Solar Permits

AB 2188 (Muratsuchi) – Request for Comments
As Proposed to be Amended

AB 2188, by Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, would require cities and counties to expedite permitting for rooftop solar of up to 10kW. Specifically, the proposed amendments to the bill would require cities and counties to adopt an ordinance to create an expedited permitting process for rooftop solar that would include a checklist of all requirements in which small rooftop solar energy systems must comply. All applications that meet the requirements in the checklist shall be permitted within 24-hours of application submittal without plan check or other discretionary review in an “over-the-counter” manner. In addition, the proposal would limit jurisdictions to one inspection that must be completed within two days of the request. The language does limit the rooftop solar systems to those that are under 10kW, and conform to state fire, structural, electrical and other building codes. 

CSAC has already expressed a myriad of concerns with this proposal to the author and sponsors. It would be helpful to have specific examples from your jurisdiction as to why or how this may be problematic for your county. Examples might include driving distances for inspections, staffing, resources, health and safety concerns, etc. Please also let us know if your county plans to take a position on the bill. It is anticipated that AB 2188 will be heard in the Assembly Local Government Committee on April 23, 2014. Amendments to the bill should be print early next week. 

Community Choice Aggregation

AB 2159 (Ammiano) – Request for Comments
As Amended March 28, 2014

AB 2159, by Assembly Member Tom Ammiano, would make changes to the statutes governing community choice aggregation law. This bill would allow a County Board of Supervisors, by ordinance, to elect to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement to implement a community choice aggregation program with one or more public agencies through a public entity that is separate from the parties to the agreement. This bill would additionally authorize the Board of Supervisors, by resolution, to elect to request another public agency that has elected to implement a community choice aggregation program to be the community choice aggregator for the city and county. In addition, AB 2159 would require an electrical corporation to provide data to community choice aggregators pursuant to law that requires them to “fully cooperate with any community choice aggregator that investigates, pursues, or implements CCA programs.” AB 2159 will be heard in the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee on April 21st. 

AB 2145 (Bradford) – Oppose
As Amended April 10, 2014

AB 2145, by Assembly Member Bradford, would make changes to the process for how community choice aggregator’s (CCA) form. This bill would require an “opt-in” process for any CCA formed after January 1, 2015, as opposed to current law, which requires an “opt-out” process for customers within a CCA. The law governing CCAs intentionally crafted CCA’s as an opt-out program to help level the playing field for CCA’s who might attempt to entering a monopoly market, while allowing customers a choice. The current process makes it easy for a customer to make a choice when a CCA begins offering service in a new community, while also providing the CCA with a level playing field in their community. There is a 6-month long public noticing process that allows a customer to choose if it would like to opt out of the CCA program. CSAC believes this bill would make it more difficult for communities to launch successful CCA programs and that elements of the bill were already rejected by voters by the defeat of Proposition 16. This bill will be heard in the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee on April 21st. 

CEQA 

SB 1451 (Hill) – Support
As proposed to be Amended

SB 1451, by Senator Jerry Hill, seeks to address the “document dump” issue in the CEQA process. Last minute comments on a draft EIR delay a public agency’s ability to consider and respond to the comments, and creates additional costly delays for public agencies. Currently, negative declarations and EIRs must be circulated for public review and comment for a specified period before going to an agency’s governing body for approval. Under current law, however, would-be petitioners do not have to raise their arguments during the public comment period in order to preserve them for review in court—comments can be raised at any time up until the agency takes final action at the hearing on the project. This has resulted in members of the public submitting lengthy comments at the project hearing, forcing lengthy delays in the process in order to appropriately review and respond to those comments. 

SB 1451 would require comments to be presented during the public comment period on the draft environmental document, unless the comments could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence. Importantly, under the proposal, any comments that could not have been presented during the public comment period may be presented after the public comment period and prior to the close of the public hearing on the project. This change is meant to prevent commenters from raising issues on the day of the hearing that could have been brought earlier in the process. This bill is substantially similar to the CSAC, RCRC & UCC requested amendments to SB 731 (Steinberg) proposed last year as part of the CEQA Reform discussions. Amendments to SB 1451 will be in print on April 21st, and the bill will be heard on April 30, 2014 in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee 

Sustainable Groundwater Management Workshop

On Wednesday, April 16 the Brown Administration is holding a second workshop on sustainable groundwater management. This session is in follow-up to the workshop held on March 24 in which the “State Agency Team” – Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture solicited ideas and possible approaches to groundwater management in response to the State’s Water Action Plan. The focus of the meeting on April 16 will be the proposed solutions that are under development by various stakeholders, including the California Water Foundation, Association of California Water Agencies, and the Valley Ag Water Coalition. Additional details regarding this workshop, the Water Action Plan and the Administration’s Sustainable Groundwater Management draft framework may be found at: http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_groundwater.php