>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Schultz, Don  
> Sent:	Monday, November 19, 2001 2:57 PM
> To:	Boyd,Kelly; Brown,Jeff; Chinn,Randy; Clark,Woody; Ferrera, Anna;
> Johannesson,Magnus; Kelly,Brian; Lingbloom, Lawrence; Lipper,Kip; Lyons,
> Joseph; Phillips,Guy; Sherriff,Rona; Symonds,Toni; Vargas,Sandra;
> Zeps,Gabrielle
> Cc:	Bondonno,Maria; Campbell,Rod; Hartmann,Audra; Julian, Bill
> Subject:	FY 2001-2 Energy related Budget Cuts
> 
> 
> 
> [3] Governor Wants to Carve Low-Income Assistance,
> Renewables Help from Budget
> In his quest to shave $2 billion off the state's current budget, Governor
> Gray Davis proposes to cut $380 million in energy-related spending.
> The biggest hit would be on low-income assistance programs supported
> through the California Public Utilities Commission. The budget for
> gath-ering
> data for new integrated resources planning at the California Energy
> Commission would also disappear. At [18], the alternative-energy and
> transportation agency that never was never will be.
> 
> [18] Governor Asks for $382 Million Back
> from Energy-Related Budgets (from [3])
> When the energy crisis hit, California's coffers
> were still fat from the economic boom in the late
> 1990s. Spending was authorized to speed new power
> plant construction, expedite efficiency measures and
> help the poor pay their increasing energy bills.
> But with energy prices dropping and state income on
> the skids because of recession, Governor Gray Davis
> recommended on November 14 elimination of
> $382.5 million for energy-related state agencies as well
> as conservation and efficiency programs instituted within
> other state agencies as part of a $2 billion overall cut.
> The largest cut, $83.8 million, would be made in
> the California Public Utilities Commission's Califor-nia
> Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) budget-
> aimed at helping low-income consumers pay energy
> bills. The governor's budget statement said that the
> money "could be reverted due to a significant drop in
> energy costs." Another hit on the CPUC's budget
> would be $9.6 million for energy-efficiency audits of
> oil and gas facilities, such as refineries. Funding for
> both programs was approved during the Legislature's
> first extraordinary session last spring under SBx1-5 by
> Senator Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto).
> The Department of Community Services and
> Development, under the state Health and Human
> Services Agency, would return $53.7 million to the
> general fund from the $120 million appropriated under
> Sher's bill for the low-income home energy-assistance
> program. The program, intended to operate through
> January 2005, was to provide energy-bill assistance
> and weatherization services to households and small
> foster-care group homes.
> The California Energy Commission would take the
> next-largest cut at $34.6 million. Of $86.3 million
> appropriated by Sher's SBx1-5 for grants to the agri-culture
> industry to install energy-efficient hardware
> and other conservation mechanisms, $29.4 million has
> not been encumbered and would revert to the general
> fund. Sher's other bill, SBx1-28, had budgeted
> $3 million to help local governments with their part of
> speeding power plant review. None of that was spent.
> Another $1.9 million budgeted for data collection and
> $300,000 for hydrogen fuel cell refueling stations
> would disappear.
> Mark Hutchinson, CEC manager of financial serv-ices,
> said a significant loss would be $1.9 million in
> funding to collect much-needed data on customers'
> energy use that would be used in demand-forecast
> modeling. "It is critical information that we have not
> been able to get since deregulation," Hutchinson said,
> adding that pre-AB 1890, the investor-owned utilities
> supplied that information.
> The Technology Trade and Commerce Agency
> would lose $29.9 million for loan guarantees for re-newable
> energy. The governor's statement said that
> there was a technical error in dispersing the funds to
> banks. The governor had already made several line-item
> vetoes to the bill that appropriated that money,
> 
> ABx1-29 by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego). The
> original amount of loan guarantees was $40 million.
> The agency also would return $5.5 million to the
> general fund and cease future funding of the biomass
> grants program.
> The Alternative Energy and Advanced Transporta-tion
> Financing Authority, also proposed by Kehoe's
> bill, would be annulled. The proposed agency would not
> be established, and the $24.9 million remaining in its
> start-up budget would go back into the general fund.
> The Department of Water Resources stands to see
> $14 million cut from its initial budget for power plant
> construction bonuses. Of $20 million appropriated,
> only $6 million was spent, and no more power plants
> are eligible for the money.
> Also eliminated in the budget were funds allo-cated
> to support unanticipated higher natural gas costs
> for the University of California and California State
> University systems-$45 million-and higher utility
> expenses that were expected to burden state agencies
> but have not come to pass-$64.2 million.
> The governor announced he will submit a revised
> 2001-2002 budget incorporating the cuts to the Legis-lature
> during a special session he will call in January.
> This session will run concurrent with the 2002 session
>