Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission to submit amendments, revisions, or modifications of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Office of Administrative Law for prior review, but exempts from that requirement general orders, resolutions, or other substantive regulations.

This bill would clarify that regulations and guidelines related to the California Environmental Quality Act are also exempt from that requirement.

Existing law prohibits an electrical corporation from beginning the construction of, among other things, a line, plant, or system, or of any extension thereof, without having first obtained from the commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require that construction. Under existing law, the extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification of an existing electrical transmission facility, including transmission lines and substations, does not require a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity requires or will require its construction.

This bill would authorize the commission to adopt specified successor guidelines at a publicly noticed meeting to address its receipt and review of and actions on applications for the construction of electrical transmission facilities, as described, subject to its regulatory jurisdiction, as provided. The bill would prohibit a cause of action arising out of an executive director disposition of a protest to a specified notice of proposed construction deemed exempt from the requirement to submit an application for a permit or certificate for electrical transmission facilities from accruing in any court to any entity or person unless the entity or person has filed an application to the commission for a rehearing within 10 days after the date of issuance of the disposition. The bill would require the commission to issue its decision and order on rehearing within 90 days after the filing of that application.

Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission to submit amendments, revisions, or modifications of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Office of Administrative Law for prior review, but exempts from that requirement general orders, resolutions, or other substantive regulations.

This bill would clarify that regulations and guidelines related to the California Environmental Quality Act are also exempt from that requirement.

Existing law prohibits an electrical corporation from beginning the construction of, among other things, a line, plant, or system, or of any extension thereof, without having first obtained from the commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require that construction. Under existing law, the extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification of an existing electrical transmission facility, including transmission lines and substations, does not require a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity requires or will require its construction.

This bill would authorize the commission to adopt specified successor guidelines at a publicly noticed meeting to address its receipt and review of and actions on applications for the construction of electrical transmission facilities, as described, subject to its regulatory jurisdiction, as provided. The bill would prohibit a cause of action arising out of an executive director disposition of a protest to a specified notice of proposed construction deemed exempt from the requirement to submit an application for a permit or certificate for electrical transmission facilities from accruing in any court to any entity or person unless the entity or person has filed an application to the commission for a rehearing within 10 days after the date of issuance of the disposition. The bill would require the commission to issue its decision and order on rehearing within 90 days after the filing of that application.

Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission to submit amendments, revisions, or modifications of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Office of Administrative Law for prior review, but exempts from that requirement general orders, resolutions, or other substantive regulations.

This bill would clarify that regulations and guidelines related to the California Environmental Quality Act are also exempt from that requirement.

Existing law prohibits an electrical corporation from beginning the construction of, among other things, a line, plant, or system, or of any extension thereof, without having first obtained from the commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require that construction. Under existing law, the extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification of an existing electrical transmission facility, including transmission lines and substations, does not require a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity requires or will require its construction.

This bill would authorize the commission to adopt specified successor guidelines at a publicly noticed meeting to address its receipt and review of and actions on applications for the construction of electrical transmission facilities, as described, subject to its regulatory jurisdiction, as provided. The bill would prohibit a cause of action arising out of an executive director disposition of a protest to a specified notice of proposed construction deemed exempt from the requirement to submit an application for a permit or certificate for electrical transmission facilities from accruing in any court to any entity or person unless the entity or person has filed an application to the commission for a rehearing within 10 days after the date of issuance of the disposition. The bill would require the commission to issue its decision and order on rehearing within 90 days after the filing of that application.

Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission to submit amendments, revisions, or modifications of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Office of Administrative Law for prior review, but exempts from that requirement general orders, resolutions, or other substantive regulations.

This bill would clarify that regulations and guidelines related to the California Environmental Quality Act are also exempt from that requirement.

Existing law prohibits an electrical corporation from beginning the construction of, among other things, a line, plant, or system, or of any extension thereof, without having first obtained from the commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require that construction. Under existing law, the extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification of an existing electrical transmission facility, including transmission lines and substations, does not require a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity requires or will require its construction.

This bill would authorize the commission to adopt specified successor guidelines at a publicly noticed meeting to carry out address its receipt and review of and actions on applications for the construction of electrical transmission facilities, as described, subject to its regulatory jurisdiction, as provided. The bill would prohibit a cause of action arising out of an executive director disposition of a protest to a specified notice of proposed construction deemed exempt from the requirement to submit an application for a permit or certificate for electrical transmission facilities from accruing in any court to any entity or person unless the entity or person has filed an application to the commission for a rehearing within 10 days after the date of issuance of the disposition. The bill would require the commission to issue its decision and order on rehearing within 90 days after the filing of that application.

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services (department), under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Under existing law, specialty mental health services include federal Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) services provided to eligible Medi-Cal beneficiaries under 21 years of age. Existing law requires each local mental health plan to establish a procedure to ensure access to outpatient specialty mental health services, as required by the EPSDT program standards, for youth in foster care who have been placed outside their county of adjudication, as described.

Existing law requires the department to issue policy guidance on the conditions for, and exceptions to, presumptive transfer of responsibility for providing or arranging for specialty mental health services to a foster youth from the county of original jurisdiction to the county in which the foster youth resides, as prescribed. On a case-by-case basis, and when consistent with the medical rights of children in foster care, existing law authorizes the waiver of presumptive transfer, with the responsibility for the provision of specialty mental health services remaining with the county of original jurisdiction if certain exceptions exist. Under existing law, the county probation agency or the child welfare services agency is responsible for determining whether waiver of the presumptive transfer is appropriate, with notice provided to the person requesting the exception.

Under existing law, commencing July 1, 2023, in the case of placement of foster children in short-term residential therapeutic programs, community treatment facilities, or group homes, or in the case of admission of foster children to childrens crisis residential programs, the county of original jurisdiction is required to retain responsibility and presumptive transfer provisions apply only if certain circumstances exist.

This bill, for purposes of foster children placed or admitted in those specific settings, would delay, until July 1, 2024, the requirement on the county of original jurisdiction to retain responsibility and the limitation on the presumptive transfer provisions. By extending the period during which a county agency is responsible for making determinations about presumptive transfer waivers and making certain notifications, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law conditions implementation of the above-described provisions on the availability of federal financial participation and receipt of all necessary federal approvals. If the department makes the determination that it is necessary to seek federal approval, existing law requires the department to make an official request for approval from the federal government no later than July 1, 2024.

This bill would delay the deadline for any necessary federal approval requests to July 1, 2025.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services (department), under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Under existing law, specialty mental health services include federal Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) services provided to eligible Medi-Cal beneficiaries under 21 years of age. Existing law requires each local mental health plan to establish a procedure to ensure access to outpatient specialty mental health services, as required by the EPSDT program standards, for youth in foster care who have been placed outside their county of adjudication, as described.

Existing law requires the department to issue policy guidance on the conditions for, and exceptions to, presumptive transfer of responsibility for providing or arranging for specialty mental health services to a foster youth from the county of original jurisdiction to the county in which the foster youth resides, as prescribed. On a case-by-case basis, and when consistent with the medical rights of children in foster care, existing law authorizes the waiver of presumptive transfer, with the responsibility for the provision of specialty mental health services remaining with the county of original jurisdiction if certain exceptions exist. Under existing law, the county probation agency or the child welfare services agency is responsible for determining whether waiver of the presumptive transfer is appropriate, with notice provided to the person requesting the exception.

Under existing law, commencing July 1, 2023, in the case of placement of foster children in short-term residential therapeutic programs, community treatment facilities, or group homes, or in the case of admission of foster children to childrens crisis residential programs, the county of original jurisdiction is required to retain responsibility and presumptive transfer provisions apply only if certain circumstances exist. Existing law requires the department and the State Department of Social Services to adopt regulations by July 1, 2027, to implement those provisions.

This bill, for purposes of foster children placed or admitted in those specific settings, would delay, until July 1, 2024, the requirement on the county of original jurisdiction to retain responsibility and the limitation on the presumptive transfer provisions, and would delay the deadline for the adoption of regulations to July 1, 2028. provisions. By extending the period during which a county agency is responsible for making determinations about presumptive transfer waivers and making certain notifications, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law conditions implementation of the above-described provisions on the availability of federal financial participation and receipt of all necessary federal approvals. If the department makes the determination that it is necessary to seek federal approval, existing law requires the department to make an official request for approval from the federal government no later than July 1, 2024.

This bill would delay the deadline for any necessary federal approval requests to July 1, 2025.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services (department), under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Under existing law, specialty mental health services include federal Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) services provided to eligible Medi-Cal beneficiaries under 21 years of age. Existing law requires each local mental health plan to establish a procedure to ensure access to outpatient specialty mental health services, as required by the EPSDT program standards, for youth in foster care who have been placed outside their county of adjudication, as described.

Existing law requires the department to issue policy guidance on the conditions for, and exceptions to, presumptive transfer of responsibility for providing or arranging for specialty mental health services to a foster youth from the county of original jurisdiction to the county in which the foster youth resides, as prescribed. On a case-by-case basis, and when consistent with the medical rights of children in foster care, existing law authorizes the waiver of presumptive transfer, with the responsibility for the provision of specialty mental health services remaining with the county of original jurisdiction if certain exceptions exist. Under existing law, the county probation agency or the child welfare services agency is responsible for determining whether waiver of the presumptive transfer is appropriate, with notice provided to the person requesting the exception.

Under existing law, commencing July 1, 2023, in the case of placement of foster children in short-term residential therapeutic programs, community treatment facilities, or group homes, or in the case of admission of foster children to childrens crisis residential programs, the county of original jurisdiction is required to retain responsibility and presumptive transfer provisions apply only if certain circumstances exist. Existing law requires the department and the State Department of Social Services to adopt regulations by July 1, 2027, to implement those provisions.

This bill, for purposes of foster children placed or admitted in those specific settings, would delay, until July 1, 2024, the requirement on the county of original jurisdiction to retain responsibility and the limitation on the presumptive transfer provisions, and would delay the deadline for the adoption of regulations to July 1, 2028. By extending the period during which a county agency is responsible for making determinations about presumptive transfer waivers and making certain notifications, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law conditions implementation of the above-described provisions on the availability of federal financial participation and receipt of all necessary federal approvals. If the department makes the determination that it is necessary to seek federal approval, existing law requires the department to make an official request for approval from the federal government no later than July 1, 2024.

This bill would delay the deadline for any necessary federal approval requests to July 1, 2025.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 551

Author:(Bennett)

As Amended Ver:August 15, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Proposes streamlining of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) procedures related to transmission planning.

Senate Amendments

Remove entirety of bill, and replace it with policy on electric transmission planning; Specifically:

1. Clarifies that CPUC regulations and guidelines related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are exempt from the requirement to submit to the Office of Administrative Law for review.
2. Authorizes the CPUC to adopt successor guidelines at a publicly noticed meeting to carry out its receipt and review of and actions on applications for the construction of electrical transmission facilities subject to its regulatory jurisdiction.
3. Prohibits a cause of action arising out of an executive director disposition of certain protests to a General Order 131-D notice of proposed construction from accruing in any court to any entity or person unless the entity or person has filed an application to the commission for a rehearing within 10 days after the date of issuance of the disposition. Requires the CPUC to issue its decision and order a rehearing within 90 days after the filing of that application.

