Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0193.095• @ City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report 1I0NORABLZ CI'l'Y COCNCIL CMlt.193.95 StrllJZ.C":. League of California Citle. Policy GuidelineEl 011 Blectricity Oeregulation 'RQ!7J§T This-is an ioform~tion item describing the League of California Cities~ (League} Policy Guidelines on Electricity Deregulatioo~ s.:'riM'P]mA'!' iONs Since -this is an infon.a:.ional report no council action is required for the League Policy Guidelines with -the proviso that any "elect.ric industry re'5t:-..tCturing program must be COI:l.sistent wit.h State and Fede,ral 1a ..... s lind regulations and allow local regula.tory bQ4.ieQ {e.g.¥ City COlJ.:l::ils} to determine rates ,and r'J.les within their-jurisdictions. ~. D!PLICATIOl!S . SUpPort. ter the League's Policy Guidelines is consistent with the existing \rciiities-Depa.:-:men.t position regarding electric industry restroJ.cturing-. ED£lITrn: SlJMKA!I,Y In Febr<Jary. 1995... tb! League of California Cities Board of Direcco~s adopted poli~y guidelines on electricity deregulation in response· to the ongel:..:? California. Public Utilities Commission Elect,ric Industry Resc.!"'·.....cturing Proceeding. Att3.ch.'t'.ent 1 provlo.t;:$ bacJcground information on tne el~ctric CMR.:-19J:95 Page 1 of 3 i:OOUlStry restruct.uring p!"opcs:::tls .. issues and-tiw.eline .. as ~ell as tl1~ League Policy Gui~~Hnes. The Lea.g"J.e supports the concepc of electricity rate deregulation .. if it results it: lower electrjcity. rates that continae permanently into_ the fut1.lre. The L.eague does not. s __ upport or' oppose any specific fo", of deregt.;.lation .. but believes the. program ul:.imately implemented must satisfactorily address tbe following criteria: Equitable se"tefir:.s: Any :-estructuring program. should result in all ra:te.payera.,directly sha:dng the benefits eq •. dtably. M ... miciPal utilities; Any rest,ructuring pr.:.>gram should consider the viabil~ty of muoi,cipil;l u:ilities. Franchise Authgrj,y: Ci~~es should c~~tinue to have the authority -to issue franchises and any prograM should be at least re""-2nue neutral relative to re\-e:1.ue -currently received from franchises. My.nicipa11z;ati~ Cities should be authorized .to serve as brokers/facilitators i::--. negotiating. buying, transmitting, and di5tributing electricity for their businesses and residents. The League will 'C..o:o'tinue -:0-evaluate ap,propriate condit,ions a.."1<:i criteria relative to IDU:::.cipaliratic-n. with the goal .of developing a ~re specific policy. Strar-.aed Investm:nt: TeE! problem of stranded investmen,t should be resolved in a way that s~eps investors, ratepayers .. and generators financially whole. Any ,;;olicy -to deal with Btrand:ed inves-tw,ent for large energy producers ~i.e ... nuclear power} should be applicable to-all -other producers --:: .e ... independent power pr-oducers). Wheelino: Any prograrJlo s:::c:lld facilitate tne wheeling of electricity betlaleen generators and ".;.;;ers. ~ternative Sourc~s: ~:~sistent with existing League policy that s-upports the developrr~:-_t: ~f alternat.ive energy SO'..lrces.. any restruct.uring progra.m ::;;'..ould incorporate support of alternative energy in-order to enha~:-::e the mix of energy sources available in California .. both for e;:'dronmental and str-ategic energy security rea.son6. / 00tR:19l:51S Page 2" of 3 • liHpm8"; The unique pI'"cblems of the biomass-industry .. as they relate to ~.lifornia·5 solid waste infrastr~~t~re. should be fairly resot?ed in a~y deregulation program. Social and Epvironmental Impacts: Cocsiste~t.