Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires every electrical corporation to file with the commission a standard tariff for electricity purchased from an electric generation facility, as defined, that qualifies for the tariff, is owned and operated by a retail customer of the electrical corporation, and is located within the service territory of, and developed to sell electricity to, the electrical corporation. Existing law requires that, in order to qualify for the tariff, the electric generation facility: (1) have an effective capacity of not more than 3 megawatts, subject to the authority of the commission to reduce this megawatt limitation, (2) be interconnected and operate in parallel with the electric transmission and distribution grid, (3) be strategically located and interconnected to the electrical transmission and distribution grid in a manner that optimizes the deliverability of electricity generated at the facility to load centers, and (4) meet the definition of an eligible renewable energy resource under the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. The commission refers to this requirement as the renewable feed-in tariff.

This bill would additionally authorize a conduit hydroelectric facility with an effective capacity of up to 4 megawatts to participate in the renewable feed-in tariff if the facility delivers no more than 3 megawatts to the grid at any time, was operational on January 1, 1990, and complies with specified interconnection and payment requirements.

Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires every electrical corporation to file with the commission a standard tariff for electricity purchased from an electric generation facility, as defined, that qualifies for the tariff, is owned and operated by a retail customer of the electrical corporation, and is located within the service territory of, and developed to sell electricity to, the electrical corporation. Existing law requires that, in order to qualify for the tariff, the electric generation facility: (1) have an effective capacity of not more than 3 megawatts, subject to the authority of the commission to reduce this megawatt limitation, (2) be interconnected and operate in parallel with the electric transmission and distribution grid, (3) be strategically located and interconnected to the electrical transmission and distribution grid in a manner that optimizes the deliverability of electricity generated at the facility to load centers, and (4) meet the definition of an eligible renewable energy resource under the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. The commission refers to this requirement as the renewable feed-in tariff.

This bill would additionally authorize a conduit hydroelectric facility with an effective capacity of up to 4 megawatts to participate in the renewable feed-in tariff if the facility delivers no more than 3 megawatts to the grid at any time, was operational on January 1, 1990, and complies with specified interconnection and payment requirements.

Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires every electrical corporation to file with the commission a standard tariff for electricity purchased from an electric generation facility, as defined, that qualifies for the tariff, is owned and operated by a retail customer of the electrical corporation, and is located within the service territory of, and developed to sell electricity to, the electrical corporation. Existing law requires that, in order to qualify for the tariff, the electric generation facility: (1) have an effective capacity of not more than 3 megawatts, subject to the authority of the commission to reduce this megawatt limitation, (2) be interconnected and operate in parallel with the electric transmission and distribution grid, (3) be strategically located and interconnected to the electrical transmission and distribution grid in a manner that optimizes the deliverability of electricity generated at the facility to load centers, and (4) meet the definition of an eligible renewable energy resource under the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. The commission refers to this requirement as the renewable feed-in tariff.

This bill would revise the requirement that an electric generation facility have an effective capacity of not more than 3 megawatts to additionally authorize a conduit hydroelectric facility with a nameplate generating an effective capacity of up to 4 megawatts to participate in the renewable feed-in tariff if the facility delivers no more than 3 megawatts to the grid at any time, was operational on January 1, 1990, and complies with specified interconnection and payment requirements.

Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires every electrical corporation to file with the commission a standard tariff for electricity generated by purchased from an electric generation facility, as defined, that qualifies for the tariff, is owned and operated by a retail customer of the electrical corporation, and is located within the service territory of, and developed to sell electricity to, the electrical corporation. Existing law requires that, in order to qualify for the tariff, the electric generation facility: (1) have an effective capacity of not more than 3 megawatts, subject to the authority of the commission to reduce this megawatt limitation, (2) be interconnected and operate in parallel with the electric transmission and distribution grid, (3) be strategically located and interconnected to the electrical transmission and distribution system grid in a manner that optimizes the deliverability of electricity generated at the facility to load centers, and (4) meet the definition of an eligible renewable energy resource under the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. The commission refers to this requirement as the renewable feed-in tariff.

This bill would revise the requirement that an electric generation facility have an effective capacity of not more than 3 megawatts to additionally authorize a conduit hydroelectric facility with a nameplate generating capacity of up to 5 4 megawatts to participate in the renewable feed-in tariff if the facility delivers no more than 3 megawatts to the grid at any time time, was operational on January 1, 1990, and complies with specified interconnection and payment requirements.

Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires every electrical corporation to file with the commission a standard tariff for electricity generated by an electric generation facility, as defined, that qualifies for the tariff, is owned and operated by a retail customer of the electrical corporation, and is located within the service territory of, and developed to sell electricity to, the electrical corporation. Existing law requires that, in order to qualify for the tariff, the electric generation facility: (1) have an effective capacity of not more than 3 megawatts, subject to the authority of the commission to reduce this megawatt limitation, (2) be interconnected and operate in parallel with the electric transmission and distribution grid, (3) be strategically located and interconnected to the electrical transmission and distribution system in a manner that optimizes the deliverability of electricity generated at the facility to load centers, and (4) meet the definition of an eligible renewable energy resource under the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. The commission refers to this requirement as the renewable feed-in tariff.

This bill would revise the requirement that an electric generation facility have an effective capacity of not more than 3 megawatts to additionally authorize a hydroelectric facility with a nameplate generating capacity of up to 5 megawatts to participate in the renewable feed-in tariff if the facility delivers no more than 3 megawatts to the grid in any hour at any time and complies with specified interconnection and payment requirements.

Existing law, the Urban Water Management Planning Act, requires every public and private urban water supplier that directly or indirectly provides water for municipal purposes to prepare and adopt an urban water management plan.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to that act.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1979

Author:(Bigelow)

As Amended Ver:August 19, 2016

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: U. & C.

SUMMARY: Makes an exception to the feed-in-tariff (FIT) program three megawatt (MW) limit on the generating capacity of an eligible electric generation facility to newly allow participation by a conduit hydroelectric facility with a nameplate generating capacity of up to four MWs that meets certain conditions

The Senate amendments make minor, non-substantive changes and relocate the content of the bill to a different section within the California Public Utilities Code.