COMMENTS

Transmission Planning and CPUC Permitting. The state's transmission planning and permitting processes are complex and involve inter-related actions among multiple entities and state agencies:

1. The California Air Resources Board's Scoping Plan establishes a target range for the electricity sector's greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions.
2. The California Energy Commission's Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) provides a demand forecast to anticipate statewide load in the next decade or longer.
3. The CPUC's integrated resource plan (IRP) forecasts system generation resource needs to meet the IEPR's 10-year forecast of customer demand.
4. The CPUC's resources adequacy (RA) process identifies resources retail suppliers of electricity under the CPUC's jurisdiction must procure in order to meet customer demand and ensure near-term reliability.
5. CAISO's transmission planning process (TPP) identifies the transmission needs to interconnect and balance (a) the system supply described by the IRP with (b) the customer demand, as projected by the IEPR. To do so, CAISO receives the IRP results from the CPUC and inputs them into its TPP. The CAISO also considers recommendations from the Energy Commission's IEPR. CAISO updates the TPP annually, and the process culminates in a CAISO Board of Governors-approved transmission plan that identifies the needed transmission solutions and authorizes cost recovery through CAISO transmission rates, subject to federal regulatory approval.

Following the CAISO Board's approval of a TPP, new projects that are identified as necessary go through a competitive solicitation process at the CPUC. If CPUC selects a transmission project, it then undergoes two application review processes at the CPUC:

1. A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, for which the CPUC serves as the lead agency. To prepare for the environmental review, the transmission developer (usually a utility) first conducts and submits a Proponents Environmental Assessment (PEA). The PEA is a preliminary assessment of the project's potential environmental impacts and alternatives. As a note, some projects may trigger a federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review if they cross federal land or use federal funds.
2. A Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) review for transmission projects over 200kV. The CPCN review entails analyzing the need and economics/costs of the project. Statute and CPUC rules exempt some electrical transmission projects form the need to receive a CPCN, or they require some projects to receive from CPUC another type of permit, known as a permit to construct (PTC). The CPUC's process to approve a PTC is generally less rigorous than the process to approve a CPCN. As a note, the CPUC's decision on the CPCN or PTC cannot be issued until the environmental review is complete.

GO 131-D Reforms. General Order (GO) 131-D generally outlines rules for the permitting and construction of electrical transmission lines, power lines, distribution lines, substations, and generation facilities in California. Since the last update of GO131-D in 1995, the energy landscape and infrastructure planning process have evolved significantly. In the last decade, there has been the energy crisis, energy deregulation, formation of CAISO, and significant increase in new renewable energy generation. In 2022, the Legislature approved revisions to the CPUC's permitting processes. Specifically, SB 529 (Hertzberg), Chapter 357, Statutes of 2022, directed the CPUC, by January 1, 2024, to revise its rules so as to authorize a utility to use the PTC process or to claim an exemption from CPUC permitting for a project to construct an extension, expansion, upgrade or other modification to its existing transmission facilities. Notably, SB 529 did not exempt a transmission project from the CEQA review.

In May 2023, the CPUC opened a rulemaking to solicit comments that would revise the GO 131-D rules. Based on the feedback, the assigned commissioner determined the issues to be considered in the proceeding should be separated into two phases. Phase 1 includes consideration of changes to GO 131-D necessary to conform it to the requirements of SB 529 and updates to outdated references. Phase 1 decision was approved in December, 2023. Currently, the CPUC is in Phase 2 of the rulemaking proceeding to make changes to GO 131-D, which includes consideration of changes not addressed in the Phase 1. About a month ago, the CPUC issued a Phase 2 Staff Proposal with recommendations for various approaches to the changes sought in GO 131-D, including in response to recommendations from stakeholders.

Purpose for this bill. Numerous transmission stakeholders have concluded that California will need a doubling – at a minimum – of transmission capacity to interconnect new renewables by 2045. However, as eluded earlier, the current transmission development process is complicated and can take over a decade from conception to completion. Without modifying the current planning process for transmission, it is unlikely that California will meet its clean energy and climate goals.

This measure attempts to clarify that the CPUC is afforded the flexibility to adjust its guidelines related to the Guidelines for Energy Project Applications Requiring CEQA Compliance: Pre-filing and Proponent's Environmental Assessments (PEA Guidelines). Currently, if the CPUC makes changes to the guidelines it must undergo the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) review, which takes a year. The Administration suggests this is required because the CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedures is required to undergo APA review and it references the PEA Guidelines. As such, this measure seeks to clarify that CPUC guidelines related to the PEA guidelines are exempt from APA review.

This bill also seeks to provide clarity regarding the protest process and timeline for transmission projects that are exempt from a CPCN or PTC. The Administration contends that while these projects can be contested, the process to appeal is unclear. As a result, this measure proposes to provide stakeholders with certainty about the ability to appeal to seek judicial review of the Executive Director disposition of a protest allowed by GO 131-D. Specifically, this legislation would require a protest to be filed within 10 days of a disposition and a decision from the CPUC be made within 90 days. The Administration argues that these specified timelines should help to reconciliate between individuals (or entities) who have a protest and project applicants who desire to have a timely decision made. In doing so, this legislation aims to minimize disruptions to planned transmission projects.

According to the Author

According to the author, "It has become abundantly clear that our time is running out to act and combat climate change. California must do its part to reduce emissions and decarbonize our economy. We should be proud of the progress we've made in reducing emissions in the electricity sector, but we know that as we electrify more of our economy our reliance on an aging transmission infrastructure will grow along with a need to develop more transmission. However, to even update the rules governing the review of transmission projects the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) must undergo a lengthy yearlong process. AB 551 would allow the CPUC to update their rules in a more timely manner without altering any of the robust environmental steps necessary to ensure that clean energy projects do not result in undo harm. This is a simple, and surgical, legislative change that allows the state to update its rules in a more timely manner in order to appropriately review, and approve, clean energy transmission projects."

Arguments in Support

This measure is sponsored by the Office of California Governor Gavin Newsom and supported by the Public Advocates Office (PAO). Writing in support, the PAO states, "We support AB 551, as amended on June 10, 2024, because it would help streamline the approval process for much needed transmission project and continue to uphold the state's environmental review processes. Overall, AB 551 would provide a path for improving the transmission permitting process while ensuring environmental protections are in place and would help advance the state's climate and energy goals."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the CPUC anticipates any costs would be minor and absorbable.

VOTES:

ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 7-0-1

YES: Jackson, Sanchez, Alanis, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Garcia

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bonta

ASM HEALTH: 15-0-0

YES: Wood, Waldron, Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Boerner, Wendy Carrillo, Flora, Vince Fong, Maienschein, McCarty, Joe Patterson, Rodriguez, Santiago, Villapudua, Weber

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Sanchez, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Weber

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0-4

YES: Addis, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Aguiar-Curry, Kalra, Mathis, Papan

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

UPDATED

VERSION: August 15, 2024

CONSULTANT: Lina V. Malova / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0005031

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 551

Author: Bennett (D)

Amended: 8/15/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 12-0, 6/21/23

AYES: Eggman, Nguyen, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Limón, Menjivar, Roth, Rubio, Wahab, Wiener

SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 5-0, 7/3/23

AYES: Alvarado-Gil, Ochoa Bogh, Hurtado, Menjivar, Wahab

SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 18-0, 7/2/24

AYES: Bradford, Dahle, Ashby, Becker, Caballero, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Grove, Limón, Min, Newman, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Stern, Wilk

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/25/23 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Public Utilities Commission

SOURCE: Office of California Governor Gavin Newsom

DIGEST:

This bill proposes streamlining of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) procedures related to transmission planning.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes and vests the CPUC with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. (Article XII of the California Constitution)
2. Provides that the CPUC may supervise and regulate every public utility in the state and may do all things, whether specifically designated or in addition, which are convenient and necessary and in the exercise of such power and jurisdiction. (Public Utilities Code §701)
3. Requires the CPUC to submit amendments, revisions, or modifications of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Office of Administrative Law for prior review, but exempts from that requirement general orders, resolutions, or other substantive regulations. (Public Utilities Code §311 (h))
4. Prohibits, via the Public Utilities Act, any electrical corporation from beginning the construction of, among other things, a line, plant, or system, or of any extension thereof, without having first obtained from the CPUC a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require its construction, except that the extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification of an existing electrical transmission facility, including transmission lines and substations, does not require a CPCN. The CPCN process includes California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the proposed project. Provides that a CPCN is not required for the extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification of an existing electrical transmission facility, including transmission lines and substations. (Public Utilities Code §1001)
5. Requires the CPUC, by January 1, 2024, to update General Order (GO)131-D to authorize each public utility electrical corporation to use the permit-to-construct process or claim an exemption under Section III(B) of that GO to seek approval to construct an extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification to its existing electrical transmission facilities, including electric transmission lines and substations within existing transmission easements, rights of way, or franchise agreements, irrespective of whether the electrical transmission facility is above a 200-kilovolt voltage (kV) level. (Public Utilities Code §564)
6. Requires, pursuant to the CEQA, lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA. CEQA includes several statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines. (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.)

This bill:

1. Clarifies that regulations and guidelines related to the CEQA are also exempt from the requirement to submit to the Office of Administrative Law for review.
2. Authorizes the CPUC to adopt successor guidelines at a publicly noticed meeting to carry out its receipt and review of and actions on applications for the construction of electrical transmission facilities subject to its regulatory jurisdiction.
3. Prohibits a cause of action arising out of an executive director disposition of a protest to a specified notice of proposed construction deemed exempt from the requirement to submit an application for a permit or certificate for electrical transmission facilities from accruing in any court to any entity or person unless the entity or person has filed an application to the CPUC for a rehearing within 10 days after the date of issuance of the disposition. Requires the CPUC to issue its decision and order on rehearing within 90 days after the filing of that application.

