BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2145
Page 1
-Date of Hearing: May 21, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2145 (Bradford) - As Amended: April 10, 2014
Policy Committee: Utilities and
Commerce Vote: 9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill modifies the community choice aggregation (CCA)
program. Specifically, this bill
1)Requires customers to opt-in to CCAs effective January 1,
2015.
2)Requires CCA implementation plans to include information to
customers about the following:
a) Rates as compared to the incumbent utility;
b) Greenhouse gas emission rates using protocols
established by the California Air Resources Board
1)Authorizes the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to
process complaints against the CCA.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Special fund costs in the $250,000 range for PUC to expand the
expedited complaint process, and review customer solicitations
and implementation plans, including projected and actual
electricity rates and GHG emissions.
2)Unknown ratepayer impacts.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose. According to the author, CCAs are intended to
provide communities with lower rates, local renewable energy,
and jobs. However, without transparency and detailed
AB 2145
Page 2
comparisons, customers are unable to adequately compare
services. The author states this bill promotes consumer
choice and transparency for future community choice customers.
2)Background. Since 2002, cities and counties may arrange to
provide electricity within their jurisdiction through a
contract with an electricity provider other than the
investor-owned utility (IOU) that would otherwise serve that
local area. This is referred to as community choice
aggregation.
Community choice aggregators (CCAs) purchase electricity from
electric service providers (ESP) using the transmission and
distribution system of the IOU serving that area. Customers
continue to receive their electric bills from the IOU with a
line-item delineating the CCA charges for generation. The IOU
continues to charge for transmission and distribution services
and various regulatory fees.
Customers automatically get their electricity from the CCA
unless they "opt-out" and instead receive service from the
IOU. Creating and implementing a CCA requires a vote or the
local governing board but does not require local voter
approval.
In 2007, the PUC authorized its first CCA application
submitted by the Kings River Conservation District on behalf
of San Joaquin Valley Power Authority (SJVPA). In 2009, SJVPA
suspended its CCA program activities.
In 2010, the PUC authorized a CCA application for Marin Energy
Authority (MEA/MCE) pursuant to a service agreement between
PG&E and MEA. Currently, MEA provides service to over 124,000
accounts in Marin County and the City of Richmond located in
Contra Costa County.
The PUC authorized Clean Power S.F. to form a CCA in the City
and County of San Francisco in June 2010. The San Francisco
Board of Supervisors authorized Clean Power S.F., but the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission did not authorize the
rates.
In October 2013, the PUC authorized a CCA application for
Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) to serve cities and the
unincorporated areas of the Sonoma County. SCP is scheduled
AB 2145
Page 3
to begin offering service to the first group of 20,000
customers this month. Most customers will be eligible for
service in 2015 or 2016.
3)Proposition 16 of 2010. Following the approval of MEA, an
initiative was put on the June 2010 statewide ballot to
require a two-thirds supermajority voter approval before local
agencies could start up electrical services, including
community choice aggregation in a new territory. Proposition
16 was defeated by a vote of 52.8% to 47.2%.
4)Renewable Energy Mandates. The CCA concept was placed in
statute before California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
was enacted and four years prior to the California Solar
Initiative. Proponents of CCA argued at the time that a CCA
would allow local communities to choose a greener electricity
supply than was being provided by the investor owned utilities
(IOUs).
Since 2002, California IOUs have dramatically increased their
renewable energy portfolios. According to the PUC's February
2014 RPS Biennial Report, retail sellers are on pace to meet
their Compliance Period 1 (2011-2013) RPS requirement of an
average 20% RPS and are on track to achieve the 33% RPS by
2020 with additional future procurement of RPS resources.
5)The Role of the PUC. CCAs are required to file implementation
plans with the PUC who must review and approve the CCA cost
recovery plan. CCA rates and sources of electrical supply are
not regulated by the PUC.
CCAs may bring complaints to the PUC against IOUs using an
expedited complaint procedure. This bill would allow
customers to use the same expedited process for complaints
against the CCA. Additionally, this bill requires review of
customer solicitations and implementation plans including
projected electricity rates and projected and actual GHG
emissions.
6)Support. This bill is supported by a coalition of labor
organizations including the Central Labor Federation, the
State Building and Construction Trades Council and is
sponsored by the Coalition of California Utility Employees
(CCUE). According to CCUE, CCAs routinely promise to build
local renewable energy supplies to create local jobs but the
AB 2145
Page 4
promise of jobs has not materialized.
7)Opposition. This bill is opposed by a large coalition of
local government agencies, environmental groups, civic
organizations, and community choice advocacy organizations.
Opponents claim IOUs are trying to protect their monopoly
status by destroying any opportunity for competition.
Opponents further argue this bill will prevent new CCAs from
forming and offering consumer choice by placing the default
status with the IOUs.
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081