FISCAL EFFECT: None.

COMMENTS:

Feed-in tariffs: According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a FIT offers a guarantee of payments to renewable energy developers for the electricity they produce. NREL reports that FITs are used in many United States states and around the world. California, too, offers a FIT program. State law requires all investor-owned utilities and publicly-owned utilities that serve more than 75,000 retail customers to develop a standard FIT contract available to renewable energy facilities up to three MW. Statewide participation is capped at 750 MW.

1. Effective capacity versus nameplate capacity: As described above, existing statute limits participation in the bioenergy FIT program to electric generation facilities with an "effective capacity" of three MW. This bill creates a conditional exception to the existing FIT program eligibility limit of three MW to allow a conduit hydroelectric facility with a "nameplate generating capacity" of up to four MW. So, what's the difference between effective capacity and nameplate capacity? The practical answer: there is none. The CPUC determined, in Decision 12-05-035, that the three MW effective-capacity limit corresponds to the nameplate capacity of the facility, meaning the capacity stamped on the metal nameplate attached to the generation facility by the manufacturer.
2. A little bit too big: Statute, declares that small projects of less than three MW that are otherwise eligible renewable energy resources may face difficulties in participating in competitive solicitations under the RPS program. Bill proponents object to the exclusion of facilities that have a nameplate capacity of greater than three MW but that are incapable of exporting more than three MW to the grid. As a particular example, proponents point to the Utica Water and Power Authority (UWPA), which owns and operates a small conduit hydroelectric generator with a nameplate capacity of 3.6 MW. Proponents assert that, despite its nameplate capacity, the generator will never produce more than three MW of electricity because of existing water system constraints.

This bill crafts a narrow exemption to the FIT program capacity limitation for hydroelectric facilities like that UWPA's, as characterized by bill proponents. In fact, the exemption is so narrowly crafted that it is unlikely that any facility other than UWPA's will qualify for the exemption. In any case, the effect of the exemption should be minor from the perspective of both ratepayers and grid operators.

Analysis Prepared by: Sue Kateley / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0004864

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1979

Author:

: Senate

Vote:

SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/21/16

AYES: Hueso, Morrell, Cannella, Gaines, Hertzberg, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Pavley, Wolk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hill

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/27/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Utica Water and Power Authority

DIGEST: This bill makes an exception to the feed-in-tariff program three-megawatt limit on the generating capacity of an eligible electric generation facility to newly allow participation by a conduit hydroelectric facility with a nameplate generating capacity of up to four megawatts that meets certain conditions.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/16 avoid conflict with another bill (the budget trailer bill) that amend the same code section as this bill would have amended.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires all investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and publicly owned utilities (POUs) that serve more than 75,000 retail customers, to develop a standard contract or tariff (aka feed-in-tariff or FIT) available for renewable energy facilities up to three megawatts (MW). Statewide participation is capped at 750 MW. (Public Utilities Code §§399.20 and 387.8)
2. Directs the electrical corporations to develop standard contract terms and conditions that reflect the operational characteristics of the projects, and to provide a streamlined contracting process. (Public Utilities Code §399.20)
3. Counts renewable energy generation FIT contracts to qualify for credit toward and IOUs Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goals and resource adequacy requirements. (Public Utilities Code §399.20)

This bill:

1. Creates an exception to the existing FIT program eligibility limit of three MW to allow a conduit hydroelectric facility with a nameplate generating capacity of up to four MW if the conduit hydroelectric facility meets the following conditions: 

• It delivers no more than three MW to the grid at any time.
• It complies with the electrical corporation’s Electric Rule 21 tariff or other distribution access tariff.
• Payment is made pursuant to the FIT program no payment is made for any deliveries in excess of three MW at any time.
• It was operational as of January 1, 1990, and is an eligible renewable energy resource.

1. Prohibits the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) from reducing the MW limitation for a conduit hydroelectric facility described above.

Background

Feed-in tariffs. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a FIT offers a guarantee of payments to renewable energy developers for the electricity they produce. NREL reports that FITs are used in many U.S. states and around the world. California, too, offers a FIT program. State law requires all IOUs and POUs that serve more than 75,000 retail customers to develop a standard FIT contract available to renewable energy facilities up to three MW. Statewide participation is capped at 750 MW.

Effective capacity versus nameplate capacity. As described above, existing statute limits participation in the bioenergy FIT program to electric generation facilities with and “effective capacity” of three MW. This bill creates a conditional exception to the existing FIT program eligibility limit of three MW to allow a conduit hydroelectric facility with a “nameplate generating capacity” of up to four MW. So, what’s the difference between effective capacity and nameplate capacity? The practical answer: there is none. The CPUC determined, in Decision 12-05-035, that he three MW effective-capacity limitation corresponds to the nameplate capacity of the facility, meaning the capacity stamped on the metal nameplate attached to the generation facility by the manufacturer.

A little bit too big. Statute, declares that small projects of less than three MW that are otherwise eligible renewable energy resources may face difficulties in participating in competitive solicitations under the RPS program. Bill proponents object to the exclusion of facilities that have a nameplate capacity of greater than three MW but that are incapable of exporting more than three MW to the grid. As a particular example, proponents point to the Utica Water & Power Authority (UWPA), which owns and operates a small conduit hydroelectric generator with a nameplate capacity of 3.6 MW. Proponents assert that, despite its nameplate capacity, the generator will never produce more than three MW of electricity because of existing water system constraints.

This bill crafts a narrow exemption to the FIT program capacity limitation for hydroelectric facilities like that UWPA’s, as characterized by bill proponents. In fact, the exemption is so narrowly crafted that it is unlikely that any facility other than UWPA’s will qualify for the exemption. In any case, the effect of the exemption should be minor from the perspective of both ratepayers and grid operators.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1923 (Wood, 2016) increases, from three MW nameplate to five MW, the limit on the nameplate capacity of a bioenergy electric generation facility that may participate in the IOU’s bioenergy feed-in-tariff programs. The bill is pending consideration by the full Senate.