~th existing League policy .. California !!=hoiJ:d not abandon its .:.nergy progr'ams that pr'ovide social and e.nvironmental benefits. rrsc" DqI..C"I' Support for this policy should have no direct fiscal impact on tbe City. IQlVlRntJU'!!JT!!, ASsH5'fP'7 There is no environ.n\e!r.:al ,assessment required to support this policy. ATT ACHMEN'TS League of california C::ies overview of Issue and ~ague Policy Guidelines Prepared by. DOug Bocci~nE. Res01,.lrce Planner Department Head Reviaw: City Mansger Approval: Page 3 of 3 , Febrwuy 1. 1995 TO: V.ayors and City Managm RE: Public Utilities Commission Electricity Rate DerefUlation. 0veMn< of Issue and lug'" Pelky Guidelines. Inl'ocm~tiol!. . . Many c:'ties are beginning 10 bear about L". Publk Uu1ities Commission', (PUC) propo<al '" deregulate electricity. r.. addition. many cities have .., •• d the League {or . ba<:kground infonnation and wh.ther the League has a position 00 the lOpic. This compJelI and often contt""mial iss1l<: was Ill. subj< ot 0( .. lengthy If=\on at lb. Janua"y meetings ol the Leag-Je's Environmenw Quality Policy Committee and the Board ol DireClOn. Attaehed is • summa:y of the • ...nous key issue.! "" tile ,ubj ect and the League polky guidelines adopted by the Board of DireClO<S. The League will c·,otinue 10 moniro< and evaluate, the PUC process and proposals. IS ",eD as prOl<ide information to cities as appropriate. We willleep cities informed as additionallnf<l<JIl&tion is .""'lable. If yoo have questions, please contact tile Leag'Je's Sacramento o~ foc more information. • tHE P!JBYC unUTiES COMMISSION PROPOS!' TO PEUCULm: PlCI'RlCIIY lD AprR 1994, Ihc California Public Utilities Commissk>n (POe) ~ that it iD!eDds 10 "deregulaU" California', electricity $e1Vkes mar1<.L The primary r«soli for this proposal is Ihc \'lew IhaJ sud> deregulatiol! would signlfiamlly redo« Ihc COS! cl ~ in California, an imp<>nam goal since Ca!ifornia', electric rates are si&nificanlly higher lIIan ~ staleS. According to Daniel Wm. Fessler, President cl!he PUC. 'exm;"g data suggests that nce. foe electricity in California are al Obolll 140 jQ 1SC1% ollhe national average: Fessler observes fr.at. "WO<5e frO!l! our perspective is !he fac:l1haJ we are su.'"l"OWlded by wesiera sWe$ Which have rates tllat are below ilia! avenge: Oearly. this rate <lispaz'.Jy bas eCllnomic impa.-u foe ~ and citizens in Calif<>rnia. Thus, \he PUC is exploring ilie cpOOn ol deregulating electricity as • means .. ollowCrlng!he <3los. b April, {alb .. ;"g • series ol bearings. \he PUC issue" for public debate and discussion its notice cl RIlI.making and InvesrigaooIL Known as Ihc "Bluebook", !he PUC staff proposal bas stimulated COIISiderable debate and several altemative proposals. It shoukI be noled tilal some observ01l argue tilat !he program sbool" DOl be ~d rate "Jkregulatioo", but rare '[C"'guI&tioa." sin<:< !he PUC will still remain u. !he regulatory arena. The SoDov.>mg summarlzes Ihc various key proposals. Ihc is.