Renewable energy resources.
Summary
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations, as defined. The Public Utilities Act imposes various duties and responsibilities on the PUC with respect to the purchase of electricity and requires the PUC to review and approve a renewable energy procurement plan for each electrical corporation pursuant to the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program (RPS program) . The RPS program requires that a retail seller of electricity, including electrical corporations, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers, purchase a specified minimum percentage of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources, as defined, in any given year as a specified percentage of total kilowatthours sold to retail end-use customers each calendar year. The RPS program requires the PUC to implement annual procurement targets for each retail seller to increase its total procurement of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources by at least an additional 1% of retail sales per year so that 20% of its retail sales of electricity are procured from eligible renewable energy resources no later than December 31, 2010. Existing law requires the PUC to make a determination of the existing market cost for electricity, which PUC decisions call the market price referent, and to limit an electrical corporation's obligation to procure electricity from eligible renewable energy resources, that exceeds the market price referent, by a specified amount. This bill would instead require the PUC to require that a retail seller procure the following percentages of electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by the following dates: (A) Until December 31, 2012, the same percentage as actually achieved by the retail seller during 2009; (B) 20% by December 31, 2013; (C) 25% by December 31, 2016; and (D) 33% by December 31, 2020. The bill would authorize the PUC to permit a retail seller to delay compliance with (B) or (C) procurement levels when specified circumstances are present, but would not authorize the PUC to permit a retail seller to delay compliance with the (D) procurement level. The bill would delete the existing market price referent provisions and instead require the PUC to establish a methodology to determine the market price of electricity for terms corresponding to the length of contracts with eligible renewable energy resources, in consideration of, and reflecting, certain matters. The bill would require the PUC to establish a limitation on the annual expenditures made above the market price, by an electrical corporation, in order to achieve the procurement levels established by the PUC. The bill would require the PUC to permit an electrical corporation to limit its procurement of electricity from eligible renewable energy resources to that quantity that can be procured at or below the market prices established by the PUC, up to the limitation. The bill would delete an existing requirement that the PUC adopt flexible rules for compliance for retail sellers. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill are within the act and require action by the PUC to implement its requirements, a violation of these provisions would impose a state-mandated local program by expanding the definition of a crime. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Jan 2009
Committee Review
Sep 2009
Senate Passage
Apr 2009
Assembly Passage
Sep 2009
Vetoed
Oct 2009
Introduced Jan 20, 2009
Vetoed Oct 11, 2009
Floor votes · Senate Apr 16, 2009 · Assembly Sep 12, 2009
How they voted
21–12
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 35
Apr 16, 2009
D
Democratic22
95% Yea
R
Republican13
92% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
33
Key actions
4
Committee
2
Amendments
3
Oct 11, 2009
Vetoed
In Senate. To unfinished business. (Veto)
upper
Oct 11, 2009
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
upper
Sep 12, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (38-19-4)
assembly
Sep 12, 2009
Introduced
Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 23. Noes 14. Page 2459.) To enrollment.
upper
Sep 12, 2009
Introduced
Amended.
lower
Sep 12, 2009
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on September 11.)
lower
Sep 12, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.)
lower
Sep 11, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. On U. & C. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.
lower
Apr 16, 2009
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (21-12-2)
senate
Jan 20, 2009
Introduced
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Joseph Simitian
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 62
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 62. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline