This information lists bills introduced in the California Legislature during this 2005/06 Session. CAL SEIA has categorized these bills as "Critical," "Watch Carefully," and "Watch." These bills will be heard in Comittees (both Assembly and Senate) where their policy and fiscal impacts will be considered and voted on. By September of this year, bills approved by both Houses of the Legislature are sent to the Governor. If the Governor receives a bill approved by the Legislature he has 30 days to act on the bill (he can approve, veto or allow to go into law without his signature).
While hearings on various bills are underway at the Legislature, Legislators are currently focused on the State budget. The State budget for Fiscal Year 2005/06 must be adopted by June 30.
To follow the course of these bills, check this page for updates and also visit www.leginfo.ca.gov.
Critical Bills
SB 1 (Kevin Murray [Culver City towards central LA] and John Campbell [see below])
Million Solar Roofs Initiative:This bill would establish the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, administered by the California Energy Commission (CEC), with the goals of (i) placing 1,000,000 solar energy systems or 3,000 megawatts on new and existing residential and commercial customer sites by December 31, 2018, (ii) establishing a self-sufficient solar industry in 10 years, and (iii) placing solar energy systems on 50 % of new home developments in 13 years. The bill would establish the Million Solar Roofs Initiative Trust Fund for purposes of carrying out the Million Solar Roofs Initiative. SB1 would require that the PUC, on or before February 1, 2006, and in consultation with the Energy Commission, issue an order opening a proceeding, or expanding the scope of an existing proceeding, to adopt, implement, and finance a comprehensive solar energy program. The bill would require the PUC to adopt the program no later than January 1, 2007.
SB1 bill would require the PUC, in collaboration with the Energy Commission, to develop time-variant electricity pricing tariffs for all customers that are not subject to mandatory time-variant pricing, including net-metered customers. This bill would require the PUC to order electrical corporations to expand the availability of net energy metering until the total rated generating capacity used by all eligible customer-generators exceeds 5% of the electrical corporation's total electricity sales, or about 500 MW in the SDG&E territory. However, the bill states that net metering shall not exceed 2 %, or about 200 MW in the SDG&E territory, until the commission has established an appropriate net-metering time-variant design. Existing law provides for a cap of 0.5% of aggregate peak demand, which is about 20 MW in SDG&E territory.
This bill would require that beginning January 1, 2010, production home builders must offer solar energy systems as an option to all customers. The bill would require that not later than July 1, 2009, the Energy Commission initiate a public proceeding and make findings if and under what conditions solar energy systems are to be required on new residential and nonresidential buildings.
The bill requires that effective 1/1/2006, the incentive level shall decline by 7 % per year, and shall be zero so of 12/31/2016. The bill would allow the CEC to offer higher incentives (up to 50% higher) to projects that are part of a zero energy home or commercial building or that exceed Title 24 energy requirements. Up to 10% of the overall funds of the program will support solar installation on affordable housing projects.
AB 1547 (Lloyd Levine) Van Nuys, Northridge, West Hills, Canoga Park area
Backup Bill to SB 1: This bill would create the Solar Energy Peak Procurement Fund forexpenditure, upon appropriation, for a state program for subsidizing all customer classes for the installed cost of grid-connected solar photovoltaic systems in the service territory of investor-owned utilities. The bill would require the Energy Commission, not later than July 1, 2005, to award rebates to support the installation of grid-connected solar energy systems, subject to a prescribed declining schedule terminating as of January 1, 2015. The bill would require the Energy Commission to ensure proportional program support for affordable housing units, within certain limits. The bill would require the CPUC to open a proceeding to examine the relative costs and benefits between solar rebate programs and commission-administered interruptible demand reduction programs.SB 1017 (John Campbell) Coastal CA from Seal Beach/Cypress through Irvine/Newport BeachProperty Tax Exemption Extension: This bill would continue the exclusion for an active solar energy system, as defined, until January 1, 2018, for property tax lien dates for the 1999-2000 to 2016-17 fiscal years, inclusive.
AB 1099 (Mark Leno) North, Eastern and Central City of San FranciscoProperty Tax Exemption Extension: This bill would specify that the exclusion for the construction or addition of an active solar energy system applies for the 1999-2000 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, to extend this exclusion indefinitely.
