Electrical transmission facilities: certificates of public convenience and necessity.
Impact
The repeal of Section 1002.3 will have a significant impact on state laws surrounding electricity regulation. It will diminish the oversight role of the Public Utilities Commission in considering alternative energy solutions that could provide efficient, reliable, and affordable electricity. Advocates of the bill argue that it will expedite infrastructure projects and potentially lower costs for energy providers, therefore promoting faster development of critical electrical systems to meet growing demand. However, critics express concerns that the lack of mandatory assessments for alternatives may lead to missed opportunities for more sustainable energy solutions.
Summary
Assembly Bill 2292, introduced by Petrie-Norris, seeks to repeal Section 1002.3 of the Public Utilities Code, which mandates that the Public Utilities Commission consider cost-effective alternatives to proposed electrical transmission facilities before granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The bill aims to streamline the process for applications related to the construction and modification of electrical transmission facilities, effectively removing the obligation to evaluate these alternatives. This legislative change is intended to facilitate the expansion and upgrading of electrical infrastructure without the complexity of additional evaluations of alternatives.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding AB 2292 is mixed and reflects a division among stakeholders in the energy sector. Proponents emphasize that removing the requirement for an alternatives analysis will simplify bureaucracy and support much-needed investment into electrical transmission infrastructure. In contrast, opponents warn that this bill signals a shift towards prioritizing rapid construction over comprehensive analysis, which could hinder the development of more environmentally friendly energy strategies and alternatives.
Contention
Notable points of contention include the fear that the repeal could undermine efforts to transition towards a more sustainable and diversified energy grid. By removing the obligation to consider cost-effective alternatives, critics argue that the bill risks facilitating outdated practices and infrastructure that do not align with emerging energy solutions. This legislation could spark ongoing debates about the balance between development speed and environmental responsibility, raising essential questions about the future direction of energy policy in California.
A bill for an act relating to electric transmission lines and electric transmission owners, and including effective date and applicability provisions.(See HF 2551.)
A bill for an act relating to electric transmission lines and electric transmission owners, and including effective date and applicability provisions.(See SF 2372.)