SB 1112 (Rubio, Chapter 612, Statutes of 2012) required an additional 250 MW of renewable FIT procurement from small-scale bioenergy projects that commence operation on or after June 1, 2013.

SB 32 (Negrete-McLeod, Chapter 328, Statutes of 2009) increased the FIT program limit from 480 MW to 750 MW and increased from 1.5 MW effective capacity to three MW effective capacity the limit on electric generating facilities eligible to participate in the FIT program.

AB 1969 (Yee, Chapter 731, Statutes of 2006) authorized the state’s first FIT program, which authorized the state’s largest IOU’s to purchase up to 480 MW of renewable generating capacity from renewable facilities with an effective capacity of not more than 1.5 MW.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/16)

Utica Water and Power Authority (source)

Calaveras County Supervisor, District 3

Calaveras County Water District

City of Angels Camp

Murphys Sanitary District

NLine energy

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/19/16)

Sierra Club California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author:

Small hydroelectric generators with a nameplate of over three MW are prohibited from participating in the FIT even though the generator will never actually run above the three-MW threshold. For example, the UWPA owns and operates a small conduit hydroelectric generator with a nameplate of 3.6 MW. However, due to the existing water system, the generator will never run above three MW. In fact, it will likely never run above 2.5 MW. Despite this, the facility is ineligible to participate in this important program aimed at promoting these exact types of small renewable generators. This bill will allow an existing conduit hydroelectric generation facility to be eligible for the renewable FIT program if it has a nameplate generating capacity of up to four MW but does not operate above three MW, and was operational as of January 1, 1990.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the opponents, this bill would allow larger hydroelectric generating facilities to qualify for the renewable FIT while starving out other more truly renewable and environmentally sound projects. It would also increase workload at the CPUC for projects that are barely renewable.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/27/16

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough, Brown, Chiu, Dodd, Grove, Hadley, Melendez, O'Donnell

Prepared by:

8/22/16 22:10:23

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1979

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/21/16

AYES: Hueso, Morrell, Cannella, Gaines, Hertzberg, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Pavley, Wolk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hill

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/27/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Utica Water and Power Authority

DIGEST: This bill makes an exception to the feed-in-tariff program three-megawatt limit on the generating capacity of an eligible electric generation facility to newly allow participation by a conduit hydroelectric facility with a nameplate generating capacity of up to four megawatts that meets certain conditions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires all investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and publicly owned utilities (POUs) that serve more than 75,000 retail customers, to develop a standard contract or tariff (aka feed-in-tariff or FIT) available for renewable energy facilities up to three megawatts (MW). Statewide participation is capped at 750 MW. (Public Utilities Code §§399.20 and 387.8)
2. Directs the electrical corporations to develop standard contract terms and conditions that reflect the operational characteristics of the projects, and to provide a streamlined contracting process. (Public Utilities Code §399.20)
3. Counts renewable energy generation FIT contracts to qualify for credit toward and IOUs Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goals and resource adequacy requirements. (Public Utilities Code §399.20)

This bill:

1. Creates an exception to the existing FIT program eligibility limit of three MW to allow a conduit hydroelectric facility with a nameplate generating capacity of up to four MW if the conduit hydroelectric facility meets the following conditions: 

• It delivers no more than three MW to the grid at any time.
• It complies with the electrical corporation’s Electric Rule 21 tariff or other distribution access tariff.
• Payment is made pursuant to the FIT program no payment is made for any deliveries in excess of three MW at any time.
• It was operational as of January 1, 1990, and is an eligible renewable energy resource.

1. Prohibits the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) from reducing the MW limitation for a conduit hydroelectric facility described above.

Background

Feed-in tariffs. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a FIT offers a guarantee of payments to renewable energy developers for the electricity they produce. NREL reports that FITs are used in many U.S. states and around the world. California, too, offers a FIT program. State law requires all IOUs and POUs that serve more than 75,000 retail customers to develop a standard FIT contract available to renewable energy facilities up to three MW. Statewide participation is capped at 750 MW.

Effective capacity versus nameplate capacity. As described above, existing statute limits participation in the bioenergy FIT program to electric generation facilities with and “effective capacity” of three MW. This bill creates a conditional exception to the existing FIT program eligibility limit of three MW to allow a conduit hydroelectric facility with a “nameplate generating capacity” of up to four MW. So, what’s the difference between effective capacity and nameplate capacity? The practical answer: there is none. The CPUC determined, in Decision 12-05-035, that he three MW effective-capacity limitation corresponds to the nameplate capacity of the facility, meaning the capacity stamped on the metal nameplate attached to the generation facility by the manufacturer.

A little bit too big. Statute, declares that small projects of less than three MW that are otherwise eligible renewable energy resources may face difficulties in participating in competitive solicitations under the RPS program. Bill proponents object to the exclusion of facilities that have a nameplate capacity of greater than three MW but that are incapable of exporting more than three MW to the grid. As a particular example, proponents point to the Utica Water & Power Authority (UWPA), which owns and operates a small conduit hydroelectric generator with a nameplate capacity of 3.6 MW. Proponents assert that, despite its nameplate capacity, the generator will never produce more than three MW of electricity because of existing water system constraints.

This bill crafts a narrow exemption to the FIT program capacity limitation for hydroelectric facilities like that UWPA’s, as characterized by bill proponents. In fact, the exemption is so narrowly crafted that it is unlikely that any facility other than UWPA’s will qualify for the exemption. In any case, the effect of the exemption should be minor from the perspective of both ratepayers and grid operators.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1923 (Wood, 2016) increases, from three MW nameplate to five MW, the limit on the nameplate capacity of a bioenergy electric generation facility that may participate in the IOU’s bioenergy feed-in-tariff programs.

SB 1112 (Rubio, Chapter 612, Statutes of 2012) required an additional 250 MW of renewable FIT procurement from small-scale bioenergy projects that commence operation on or after June 1, 2013.

