Energy programs and projects: nonenergy benefits.
If enacted, SB 345 would amend the Public Utilities Code to require the Commission to prioritize funding for programs that exhibit significant nonenergy benefits, particularly for disadvantaged communities. This focus on inclusivity and equity aims to correct historical disparities in access to clean energy and efficiency programs. The tracking of nonenergy benefits is crucial, as it will help ensure that investments are not only beneficial in terms of energy efficiency but also socio-economically impactful, thus benefiting a broader demographic.
Senate Bill 345, introduced by Senator Becker, aims to incorporate nonenergy benefits into California's energy programs governed by the Public Utilities Commission. This legislation recognizes that energy programs can deliver benefits beyond just energy savings, including improved public health, increased property values, and enhanced reliability of energy supply. The bill mandates that by January 1, 2023, the Commission must establish common definitions and methodologies for assessing nonenergy benefits, thus ensuring uniformity in evaluating and funding distributed energy resource programs.
The sentiment around SB 345 highlights a progressive shift towards a more holistic understanding of energy benefits. Advocates see this bill as a step towards equitable energy policies that recognize the multifaceted advantages of energy efficiency improvements. Critics, however, may raise concerns about the complexity that arises from incorporating these nonenergy benefits into funding decisions, fearing it could delay the implementation of crucial projects. Overall, there is significant support for the notion that energy policies must address both environmental and social equity.
Noteworthy points of contention involve how the definition and calculation of nonenergy benefits will be standardized. There is apprehension regarding potential cost-shifting to nonparticipating customers if nonenergy benefits are improperly assessed. Additionally, opponents may cite the potential for bureaucratic delays in funding allocations as a risk associated with the evaluation processes mandated by the bill. Ensuring that benefits are accurately accounted for without adversely affecting ratepayers is a critical balance the legislation seeks to achieve.