Background

1. Transmission projects. Electric transmission lines are generally high voltage lines that move electricity from generation resources (power plants) to distribution lines in neighborhoods. Companies, usually electric investor-owned utilities (IOUs), proposing the construction of new transmission, are required to obtain a permit from the CPUC for construction of certain specified infrastructure listed under Public Utilities Code §1001, including transmission projects. The CPUC reviews permit applications under two concurrent processes: (1) an environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and (2) the review of project need and costs pursuant to Public Utilities Code §1001 and GO 131-D (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)).
2. Need for expanded transmission capacity. In order for the state to meet its clean energy goals, including achieving 100 percent clean energy by 2045, electric transmission capacity will likely need to grow significantly. The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) conducts its transmission planning process (TPP) to identify potential transmission system limitations as well as opportunities for system reinforcements that improve reliability and efficiency. The annual transmission plan fulfills the CAISO’s core responsibility to identify and plan the development of solutions, transmission or otherwise, to meet the future needs of the electricity grid. The CAISO identifies projects that address grid reliability requirements, identify upgrades needed to successfully meet California’s policy goals, and explore projects that can bring economic benefits to consumers. In 2021, the CAISO created a 20-Year Transmission Outlook for the electric grid, in collaboration with the CPUC and the California Energy Commission (CEC), with the goal of exploring the longer-term grid requirements and options for meeting the state’s SB 100 clean energy objectives reliably and cost-effectively. The 20-Year Transmission Outlook estimates a significant amount, and expense, to construct and expand transmission facilities, including an estimated $10.74 billion in upgrades to existing facilities.
3. The Transmission Permitting Process. Usually, utilities proposing the construction of new transmission are required to obtain a permit from the CPUC for construction of certain specified infrastructure listed under Public Utilities Code §1001, including transmission projects. The CPUC reviews permit applications under two concurrent processes:
4. An environmental review of applicable projects pursuant to CEQA and CPUC environmental rules. To prepare for the environmental review, the utility first conducts and submits a Proponents Environmental Assessment (PEA). The PEA is a preliminary assessment of the project’s potential environmental impacts and alternatives. Some projects may trigger a federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review if they cross federal land or use federal funds.
5. The review of project needs and costs according to Public Utilities Code §1001 and GO 131-D, also known as a CPCN, or — depending on project size — a permit to construct (PTC).
6. Permit/Certificate Review. Parallel to environmental review under CEQA, the CPUC reviews the utility’s application for a CPCN or a PTC, depending on the size of the project. The CPUC’s decision on the CPCN or PTC cannot be issued until the environmental review is complete, if one is required. But most transmission projects are categorically exempt from CEQA. Most of the CPCN/PTC process is outlined in GO 131-D.
7. CPUC’s GO 131-D. GO 131-D was first adopted in 1970 and before a recent update late in 2023, it had not been updated since 1995. It establishes the criteria to be followed to trigger the need for a PTC or renovate electrical facilities, including transmission lines and substations, and also sets out public notice requirements for proposed transmission projects. The level of analysis performed by the CPUC pursuant to GO 131-D varies with the size (measured in voltage) of the transmission project.

• Projects below 50 kV are considered distribution line projects and in general, do not require CPUC approval.
• Projects between 50 kV and 200 kV generally require a PTC, which includes an environmental review pursuant to CEQA, if applicable. The CPUC process generally does not require a detailed analysis of the need for or economics of these projects. An application for a PTC must be filed at least nine months before a decision is required.
• Projects over 200 kV generally require a CPCN and are subject to CEQA review, as applicable.

The CPCN process analyzes the need for the project and the economics of the project, as well as, the environmental impacts of the project if CEQA applies. An application for a CPCN must be filed at least 12 months before a decision is required.

1. GO 131-D Reforms. SB 529 (Hertzberg, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2022) requires the CPUC to revise the permitting process for specified transmission projects. The bill directed the CPUC to revise GO 131-D to authorize a utility to use the PTC process or claim an exemption to seek approval to construct an extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification to its existing transmission facilities regardless of the voltage level by January 1, 2024. However, CEQA still applies. In May 2023, the CPUC opened a rulemaking to solicit comments that would revise the GO 131-D rules. Based on the feedback, the assigned commissioner determined the issues to be considered in the proceeding should be separated into two phases. Phase 1 includes consideration of changes to GO 131-D necessary to conform it to the requirements of SB 529 and updates to outdated references. Phase 1 decision was approved on December 14, 2023. Currently, the CPUC is in Phase 2 of the rulemaking proceeding to make changes to GO 131-D, which includes consideration of changes not addressed in the Phase 1. Roughly a month ago, the CPUC issued a Phase 2 Staff Proposal with recommendations for various approaches to the changes sought in GO 131-D, including various recommendations, including in response to recommendations from stakeholders.

Comments

Need for this bill. The author’s office has shared that as the state begins to further focus on expanding and upgrading the electrical transmission system it is vital that the CPUC have the ability to adapt its rules expeditiously in order to ensure that the state can meet its climate and energy needs. This bill attempts to streamline CPUC procedures related to transmission planning.

Specifically, this bill attempts to make clear that the CPUC is afforded the flexibility to adjust its guidelines related to the Guidelines for Energy Project Applications Requiring CEQA Compliance: Pre-filing and Proponent’s Environmental Assessments (Version 1.0, November 2019) [PEA Guidelines]. Currently, if the CPUC makes changes to the guidelines it must undergo the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) review, which takes a year. The Administration suggests this is required because the CPUC’s Rules of Practice and Procedures is required to undergo APA review and it references the PEA Guidelines. This bill proposes to make clear that successor guidelines to the PEA Guidelines would be exempt from APA review.

This bill also attempts to provide clarity regarding the protest process and timeline for electric transmission projects that are exempt from a CPCN or PTC. The Administration contends that while these projects can be contested, the process to appeal is unclear. This bill proposes to provide stakeholders with certainty about the ability to appeal to seek judicial review of the Executive Director disposition of a protest allowed by GO 131-D. This bill would require a protest to be filed within 10 days of a disposition and a decision from the CPUC within 90 days. The author contends this certainty will avoid the current ambiguity and delays in processing protests.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2292 (Petrie-Norris, 2024) would repeal the requirement that the CPUC consider alternatives to prospective transmission projects before issuing a CPCN approval. The bill is pending before the full Senate.

AB 3238 (Garcia, 2024) would have designated the CPUC as the lead agency for purposes of CEQA for electrical infrastructure projects and requires the CPUC to prescribe procedures for the preparation of the appropriate environmental review document for those projects. The bill was held in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

AB 3246 (Garcia, 2024) would have required the CPUC, on or before January 1, 2026, to update a general order to provide specified exemption from the permit to construct process for advanced reconductoring transmission projects. The bill was held in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

SB 1006 (Padilla, 2024) would require electrical transmission utilities, by January 1, 2026, to study grid-enhancing technologies to cost-effectively increase transmission capacity and to identify which of its transmission and distribution lines can be reconductored with advanced reconductors. The bill is pending before the full Assembly.

SB 420 (Becker, 2023) would have removed the requirement on new electrical transmission facility projects less than 138 kV proposed by the state’s six largest IOUs from a determination of need from the CPUC before construction. These new projects must either be located on previously disturbed land, located in an urbanized area or be part of a project that has undergone a CEQA review. Excludes from eligibility projects that are located in wetlands, any un-remediated hazardous waste site, or critical habit, as specified. The bill was vetoed.

SB 619 (Padilla, 2023) would have authorized an electrical corporation, at the time it files an application with the CPUC for a CPCN or PTC for new construction of any electrical transmission facility 138 kV or greater to, at the same time, submit an application for that facility to the CEC. Prohibits the CEC from considering the necessity for the electrical transmission facility. The bill was vetoed.

SB 529 (Hertzberg, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2022) exempted an extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification of an existing transmission line or substations from the requirement of a CPCN and directs the CPUC to revise its general orders, by January 1, 2024, to instead use its PTC process for these approvals.

SB 887 (Becker, Chapter 358, Statutes of 2022) among other provisions, directed the CPUC, on or before January 15, 2023, to request CAISO to identify the highest priority anticipated transmission facilities that are needed to deliver renewable energy resources or zero-carbon resources.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the CPUC anticipates any costs would be minor and absorbable.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/24)

Office of California Governor Gavin Newsom (source)

Public Advocates Office

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/24)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Public Advocate’s Office states:

We support AB 551, as amended on June 10, 2024, because it would help streamline the approval process for much needed transmission project and continue to uphold the state’s environmental review processes. Overall, AB 551 would provide a path for improving the transmission permitting process while ensuring environmental protections are in place and would help advance the state’s climate and energy goals.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/25/23

AYES: Addis, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Kalra, Mathis, Papan

Prepared by: Nidia Bautista / E., U. & C. / (916) 651-4107

8/19/24 10:47:13

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 551 (Bennett) - Public Utilities Commission

Bill Summary:

This bill would make several changes intended to streamline California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) procedures related to transmission planning.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 15, 2024

Fiscal Impact:

• The CPUC anticipates any costs would be minor and absorbable.

Author Amendments:

The author amendments would require that, to the extent there is a conflict or inconsistency between the content in the guidelines adopted or revised pursuant to this bill and a CPUC rule of practice or procedure addressing the completeness of applications for electrical transmission facilities, the guidelines shall prevail. These amendments would require that the guidelines be designed to mitigate ratepayer costs, lessen the uncertainty of the submittal process, and improve the CPUC’s review process.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 551 (Bennett) - Public Utilities Commission

Bill Summary:

This bill would make several changes intended to streamline California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) procedures related to transmission planning.

Fiscal Impact:

• To the extent any successor guidelines adopted pursuant to provisions in this bill result in new or increased regulatory costs for electric companies that would be borne by ratepayers, unknown potential impact to the state as an electric ratepayer. (See staff comments for details.)
• The CPUC anticipates any costs would be minor and absorbable.

Background:

According to the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee analysis, electric transmission capacity will likely need to grow significantly in order for the state to meet its clean energy goals, including achieving 100 percent clean energy by 2045. Most electricity transmission lines are owned by the state’s large electrical investor-owned utilities (IOUs). The CPUC has regulatory authority over the rates the IOUs charge their customers, as well as much of the service provided to those customers.

Companies, usually electric IOUs, proposing the construction of new transmission, are required to obtain a permit from the CPUC for construction of certain specified infrastructure listed under Public Utilities Code §1001, including transmission projects. The CPUC reviews permit applications under two concurrent processes: (1) an environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and (2) the review of project need and costs pursuant to Public Utilities Code §1001 and GO 131-D (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity [CPCN]). Most of the CPCN/PTC process is outlined in GO 131-D.

CPUC’s GO 131-D. GO 131-D was first adopted in 1970 and before a recent update late in 2023, it had not been updated since 1995. It establishes the criteria to be followed to trigger the need for a PTC or renovate electrical facilities, including transmission lines and substations, and also sets out public notice requirements for proposed transmission projects. The level of analysis performed by the CPUC pursuant to GO 131-D varies with the size (measured in voltage) of the transmission project.

• Projects below 50 kV are considered distribution line projects and in general, do not require CPUC approval.
• Projects between 50 kV and 200 kV generally require a PTC, which includes an environmental review pursuant to CEQA, if applicable. The CPUC process generally does not require a detailed analysis of the need for or economics of these projects. An application for a PTC must be filed at least nine months before a decision is required.
• Projects over 200 kV generally require a CPCN and are subject to CEQA review, as applicable.

The CPCN process analyzes the need for the project and the economics of the project, as well as, the environmental impacts of the project if CEQA applies. An application for a CPCN must be filed at least 12 months before a decision is required.

GO 131-D Reforms. SB 529 (Hertzberg, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2022) requires the CPUC to revise the permitting process for specified transmission projects. The bill directed the CPUC to revise GO 131-D to authorize a utility to use the PTC process or claim an exemption to seek approval to construct an extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification to its existing transmission facilities regardless of the voltage level by January 1, 2024. However, CEQA still applies. In May 2023, the CPUC opened a rulemaking to solicit comments that would revise the GO 131-D rules. Based on the feedback, the assigned commissioner determined the issues to be considered in the proceeding should be separated into two phases. Phase 1 includes consideration of changes to GO 131-D necessary to conform it to the requirements of SB 529 and updates to outdated references. Phase 1 decision was approved on December 14, 2023. Currently, the CPUC is in Phase 2 of the rulemaking proceeding to make changes to GO 131-D, which includes consideration of changes not addressed in the Phase 1. Roughly a month ago, the CPUC issued a Phase 2 Staff Proposal with recommendations for various approaches to the changes sought in GO 131-D, including various recommendations, including in response to recommendations from stakeholders.