<UeS raised by various groups. \he key areas likely jQ effect cities, bow different citie5 'IIill be impacted, and bow \he proposals impact existing League po'.icy. The summary does DOl cover the transmission/distribution TiDe portion of \he pr<>p05&ls, since with \he exception of wbeeliDg. iI is not mtegrallO • position adopted by the League. (Wheeling is the process cl seDdinc eleClricity ,enerated al one location, sud! as I city cogeneration plant at I """",,wily CClller, Oller Iltilily or other J'OI"er lines, _ IOWIIIO dry hall -IhaJ is from 0Ile Jocatioo jQ anotI1er.) DiE NO MAIN PROposAl 5" DIRECT AOCfSS AND POOI.ro The two most prominent restroeturing proposals that have been discussed oYcr the las! few months .,e \he "direct a=" model and the "P001Co" modeL lD!he olrea access model. customCI> would enter into bilateral contracts direOlly wilD seners (or generators) cl electricity. Generatoct CQuld be .. traditional utnity or an independent p<NIer produ<:er. Electricity would be "V;be<:led" <wer elisting tr.nsmissiou and crlStnootion lines ~: '""" --,--', , , ",-~-, ~ ., . . .. belWUll the sell .. and buyer. The PUC BtU.booI: .nvisioned lb. direct access model and iI is fai.oore.1 by P.~ Gas and Electri<:: Compmy. • , ...... The POGICo model proposes ereatlon 0( a pool into .... hicl! all genetalOl5 deliver el«tricity and from .... hich users put<4.se electricity. Electricity prices would be based upon trequeut (boIa-ly) aucUoos based "poa the pci=. s.aWlI<n would lrid 10 sell 10 the pool and the demand for the elcc:tricity by use ... All users would pay the same price for boyinJelcc:tricity from the pool. The PoolCo model ellVisions !he opportunity for direct access between geDeralOn and users, as on option 10 bU)ing and selling within the pool This mOOeI is favored by SO'l!hem California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and EIectrlc Company. Q{!ESI!Q1§ AND ISSUES TO RESOLVE ObYioI:sIy, !be COJl..""ep! 0( electricity rate deregulation bas raised a variety of questions thaI IIWSt be resolved before any plan QJl be implemented. The following summarizes th. key issues. Cpst Re4u<:tjgg and 8J:nefi",· While most involved in lbe debale agre. that rate deregnla.tion ",ill result in reduced electricity costs, ",me have questioned this assumption. More importantly, many have questioned .,bether the benefits will be equitably oharec!, or will accrue pr'.mariIy 10 Ia'ge industrial OSCIS of electricity. Because !he PUC Btuebook proposal errolisions a plwed in appraacl! 10 direct access, willi large iDdusIrlalllSCIS pankipatillg firs! and residential nsers parJclpating last, there is ",me conccnt Iha! omaIlllSer> <>felectrlcil)'. which include residenual and oman co!ll!l!ercW cUstomers. might nO! benefit 10 the same extent as larger users. Many cities a.~ considered $Ill8lI commercial customers. A!tcrnatiye poem Standard Offe" and the Qjfj: As. result of the energy crisis in the 197'Js, state and natlooal interest in e>pand"mg d....,iopment of alterna~ ene'!)' sources grew. The federal government passed the P-~b\ic Utility Rtgula10ry Policies M of 1m (PURPA), ",hich was inlended to decrease u.s. =ptlon of petrol~u", products by 2Ilowing companies tbat can generate electricity th.""Ougb different means ("LO. cogeneration, "",chane, 01<.) to sell thaI power to !he utilities. Under FURPA. a utility is required to pay to &II wrnatlverindependent power produoor a price that is equal 10 !he utility'. "avoided cost." In CalifOOli .. !he PUC establisbed severaJ IOOls to assist independent energy produce,. reael •• &fUmenl wilh the u!Junes. On.e of !he most commonly used is tnoo.u 1$ SlaDdard Off", Number 4, "IIbich WI$ & quasi-loDg-tcnn contrac:: between the producer ODd utility. It established I firm price .. rue!> ilIe prodU<el 1L'OIlId receive from the utility. Many of the Slandard Offer Number 4 contracts ",ere for ~ years. In year eleven, koowu as "the cliff", it was expected that the price independeDl power produc<orscould ilIen receive for the electricity would be signiL'CIQtfj less than Iha! they =ived nuder the standard offer. Many independent power producers inrorpon.!ed this differeoce in 1M" financial projections and will be able I<> continue in 2 ---~-,------- • year ek-.