SB 32 (Negrete-McLeod, Chapter 328, Statutes of 2009) increased the FIT program limit from 480 MW to 750 MW and increased from 1.5 MW effective capacity to three MW effective capacity the limit on electric generating facilities eligible to participate in the FIT program.

AB 1969 (Yee, Chapter 731, Statutes of 2006) authorized the state’s first FIT program, which authorized the state’s largest IOU’s to purchase up to 480 MW of renewable generating capacity from renewable facilities with an effective capacity of not more than 1.5 MW.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/1/16)

Utica Water and Power Authority (source)

Calaveras County Supervisor, District 3

Calaveras County Water District

City of Angels Camp

Murphys Sanitary District

NLine energy

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/1/16)

Sierra Club California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author:

Small hydroelectric generators with a nameplate of over three MW are prohibited from participating in the FIT even though the generator will never actually run above the three-MW threshold. For example, the UWPA owns and operates a small conduit hydroelectric generator with a nameplate of 3.6 MW. However, due to the existing water system, the generator will never run above three MW. In fact, it will likely never run above 2.5 MW. Despite this, the facility is ineligible to participate in this important program aimed at promoting these exact types of small renewable generators. This bill will allow an existing conduit hydroelectric generation facility to be eligible for the renewable FIT program if it has a nameplate generating capacity of up to four MW but does not operate above three MW, and was operational as of January 1, 1990.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the opponents, this bill would allow larger hydroelectric generating facilities to qualify for the renewable FIT while starving out other more truly renewable and environmentally sound projects. It would also increase workload at the CPUC for projects that are barely renewable.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/27/16

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough, Brown, Chiu, Dodd, Grove, Hadley, Melendez, O'Donnell

Prepared by:

8/3/16 18:40:27

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS

Senator Ben Hueso, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 6/21/2016

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill makes an exception to the feed-in-tariff program three-megawatt limit on the generating capacity of an eligible electric generation facility to newly allow participation by a conduit hydroelectric facility with a nameplate generating capacity of up to four megawatts that meets certain conditions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires all investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and publicly owned utilities (POUs) that serve more than 75,000 retail customers, to develop a standard contract or tariff (aka feed-in-tariff or FIT) available for renewable energy facilities up to three megawatts (MW). Statewide participation is capped at 750 MW. (Public Utilities Code §399.20 and 387.8)
2. Directs the electrical corporations to develop standard contract terms and conditions that reflect the operational characteristics of the projects, and to provide a streamlined contracting process. (Public Utilities Code §399.20)
3. Counts renewable energy generation FIT contracts to qualify for credit toward and IOUs Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goals and resource adequacy requirements. (Public Utilities Code §399.20)

This bill:

1. Creates an exception to the existing FIT program eligibility limit of three MW to allow a conduit hydroelectric facility with a nameplate generating capacity of up to four MW if the conduit hydroelectric facility meets the following conditions: 

• It delivers no more than three megawatts to the grid at any time.
• It complies with the electrical corporation’s Electric Rule 21 tariff or other distribution access tariff.
• Payment is made pursuant to the FIT program no payment is made for any deliveries in excess of three MW at any time.
• It was operational as of January 1, 1990, and is an eligible renewable energy resource.

1. Prohibits the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) from reducing the MW limitation for a conduit hydroelectric facility described above.

Background

Feed-in-tariff programs. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a FIT offers a guarantee of payments to renewable energy developers for the electricity they produce. NREL reports that FITs are used in many U.S. states and around the world.^[1]

California, too, offers a FIT program to renewable resources. In 2006, legislation^[2] authorized the state’s first FIT program, which authorized the state’s largest IOU’s to purchase up to 480 MW of renewable generating capacity from renewable facilities with an “effective capacity” of not more than 1.5 MW. The FIT program set the price paid to small generators, on a first-come, first-served basis, at a price comparable to the price of electricity generated using natural gas plus the value of some environmental attributes.

Legislation expanded the state’s FIT program in 2009.^[3] First, the program limit was increased from 480 MW to 750 MW. Second, the cap on the size of an electric generation facility eligible to participate in the FIT program was increased from 1.5 MW effective capacity to three MW effective capacity. This bill notes that the Legislature finds and declares that small projects of less than three MW that are otherwise eligible renewable energy resources may face difficulties in participating in competitive solicitations under the RPS program.

Effective capacity versus nameplate capacity. As described above, existing statute limits participation in the bioenergy FIT program to electric generation facilities with and “effective capacity” of three MW. Creates a conditional exception to the existing FIT program eligibility limit of three MW to allow a conduit hydroelectric facility with a “nameplate generating capacity” of up to four MW. So, what’s the difference between effective capacity and nameplate capacity? The practical answer: there is none. The CPUC determined, in Decision 12-05-035, that he three MW limitation corresponds to the nameplate capacity of the facility, meaning the capacity stamped on the metal nameplate attached to the generation facility by the manufacturer.

The problem of being a little bit too big. Statute, in legislative findings and declarations, provides a market-based rationale for limiting participation in the FIT program to those facilities with an effective capacity no more than three MW. That is, statute declares that small projects of less than three MW that are otherwise eligible renewable energy resources may face difficulties in participating in competitive solicitations under the RPS program.

Bill proponents do not object to the fundamental rationale behind the FIT program’s three-MW limit. They do, however, object to the exclusion of facilities that have a nameplate capacity of greater than three MW but that are incapable of exporting more than three MW to the grid. As a particular example, proponents point to the Utica Water & Power Authority (UWPA), which owns and operates a small conduit hydroelectric generator with a nameplate capacity of 3.6 MW. Proponents assert that, despite its nameplate capacity, the generator will never produce more than three MW of electricity because of existing water system constraints.

This bill crafts a narrow exemption to the FIT program capacity limitation for hydroelectric facilities like that UWPA’s, as characterized by bill proponents. In fact, the exemption is so narrowly crafted that it is unlikely that any facility other than UWPA’s will qualify for the exemption. In any case, the effect of the exemption should be minor from the perspective of both ratepayers and grid operators.

