This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Assembly Bill 327 | |
|---|---|
| Title | Assembly Bill 327 |
| Enacted by | California State Assembly |
| Introduced | 2013 |
| Status | Enacted |
Assembly Bill 327
Assembly Bill 327 was a 2013 California legislative measure that reformed retail electricity rates and directed utility regulatory authority in the State of California. The measure influenced rate design for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric, while intersecting with policy debates involving the California Public Utilities Commission, Governor of California, and environmental stakeholders such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club. The bill affected interactions among actors including the California Independent System Operator, the California Energy Commission, and consumer advocacy groups like the Utility Consumers' Action Network.
AB 327 emerged amid debates following the 2011 California energy crisis and policy shifts after the passage of statutes such as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and reforms related to the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Key institutional players included the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission, which had ongoing rulemakings about rate design, net metering, and integration of distributed resources promoted by actors like SolarCity and SunPower Corporation. Political sponsorship involved legislators from districts overlapping with utilities regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and local bodies such as the Los Angeles City Council. Broader context incorporated federal influences from United States Environmental Protection Agency rules and judicial outcomes including decisions from the California Supreme Court.
The bill required the California Public Utilities Commission to reform residential electricity rates and permitted adoption of time-of-use rates and changes to net metering frameworks affecting rooftop solar customers affiliated with firms like Vivint Solar. It authorized adjustments to fixed charges and tiered pricing mechanisms employed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison while preserving certain consumer protections advocated by The Utility Reform Network. The statute also enabled the commission to implement policies coordinating with the California Independent System Operator and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdictional matters, and to consider impacts on state programs such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the California Alternate Rates for Energy.
Introduced in the California State Assembly, the measure passed through committees including those chaired by members allied with the Democratic Party (United States) in California and faced amendments influenced by hearings involving representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, trade associations like the California Farm Bureau Federation, and consumer groups such as the AARP. Floor votes reflected alignments similar to prior energy legislation like the California Solar Initiative and drew attention from the Governor of California's office. Subsequent regulatory proceedings at the California Public Utilities Commission interpreted legislative directives through rulemakings and workshops attended by stakeholders including Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researchers.
Support came from major utilities and industry groups such as the Electric Power Research Institute and corporations involved in grid management, as well as some labor organizations represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Environmental organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council offered conditional support for provisions encouraging time-of-use pricing to integrate renewables such as projects under the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Opposition arose from solar industry firms including Sunrun and SolarCity, consumer advocates like the Utility Consumers' Action Network, and local governments including the City of San Diego in concerns echoing debates over net metering in other jurisdictions such as Arizona Corporation Commission rulings and Nevada Public Utilities Commission controversies.
Implementation required regulatory proceedings at the California Public Utilities Commission to set rates for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric. The changes influenced deployment economics for distributed generation providers like SunPower Corporation and First Solar, impacted utility revenue models similar to shifts observed in the Texas (state) electricity market, and catalyzed litigation and policy debates comparable to those in the Florida Public Service Commission and Hawaii Public Utilities Commission. Outcomes included revised tariff structures, changes to incentives for rooftop solar customers, and coordination with statewide planning by the California Independent System Operator and California Energy Commission.
After enactment, the bill's directives prompted proceedings before the California Public Utilities Commission and litigation involving entities such as consumer advocates and industry groups, paralleling legal conflicts seen in cases before the California Supreme Court and federal litigation under the Federal Power Act. Challenges addressed statutory interpretation, the scope of regulatory authority, and interactions with federal jurisdiction overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Questions remained about long-term effects on utility business models exemplified by debates in other jurisdictions, including the New York Public Service Commission's reform initiatives and regulatory responses in the Mid-Atlantic States.