Proposed Law:

This bill would make several changes intended to streamline CPUC procedures related to transmission planning. Specifically, this bill would:

1. Clarify that regulations and guidelines related to the CEQA are also exempt from the requirement to submit to the Office of Administrative Law for review.
2. Authorize the CPUC to adopt specified successor guidelines at a publicly noticed meeting to address its receipt and review of and actions on applications for the construction of electrical transmission facilities, as described, subject to its regulatory jurisdiction, as provided.
3. Prohibit a cause of action arising out of an executive director disposition of a protest to a specified notice of proposed construction deemed exempt from the requirement to submit an application for a permit or certificate for electrical transmission facilities from accruing in any court to any entity or person unless the entity or person has filed an application to the CPUC for a rehearing within 10 days after the date of issuance of the disposition. This bill would require the CPUC to issue its decision and order on rehearing within 90 days after the filing of that application.

Related Legislation:

AB 2292 (Petrie-Norris, 2024) repeals the requirement that the CPUC consider alternatives to prospective transmission projects before issuing a CPCN approval.

AB 3238 (Garcia, 2024) exempts, by January 1, 2030, from the CEQA for the expansion of an existing public right-of-way across state owned land to accommodate the for specified electrical infrastructure projects. Exempts projects that expand existing public right-of-way across state-owned land to accommodate the construction, expansion, modification, or update of electrical infrastructure from CEQA until January 1, 2035. This bill would also designate the CPUC as the lead agency for purposes of CEQA for electrical infrastructure projects.

AB 3246 (Garcia, 2024) requires the CPUC, on or before January 1, 2026, to update a general order to provide specified exemption from the permit to construct process for advanced reconductoring transmission projects.

SB 1006 (Padilla, 2024) requires electrical transmission utilities, by January 1, 2026, to study grid-enhancing technologies to cost-effectively increase transmission capacity and to identify which of its transmission and distribution lines can be reconductored with advanced reconductors.

SB 420 (Becker, 2023) would have removed the requirement on new electrical transmission facility projects less than 138 kV proposed by the state’s six largest IOUs from a determination of need from the CPUC before construction. These new projects must either be located on previously disturbed land, located in an urbanized area or be part of a project that has undergone a CEQA review. Excludes from eligibility projects that are located in wetlands, any un-remediated hazardous waste site, or critical habit, as specified. The bill was vetoed.

SB 619 (Padilla, 2023) would have authorized an electrical corporation, at the time it files an application with the CPUC for a CPCN or PTC for new construction of any electrical transmission facility 138 kV or greater to, at the same time, submit an application for that facility to the CEC. Prohibits the CEC from considering the necessity for the electrical transmission facility. The bill was vetoed.

SB 529 (Hertzberg, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2022) exempted an extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification of an existing transmission line or substations from the requirement of a CPCN and directs the CPUC to revise its general orders, by January 1, 2024, to instead use its PTC process for these approvals.

SB 887 (Becker, Chapter 358, Statutes of 2022) among other provisions, directed the CPUC, on or before January 15, 2023, to request CAISO to identify the highest priority anticipated transmission facilities that are needed to deliver renewable energy resources or zero-carbon resources.

Staff Comments:

This bill contains a provision that would authorize the CPUC to adopt, by resolution at a publicly noticed meeting, successor guidelines to address its receipt and review of applications for the construction of electrical transmission facilities. Further, this bill would provide that, to the extent there is a conflict or inconsistency between these successor guidelines and a commission general order or rule of practice or procedure, these successor guidelines would prevail. In effect, new guidelines could be passed with one hearing of the Commission that would then prevail over a general order—General Order 131-D, for example, which has been in rulemaking for over a year.to establish requirements for PTC and CPCN applications. This bill would require only that these guidelines be designed “to improve the commission’s review process by increasing applicant understanding of applicable requirements with the intent of advancing the timely resolution of the construction of the facilities and efficient disposition of the applications.” Some concerns have been raised, however, that successor guidelines could be developed absent stakeholder input and outside the more extensive process involved with rulemaking, and, as a result, undermine streamlining efforts or have unintended consequences. For example, additional requirements on utilities filing a PTC or CPUC application—such as studies, reports, expanded data, or additional details—would add to filing requirements instead of streamlining the application process and increase ratepayer-funded administrative costs. This could impact the state as a ratepayer.

The State of California is an electricity customer, purchasing roughly one percent of the state’s electricity. As such, the state incurs costs if rates rise. Should the bill result in any costs borne by ratepayers, it would have costs to the state.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS

Senator Steven Bradford, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 7/2/2024

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill proposes streamlining of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) procedures related to transmission planning.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes and vests the CPUC with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. (Article XII of the California Constitution)
2. Provides that the CPUC may supervise and regulate every public utility in the state and may do all things, whether specifically designated or in addition, which are convenient and necessary and in the exercise of such power and jurisdiction. (Public Utilities Code §701)
3. Requires the CPUC to submit amendments, revisions, or modifications of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Office of Administrative Law for prior review, but exempts from that requirement general orders, resolutions, or other substantive regulations. (Public Utilities Code §311 (h))
4. Prohibits, via the Public Utilities Act, any electrical corporation from beginning the construction of, among other things, a line, plant, or system, or of any extension thereof, without having first obtained from the CPUC a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require its construction, except that the extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification of an existing electrical transmission facility, including transmission lines and substations, does not require a CPCN. The CPCN process includes California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the proposed project. A CPCN confers eminent domain authority for construction of the project. A CPCN is not required for the extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification of an existing electrical transmission facility, including transmission lines and substations. (Public Utilities Code §1001)
5. Requires the CPUC, by January 1, 2024, to update General Order (GO)131-D to authorize each public utility electrical corporation to use the permit-to-construct process or claim an exemption under Section III(B) of that GO to seek approval to construct an extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification to its existing electrical transmission facilities, including electric transmission lines and substations within existing transmission easements, rights of way, or franchise agreements, irrespective of whether the electrical transmission facility is above a 200-kilovolt voltage (kV) level. (Public Utilities Code §564)
6. Requires, pursuant to the CEQA, lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA. CEQA includes several statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines. (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.)

This bill:

1. Clarifies that regulations and guidelines related to the CEQA are also exempt from the requirement to submit to the Office of Administrative Law for review.
2. Authorizes the CPUC to adopt guidelines at a publicly noticed meeting to carry out its review of and actions on applications for the construction of electrical transmission facilities, as described, subject to its regulatory jurisdiction, as provided.
3. Prohibits a cause of action arising out of an executive director disposition of a protest to a specified notice of proposed construction deemed exempt from the requirement to submit an application for a permit or certificate for electrical transmission facilities from accruing in any court to any entity or person unless the entity or person has filed an application to the CPUC for a rehearing within 10 days after the date of issuance of the disposition. This bill would require the CPUC to issue its decision and order on rehearing within 90 days after the filing of that application.

Background

Transmission projects. Electric transmission lines are generally high voltage lines that move electricity from generation resources (power plants) to distribution lines in neighborhoods. Companies, usually electric investor-owned utilities (IOUs), proposing the construction of new transmission, are required to obtain a permit from the CPUC for construction of certain specified infrastructure listed under Public Utilities Code §1001, including transmission projects. The CPUC reviews permit applications under two concurrent processes: (1) an environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and (2) the review of project need and costs pursuant to Public Utilities Code §1001 and GO 131-D (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)).

Need for expanded transmission capacity. In order for the state to meet its clean energy goals, including achieving 100 percent clean energy by 2045, electric transmission capacity will likely need to grow significantly. The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) conducts its transmission planning process (TPP) to identify potential transmission system limitations as well as opportunities for system reinforcements that improve reliability and efficiency. The annual transmission plan fulfills the CAISO’s core responsibility to identify and plan the development of solutions, transmission or otherwise, to meet the future needs of the electricity grid. The CAISO identifies projects that address grid reliability requirements, identify upgrades needed to successfully meet California’s policy goals, and explore projects that can bring economic benefits to consumers. In 2021, the CAISO created a 20-Year Transmission Outlook for the electric grid, in collaboration with the CPUC and the California Energy Commission (CEC), with the goal of exploring the longer-term grid requirements and options for meeting the state’s SB 100 clean energy objectives reliably and cost-effectively. The 20-Year Transmission Outlook estimates a significant amount, and expense, to construct and expand transmission facilities, including an estimated $10.74 billion in upgrades to existing facilities.

The Transmission Permitting Process. Usually, utilities proposing the construction of new transmission are required to obtain a permit from the CPUC for construction of certain specified infrastructure listed under Public Utilities Code §1001, including transmission projects. The CPUC reviews permit applications under two concurrent processes:

1. An environmental review of applicable projects pursuant to CEQA and CPUC environmental rules. To prepare for the environmental review, the utility first conducts and submits a Proponents Environmental Assessment (PEA). The PEA is a preliminary assessment of the project’s potential environmental impacts and alternatives. Some projects may trigger a federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review if they cross federal land or use federal funds.
2. The review of project needs and costs according to Public Utilities Code §1001 and GO 131-D, also known as a CPCN, or — depending on project size — a permit to construct (PTC).

Permit/Certificate Review. Parallel to environmental review under CEQA, the CPUC reviews the utility’s application for a CPCN or a PTC, depending on the size of the project. The CPUC’s decision on the CPCN or PTC cannot be issued until the environmental review is complete, if one is required. But most transmission projects are categorically exempt from CEQA. Most of the CPCN/PTC process is outlined in GO 131-D.

CPUC’s GO 131-D. GO 131-D was first adopted in 1970 and before a recent update late in 2023, it had not been updated since 1995. It establishes the criteria to be followed to trigger the need for a PTC or renovate electrical facilities, including transmission lines and substations, and also sets out public notice requirements for proposed transmission projects. The level of analysis performed by the CPUC pursuant to GO 131-D varies with the size (measured in voltage) of the transmission project.

• Projects below 50 kV are considered distribution line projects and in general, do not require CPUC approval.
• Projects between 50 kV and 200 kV generally require a PTC, which includes an environmental review pursuant to CEQA, if applicable. The CPUC process generally does not require a detailed analysis of the need for or economics of these projects. An application for a PTC must be filed at least nine months before a decision is required.
• Projects over 200 kV generally require a CPCN and are subject to CEQA review, as applicable.

The CPCN process analyzes the need for the project and the economics of the project, as well as, the environmental impacts of the project if CEQA applies. An application for a CPCN must be filed at least 12 months before a decision is required.

GO 131-D Reforms. SB 529 (Hertzberg, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2022) requires the CPUC to revise the permitting process for specified transmission projects. The bill directed the CPUC to revise GO 131-D to authorize a utility to use the PTC process or claim an exemption to seek approval to construct an extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification to its existing transmission facilities regardless of the voltage level by January 1, 2024. However, CEQA still applies. In May 2023, the CPUC opened a rulemaking to solicit comments that would revise the GO 131-D rules. Based on the feedback, the assigned commissioner determined the issues to be considered in the proceeding should be separated into two phases. Phase 1 includes consideration of changes to GO 131-D necessary to conform it to the requirements of SB 529 and updates to outdated references. Phase 1 decision was approved on December 14, 2023. Currently, the CPUC is in Phase 2 of the rulemaking proceeding to make changes to GO 131-D, which includes consideration of changes not addressed in the Phase 1. Roughly a month ago, the CPUC issued a Phase 2 Staff Proposal with recommendations for various approaches to the changes sought in GO 131-D, including various recommendations, including in response to recommendations from stakeholders.