Prior/Related Legislation

AB 1969 (Yee, Chapter 731, Statutes of 2006) authorized the state’s first FIT program, which authorized the state’s largest IOU’s to purchase up to 480 MW of renewable generating capacity from renewable facilities with an effective capacity of not more than 1.5 Ms.

SB 32 (Negrete-McLeod, Chapter 328, Statutes of 2009) increased the FIT program limit from 480 MW to 750 MW and increased from 1.5 MW effective capacity to three MW effective capacity the limit on electric generating facilities eligible to participate in the FIT program.

SB 1112 (Rubio, Chapter 612, Statutes of 2012) required an additional 250 MW of renewable FIT procurement from small-scale bioenergy projects that commence operation on or after June 1, 2013.

AB 1923 (Wood, 2016) would increase, from three MW nameplate to five MW, the limit on the nameplate capacity of a bioenergy electric generation facility that may participate in the IOU’s bioenergy feed-in-tariff programs. The bill is pending consideration by this committee.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT:

Utica Water and Power Authority (Source)

Calaveras County Supervisor, District 3

Calaveras County Water District

City of Angels Camp

Murphys Sanitary District

NLine energy

OPPOSITION:

Sierra Club California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author:

Small hydroelectric generators with a nameplate of over three MW are prohibited from participating in the FIT even though the generator will never actually run above the three-MW threshold. For example, the Utica Water & Power Authority owns and operates a small conduit hydroelectric generator with a nameplate of 3.6 MW. However, due to the existing water system, the generator will never run above three MW. In fact, it will likely never run above 2.5 MW. Despite this, the facility is ineligible to participate in this important program aimed at promoting these exact types of small renewable generators.

This bill will allow an existing conduit hydroelectric generation facility to be eligible for the renewable FIT program if it has a nameplate generating capacity of up to four MW but does not operate above three MW, and was operational as of January 1, 1990.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the opponents, this bill would allow larger hydroelectric generating facilities to qualify for the renewable FIT while starving out other more truly renewable and environmentally sound projects. It would also increase workload at the CPUC for projects that are barely renewable.

-- END --

1. http://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/state_local_governments/basics_tariffs.html. ↑

2. AB 1969 (Yee), Chapter 731, Statutes of 2006. ↑

3. SB 32 (Negrete-McLeod), Chapter 328, Statutes of 2009. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1979

Author:(Bigelow)

As Amended Ver:May 23, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to direct electrical corporations to authorize a hydroelectric generation facility with a nameplate (total possible output) generating capacity of up to five megawatts (MWs) to participate in the feed-in tariff, if the facility delivers no more than three MWs to the grid at any time and complies with specified interconnection and payment requirements.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, one-time, short-term increased CPUC workload absorbable within existing resources. However, this increased workload may potentially delay implementation of other Renewable Portfolios Standard (RPS) programs and policies.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose: According to the author, the feed-in tariff program has proven to be underutilized, especially with baseload power like small hydropower. There are only about 14 small hydropower facilities throughout California that have a nameplate value between three to five MWs, are certified renewable, and that might otherwise be eligible for the renewable Feed-In Tariff (FIT).

By narrowly expanding eligibility for the FIT program, some of these facilities will be able to participate as long as they commit to generating less than three MWs. According to the author, this will provide an essential lifeline for some of these small hydropower companies.

1. Background: A FIT is a contract that provides a guaranteed fixed payment for the energy produced. All investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and publicly owned utilities (POUs) that serve more than 75,000 retail customers are required to develop a standard contract or tariff available for renewable energy facilities up to three MWs capped at 750 MWs statewide.

Existing law limits hydroelectric facility eligibility to projects with an effective capacity of not more than three megawatts. The CPUC, in Decision 12-05-035, stated that this capacity shall be determined by the "nameplate" – the metal plate attached to a generator by the manufacturer listing model number and other details. If a hydroelectric generator has a nameplate of over three MWs it is prohibited from participating in the FIT even if generator will never actually run above the three MWs threshold.

This bill limits this provision to single hydroelectric facilities that are eligible under the RPS and are not under a long-term contract prior to January 1, 1990.

1. Similar Legislation: AB 1923 (Wood) of the current legislative session expands the three MWs limit for biomass facilities. This bill is pending in the Senate Energy, Utilities and Commerce Committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Sue Kateley / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0003015

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1979

Author:(Bigelow)

As Amended Ver:April 26, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to direct electrical corporations to authorize a hydroelectric generation facility with a nameplate (total possible output) generating capacity of up to five megawatts (MWs) to participate in the feed-in tariff, if the facility delivers no more than three MWs to the grid at any time and complies with specified interconnection and payment requirements.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, one-time, short-term increased Public Utilities Commission (PUC) workload absorbable within existing resources. However, this increased workload may potentially delay implementation of other Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) programs and policies.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose: According to the author, the feed-in tariff program has proven to be underutilized, especially with baseload power like small hydropower. There are only about 14 small hydropower facilities throughout California that have a nameplate value between three to five MWs, are certified renewable, and that might otherwise be eligible for the renewable Feed-In Tariff (FIT).

By narrowly expanding eligibility for the FIT program, some of these facilities will be able to participate as long as they commit to generating less than three MW. According to the author, this will provide an essential lifeline for some of these small hydropower companies

1. Background: A FIT is a contract that provides a guaranteed fixed payment for the energy produced. All investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and publicly owned utilities (POUs) that serve more than 75,000 retail customers are required to develop a standard contract or tariff available for renewable energy facilities up to three MWs capped at 750 MWs statewide.

Existing law limits hydroelectric facility eligibility to projects with an effective capacity of not more than three megawatts. The CPUC, in Decision 12-05-035, stated that this capacity shall be determined by the "nameplate" – the metal plate attached to a generator by the manufacturer listing model number and other details. If a hydroelectric generator has a nameplate of over three MWs it is prohibited from participating in the FIT even if generator will never actually run above the three MWs threshold.