-ell a.>d beyond. OOen did _ cons;der ~ change in price and arc in poIential1inllnciallrOObie because oC!h~ reduced revenye ro be received in year clevel> ar;4 beyoad. Unfortunately, for many indel"'~nl po",er producelS, the cliff (or year eleven) it c:oIncidiog with the new ... orld cl rate ckre..,lation. thus producing. double DepIivc IIIipad.. Wbe!;lipJ' CeDual 10 any proposal is Ibe recognition ol broad based retail wbeetillg. Tbal is, for lIllY ckre~n program 10 wort, it WI be ne=sa1)' for llSCrs and sellen 10 usiIy SCDd the clectrici:y <Wet !ines fro:n ooe Jocalioo 10 another. For cities IbaI leoerate eIectriciIy at • city Ioo:alion, sucll 85 • methane or c:ogeoeration facilil)' al !be IIlllIIicipollaOOfiII, !hi> easy wbeeling is an at1nar<e option. CUITO.,1ly, _ cities use !be power ,"Derated at the site (Le, 10 operate !be landfill) &lid sell any ex= 10 :he utility. _D tbousIllbey mighl prefer 10 """'.ellbe .'cess power 10 city hall for Its operalicns. Traditiooally, utilities have bee" ,0]U<13I11 10 facilitate Sllcli wheeling. Tbese barrien would be elim1nated under rate deregulation, although de arly some reasonable ~ for wbcell.na wO'.lld be levied. The Bjorn .... I ... !!!: On. ol the mcsI l3lked about issues in :he solid wasle arena has been the impa<:I ol tale ckreguJation on the biOl!l2S$ industry. This sector ol the alternatift energy lodustry ,"noralJy = wood waste, municipal grcen. yard waste and forest waste, which it burns 10 produ~ eJectf.city. The biomas:\ industry. and indirectly local gOYernme.~ may be impacted several ways. Lib DIller alternative energy produeelS, the biolnus indusuy may be effect.~ by !be "cliff" and if they have not faaored !be poICntiallowtr prices in year eleven into !heir financial c:aJculations, face serious ecooomic impacts by !he dual impacIs ol deregulation and the cliff. In anli<:ipation ol rate <leregulatioll, $Gme major utilitles have clooed or curtalIed activily in their biomass pl&nls, !Iws decreasing the demand for biomass already now. ~ ckreguJation is implemented, it could ha, .. lbeimpaCl ol further reducing !be effu!ive demand for biomass, since !be pri« paid for"biomass a>UId be lower than !be biomasl. produee~ can affo:d Ii the demand for biomass <kcIines due '" de regulatioo, and the compost markets arc JHlt y~\ vig<>l'Oll5 enough to absorb the malerial thaI bad bee. uoed 10 gel!l!rate electricity. !his waste marcrial will go to landfiP, Although biomass accounts for only a small portion ollhe electricity "Derated in California, the impacts ol ckregulatlon on the industry. solid waste managemelll and local goycrnment ill ~ornia may be profotmd. While the PUC may be explorl.'g der<i'JIatio. as a means ol reducing energy prices and increasing erooomic competioon, sucl! adlvity. wme SAy. would be in conflkt with e.dsting California policy 10 reduce wast. sen< 10 landfills. JD ruldition, local governments thaI have anticipated rcceivi.'18 some a.elit for biomass toIO'alds their AS 939 goals may bave 10 reconsjek, their diversion programs and develop new ones \0 lake !be place ol proposed biomass program;. {It should be noled thaI jIlrisdiction5 will Dot be penali2ed in cal<:ulating their prOWe" IOI>-ards Ibe 2S% and 50% diversion goals because new biomass is disposed ol at landfills. The impaCl will be in deciding upoc 3 "\ " ',. , ", t "-\-, ~ . ,...:: o dilfcrcut ~ \0 replace the biomass program actMl)'.) &Andes! Iqyc<lmei!l: Many participantS !l! the process ha,"C e.pres>ed concern about the issue d "stranded ilrvostmcnL· Cu."!ently. IIIOS! eleClrlcity pricos include capital C05Is fa; 100& ~ inCrastrucIure inve=nts, ",bether they be nuclear, wiDd, geod>ermal or small bydto ,.nerating sourCCL If tbe basis d charging f<J< eleClrlcity clw!ges, there is cooeera that these iDvestmelllS would be "stranded" and the costs not recovered. SpedficaIIy. if relail electricity prices &cliM 10 • more competitive kvel. lhen they may DOC compellS&le utiliI)' and generation OWDCrs for some or !he past ~nt cosu.. That is, some or the investment will be stranded. How stranded .... ts are treated is • central ~ or this debate. Some observers stlte that aurem e!ectridty COS'.s are bigh beause of past investmcnIJ dec:iskms by utilities and that the stranded mvostmeots should be covered by sharebolde ... DOC ratepaye... HOIlICVe •• otber obse",ers point out that sud> a policy 'I'OUld break the unwritten contract between the public, utilities and investors, ",bo made decisions b~ upon regulator! poJi(y at !.he time. Still otben poiD! out that the stran&d investment iso-ue applies also 10 ahernative energy generators sud> as wind. small bydro. geotbermaJ, and biomass. They argue the any plan to deal with strande., mvestment or large central generating systems. sud! as nuclear power, sbould also apply 10 genera!",", or alternative energy source .. Muni,;jpal Utiljtje., It appears that any proposal tinaIIy adopted by !he PUC will .Il!ll apply directly to electricity generated andice distributed by municipal utilities. (There is some controversy about this. Ultimately it will be resolved in the courts and/or Ieplarure.) If we assume thai: the PUC proposal .. ilt no< directly impact IIIWlicipaJ. utilities, it is clear thaI it will haYe iDdlre<:t imp_CIS on munidpalutilitles.. For example, if a large induririal user is free to contract directly with 000Iher genera:or outside the municipal utility's jurisdlction f<J< cheaper electricity, bow will this impa<:l the mum', rate base and inoome strUm 7 Some say this will serve as • stimulw; for municipal utilities to kNler ratC$ in anI.r 10 be able 10 com~\e' O"Jl.", say i< will severely impact lbe viability or municipal utilities, as large users drop off their system. Socia! and Environmental ImIl"'1£ III the pasl, California energy policy bas inc1uded support or social programs, suell as free energy audits and low income weathcrlzatioa programs, and support or programs be""fi<:ja) the env'''.:lllll!enL The latter include development or alternative energy sources thaI are more cnvLronmentally benign. suell as baviDg less air quality impacts than large central generating (.cilltie.. It is unclear wb.tber the rate deregulation proposals would be able 1<> continue supporting sucll programs. Some haYe stated thaI by relying simply on the market to dictate price end service. sucll programs .... ould ooIy be supported if lbere is a market deman<! for mem. Othen have obse",ed that socii programs provide an impor'.aot 'public good" that sbO'Jld DO( be left ooIy 10 market forces to determine. 4 . ---.-. ----~- ',; .... -.,-"'-. . \ , ,. . . • • Pg!emjaJ Impw Q!l QJjcs: Jla1e cltregu!llticm has \be potentia! 10 save at!es JI1OOe)'. Because cities ate elearicity conswners. !bey .-iII benefit from ~uced rates. Depending upon \he size aDd eDellY effic:leDC)' ol city operations, th.se savings could be coasiderab!e. A SUIVC)' conducted by \he uague ill the mid-1980s found thai next 10 salaries 8IId beIlCfi!S, c""'l!.Y was \he seCODcl highest budg.' ro5I in cities. ('The effects ol _ ~ manaaemem programs in ,"ties may baye cllanged this figure.) However, lIS eIecfri<:iIy faIe& cJecline, there will also be some red~Q in r •• eDUe 10 cities from utility uscrs~ III aIldition 10 the basic COS! savings, hOlV rat: detegulaticm effectS cities will depeud IipOIl iDdividuaJ cities. F« ClGlIIlI'Ie. cities lhal buy pow., Cram an investor DIl'Iled ntility will be eBected differently lhat cities bave municipal electric utilities. Large cities will be Imparted differently Cram small cities. Cities th., bave • methane plant or geothermal plant in one city Cacilil)' 8IId wish 10 wbetl the po ... er across towll 10 city hall W'JI be impacIed differ.ntly than cities lhal bav. DO city-owne" alternative energy genen1ion projects. FullIlly. it is likely !hal small, rural cilies will be impatte" diff<rontly than !>Iller oties. The role 01 the ciry as a broker or negt>ti.at« foe other electricity users is also another polOIllial impact on oUes. Called 'muniapolizatioQ', thi5 ronccpt views the city as seMng IS Ibe bulk purcl>aser « broker 01 electriCty for many smaller usc'" in the city. For example, the city could assist small ~ and rcsi&ntial custome", 10 band IOgethcr and, will! the city. purchase the electricity in • larger bloclc, thus U[elldiJl8 the bonefil5 otherwise pnMde4 10 large II$Crs 10 smaller I!$Ors "" .... IL This is because it is likely the city could negotiate • betler deal with an indMdual generator « the pool This is III important p<lSSIole IIC'II role for cities .... d bas significant ecooomic development implications. This opponuruty ... ould exist under oo..h Ibe dire'" .=ss aDd PoolCo mo4cls. Fmally, it appears llIat restr.CIUl'ing will DO( have. negative impact on the autborily 0( cities \0 issue Craucbi:.es or en fn.nchlse revenue. However, lbis is a potential aaa that sboald be cIarllied. . lMPLEMFNIADONITMEUNE 1nitiaIIy, the PUC proposed that large cuslomers, including resale cities, wockl be brough! into the 'direcl aC<CSS" system in 1996, industrial customers by 1998, commercial customers by 1999, and all customers [mclUWllg residential) by 2002. Thus, the plan was for 1arge customers 10 cnler the system finI. with smaller userS las~ The PoolCo proposal rarsers 1998 as Ibe da.te all customers would be participating in the system. Originally, the PUC anlicipa! • .d a reiatively sl>or\ time frame for cIcv.loping Ihls program. However, based IIpon the issues raIsed by various interests, it is clear !hal • longer implementation time {,.."..c will be used. AI. PUC hearing in early December, 5 ',' . the Commissiozl adop!cd DCW larJet dates for issulnS its dertgulatioll order. By lanu&J)" 24, !99S, the Commission ....m adopt III "Interim Repon' 10 comply with the rcquiremenIs of Aat 143. By Marcll 22. 1995, the PUC will adopt aD "Interim Policy DeQsion' proposing all electric Io<lustry r~B poL'C)'. SOO:y clays after the "Inlcrim I'olky DedsioIl, the PUC will issue a !ina! cIeclsi:>n adopIiog an elcCllie Indusuy restfIICIIIIin& policy. The PUC will establish a '"Pub5<: WorkiJl& Group' 10 develop "imp1ememarinn optiOOL. The Public Working Group will be ask.d 10 prepare a ~n report by Febnwy 22. 1995 and will be wed 10 reroovene af1er issuance of the Interim Poli<:y ~ Presumably. the Working GrOllp would tl:eD work on issues r~garding proposed polley ioc1nded ill the Interim Polley Occiskm. Most obse1ven of the PUC process !lOU Ihat the question of rale deregulaOOi> is not OM 01 if. bul ,.heA and how? That is. tale dcregulatioo will happen. it is just a matler of .. bel! and ill what form. 