Comments

Need for this bill. The author’s office has shared that as the state begins to further focus on expanding and upgrading the electrical transmission system it is vital that the CPUC have the ability to adapt its rules expeditiously in order to ensure that the state can meet its climate and energy needs. This bill attempts to streamline CPUC procedures related to transmission planning.

Specifically, this bill attempts to make clear that the CPUC is afforded the flexibility to adjust its guidelines related to the Guidelines for Energy Project Applications Requiring CEQA Compliance: Pre-filing and Proponent’s Environmental Assessments (Version 1.0, November 2019) [PEA Guidelines]. Currently, if the CPUC makes changes to the guidelines it must undergo the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) review, which takes a year. The Administration suggests this is required because the CPUC’s Rules of Practice and Procedures is required to undergo APA review and it references the PEA Guidelines. This bill proposes to make clear that the PEA Guidelines would be exempt from APA review.

This bill also attempts to provide clarity regarding the protest process and timeline for electric transmission projects that are exempt from a CPCN or PTC. The Administration contends that while these projects can be contested, the process to appeal is unclear. This bill proposes to provide stakeholders with certainty about the ability to appeal to seek judicial review of the Executive Director disposition of a protest allowed by GO 131-D. This bill would require a protest to be filed within 10 days of a disposition and a decision from the CPUC within 90 days. The author contends this certainty will avoid the current ambiguity and delays in processing protests.

Need for amendments. The author and committee may wish to amend this bill to make clear that the APA exemption is for the successor PEA Guidelines and other related changes.

Prior/Related Legislation

AB 2292 (Petrie-Norris, 2024) repeals the requirement that the CPUC consider alternatives to prospective transmission projects before issuing a CPCN approval. The bill is pending in Senate Committee on Appropriations.

AB 3238 (Garcia, 2024) exempts, by January 1, 2030, from the CEQA for the expansion of an existing public right-of-way across state owned land to accommodate the for specified electrical infrastructure projects. Exempts projects that expand existing public right-of-way across state-owned land to accommodate the construction, expansion, modification, or update of electrical infrastructure from CEQA until January 1, 2035. This bill would also designate the CPUC as the lead agency for purposes of CEQA for electrical infrastructure projects. The bill is pending in Senate Committee on Appropriations.

AB 3246 (Garcia, 2024) requires the CPUC, on or before January 1, 2026, to update a general order to provide specified exemption from the permit to construct process for advanced reconductoring transmission projects. The bill is pending in Senate Committee on Appropriations.

SB 1006 (Padilla, 2024) requires electrical transmission utilities, by January 1, 2026, to study grid-enhancing technologies to cost-effectively increase transmission capacity and to identify which of its transmission and distribution lines can be reconductored with advanced reconductors. The bill is pending in the Assembly.

SB 420 (Becker, 2023) would have removed the requirement on new electrical transmission facility projects less than 138 kV proposed by the state’s six largest IOUs from a determination of need from the CPUC before construction. These new projects must either be located on previously disturbed land, located in an urbanized area or be part of a project that has undergone a CEQA review. Excludes from eligibility projects that are located in wetlands, any un-remediated hazardous waste site, or critical habit, as specified. The bill was vetoed.

SB 619 (Padilla, 2023) would have authorized an electrical corporation, at the time it files an application with the CPUC for a CPCN or PTC for new construction of any electrical transmission facility 138 kV or greater to, at the same time, submit an application for that facility to the CEC. Prohibits the CEC from considering the necessity for the electrical transmission facility. The bill was vetoed.

SB 529 (Hertzberg, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2022) exempted an extension, expansion, upgrade, or other modification of an existing transmission line or substations from the requirement of a CPCN and directs the CPUC to revise its general orders, by January 1, 2024, to instead use its PTC process for these approvals.

SB 887 (Becker, Chapter 358, Statutes of 2022) among other provisions, directed the CPUC, on or before January 15, 2023, to request CAISO to identify the highest priority anticipated transmission facilities that are needed to deliver renewable energy resources or zero-carbon resources.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT:

Office of California Governor Gavin Newsom, Sponsor

Public Advocates Office

OPPOSITION:

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Public Advocate’s Office states:

We support AB 551, as amended on June 10, 2024, because it would help streamline the approval process for much needed transmission project and continue to uphold the state’s environmental review processes. Overall, AB 551 would provide a path for improving the transmission permitting process while ensuring environmental protections are in place and would help advance the state’s climate and energy goals.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Senator Alvarado-Gil, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Subject: Medi-Cal: specialty mental health services: foster children

SUMMARY

Delays the requirement that the county of original jurisdiction retain responsibility to arrange and provide specialty mental health services (SMHS) for foster children placed out of the county of original jurisdiction in short-term residential therapeutic programs, community treatment facilities, group homes, or children’s crisis residential programs, from July 1, 2023 to July 1, 2024.

ABSTRACT

Existing law:

1. Establishes a state and local system of child welfare services (CWS), including foster care, for children who have been adjudged by the court to be at risk or have been abused or neglected, as specified. (WIC 202)
2. Defines “Early Periodic and Screening Diagnostic, and Treatment Services” (EPSDT) as screening services, vision services, dental services, hearing services, and other necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment, and other measures to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental illnesses and conditions discovered by the screening services, including SMHS, for certain eligible individuals who are under the age of 21. (42 United States Code 1396d(a)(4)(B))
3. Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to implement mental health managed care through contracts with mental health plans (MHPs). Requires DHCS to contract with a county or counties acting jointly for the delivery of SMHS to each county’s eligible Medi-Cal beneficiary population. (WIC 14712)
4. Establishes the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) initiative effective from January 1, 2022 until December 31, 2026. The goals of CalAIM are to identify and manage the risk and needs of Medi-Cal beneficiaries through whole-person-care approaches and addressing social determinants of health; transition and transform the Medi-Cal program to a more consistent and seamless system by reducing complexity and increasing flexibility; and improve quality outcomes, reduce health disparities, and drive delivery system transformation and innovation through value-based initiatives, modernization of systems, and payment reform. (WIC 14184.100)
5. Defines “community treatment facility” as any residential facility that provides mental health treatment services to children in a group setting and that has the capacity to provide secure containment. (HSC 1502(a)(8))
6. Defines a “short-term residential therapeutic program (STRTP)” as a residential facility operated by a public agency or private organization and licensed by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) that provides an integrated program of specialized and intensive care and supervision, services and supports, treatment, and short-term, 24-hour care and supervision to children. Further, requires the care and supervision provided by an STRTP be nonmedical, except as otherwise permitted, as specified. (HSC 1502(a)(18))
7. Defines a “child and family team” as a group of individuals who are convened by the placing agency and who are engaged through a variety of team-based processes to identify the strengths and needs of the foster child or youth and their family, and to help achieve positive outcomes for safety, permanency, and well-being. (WIC 16501(a)(4))
8. States legislative intent to ensure that foster children who are placed outside of their county of original jurisdiction are able to access SMHS in a timely manner, consistent with their individual strengths and needs and the requirements of the federal law. (WIC 14717.1)
9. Defines “presumptive transfer” as the requirement that responsibility for providing or arranging for SMHS promptly transfer from the county of original jurisdiction to the county in which the foster child resides, under certain conditions, as specified. (WIC 14717.1)
10. Permits presumptive transfer to be waived, as specified, under any of the following exceptions:
11. The transfer would disrupt continuity of care or delay access to services for the foster youth;
12. The transfer would interfere with family reunification efforts;
13. The youth’s placement in a county other than the county of original jurisdiction is expected to last less than six months; or,
14. The youth’s residence is within 30 minutes of travel time to the established SMHS provider in the county of original jurisdiction. (WIC 14717.1)
15. Requires the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHS) to coordinate with DHCS and CDSS to issue policy guidance concerning the conditions for and exceptions to presumptive transfer, in consultation with CDSS and with the input of stakeholders, as specified. (WIC 14717.1)

This Bill:

1. Delays implementation of the following requirements in existing law from July 1, 2023, to July 1, 2024:
2. A foster child’s county of original jurisdiction must retain responsibility to arrange and provide SMHS if the foster child is placed out of the county of original jurisdiction in a community treatment facility, group home, or STRTP, or is admitted to a children’s crisis residential program, unless either of the following circumstances exist:
3. The case plan specifies that the child will transition to a less restrictive placement in the same county as the facility in which the child has been placed; or,
4. The placing agency determines, as informed by the child and family team, that the child will be negatively impacted if responsibility for providing or arranging for SMHS is not transferred to the same county as the facility in which the child has been placed.
5. The placing agency must provide notification to the MHP that will be responsible for arranging and providing SMHS for the foster child before placing a foster child out of county and allows these notifications to be done through email. If notification before placement is not possible, the placing agency must notify the appropriate MHP no later than three business days after making the out-of-county placement.
6. Delays, from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025, the requirement for DHCS to seek federal approval to implement these provisions if DHCS makes the determination that federal approval is necessary. 

FISCAL IMPACT

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Estimated costs to the California Department of Social Services and the Department of Health Care Services, the departments that oversee the affected programs, are expected to be minor and absorbable.
2. The cost to counties for administrative workload associated with the presumptive transfer exceptions is ongoing and must be borne by the state under Proposition 30 of 2012. Delaying by one year the shift of county responsibility for providing or arranging for SMHS for certain foster youth does not create new costs in the aggregate for the state.

Proposition 30 requires legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by realignment (including child welfare services and foster care) applies to local agencies only to the extent the state provides annual funding for the cost increase.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Purpose of the Bill:

According to the author, this bill simply delays the implementation of AB 1051 (Bennett, Chapter 402, Statutes of 2022) by a year to bring the program in line with existing efforts to implement CalAIM by the state and counties. The author states it is crucial that we ensure that these programs are successful so that we don’t interrupt the continuum of care for our most vulnerable youth.

Mental Health Needs of Foster Youth

Children and youth placed in the CWS system are more likely to have significant mental health needs, with research suggesting up to 80 percent of children in foster care have significant mental health concerns compared to 18 to 22 percent of the general population. Given the experiences of children and youth in the CWS system this should not be surprising. Children and youth placed in the CWS system are removed from their parents’ custody because they have suffered abuse or neglect.

Specialty Mental Health Services (SMHS) for Children and Youth

SMHS are available to children and youth who meet specific medical necessity criteria, as defined in current law. In order for children to be eligible under Medi-Cal, they must have a covered diagnosis and meet certain criteria, including having a condition that would not be responsive to physical health care-based treatment; and, the services are determined to be necessary in order to correct or address a mental illness and condition discovered by screening conducted by a qualified provider. SMHS include: assessment; intensive day treatment programs; medication support services; crisis intervention; crisis stabilization; crisis residential treatment services; target case management; psychologist services; and other services.