This bill limits this provision to single hydroelectric facilities that are eligible under the Renewable Portfolios Standard and are not under a long-term contract prior to January 1, 2017.

1. Similar Legislation: AB 1923 (Wood) of the current legislative session expands the three MWs limit for biomass facilities. This bill is pending in the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Commerce Committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Sue Kateley / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0003014

Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1979

Author:(Bigelow) – As Amended Ver:April 26, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to direct electrical corporations to authorize a hydroelectric generation facility with a nameplate (total possible output) generating capacity of up to 5 MW to participate in the feed-in tariff, if the facility delivers no more than 3 MW to the grid at any time and complies with specified interconnection and payment requirements.

FISCAL EFFECT:

One-time, short-term increased PUC workload absorbable within existing resources. However, this increased workload may potentially delay implementation of other RPS programs and policies.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, the feed-in tariff program has proven to be underutilized, especially with baseload power like small hydropower. There are only about 14 small hydropower facilities throughout California that have a nameplate value between 3-5MW, are certified renewable, and that might otherwise be eligible for the renewable Feed-In Tariff (FIT).

By narrowly expanding eligibility for the FIT program, some of these facilities will be able to participate as long as they commit to generating less than 3 MW. According to the author, this will provide an essential lifeline for some of these small hydropower companies

1. Background. A FIT is a contract that provides a guaranteed fixed payment for the energy produced. All investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and publicly owned utilities (POUs) that serve more than 75,000 retail customers are required to develop a standard contract or tariff available for renewable energy facilities up to 3 MWs capped at 750 MWs statewide.

Existing law limits hydroelectric facility eligibility to projects with an effective capacity of not more than three megawatts. The PUC, in Decision 12-05-035, stated that this capacity shall be determined by the "nameplate" – the metal plate attached to a generator by the manufacturer listing model number and other details. If a hydroelectric generator has a nameplate of over three MW it is prohibited from participating in the FIT even if generator will never actually run above the three MW threshold.

This bill limits this provision to single hydroelectric facilities that are eligible under the Renewable Portfolios Standard (RPS) and are not under a long-term contract prior to January 1, 2017.

1. Similar Legislation. AB 1923 (Wood) expands the 3MW limit for biomass facilities. This bill passed this Committee and is pending on the Assembly floor.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE

Mike Gatto, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1979 (

Author:Bigelow) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2016

SUBJECT: Renewable feed-in tariff: hydroelectric facilities

SUMMARY: Revises the requirement that an electric generation facility have an effective capacity of not more than three megawatts (MW) to also authorize a hydroelectric facility with a nameplate generating capacity of up to five MW. Specifically, this bill

1. Increases the current limit on eligibility for entering into a standard contract from three MW to five MW if:
   1. It delivers no more than three MW to the grid in an hour.
   2. It complies with the electrical corporation's Electric Rule 21 tariff or other distribution access tariff.
   3. Payment is made, as specified, and no payment is made for any generation in excess of three megawatts in any hour.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires all investor owned utilities (IOUs) and publicly owned utilities (POUs) that serve more than 75,000 retail customers, to develop a standard contract or tariff (aka feed-in-tariff or FIT) available for renewable energy facilities up to three MW. Statewide participation is capped at 750 MWs. (Public Utilities Code Sections 399.20 and 387.8)
2. Directs the electrical corporations to develop standard contract terms and conditions that reflect the operational characteristics of the projects, and to provide a streamlined contracting process. (Public Utilities Code Section 399.20)
3. Counts renewable energy generation FIT contracts to qualify for credit toward and IOUs Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goals and resource adequacy requirements. (Public Utilities Code Section 399.20)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: "The Feed-In Tariff program was established to incentivize small renewable power generation. The Feed-In Tariff program has proven to be underutilized, especially with regards to baseload power like small hydro. There are only about 14 small hydropower facilities throughout California that have a nameplate value between 3-5MW, are certified renewable, and that might otherwise be eligible for the renewable Feed-In Tariff. By narrowly expanding eligibility for the Feed-In Tariff program, some of these facilities will be able to participate as long as they commit to generating less than 3 MW. This provides an essential lifeline for some of these small hydropower companies."
2. Background: Feed-In Tariffs (FITs) are a popular means of rapidly growing the market for renewable energy almost everywhere in the world. A FIT is a contract that provides a guaranteed fixed payment for the energy produced using a standard contract. AB 1969 (Yee), Chapter 731, Statutes of 2006, established California's first FIT program authorizing the purchase of up to 480 MW of renewable generating capacity from renewable facilities smaller than 1.5 MW. The AB 1969 FIT program set the price paid to small generators at a price comparable to the price of electricity generated using natural gas plus the value of some environmental attributes.

In 2009, SB 32 (Negrete-McLeod), Chapter 328, allowed FIT contracts for small renewable generation facilities (less than 3 MW) because the structure of RPS solicitations generally excluded smaller projects, smaller facilities could be located within communities close to where the electricity would be used, and could be connected to the utilities local electric distribution system (rather than the statewide electric transmission system).

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) established SB 32's price for electricity contracts based on three FIT product types: baseload, peaking as-available, and non-peaking as-available. The CPUC also adopted a two-month price adjustment mechanism that may increase or decrease the price for each product type every two months based on the market response, and allows each accepted project to be paid a time-of-delivery adjustment based on the generator's actual energy delivery profile and the individual utility's time-of-delivery factors.

The CPUC allocates a certain number of MW to each IOU as part of the program. The CPUC requires that each IOU offer the standard contract to eligible generators until its cap it reached. The CPUC further delineates that each IOU maintain a separate application queue, with separate payment rates, for each of the following three categories of: peaking as-available (e.g., solar), non-peaking as-available (e.g., wind), and baseload (e.g., small hydro).

1. Interconnection Rule 21: The CPUC requires the IOUs to implement a rule for how generation facilities connect to the electric distribution system to ensure that the electric distribution system can be operated safely and reliably, with no adverse effects to electricity consumers or utility workers. This rule is known as "Rule 21." The maximum size of a generation facility that can interconnect under Rule 21 without triggering additional study for safety and reliability is when the aggregate Generating Facility capacity on the Line Section is less than 15% of Line Section peak load for all line sections bounded by automatic sectionalizing devices.

Distribution lines generally have a capacity of 20 MW. SB 32 set the maximum size of the generating facility at three MW, which is 15% of the distribution line capacity and consistent with Rule 21 maximum allowable size without triggering additional study.

1. An existing hydroelectric facility: Public Utilities Code Section 399.20(b)(1) limits eligibility to projects with "an effective capacity of not more than three megawatts." The CPUC, in Decision 12-05-035, stated that this capacity shall be determined by the "nameplate" – the metal plate attached to a generator by the manufacturer listing model number and other details. If a hydroelectric generator has a nameplate of over three MW it is prohibited from participating in the FIT even if generator will never actually run above the three MW threshold.

The Utica Water and Power Authority (UWPA) owns and operates a small hydroelectric generator with a nameplate rating of 3.6 MW. The facility was originally built by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) at a time when PG&E had more water available for generation. Due to permanent reductions of UWPA's water supplies, made worse by drought, the facility rarely runs above 2.5 MW and can easily limit generation to three MW. Despite this, the facility is ineligible to participate in this important program aimed at promoting these exact types of small renewable generators simply because of the number printed on the nameplate. UWPA serves predominately disadvantaged communities and the agency has been hit hard by the drought. The additional revenue from the renewable FIT will ensure reliable water supply and continued generation of the exact type of renewable energy that the state sought to incentivize with the RPS and the renewable FIT.

The universe of other hydroelectric facilities that may be similarly situation is unknown. Without such information it is not clear if there is only one such project or if this will dramatically increase the number hydroelectric projects that might be developed in order to meet this threshold.

The author may wish to consider an amendment that would limit the applicability to a single hydroelectric facility that is not under a long term contract prior to January 1, 2017 and that is RPS eligible.

1. Related Legislation:

AB 1923 (Wood) 2016: Similarly expands the 3MW limit for biomass facilities. Pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

1. Suggested Amendments:

SECTION 1. Section 399.20 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

399.20. (a) It is the policy of this state and the intent of the Legislature to encourage electrical generation from eligible renewable energy resources.

(b) As used in this section, “electric generation facility” means an electric generation facility located within the service territory of, and developed to sell electricity to, an electrical corporation that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) Has an effective capacity of not more than three megawatts or is a hydroelectric facility with a nameplate generating capacity of up to five megawatts if the hydroelectric facility meets the following conditions: 

(A) It delivers no more than three megawatts to the grid in an hour at any time.

(B) It complies with the electrical corporation’s Electric Rule 21 tariff or other distribution access tariff.

(C) Payment is made pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) and no payment is made for any generation deliveries in excess of three megawatts in any hour.

(D) Is an existing hydroelectric facility not under a long term contract as of January 1, 2017 and eligible under PUC Section 399.12(e) 

(2) Is interconnected and operates in parallel with the electrical transmission and distribution grid.

(3) Is strategically located and interconnected to the electrical transmission and distribution grid in a manner that optimizes the deliverability of electricity generated at the facility to load centers.

(4) Is an eligible renewable energy resource.

(c) Every electrical corporation shall file with the commission a standard tariff for electricity purchased from an electric generation facility. The commission may modify or adjust the requirements of this section for any electrical corporation with less than 100,000 service connections, as individual circumstances merit.

(d) (1) The tariff shall provide for payment for every kilowatthour of electricity purchased from an electric generation facility for a period of 10, 15, or 20 years, as authorized by the commission. The payment shall be the market price determined by the commission pursuant to paragraph (2) and shall include all current and anticipated environmental compliance costs, including, but not limited to, mitigation of emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution offsets associated with the operation of new generating facilities in the local air pollution control or air quality management district where the electric generation facility is located.

(2) The commission shall establish a methodology to determine the market price of electricity for terms corresponding to the length of contracts with an electric generation facility, in consideration of the following:

(A) The long-term market price of electricity for fixed price contracts, determined pursuant to an electrical corporation’s general procurement activities as authorized by the commission.

(B) The long-term ownership, operating, and fixed-price fuel costs associated with fixed-price electricity from new generating facilities.

(C) The value of different electricity products including baseload, peaking, and as-available electricity.

(3) The commission may adjust the payment rate to reflect the value of every kilowatthour of electricity generated on a time-of-delivery basis.

(4) The commission shall ensure, with respect to rates and charges, that ratepayers that do not receive service pursuant to the tariff are indifferent to whether a ratepayer with an electric generation facility receives service pursuant to the tariff.

(e) An electrical corporation shall provide expedited interconnection procedures to an electric generation facility located on a distribution circuit that generates electricity at a time and in a manner so as to offset the peak demand on the distribution circuit, if the electrical corporation determines that the electric generation facility will not adversely affect the distribution grid. The commission shall consider and may establish a value for an electric generation facility located on a distribution circuit that generates electricity at a time and in a manner so as to offset the peak demand on the distribution circuit.

(f) (1) An electrical corporation shall make the tariff available to the owner or operator of an electric generation facility within the service territory of the electrical corporation, upon request, on a first-come-first-served basis, until the electrical corporation meets its proportionate share of a statewide cap of 750 megawatts cumulative rated generation capacity served under this section and Section 387.6. The proportionate share shall be calculated based on the ratio of the electrical corporation’s peak demand compared to the total statewide peak demand.

(2) By June 1, 2013, the commission shall, in addition to the 750 megawatts identified in paragraph (1), direct the electrical corporations to collectively procure at least 250 megawatts of cumulative rated generating capacity from developers of bioenergy projects that commence operation on or after June 1, 2013. The commission shall, for each electrical corporation, allocate shares of the additional 250 megawatts based on the ratio of each electrical corporation’s peak demand compared to the total statewide peak demand. In implementing this paragraph, the commission shall do all of the following:

(A) Allocate the 250 megawatts identified in this paragraph among the electrical corporations based on the following categories:

(i) For biogas from wastewater treatment, municipal organic waste diversion, food processing, and codigestion, 110 megawatts.

