BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 2159
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 30, 2014

                       ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
                           K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
                   AB 2159 (Ammiano) - As Amended:  March 28, 2014
           
          SUBJECT  :   Electrical corporations: community choice  
          aggregation: Joint Exercise of Powers Act.

           SUMMARY  :  Allows the San Francisco City and County Board of  
          Supervisors to elect to enter into a joint powers agreement  
          (JPA) to implement a community choice aggregation (CCA) program,  
          allows another public agency to be the community choice  
          aggregator for San Francisco, expands over-the-fence  
          transactions, and requires an electrical corporation to provide  
          electrical consumption data to community choice aggregators.   
          Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Allows the board of supervisors of a city and county (San  
            Francisco), by ordinance adopted pursuant to specified  
            provisions of CCA law, to elect to enter into a JPA pursuant  
            to existing JPA law to implement a CCA program with one or  
            more public agencies through a public entity that is separate  
            from the parties to the agreement.

          2)Allows San Francisco, by resolution adopted pursuant to CCA  
            law, to elect to request another public agency that has  
            elected to implement a CCA program to be the community choice  
            aggregator for San Francisco.

          3)Expands over-the-fence transactions by eliminating the cap on  
            such transactions, which is currently limited to not more than  
            two other corporations or persons.

          4)Requires an electrical corporation to provide customer data to  
            a community choice aggregator pursuant to CCA law, subject to  
            any reasonable security procedures and practices to protect  
            the personal information from unauthorized access,  
            destruction, use, modification, or disclosure, as specified.

          EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Allows, pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, two or  
            more public agencies by agreement to jointly exercise any  
            power common to the contracting parties, as specified, 








                                                                  AB 2159
                                                                  Page  2

          if authorized by their legislative or other governing bodies.  

          2)Allows electricity customers to aggregate their electric loads  
            as members of their local community with CCAs, and allows CCAs  
            to procure electricity for customers who are customers of the  
            CCA.

          3)Allows two or more entities authorized to be a community  
            choice aggregator to participate as a group in a CCA program  
            through a joint powers agency, as specified.

          4)Requires an electrical corporation to cooperate fully with any  
            community choice aggregators that investigate, pursue, or  
            implement community choice aggregation programs, including  
            providing appropriate billing and electrical load data, as  
            specified.
          5)Excludes from the definition of an electrical corporation a  
            transaction using cogeneration technologies that is between  
            not more than two corporations that are on adjacent properties  
            not under common control unless the properties are divided by  
            an intervening street or if the seller is an independent solar  
            energy producer (commonly called "over-the-fence  
            transactions").

          6)Prohibits an electrical corporation or gas corporation from  
            sharing, disclosing, or otherwise making accessible to any  
            third party a customer's electrical or gas consumption data,  
            except customer aggregate electrical or gas consumption data  
            for analysis, reporting, or program management if all  
            information has been removed regarding the individual identity  
            of a customer, or upon the consent of the customer.

          7)Allows cities that adopt charters to control their own  
            "municipal affairs," pursuant to the California Constitution.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  This bill is keyed fiscal.

           COMMENTS  :   

           1)Purpose of this bill  .  This bill contains four provisions:  it  
            allows the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to enter into a  
            joint powers agreement to implement a community choice  
            aggregation program for San Francisco; it allows another  
            public agency to be the community choice aggregator for San  
            Francisco; it expands over-the-fence transactions; and, it  








                                                                  AB 2159
                                                                  Page  3

            requires an electrical corporation to provide electrical  
            consumption data to community choice aggregators.  This bill  
            is author-sponsored.

           2)Local government provisions of this bill  .  The provisions of  
            this bill expanding over-the-fence transactions and requiring  
            electrical corporations to provide electrical consumption data  
            to community choice aggregators have been addressed in the  
            Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee's analysis of this  
            bill, which passed that committee on a 8-4 vote on April 21,  
            2014.  This analysis will focus on the first two provisions of  
            this bill: allowing the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to  
            enter into a joint powers agreement to implement a community  
            choice aggregation program for San Francisco; and, allowing  
            another public agency to be the community choice aggregator  
            for San Francisco.  

           3)Author's statement  .  According to the author, "Under the  
            leadership of Governor Brown and his administration,  
            California's reputation has grown as a clean energy success  
            story.  Our state has capitalized on our skilled workforce and  
            renewable energy resources, putting us first for solar energy  
            generation and second for wind-related jobs.  This continued  
            growth is contingent on smart policies from state lawmakers.

