
term for purposes of the bill. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires future reports to include "clean distributed energy
resources" as defined.
2)Defines "clean distributed energy resources" as any of the
following:
a) A clean energy generating technology that meets all of
the following criteria:
AB 1935
Page 2
i) Produces electricity, or electricity and useful
heat.
ii) Has a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions factor that is
less than or equal to an emissions factor for electricity
determined by the Air Resources Board (ARB).
iii) Has an oxide of nitrogen (NOx) emissions rate that
is less than or equal to the NOx emission limit set by
ARB in its DG certification regulation.
iv) Has a nameplate rated generation capacity of 20 or
less megawatts (MW).
b) An eligible renewable energy resource, as defined in
Public Utilities Code Section 399.12, that has a nameplate
generation capacity of 20 or less MW.
c) Demand response that provides reliability benefits.
d) An energy storage technology that stores energy from a
technology or resource specified above.
EXISTING LAW requires the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to
study and report to the Legislature and Governor on the impacts
of DG on the state's distribution and transmission grid.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, increased costs to the PUC in the range of $150,000
to expand the scope of its existing report.
COMMENTS : The PUC has hired consulting firms to prepare two "DG
impacts" reports since AB 578 (Blakeslee), Chapter 627, Statutes
of 2008, was enacted. The most recent report, "Biennial Report
on Impacts of Distributed Generation," prepared by Black &
Veatch, was published by the PUC in May 2013. According to the
report:
Governor Brown has established a highlevel goal for
California to achieve 12,000 MW of renewable DG by
2020. California has had a history of encouraging the
development of smaller generation facilities that
connected directly at the distribution level of the
AB 1935
Page 3
electricity system. DG growth has been spurred by
several governmentsponsored incentive programs. The
California Energy Commissions Emerging Renewables
Program (ERP) was funded as a result of AB 1890, and
provided support to emerging renewable projects on the
customerside of the meter. The CPUCs SelfGeneration
Incentive Program (SGIP), which was started in
response to the energy crisis in 2001, offered
incentives for DG projects located at utility customer
sites. The SGIP program supported a variety of
distributed generation technologies including solar
photovoltaic (PV), wind, fuel cells, and other
conventional technologies. When the California Solar
Initiative (CSI) program and several related programs
began in 2007 as a result of SB 1 (Murray, 2006), with
a goal of promoting 3,000 MW of distributed solar in
the state, support for solar PV technologies was
shifted from the SGIP program to the CSI program.
The 2010 (DG impacts) Report addressed the installed
DG in California under the SGIP and CSI programs as
well as net energy metering (NEM) and nonNEM projects
interconnected to the three investorowned utilities
(IOUs) through September of 2009. Since then, new
programs have been launched to promote more DG in the
state; both on the customer side of the meter and on
the wholesale side, and installations have increased
dramatically under existing programs. Black & Veatch
reviewed program data to determine the total amount of
DG that has been installed. The eight customerside
programs include:
California Solar Initiative (CSI)
o General Market (GM)
o Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing
(MASH)
o Singlefamily Affordable Solar Housing
(SASH)
SB 1 PubliclyOwned Utility (POU) Programs
New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP)
SelfGeneration Incentive Program (SGIP)
Emerging Renewables Program (ERP) no longer
active as of June 2012
Renewable Energy SelfGeneration Bill Credit
AB 1935
Page 4
Transfer (RESBCT) Program
The impacts of DG on the distribution and transmission
system today are not adequately quantified, but are
believed to be relatively low. The lack of observed
impacts can be attributed to several reasons:
Currently about 90 percent of connected DG
capacity is on the customerside of the meter.
Customerside DG systems are typically small.
The current penetration level of DG is low.
At the given penetration levels, the
interconnection process and requirements have
successfully mitigated impacts before they occur.
There is a general lack of monitoring DG system
output and of the effects of DG systems on the grid
(that is, utilities do not have the appropriate
tools to systematically collect and evaluate data on
problems or benefits attributable to DG).
For these reasons, it is difficult to quantify the
impacts of customerside DG on the grid. It is
expected by many that impacts will increase as DG
penetration increases. However, to be able to
quantify the impacts, the utilities will need to begin
systematically monitoring, evaluating, and associating
such impacts with DG systems.
The expected impacts would first occur on the
distribution system because of the direct connection
of DG to the distribution system. However, as the
penetration of DG increases, the impacts will roll up
to the transmission system. What many industry
observers agree on is "DG that is at the 'right place
at the right time' will create the greatest value,
while additional electricity supply in the wrong place
at the wrong time could result in added costs to the
system," as stated in a report published by Rocky
Mountain Institute and PG&E in March 2012. ("Net
Energy Metering, Zero Net Energy, and the Distributed
Energy Resource Future: Adapting Electric Utility
Business Models for the 21st Century," Rocky Mountain
Institute, Snowmass, CO, March 2012.) However, it is
difficult to develop quantitative measuring and
AB 1935
Page 5
monitoring protocols to systematically gauge whether
DG is being deployed at the right place at the right
time, and there has been no effort yet in California
to do so.
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0003644