'EAGUi POYCYCl;lP£W\.'ES ON ElfCl'RlClJY DEREGULl,TI~ Sgpport !be ~ The League el California Cities supports the =p< of electricity rate. deregulation if it results ill lower electricity rates thaI (:OOtin"e permanently i11IG the future. The Leaglle dOes not support or oppose any specific form el rate deregulation (loC., direct acoess ~rsus Poo!Co), but believes the pr<lg\"ml ultimately impleme"ted must satisfaclorily address the following ail.ria. AIly program decided upon by the PUC ohouId be based on a thorough CCO/lOIllk analysis elllle fun costs and pote"tial benefits oi !be 2l1CJ1Ulliyes Wlder comidctation. Eqpjtab!e Benefits: AIry restructuring program .hould result ill :all rate payers dIrectly sharing tile beccfits equitably. Municipal Ulll,ti.r. A-ny resll'Jcturing program should consider the viability cl municipal utilities. funcbise A!!llloril):~ Cities sbouId conlinoe 10 have !be authority 10 issue franclllses and 1.11)' program s!>ould be at lust revenue neutral relative 10 revellu~ eurrently re<eMd from fnll,,·hises Munjcjpaljzatjgn: Cities should be aua.or;.zed 10 serve as brolers/facililators in ... ~ buying. transmitting. and d"lSlributiDg e1«tricity f« tbeir businesses and residenrs. The League will continue 10 evaluate appropriate conditions and criteria rclalive 10 municipalizatlon. witIJ !lie gOal or devoloplnS • more specific polk)'. 6 . " , . $tTl*" hly!;stmeDls: The problem or stran<Scd investment shool.ld be reM>lvod ;" • 1l"&)' thai teeps iDvesIon. nt.paye,.. and gen.rator. financi!.lly ... ·bol.. Any policy 10 deal willi IIr&D6e4 iDvestmeJIt for laJge ~aergy producers [u. nuclear poIi<er) sboaI<I be appIlcabk 10 all od1cr producr:rs ('Lt, independent pov.~' prod .... >ers). ]&'heflw ."o::Jy program sboIiid facilitat. the wheelil1g or electricity between ~ener8lOrS aIM! I>SelL A1tW!lm Sam:e:;: O>nsistent ... ilh existing League poJky thaI supports the deYelopment. c{ alternativ. energy sour .... lIlY res!r.>auring ~ should inaxporau support c{ lhemative eIl.'iY if> order 10 ellllance th. mil: of energy sources amable in CaIi!ornia, boIh for eJMrorunental and straItsi<' ene,SJi stOllri.!)' reason$. BjomaIS' The unique problems 0( the biomass lndusuy. as they rolat. 10 California', solid wam inCrastructu~ should be fairly resolvtd in lIlY deregulation program. Sgdal and Enyjronmenta! Impacts: Consistent ~1th eldst!ng League poli<:y, California should Dot abandon jts energy programs Ibot provide social and environmental b.",.fits. lD addition 10 Ibese policy guid.Ii.'ICS, the League will continue 10 monitOl' the rate deregulation process and initiate additional ~ revi.", and "e-Jon, as lwopdate. This IDdudes review bj other policy commit~e5 and funbor aJl3l)'Sls of the lIlIIIIkipaIizltion issue, as ",.D as oth.r isstJes. The League will also evaluate pountiaJ finaI supper! for &II)' formal proposal based on how weD it addresses lb. above criteria. The League will also prOYide inC=tio<I. workshops. and other educationtJ 10015 to cities 10 assist them in adapting 10 the De .. ekctriclty world resulting from deregulaJloo and ensure thaI .m2lI .. ,>d/« rural cities are DOl at an Information/technical cfisadvantage. F"malIy. the League also adopted a separate resolution on the effectS of the deregu!a!k>n proposal "" the biomass indusuy . ••••••••••••••••• 1 , .;.. ' •. --,' ,~ , ::.