In some instances, where the mental and behavioral health needs of a youth are particularly complex or in need of a higher level of care, a youth may be placed in a specialized placement setting in order to better meet their care needs. These settings range from family based settings to crisis residential care, and include but are not limited to the following:

• Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Programs (STRTPs): In keeping with the state’s goal to reduce reliance on congregate care settings, California adopted a licensing category known as STRTPs, which provide short-term, 24-hour care and supervision to youth. STRTPs are intended to provide mental health interventions to stabilize, support, and transition youth with high level mental health needs to lower levels of care using trauma-informed, culturally relevant services, including SMHS, which are provided through a contractual agreement between the STRTP and the county’s mental health plan.
• Children’s Crisis Residential Programs (CCRP): Current law defines a CCRP as a facility licensed by CDSS as an STRTP and approved by DHCS, or a county mental health plan, to operate a children’s crisis residential mental health program to serve children experiencing mental health crises as an alternative to psychiatric hospitalization.

Presumptive Transfer of SMHS for Foster Youth

Currently, responsibility to authorize and pay for SMHS provided to all foster youth placed outside of their county of original jurisdiction is “presumptively transferred” from the MHP in the county of original jurisdiction to the MHP in the county of residence, unless presumptive transfer is waived. The state’s adoption of presumptive transfer sought to ensure that foster youth who were placed out of the county were able to access timely and adequate mental health services. 

However, because community treatment facilities, group homes, STRTPs, or children’s crisis residential programs are not distributed evenly throughout California’s 58 counties, some counties absorb the caseload of counties that do not have the appropriate facilities to treat these youth. For youth placed in these facilities, some providers and counties reported problems with reimbursements and complicated contracting processes. These complications interfered with out-of-county foster youth’s access to the most appropriate mental health services, counter to the goals of presumptive transfer.

In an effort to coordinate timely access to SMHS treatment for out-of-county youth while balancing the needs of the counties who have taken a disproportionate number of these youth, AB 1051 prohibited presumptive transfer for SMHS provided to foster children placed in community treatment facilities, group homes, STRTPs, or children’s crisis residential programs outside of their counties of original jurisdiction, unless a specified exception is invoked. Under AB 1051, the county of original jurisdiction will retain the responsibility for the child’s care, even if the child is transferred outside the county, unless the foster youth will transition to a less restrictive placement, or if the child would be negatively impacted if the responsibility is not transferred, as determined by the child and family team and the placing agency. Under current law, the provisions contained in AB 1051 take effect July 1, 2023.

This bill proposes to delay those provisions by one year, until July 1, 2024. According to the bill’s sponsor, the County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA), their joint powers of authority partner, the California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA), has announced updates underway to the fiscal portal used to transmit funding, which will take some months to accomplish. These updates are intended to streamline payments between counties for services rendered through presumptive transfer. Due to these upcoming administrative changes, a one-year extension would allow counties and providers to appropriately prepare and plan to implement AB 1051.

Related/Prior Legislation:

AB 118 (Committee on Budget, 2023) and SB 118 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, 2023) include a similar one-year extension as proposed in AB 551.

AB 1051 (Bennett, Chapter 402, Statutes of 2022) requires a foster child’s county of original jurisdiction to retain responsibility to arrange and provide SMHS when the foster child is placed out of the county in a STRTP, community treatment facility, or group home, or is admitted to a children’s crisis residential program unless under certain specified circumstances, among other things.

AB 826 (Reyes, 2019) included a version that was similar to AB 1051. AB 826 was subsequently amended to a different purpose.

AB 1299 (Ridley-Thomas, Chapter 603, Statutes of 2016) provides for the presumptive transfer of SMHS for foster youth placed out of county.

COMMENTS

This bill contains an urgency clause. AB 551 states that the facts constituting the necessity are “in order to clarify the requirements of the county of original jurisdiction for a foster child placed or admitted in specific settings, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.” AB 551 seeks to extend a statutory deadline that has already passed.

The provisions in AB 551 are also contained in the health budget trailer bills, AB 118 and SB 118. If either of the trailer bills is signed into law, the provisions of the trailer bill would take effect immediately.

This bill was doubled-referred from the Senate Health Committee.

PRIOR VOTES

POSITIONS

Support:

County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California (Sponsor)

California State Association of Counties

Rural County Representatives of California

Urban Counties of California

Oppose:

None received

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Senator Dr. Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair

BILL NO: AB 551

SUBJECT: Medi-Cal: specialty mental health services: foster children

SUMMARY:

Delays the requirement that the county of original jurisdiction retain responsibility to arrange and provide specialty mental health services for foster children placed in short-term residential therapeutic programs, community treatment facilities, group homes, or children’s crisis residential programs from July 1, 2023 to July 1, 2024.

Existing law:

1. Establishes a state and local system of child welfare services, including foster care, for children who have been adjudged by the court to be at risk or have been abused or neglected, as specified. [WIC §202]
2. Establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. [WIC §14001.1]
3. Requires DHCS to implement mental health managed care through contracts with mental health plans (MHPs). Requires DHCS to contract with a county or counties acting jointly for the delivery of specialty mental health services (SMHS) to each county’s eligible Medi-Cal beneficiary population. Authorizes MHP contracts to be awarded exclusively and on a geographic basis. [WIC §14712]
4. States legislative intent to ensure that foster children who are placed outside of their county of original jurisdiction are able to access specialty mental health services (SMHS) in a timely manner, consistent with their individual strengths and needs and the requirements of the federal law. [WIC §14717.1]
5. Defines “presumptive transfer” as the requirement that responsibility for providing or arranging for SMHS promptly transfer from the county of original jurisdiction to the county in which the foster child resides, under certain conditions, as specified. [WIC §14717.1]
6. Permits presumptive transfer to be waived, as specified, under any of the following exceptions:
7. The transfer would disrupt continuity of care or delay access to services for the foster youth;
8. The transfer would interfere with family reunification efforts;
9. The youth’s placement in a county other than the county of original jurisdiction is expected to last less than six months; or,
10. The youth’s residence is within 30 minutes of travel time to the established SMHS provider in the county of original jurisdiction. [WIC §14717.1]
11. Requires the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHS) to coordinate with DHCS and Department of Social Services (DSS) to issue policy guidance concerning the conditions for and exceptions to presumptive transfer, in consultation with DSS and with the input of stakeholders, as specified. [WIC §14717.1]

This bill:

1. Delays implementation of the following requirements in existing law from July 1, 2023, to July 1, 2024:
2. A foster child’s county of original jurisdiction must retain responsibility to arrange and provide SMHS if the foster child is placed out of the county of original jurisdiction in a community treatment facility, group home, or short term residential treatment facility (STRTP), or is admitted to a children’s crisis residential program, unless either of the following circumstances exist:
3. The case plan specifies that the child will transition to a less restrictive placement in the same county as the facility in which the child has been placed; or,
4. The placing agency determines, as informed by the child and family team, that the child will be negatively impacted if responsibility for providing or arranging for SMHS is not transferred to the same county as the facility in which the child has been placed.
5. The placing agency must provide notification to the MHP that will be responsible for arranging and providing SMHS for the foster child before placing a foster child out of county and allows these notifications to be done through email. If notification before placement is not possible, the placing agency must notify the appropriate MHP no later than three business days after making the out-of-county placement.
6. Delays, from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025, the requirement for DHCS to seek federal approval to implement these provisions if DHCS makes the determination that federal approval is necessary. 

FISCAL EFFECT:

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

Estimated costs to the DSS and the DHCS are expected to be minor and absorbable.

The cost to counties for administrative workload associated with the presumptive transfer exceptions is ongoing and must be borne by the state under Proposition 30 of 2012. Delaying by one year, the shift of county responsibility for providing or arranging for SMHS for certain foster youth does not create new costs in the aggregate for the state.

Proposition 30 requires legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by realignment (including child welfare services and foster care) applies to local agencies only to the extent the state provides annual funding for the cost increase.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Human Services Committee 7 - 0

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, this bill simply delays the implementation of AB 1051 (Bennett, Chapter 402, Statutes of 2022) by a year to bring the program in line with existing efforts to implement CalAIM by the State and Counties. The author states that it is crucial that we ensure that these programs are successful so that we don’t interrupt the continuum of care for our most vulnerable youth.
2. Mental health needs of foster youth. Foster youth have a higher likelihood of experiencing emotional, behavioral, and developmental problems when compared to their non-foster peers. Abuse and neglect and unstable placements can contribute to and exacerbate mental health issues. Research underscores the need for improved access to health and mental health services for foster youth, and points to the high incidence of behavioral health problems necessitating intervention among foster youth. The disproportionately high rates of emotional and behavioral health issues for youth placed in foster care, youth transitioning from foster care, and former foster youth can be correlated with other barriers foster youth face, such as higher rates of incarceration and homelessness, diminished rates of high school completion and college attendance, and disproportionate prescribing of antipsychotic and psychotropic medications, as highlighted in a 2014 exposé by the San Jose Mercury News.

There are indications that out-of-county foster youth may have higher needs and less access when it comes to mental health treatment. A 2011 report issued by the California Child Welfare Council found that out-of-county foster youth were more likely to have been diagnosed with a serious mental health disorder, yet were 10% to 15% less likely to have received any mental health services compared to their in-county peers. And among those that did receive services, in-county foster youth fared better, receiving more care and more intensive treatment.

1. Legislative hearings on foster youth mental health conditions. In October 2018, the Assembly Human Services Committee and the Assembly Select Committee on Foster Care held a joint informational hearing examining the mental needs of foster youth, what services and supports are provided to address those needs, whether those services and supports are adequate, and what, if any, gaps exist in ensuring foster youth receive the services to which they are statutorily entitled. During the hearing, some participants raised questions as to whether youth placed out-of-county in STRTPs were receiving adequate and timely access to SMHS, among other findings. In February 2019, a subsequent informational hearing was held by the Assembly Human Services Committee to discuss how presumptive transfer has impacted the provision of mental health services to foster youth. A number of factors were found to contribute to the complicated landscape in which presumptive transfer operates, including, among others: split responsibilities across state departments; varying and multiple contract requirements and processes for providers; payment and reimbursement requirements and timelines related to the provision of mental health services that can be confusing and significantly burdensome for counties and providers; the involvement of different county-level agencies responsible for child welfare and mental health services; and changes resulting from the reform driven by continuum of care reform, including the conversion of group homes to STRTPs. Concerns also included that the short-term nature of placements in STRTPs makes presumptive transfer inappropriate or not warranted. The hearings also found that it is difficult to ascertain how many youth across California are subject to presumptive transfer and waiver of presumptive transfer, as DHCS reported that it does not currently collect data on the number of out-of-county foster youth whose SMHS were subject to presumptive transfer or to a waiver of presumptive transfer.
2. Presumptive transfer. Under existing law, responsibility to authorize and pay for SMHS provided to all foster youth placed outside of their county of original jurisdiction is “presumptively transferred” from the MHP in the county of original jurisdiction to the MHP in the county of residence, unless presumptive transfer is waived. The state’s adoption of presumptive transfer sought to ensure that foster youth who were placed out of county were able to access timely and adequate mental health services. However, because community treatment facilities, group homes, STRTPs, or children’s crisis residential programs are not distributed evenly throughout California’s 58 counties, some counties absorb the caseload of counties that do not have the appropriate facilities to treat these youth. For youth placed in these facilities, some providers and counties reported problems with reimbursements and complicated contracting processes. These complications interfered with out-of-county foster youth’s access to the most appropriate mental health services, counter to the goals of presumptive transfer.