            "Numerous state departments and organizations from across the  
            country have released reports detailing the methods of success  
            and obstacles causing failures in the implementing of  
            Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs.  How California  
            responds to the challenges to clean power has implications  
            beyond the Golden State.  California has long been an exporter  
            of smart energy policy and innovation in the energy field.


            "Moving forward, the state is counting on the Legislature and  
            Governor Brown to ensure clean energy succeeds by allowing a  
            fair and competitive process in California.  Assembly Bill  
            2159 will foster a free market by giving governing boards of  
            jurisdictions options to implement community choice programs  
            and expand limitations on neighboring properties' connections,  
            also referred to as over-the-fence connections.

            "California's community choice aggregation effort became law  
            in 2002, and San Francisco's own CCA push began two years  
            later.  San Francisco has long had a central city policy to  








                                                                  AB 2159
                                                                  Page  4

            reduce emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2017, and  
            80 percent below those levels by 2050.  Unfortunately,  
            politics has overshadowed good policy, thwarting attempts to  
            allow San Francisco to follow through on those goals through  
            the use of clean energy in the Bay Area.  AB 2159 will enable  
            San Francisco and other regions to establish clean energy  
            programs, reduce costs, and increase efficiencies for energy  
            users.  States like Ohio and Illinois have seen success after  
            removing barriers, similar to the ones plaguing California's  
            clean energy future.  AB 2159 will help us break through those  
            barriers.

            "Community Choice Energy Programs are the future of  
            California.  AB 2159 will allow an established path for future  
            areas to have more options for clean energy programs.  Lifting  
            obstacles that impede efforts to establish community choice  
            energy programs is not simply to pursue more clean power, but  
            also to promote greater consumer choice."

           4)Background  .  In 2002, the California Legislature passed AB 117  
            (Migden), Chapter 838, Statutes of 2002, enabling local  
            communities to form CCAs and create alternatives to  
            investor-owned utilities.  CCAs are governmental entities  
            formed by cities and counties to serve the energy requirements  
            of their local residents and businesses.  Cities and counties  
            have become increasingly involved in implementing energy  
            efficiency programs, advocating for their communities in power  
            plant and transmission line siting cases, and developing  
            distributed generation and renewable resource energy supplies.  
             The CCA program takes these efforts one step further by  
            enabling communities to purchase power on behalf of the  
            community.

            In California, a number of municipalities are exploring the  
            formation of community choice aggregation programs.  The  
            first, and currently only, operating CCA in California is in  
            Marin County.

           5)CleanPowerSF  .  San Francisco approved its program,  
            CleanPowerSF, in September of 2012.  According to its website,  
            "CleanPowerSF is the City's clean power program that will  
            provide San Francisco with a 100%, California-certified  
            renewable energy alternative.  CleanPowerSF will give  
            residential electricity consumers a choice by allowing  
            residents to choose between two energy providers (CleanPowerSF  








                                                                  AB 2159
                                                                  Page  5

            or PG&E).  When residents choose CleanPowerSF, not only will  
            they reduce their personal carbon footprint, but they'll also  
            decrease San Francisco's greenhouse gas emission and help  
            combat global climate change."

            CleanPowerSF is administered by the San Francisco Public  
            Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the City's water, sewer and  
            municipal power utility, and monitored by the San Francisco  
            Local Agency Formation Commission.  Section VIII, B, 120 of  
            the City's Charter provides that the SFPUC "has exclusive  
            control of water, clean water and power assets owned or  
            maintained by the City and County of San Francisco" and  
            Section VIII, B, 121 provides that "The (San Francisco) Public  
            Utilities Commission may enter into Joint Powers Agreements  
            with other public entities in furtherance of the  
            responsibilities of the Commission."  The SFPUC Commissioners  
            are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board of  
            Supervisors.

            In August of 2013, the SFPUC Commissioners voted 3-2 to not  
            set rates for CleanPowerSF.  According to an April 25, 2014,  
            article in the San Francisco Examiner, "Critics of the  
            proposal seized on several factors, such as the lack of a  
            detailed job-creation plan and associated infrastructure  
            projects; the contract with Shell Energy North America to buy  
            the power; and complaints about the rates, which had a maximum  
            rate of 11.5 cents per kilowatt hour compared to PG&E's  
            roughly 9 cents per kilowatt hour.  For the PG&E customer  
            paying $36.22 a month, under CleanPowerSF, that bill would be  
            $41.52.  Yet CleanPowerSF supporters said the objections were  
            not genuine and instead merely used as excuses for stalling."