(ii) For dairy and other agricultural bioenergy, 90 megawatts.

(iii) For bioenergy using byproducts of sustainable forest management, 50 megawatts. Allocations under this category shall be determined based on the proportion of bioenergy that sustainable forest management providers derive from sustainable forest management in fire threat treatment areas, as designated by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

(B) Direct the electrical corporations to develop standard contract terms and conditions that reflect the operational characteristics of the projects, and to provide a streamlined contracting process.

(C) Coordinate, to the maximum extent feasible, any incentive or subsidy programs for bioenergy with the agencies listed in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) in order to provide maximum benefits to ratepayers and to ensure that incentives are used to reduce contract prices.

(D) The commission shall encourage gas and electrical corporations to develop and offer programs and services to facilitate development of in-state biogas for a broad range of purposes.

(3) (A) The commission, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, the State Air Resources Board, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, may review the allocations of the 250 additional megawatts identified in paragraph (2) to determine if those allocations are appropriate.

(B) If the commission finds that the allocations of the 250 additional megawatts identified in paragraph (2) are not appropriate, the commission may reallocate the 250 megawatts among the categories established in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2).

(4) For the purposes of this subdivision, “bioenergy” means biogas and biomass.

(g) The electrical corporation may make the terms of the tariff available to owners and operators of an electric generation facility in the form of a standard contract subject to commission approval.

(h) Every kilowatthour of electricity purchased from an electric generation facility shall count toward meeting the electrical corporation’s renewables portfolio standard annual procurement targets for purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 399.15.

(i) The physical generating capacity of an electric generation facility shall count toward the electrical corporation’s resource adequacy requirement for purposes of Section 380.

(j) (1) The commission shall establish performance standards for any electric generation facility that has a capacity greater than one megawatt to ensure that those facilities are constructed, operated, and maintained to generate the expected annual net production of electricity and do not impact system reliability.

(2) The commission may reduce the three megawatt capacity limitation of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), but not the limitation for a hydroelectric facility allowed pursuant to (b)(1)(D),  if the commission finds that a reduced capacity limitation is necessary to maintain system reliability within that electrical corporation’s service territory.

(k) (1) Any owner or operator of an electric generation facility that received ratepayer-funded incentives in accordance with Section 379.6 of this code, or with Section 25782 of the Public Resources Code, and participated in a net metering program pursuant to Sections 2827, 2827.9, and 2827.10 of this code prior to January 1, 2010, shall be eligible for a tariff or standard contract filed by an electrical corporation pursuant to this section.

(2) In establishing the tariffs or standard contracts pursuant to this section, the commission shall consider ratepayer-funded incentive payments previously received by the generation facility pursuant to Section 379.6 of this code or Section 25782 of the Public Resources Code. The commission shall require reimbursement of any funds received from these incentive programs to an electric generation facility, in order for that facility to be eligible for a tariff or standard contract filed by an electrical corporation pursuant to this section, unless the commission determines ratepayers have received sufficient value from the incentives provided to the facility based on how long the project has been in operation and the amount of renewable electricity previously generated by the facility.

(3) A customer that receives service under a tariff or contract approved by the commission pursuant to this section is not eligible to participate in any net metering program.

(l) An owner or operator of an electric generation facility electing to receive service under a tariff or contract approved by the commission shall continue to receive service under the tariff or contract until either of the following occurs:

(1) The owner or operator of an electric generation facility no longer meets the eligibility requirements for receiving service pursuant to the tariff or contract.

(2) The period of service established by the commission pursuant to subdivision (d) is completed.

(m) Within 10 days of receipt of a request for a tariff pursuant to this section from an owner or operator of an electric generation facility, the electrical corporation that receives the request shall post a copy of the request on its Internet Web site. The information posted on the Internet Web site shall include the name of the city in which the facility is located, but information that is proprietary and confidential, including, but not limited to, address information beyond the name of the city in which the facility is located, shall be redacted.

(n) An electrical corporation may deny a tariff request pursuant to this section if the electrical corporation makes any of the following findings:

(1) The electric generation facility does not meet the requirements of this section.

(2) The transmission or distribution grid that would serve as the point of interconnection is inadequate.

(3) The electric generation facility does not meet all applicable state and local laws and building standards and utility interconnection requirements.

(4) The aggregate of all electric generating facilities on a distribution circuit would adversely impact utility operation and load restoration efforts of the distribution system.

(o) Upon receiving a notice of denial from an electrical corporation, the owner or operator of the electric generation facility denied a tariff pursuant to this section shall have the right to appeal that decision to the commission.

(p) In order to ensure the safety and reliability of electric generation facilities, the owner of an electric generation facility receiving a tariff pursuant to this section shall provide an inspection and maintenance report to the electrical corporation at least once every other year. The inspection and maintenance report shall be prepared at the owner’s or operator’s expense by a California-licensed contractor who is not the owner or operator of the electric generation facility. A California-licensed electrician shall perform the inspection of the electrical portion of the generation facility.

(q) The contract between the electric generation facility receiving the tariff and the electrical corporation shall contain provisions that ensure that construction of the electric generating facility complies with all applicable state and local laws and building standards, and utility interconnection requirements.

(r) (1) All construction and installation of facilities of the electrical corporation, including at the point of the output meter or at the transmission or distribution grid, shall be performed only by that electrical corporation.

(2) All interconnection facilities installed on the electrical corporation’s side of the transfer point for electricity between the electrical corporation and the electrical conductors of the electric generation facility shall be owned, operated, and maintained only by the electrical corporation. The ownership, installation, operation, reading, and testing of revenue metering equipment for electric generating facilities shall only be performed by the electrical corporation.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file.

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Sue Kateley / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083