In an effort to coordinate timely access to SMHS treatment for out-of-county youth while balancing the needs of the counties who have taken a disproportionate number of these youth, AB 1051 (Bennett, Chapter 402, Statutes of 2022), prohibited presumptive transfer for SMHS provided to foster children placed in community treatment facilities, group homes, STRTPs, or children’s crisis residential programs outside of their counties of original jurisdiction, unless a specified exception is invoked. Under AB 1051, the county of original jurisdiction will retain the responsibility for the child’s care, even if the child is transferred outside the county, unless the foster youth is transferred permanently to the new county, or if the transfer of responsibility would result in better care as determined by the child and family team and the placing agency. These provisions related to retaining presumptive transfer were intended to take effect July 1, 2023. This bill proposes to delay those provisions by one year, until July 1, 2024. The delayed implementation would not directly impact services available to foster youth. According to the bill’s sponsor, the delay would just permit counties and STRTPs sufficient time to update “back-end” mechanisms for inter-county payments.

1. Double referral. This bill is double referred. Should it pass out of this committee, it will be referred to the Senate Committee on Human Services.
2. Prior legislation. AB 1051 (Bennett, Chapter 402, Statutes of 2022) requires a foster child’s county of original jurisdiction to retain responsibility to arrange and provide specialty mental health services when the foster child is placed out of the county in a STRTP, community treatment facility, or group home, or is admitted to a children’s crisis residential program unless under certain specified circumstances, among other things.

AB 826 (Santiago of 2019) as introduced, was substantially similar to this bill and would have excluded foster youth placed in STRTPs outside of their county of original jurisdiction from being subject to presumptive transfer unless a specific exception is invoked, among other requirements. AB 826 was amended on July 2, 2020, to provide emergency food assistance during the COVID-19 public health emergency and was subsequently vetoed.

AB 1299 (Ridley-Thomas, Chapter 603, Statutes of 2016) provides for the presumptive transfer of SMHS for foster youth placed out of county, and requires CHHS to coordinate with DHCS and DSS to facilitate the prompt receipt of SMHS, among other things.

AB 785 (Steinberg, Chapter 469, Statutes of 2007) required the Department of Mental Health (now DHCS) to standardize certain contracts, authorization procedures, and documentation standards and forms, and required the provision of specialty mental health services for certain foster youth to transfer from the county of jurisdiction to the county of residence of their legal guardians or adoptive parents.

1. Support. Sponsor, the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, writes that this bill will ensure that counties and providers are prepared to implement the changes to presumptive transfer enacted through last year’s AB 1051. They state that since the signing of last year’s bill, the California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA) has announced updates underway to the fiscal portal used to transmit funding, which will take some months to accomplish. These critical updates will streamline payments between counties for services rendered through presumptive transfer. Additionally, many CalAIM reforms to Medi-Cal are also set to take effect on July 1, 2023. Due to these upcoming administrative changes, this bill is essential to provide a one-year extension so that counties and providers can appropriately prepare and plan to implement AB 1051. The California Alliance of Child and Family Services, which represents over 160 non-profit community-based organizations providing services to children, youth, and families in public human services systems in California, also cite these reasons to delay implementation.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support: County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California (sponsor)

California Alliance of Child and Family Services

California State Association of Counties (CSAC)

Rural County Representatives of California
Urban Counties of California

Oppose: None received.

-- END --

Date of Hearing: May 17, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 551

Author:(Bennett) – As Amended Ver:April 27, 2023

Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill delays, by one year, county implementation to shift the responsibility for providing or arranging for specialty mental health services (SMHS) for foster youth placed in short-term residential therapeutic programs (STRTPs), community treatment facilities, or group homes, or in the case of admission of foster children to children’s crisis residential programs, from the county of original jurisdiction, to the county in which the foster child resides.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Estimated costs to the California Department of Social Services and the Department of Health Care Services, the departments that oversee the affected programs, are expected to be minor and absorbable.
2. The cost to counties for administrative workload associated with the presumptive transfer exceptions is ongoing and must be borne by the state under Proposition 30 of 2012. Delaying by one year the shift of county responsibility for providing or arranging for SMHS for certain foster youth does not create new costs in the aggregate for the state.

Proposition 30 requires legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by realignment (including child welfare services and foster care) applies to local agencies only to the extent the state provides annual funding for the cost increase.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

This bill simply delays of the implementation of [AB 1051 (Bennett), Chapter 402, Statutes of 2022,] by a year to bring the program in line with existing efforts to implement CalAIM by the State and Counties. It is crucial that we ensure that these programs are successful so that we don’t interrupt the continuum of care for our most vulnerable youth.

1. Presumptive Transfer. The child welfare services system seeks to preserve familial ties whenever possible, while still providing for the best placement possible that meets the needs of the youth. At times, the best placement for a youth may be a different county than the county in which a youth entered the child welfare services system (the "county of original jurisdiction").

Under existing law, responsibility to authorize and pay for SMHS provided to all foster youth placed outside of their county of original jurisdiction is “presumptively transferred” from the Mental Health Plan (MHP) in the county of original jurisdiction to the MHP in the county of residence, unless presumptive transfer is waived.

The state’s adoption of presumptive transfer sought to ensure that foster youth who were placed out of county were able to access timely and adequate mental health services. However, because community treatment facilities, group homes, STRTPs, or children’s crisis residential programs are not distributed evenly throughout California’s 58 counties, some counties absorb the caseload of counties that do not have the appropriate facilities to treat these youth. For youth placed in these facilities, some providers and counties reported problems with reimbursements and complicated contracting processes. These complications hindered out-of-county foster youth’s access to the most appropriate mental health services, counter to the goals of presumptive transfer. 

In an effort to coordinate timely access to SMHS treatment for out-of-county youth while balancing the needs of the counties who have taken a disproportionate number of these youth, AB 1051 (Bennett), Chapter 402, Statutes of 2022, prohibited presumptive transfer for SMHS provided to foster children placed in community treatment facilities, group homes, STRTPs, or children’s crisis residential programs outside of their counties of original jurisdiction, unless a specified exception is invoked. Under AB 1051, for children in these placements, the county of original jurisdiction will retain the responsibility for the child’s care in most circumstances, even if the child is transferred outside the county. AB 1051 allowed an exception to presumptive transfer if the foster youth is transferred permanently to the new county, or if the transfer of responsibility would result in better care.

The provisions of AB 1051 related to retaining presumptive transfer were intended to take effect July 1, 2023. This bill proposes to delay those provisions by one year, until July 1, 2024. The delayed implementation would not directly impact services available to foster youth. According to the bill’s sponsor, the delay would just permit counties and STRTPs sufficient time to update “back-end” mechanisms for inter-county payments.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 25, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Jim Wood, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 551

Author:(Bennett) – As Amended Ver:April 6, 2023

SUBJECT: Medi-Cal: specialty mental health services: foster children.

SUMMARY: Delays, by one year, county implementation of changes that require a county of original jurisdiction to retain financial responsibility for providing or arranging for specialty mental health services (SMHS) for foster youth placed in short-term residential therapeutic programs (STRTPs), community treatment facilities, or group homes, or in the case of admission of foster children to children’s crisis residential programs, with specified exceptions.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes a state and local system of child welfare services, including foster care, for children who have been judged by the court to be at risk or have been abused or neglected, as specified. [Welfare and Institutions Code Section (WIC) § 202]
2. States that the purpose of foster care law is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, neglected, or exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of harm. [WIC § 300.2]
3. States legislative intent to ensure that foster children who are placed outside of their county of original jurisdiction are able to access SMHS in a timely manner, consistent with their individual strengths and needs and the requirements of the federal Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment services. [WIC § 14717.1(a)(1)]
4. States legislative intent to overcome any barriers to care that may result when responsibility for providing or arranging for SMHS to foster children who are placed outside of their county of original jurisdiction is retained by the county of original jurisdiction. [WIC § 14717.1(a)(2)]
5. Requires the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHSA) to coordinate with Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and the California Department of Social Services (DSS) to issue policy guidance concerning the conditions for and exceptions to presumptive transfer, and with the input of stakeholders, as specified. [WIC § 14717.1(b)(1)]
6. Defines “presumptive transfer” as the requirement that, absent any exceptions as established by current law, responsibility for providing or arranging for SMHS promptly transfer from the county of original jurisdiction to the county in which the foster child resides, as specified. [WIC § 14717.1(c)]
7. Allows, on a case-by-case basis, and when consistent with the medical rights of children in foster care, presumptive transfer to be waived and requires the responsibility for the provision of SMHS to remain with the county of jurisdiction if certain exceptions exist, as specified. [WIC § 14717.1(d)(1)]
8. Defines “community treatment facility” as any residential facility that provides mental health treatment services to children in a group setting and that has the capacity to provide secure containment. [Health and Safety Code Section (HSC) § 1502(a)(8)]
9. Defines “STRTP” as a residential facility operated by a public agency or private organization and licensed by DSS that provides an integrated program of specialized and intensive care and supervision, services and supports, treatment, and short-term, 24-hour care and supervision to children. Requires the care and supervision provided by an STRTP to be nonmedical, except as otherwise permitted, as specified. [HSC § 1502(a)(18)]

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

COMMENTS:

1. PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, this bill simply delays the implementation of AB 1051 (Bennett), Chapter 402, Statutes of 2022, by a year. The author indicates it is crucial that we ensure that these programs are successful so we don’t interrupt the continuum of care for our most vulnerable youth. The author indicates this bill seeks to delay by one year implementation of presumptive transfer for SMHS provided to foster children placed in group homes, community treatment facilities, children’s crisis residential programs, or STRTPs outside of their counties of original jurisdiction. The author explains AB 1051 clarified the responsibility associated with providing and paying for mental health services when a foster youth is temporarily placed in an STRTP outside of their original county, by requiring the county of origin to retain financial responsibility when placing a foster youth. AB 1051 allowed an exception if the foster youth is transferred permanently to the new county, or if the transfer of responsibility would result in better care. The author indicates this delay would allow for system changes, local guidance and training intended to streamline its use and make the presumptive transfer process more efficient locally, facilitate participation by more counties, and will ease connections among counties and their STRTP partners. This bill is sponsored by the California Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA).
2. BACKGROUND.
   1. Presumptive Transfer. The child welfare services system seeks to preserve familial ties whenever possible, while still providing for the best placement possible that meets the needs of the youth. At times, the best placement for a youth may be a different county than the one in which a youth entered the child welfare services system (the "county of original jurisdiction").

Under existing law, responsibility to authorize and pay for SMHS provided to all foster youth placed outside of their county of original jurisdiction is “presumptively transferred” from the Mental Health Plan (MHP) in the county of original jurisdiction to the MHP in the county of residence, unless presumptive transfer is waived. Presumptive transfer can be waived if any of the exceptions described below exist:

• • 1. The transfer would disrupt continuity of care or delay access to services provided to the foster child;
    2. The transfer would interfere with family reunification efforts documented in the individual case plan;
    3. The foster child’s placement in a county other than the county of original jurisdiction is expected to last less than six months; or,
    4. The foster child’s residence is within 30 minutes of travel time to the child’s established specialty mental health care provider in the county of original jurisdiction.
  1. Recent Changes to Presumptive Transfer. The state’s adoption of presumptive transfer sought to ensure that foster youth who were placed out of county were able to access timely and adequate mental health services. However, because community treatment facilities, group homes, STRTPs, or children’s crisis residential programs are not distributed evenly throughout California’s 58 counties, some counties absorb the caseload of counties that do not have the appropriate facilities to treat these youth. For youth placed in these facilities, some providers and counties reported problems with reimbursements and complicated contracting processes. These complications hindered out-of-county foster youth’s access to the most appropriate mental health services, counter to the goals of presumptive transfer. 

