Transmission planning: energy storage and demand response.
The implementation of AB 914 is significant as it reinforces the PUC's responsibility to ensure that large electrical corporations not only assess but actively incorporate nonwire alternatives in their transmission planning processes. By mandating that these corporations analyze both wire and nonwire solutions, the bill encourages the adoption of innovative energy solutions that could offer cost-effective or net beneficial outcomes compared to traditional transmission methods. The bill’s focus on advanced technologies also aligns with California's broader objectives of enhancing grid efficiency and sustainability.
AB 914, introduced by Assembly Member Mullin, amends the Public Utilities Code by adding Section 327.5, which focuses on the transmission planning efforts of California's electrical corporations. The primary objective of the bill is to promote energy storage systems and demand response nonwire alternatives as prioritized solutions to the state's transmission needs, suggesting that these alternatives should be considered before traditional transmission upgrades. This step is aimed at optimizing energy resources and ensuring efficient planning within the electrical transmission sector, which is overseen by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
The sentiment around AB 914 appears to be largely supportive among stakeholders focused on energy innovation and sustainability. Proponents argue that advancing nonwire alternatives can provide operational flexibility and better environmental outcomes. Conversely, there may be concerns among traditional utilities regarding the feasibility and economic implications of shifting focus away from conventional infrastructure investments. Nevertheless, the bill represents a progressive step in modernizing the state's energy framework.
Notably, AB 914 introduces the concept of creating new penalties for public utilities that fail to comply with transmission planning mandates set forth by the PUC. This aspect could lead to contention, particularly among stakeholders who may view the bill as imposing additional regulatory burdens. Furthermore, the stipulation that no state reimbursement is required for costs resulting from this act underlines potential financial concerns for local agencies and utilities involved in implementing new programs and compliance measures.