           6)Previous legislation  .  SB 790 (Leno), Chapter 599, Statutes of  
            2011, revised and expanded the definition of CCAs, required  
            the California Public Utilities Commission to initiate a code  
            of conduct rulemaking, and allowed CCAs to receive public  
            purpose funds to administer energy efficiency programs.

            AB 117 (Migden), Chapter 838, Statutes of 2002, authorized the  
            creation of CCAs, described essential CCA program elements,  
            required the state's investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to  
            provide certain services, and established methods to protect  
            existing utility customers from liabilities that they might  
            otherwise incur when a portion of the IOU's customers transfer  
            their energy services to a CCA.








                                                                  AB 2159
                                                                  Page  6


           7)Policy considerations  .  The Committee may wish to consider the  
            following:

              a)   Is legislation necessary  ?  Current law, pursuant to the  
               Joint Exercise of Powers Act, already allows San Francisco  
               to enter a JPA to jointly exercise any power common to the  
               contracting parties.  Existing law, pursuant to statutes  
               governing the formation and operation of CCAs, also allows  
               two or more entities authorized to be a community choice  
               aggregator to participate as a group in a CCA program  
               through a joint powers agency.  It is not clear why the  
               provisions of this bill authorizing San Francisco to form a  
               JPA for the purposes of administering its CCA, and  
               authorizing San Francisco to request another public agency  
               that has elected to implement a CCA program to be the  
               community choice aggregator for San Francisco, are  
               necessary.  If these provisions are being sought because  
               San Francisco's charter provides the SFPUC with exclusive  
               authority over these activities, this bill would not remedy  
               that condition.  

              b)   Charter Cities  .  The California Constitution allows  
               cities that adopt charters to control their own "municipal  
               affairs."  In all other matters, charter cities must follow  
               general, statewide laws.  This bill applies to San  
               Francisco, which is a charter city (and county).  The  
               subject matters of this bill are not of statewide concern,  
               but are municipal affairs.  
             As such, if state law and San Francisco's charter conflict on  
               these matters, San Francisco's charter would prevail.

            The Committee may wish to consider whether the provisions of  
            this bill pertaining to San Francisco's ability to form a JPA  
            for the purpose of running its CCA and to San 

            Francisco's ability to allow another public agency to be the  
            City's community choice aggregator are necessary and/or  
            whether these provisions would remedy the problem presented by  
            the author.

           8)Arguments in support  .  The San Francisco Clean Energy  
            Advocates, in support, state, "The proposed legislation would  
            strengthen the ability of California communities to more  
            easily and rapidly form Community Choice Aggregation programs,  








                                                                  AB 2159
                                                                  Page  7

            in order to compete with investor owned utilities to deliver  
            cleaner and more price competitive electricity to local  
            consumers.  In addition, AB 2159 eliminates archaic 20th  
            Century legal barriers that prevent owners of solar panels and  
            other clean energy generation installations from selling or  
            sharing their clean power with other customers.  This will in  
            turn spur far more local projects to build and install local  
            clean electricity generation, and thereby help generate badly  
            needed local green jobs in California cities."

           9)Arguments in opposition  .  Pacific Gas and Electric Company, in  
            opposition, states, "AB 2159 also seeks to overturn the San  
            Francisco City Charter, which provides exclusive authority for  
            the operation and provision of energy supplies in San  
            Francisco to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission  
            (SFPUC)?AB 2159 seeks to overturn the will of the voters and  
            is nothing more than a political maneuver to circumvent the  
            open public process at the local level to determine the course  
            of action to be taken by the SFPUC relative to the development  
            of a Community Choice Aggregation system in San Francisco." 

           10)Double-referral  .  This bill was heard by the Utilities and  
            Commerce Committee on April 21, 2014, and passed with a 8-4  
            vote.

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          350 San Francisco
          Commonwealth Energy Consortium
          Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council
          Local Clean Energy Alliance
          Local Power, Inc.
          Our City San Francisco
          San Francisco Clean Energy Advocates
          San Francisco Green Party
          Sierra Club
          U.S. Green Building Council
          Individual letters (2)

           Opposition 
           
          Coalition of California Utility Employees
          Pacific Gas and Electric Company








                                                                  AB 2159
                                                                  Page  8

          Southern California Edison

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958