AB 1585 (Blakeslee) Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo, Lompoc, Atascadero, Paso RoblesCalifornia Renewables Portfolio Standard: Very complicated. Among other things, would amend existing RPS law in various ways, including establishing tradable RECs and increasing the renewable target of the RPS to achieve 20% renewables content of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by the year 2010. The Energy Commission would be required to review the feasibility of increasing the target to 33% by the year 2020, and to report the results of the review to the Governor and Legislature by July 1, 2007.
SB 107 (Simitian [San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties]and Perata [Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Castro Valley, Dublin, El Sobrante, Emeryville, Livermore, Oakland, Piedmont, Richmond, and San Pablo])Renewable energy: Very complicated and similar in many respects to AB 1585 (above). Would make a number of changes to the existing RPS law.
SB 816 (Kehoe) San Diego and surrounding citiesNet metering: This bill would establish for the San Diego Gas and Electric Company a separate net metering limit of 50 megawatts, or 11/2 % of its aggregate customer peak demand, and would require that the matter be re-visited when the limit reached 40 MW.
Bills to Watch Carefully
AB 1009 (Richman)Time-of-use pricing tariffs: real time metering: Requires the PUC to develop time-of-use electricity pricing tariffs, and require real-time metering, for all bundled-service customers of an electrical corporation, according to a specified schedule. Includes a provision for time of use valuation of solar-generated electricity.
AB 1348 (Runner)Lancaster, Palmdale, Victorville, AdelantoElectricity: voluntary time-of-use tariff rates: This bill would require the PUC to require every electrical corporation to file tariffs by March 1, 2006, that provide a voluntary unbundled time-of-use tariff rate, as defined, for eligible customers, as defined.Also contains the following provisions, which on the surface appear to be an end-run around the existing net metering law for larger customers:"Eligible customer" means a commercial or industrial customer of an electrical corporation with a billed electricity usage of less than 1,000 kilowatts for three consecutive months or a commercial or industrial customer that generates 25 percent or more of the electricity used by the customer from a solar energy system or other ultraclean and low-emission distributed generation source.d) Eligible customers that generate electricity using a solar energy system or using ultraclean and low-emission distributed generation are eligible for net energy metering. Eligible customers that generate electricity using a solar energy system or using ultraclean and low-emission distributed generation shall have a metering system capable of separately measuring electricity flow in both directions. Eligible customers that generate electricity using a solar energy system or using ultraclean and low-emission distributed generation shall be credited for the electricity and distribution components of the time-of-use tariff rates, for the net amount of electricity contributed during periods when the eligible customer contributes electricity to the electrical distribution system.
AB 965 (Saldana) Solar energy systems: Appears to be a spot (placeholder) bill on the topic of promoting the use of PV systems
Watch
AB 251 (Haynes) California New Markets Venture Capital Program: Appears to re-establish expired or repealed portions of the Personal Income Tax Code having to do with capital venture investments
AB 957 (Haynes) California New Markets Venture Capital Program: Appears identical to AB 251 (above)
AB 1383 (Pavley) Solar energy: Low-Income Housing Development Revolving Loan Program: This bill would establish, until January 1, 2011, the Low-income Housing Development Revolving Loan Program to subsidize the financing gap for distributed solar energy systems in low-income housing units. (Note: Does not define “distributed solar energy systems”)Would be funded through an annual budget allocation.
AB 1576 (Nunez) California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority: Existing law defines "alternative sources" of energy, for purposes of the act, to mean the application of cogeneration technology, as defined; the conservation of energy; or the use of solar, biomass, wind, geothermal, certain hydroelectricity, or any other source of energy, the efficient use ofwhich will reduce the use of fossil and nuclear fuels.This bill would include in that definition the use of electricity from an existing electrical generating facility repowered for increased efficiency.Would appear to allow re-furbished conventional generating facilities to qualify as “alternative” for the purposes of the existing law.
AB 1704 (Richman)Electrical Restructuring. Very complicated. Among other things, would re-establish direct purchases of electricity from non-utility providers under some circumstances, while somewhat shielding the utilities from losses associated with departing customers, and somewhat shielding direct customers from otherwise applicable cost responsibility surcharges.
SB 426 (Simitian)California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority: Appears to be a spot bill.
SB 984 (McClintock)Greenhouse gas emissions reductions: This bill would require the Energy Commission to establish an inventory of existing zero emission powerplants, including powerplants located in the state that produce electricity using wind, solar, or nuclear technology. The inventory is required to include information that compares the annual emissions of zero emission powerplants, including the amount of greenhouse gases that are avoided by zero emissions powerplants, with the annual emissions of powerplants using state-of-the-art current gas generation technology to produce electricity.
back to home
