BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2672
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2672 (Perea)
As Amended August 20, 2014
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |61-7 |(May 29, 2014) |SENATE: |24-9 |(August 25, |
| | | | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: U. & C.
SUMMARY : Requires the California Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) to open a proceeding by March 31, 2015 to identify
disadvantaged communities in the San Joaquin Valley and analyze
options to increase access to affordable energy in those
disadvantaged communities. Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "disadvantaged community" as a community with:
a) At least 25% of residential households with electrical
service enrolled in the CARE low-income energy rate
assistance program.
b) A population greater than 100 persons within its
boundaries as identified by the most recent United States
(U.S.) Census or a community survey.
c) Geographic boundaries no farther than seven miles from
the nearest natural gas pipeline operated by a gas
corporation.
2)Defines "San Joaquin Valley" to include the Counties of
Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
and Tulare.
3)Requires the PUC proceeding to identify disadvantaged
communities, and also examine the economic feasibility of
options that increase access to affordable energy, including
extension of gas pipelines, increasing electricity subsidies,
and other alternatives that would increase access to
affordable energy.
4)Directs the PUC, if it determines that any of the options
increase access to affordable energy in a cost-effective
AB 2672
Page 2
manner, to take appropriate action and determine appropriate
funding sources.
5)Make legislative findings and declarations related to the
necessity of a special statute for the San Joaquin Valley.
The Senate amendments :
1)Define and narrow the terms "disadvantaged community" and "San
Joaquin Valley."
2)Direct the PUC to identify disadvantaged communities. The
Assembly version of the bill directed the PUC to require gas
corporations to identify disadvantaged communities.
3)Make findings and declarations as to the necessity of a
special statute for the San Joaquin Valley.
4)Make other various non-substantive technical revisions.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee:
1)Annual costs of at least $300,000 from the Public Utilities
Reimbursement Account (special) for two years to the PUC for
the cost of a proceeding.
2)Unknown costs, possibly in hundreds of thousands, to the
General Fund and various special funds to the state as a
ratepayer for the state's cost share of subsidies or necessary
infrastructure to provide access to affordable energy in the
San Joaquin Valley.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose. According to the author, without natural gas
service, residents have to rely on alternative fuel sources
such as propane, electricity, or wood burning to heat and
power their homes. The author contends that these alternate
sources are expensive, less environmental friendly and may
expose residents to health and safety issues.
2)Lack of natural gas service and its effect on low-income
communities. Where natural gas service is unavailable,
propane or electricity is used for space and water heating.
The cost of propane tends to be much higher than alternative
AB 2672
Page 3
fuel sources such as natural gas (three times more, according
to the U.S. Energy Information Administration). Leaking
propane also poses a greater explosive risk than natural gas
because it is heavier than air and more likely to collect on
the ground. The cost of electricity is typically less than
propane but more than natural gas. For low-income households,
the use of natural gas or electricity can decrease utility
costs, increase overall financial health, and provide a safer
means of heating and cooling space and water.
3)Recent amendments very narrowly define disadvantaged
communities. The Senate amendments very narrowly define
disadvantaged communities, including requirements that at
least 25% of households are enrolled in the CARE electric rate
assistance program, a population greater than 100, and are no
further than seven miles from the nearest natural gas
pipeline. In this list compiled below, the communities of
Rolinda and Ripperdan would likely not be included as part of
this proceeding as their populations are less than 100. It is
unknown which of the other communities would be identified as
disadvantaged as part of this proceeding, because it is
unknown what their percentage of CARE participants is, and if
they are within seven miles of a natural gas pipeline.
----------------------------------------
|County|Community|2010 |Percent of |
| | |population|population |
| | | |under |
| | | |poverty |
| | | |level |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Fresno|Cantua | 466 | 67% |
| |Creek | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Fresno|Perry | 380 | 64% |
| |Colony | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Fresno|Rolinda | 37 | 25% |
| | | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Kings |Hardwick | 138 | 50% |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Madera|La Vina | 279 | 23% |
| | | | |
AB 2672
Page 4
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Madera|Ripperdan| 84 | 51% |
| | | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Merced|El Nido | 330 | 22% |
| | | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Merced|Le Grand | 1,659 | 25% |
| | | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Merced|Snelling | 231 | 43% |
| | | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Merced|Volta | 246 | 20% |
| | | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Tulare|Allenswor| 471 | 54% |
| |th | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Tulare|Ducor | 612 | 36% |
| | | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Tulare|Hypericum| 160 | 34% |
| | | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Tulare|Lemon | 308 | 49% |
| |Cove | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Tulare|Lindcove | 140 | 37% |
| | | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Tulare|Seville | 480 | 31% |
| | | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Tulare|West | 511 | 82% |
| |Goshen | | |
|------+---------+----------+------------|
|Stanis|Cowan | 318 |31% |
|laus |Tract | | |
----------------------------------------
Analysis Prepared by : Brandon Gaytan / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083
AB 2672
Page 5
FN: 0005469