In an effort to coordinate timely access to SMHS treatment for out-of-county youth while balancing the needs of the counties who have taken a disproportionate number of these youth, AB 1051 prohibited presumptive transfer for SMHS provided to foster children placed in community treatment facilities, group homes, STRTPs, or children’s crisis residential programs outside of their counties of original jurisdiction, unless a specified exception is invoked. Thus, under AB 1051, for children in these placements, the county of original jurisdiction will retain the responsibility for the child’s care in most circumstances, even if the child is transferred outside the county.

AB 1051 allowed an exception to presumptive transfer if the foster youth is transferred permanently to the new county, or if the transfer of responsibility would result in better care.

• 1. Effect of this Bill. The provisions of AB 1051 related to retaining presumptive transfer were intended to take effect July 1, 2023. This bill is proposing to delay those provisions by another year, until July 1, 2024. The delayed implementation would not directly impact services available to foster youth. According to the bill’s sponsor, the delay would just permit counties and STRTPs sufficient time to update “back-end” mechanisms for inter-county payments.
  2. California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA) Efforts. CalMHSA was formed in 2009 by counties as a Joint Powers of Authority and implements multi-county projects aimed at improving behavioral health care using pooled resources. CalMHSA, in collaboration with DHCS and DSS, administers the inter-county transfer of health information and payments for counties to administer the presumptive transfer process. Currently, 34 of the 58 counties in California participate and are actively involved in the presumptive transfer program, which includes a web portal that includes information about each individual served, confirms eligibility, and permits transfer of funds by participating counties. 

According to the sponsors, CalMHSA is in the process of upgrading the portal to simplify its use, including automatic population of certain data elements. These changes include streamlining the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) 835 insurance transaction report, which will allow for invoices to be created much more quickly. The 835 transaction is the HIPAA-compliant format that allows for receiving third-party reimbursement payments and adjustment information in an electronic format.

• 1. Related Budget Change Proposal (BCP). DHCS, Medi-Cal Behavioral Health Division, and Data Analytics Division submitted a BCP requesting 5.0 permanent positions and expenditure authority of $764,000 ($382,000 General Fund (GF); $382,000 Federal Fund (FF)) in fiscal year (FY) 2023-24, and $719,000 ($360,000 GF; $359,000 FF) in FY 2024-25 and ongoing, to perform the new workload resulting from AB 1051. According to DHCS, these resources are needed to implement and maintain the new workload resulting from the bill’s requirement for DHCS and DSS to collect and display on DHCS’ Medi-Cal SMHS performance dashboard data on the receipt of SMHS by foster children who are placed outside of their county of original jurisdiction.

1. SUPPORT. Counties and the California Alliance of Child and Family Services support this bill. According to CBHDA, since the signing of last year’s bill, CalMHSA has announced updates underway to the fiscal portal used to transmit funding, which will take some months to accomplish. CBHDA states these updates will streamline payments between counties for services rendered through presumptive transfer and that this one-year extension is critical to appropriately prepare and plan to implement AB 1051 effectively.
2. DOUBLE REFERRAL. This bill is double referred; it passed the Assembly Committee on Human Services with a 7-0 vote on April 18, 2023.
3. PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
   1. AB 1051 required a foster child or probation-supervised youth’s county of original jurisdiction to retain responsibility to arrange and provide SMHS if placed out of the county of original jurisdiction in a community treatment facility, group home, or STRTP unless specified circumstances exist.
   2. AB 1299 (Ridley-Thomas), Chapter 603, Statutes of 2016, provided for presumptive transfer of SMHS for foster youth placed out of county, and required the CHHSA to coordinate with DHCS and DSS to facilitate the prompt receipt of specialty mental health services, among other things.
   3. AB 785 (Steinberg), Chapter 469, Statutes of 2007, required the Department of Mental Health (now DHCS) to standardize certain contracts, authorization procedures, and documentation standards and forms, and required the provision of specialty mental health services for certain foster youth to transfer from the county of jurisdiction to the county of residence of their legal guardians or adoptive parents.
4. AMENDMENTS. This bill delays AB 1051 presumptive transfer provisions by one year. More specifically, current law requires these provisions to be implemented by July 1, 2023, and this bill is proposing a delayed date of July 1, 2024. Should this bill move forward without an urgency clause, counties would still be required to implement AB 1051 on July 1, 2023, until this bill, if chaptered, went into effect on January 1, 2024. Therefore, in order for this bill to be implemented as intended, an urgency clause is required so that the bill may take an immediate effect. Amendments will add an urgency clause.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Alliance of Child and Family Services
County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Urban Counties of California (UCC)

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Murawski / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097

Date of Hearing: April 18, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Corey A. Jackson, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 551 (

Author:Bennett) – As Amended Ver:April 6, 2023

SUBJECT: Medi-Cal: specialty mental health services: foster children

SUMMARY: Delays, by one year, county implementation to shift the responsibility for providing or arranging for specialty mental health services (SMHS) for foster youth from the county of original jurisdiction, to the county in which the foster child resides. Specifically, this bill:

1. Delays implementation of the following provisions from July 1, 2023, to July 1, 2024:
2. Requires a foster child’s county of original jurisdiction to retain responsibility to arrange and provide SMHS if the foster child is placed out of the county of original jurisdiction in a community treatment facility, group home, or short-term residential therapeutic program (STRTP), or is admitted to a children’s crisis residential program, unless either of the following circumstances exist:
3. The case plan specifies that the child will transition to a less restrictive placement in the same county as the facility in which the child has been placed; or,
   
4. The placing agency determines, as informed by the child and family team (CFT), that the child will be negatively impacted if responsibility for providing or arranging for SMHS is not transferred to the same county as the facility in which the child has been placed. Requires the placing agency to document the basis for making this determination in the child’s case record and may include in a child and family team meeting the mental health plan (MHP) of the receiving county where the facility is located. States legislative intent to encourage local coordination with the receiving county MHP.
5. Requires the placing agency to provide notification to the MHP that will be responsible for arranging and providing SMHS for the foster child before placing a foster child out of county and allows these notifications to be done through email. Requires, if notification before placement is not possible, the placing agency to notify the appropriate MHP no later than three business days after making the out-of-county placement.
6. Delays by one year, the requirement for the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), if the department makes the determination that it is necessary to seek federal approval to implement these provisions, to make an official request from the federal government no later than July 1, 2025. 

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes a state and local system of child welfare services, including foster care, for children who have been adjudged by the court to be at risk or have been abused or neglected, as specified. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section [WIC] 202)
2. States that the purpose of foster care law is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, neglected, or exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of harm. (WIC 300.2)
3. Defines “Early Periodic and Screening Diagnostic, and Treatment Services” (EPSDT) as screening services, vision services, dental services, hearing services, and other necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment, and other measures to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental illnesses and conditions discovered by the screening services, including SMHS, for certain eligible individuals who are under the age of 21. (42 United States Code 1396d(a)(4)(B))
4. Defines “medical necessity criteria” for purposes of determining Medi-Cal reimbursement for SMHS as including certain diagnoses, including: mood disorders, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and adjustment disorders, among others. (9 California Code of Regulations 1830.205(a) and 1830.210)
5. States legislative intent to ensure that foster children who are placed outside of their county of original jurisdiction are able to access SMHS in a timely manner, consistent with their individual strengths and needs and the requirements of the federal EPSDT services. (WIC 14717.1(a)(1))
6. States legislative intent to overcome any barriers to care that may result when responsibility for providing or arranging for specialty mental health services to foster children who are placed outside of their county of original jurisdiction is retained by the county of original jurisdiction. (WIC 14717.1(a)(2))
7. Requires the California Health and Human Services Agency (CalHHS) to coordinate with DHCS and the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to issue policy guidance concerning the conditions for and exceptions to presumptive transfer, and with the input of stakeholders, as specified. (WIC 14717.1(b)(1))
8. Defines “presumptive transfer” as the requirement that, absent any exceptions as established by current law, responsibility for providing or arranging for specialty mental health services promptly transfer from the county of original jurisdiction to the county in which the foster child resides, under certain conditions, as specified. (WIC 14717.1(c))
9. Allows, on a case-by-case basis, and when consistent with the medical rights of children in foster care, presumptive transfer to be waived and requires the responsibility for the provision of SMHS to remain with the county of jurisdiction if certain exceptions exist, as specified. (WIC 14717.1(d)(1))
10. Defines “community treatment facility” as any residential facility that provides mental health treatment services to children in a group setting and that has the capacity to provide secure containment. (Health and Safety Code Section [HSC] 1502(a)(8))
11. Defines a “short-term residential therapeutic program” as a residential facility operated by a public agency or private organization and licensed by CDSS that provides an integrated program of specialized and intensive care and supervision, services and supports, treatment, and short-term, 24-hour care and supervision to children. Further, requires the care and supervision provided by an STRTP be nonmedical, except as otherwise permitted, as specified. (HSC 1502(a)(18))
12. Allows an STRTP to accept for placement a child who has been assessed as meeting the medical necessity criteria for Medi-Cal SMHS, and the child has been assessed as seriously emotionally disturbed or if the child has been assessed as requiring the level of services provided by the STRTP in order to meet their behavioral or therapeutic needs, as specified. (WIC 11462.01(b)(3)(A),(B), and (D))
13. Enumerates the roles and responsibilities of interagency placement committees as it relates to the placement of dependents and wards into STRTPs, group homes operating at a rate classification level 13 or 14, as specified, and out-of-state residential programs, as specified. (WIC 4096(a))
14. Requires an interagency placement committee to, as appropriate, make certain requirements, with recommendations from the CFT, within 30 days of placement, and further requires the interagency placement committee, if, with recommendations from the CFT, it determines the placement is appropriate, to transmit the approval, in writing, to the county placing agency and the STRTP. (WIC 11462.01(h)(3)(A)(i) and (ii))
15. Specifies that certain conditions enumerated in current law may not prevent the emergency placement of a youth into a certified STRTP prior to the determination by the interagency placement committee, but only if a licensed mental health professional has made a written determination within 72 hours of the youth’s placement, that the youth requires the level of services and supervision provided by the STRTP in order to meet the youth’s behavioral or therapeutic needs, as specified. (WIC 11462.01(h)(3))
16. Defines a “child and family team” as a group of individuals who are convened by the placing agency and who are engaged through a variety of team-based processes to identify the strengths and needs of the child or youth and their family, and to help achieve positive outcomes for safety, permanency, and well-being. (WIC 16501(a)(4))
17. Requires moneys in the Behavioral Health Subaccount and the Behavioral Health Services Growth Special Account be used exclusively to fund certain activities, including Medi-Cal SMHS, including the EPSDT Program, as specified. (Government Code Section 30025 (f)(16)(B))

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

COMMENTS:

Background: Mental health needs of foster youth. Children placed in the child welfare services system are removed from their parents' custody because they have suffered abuse or neglect, often at a young age. Research on brain development demonstrates that infancy and early childhood are critical periods in a child's development when it comes to forming attachments, and laying the foundation for future skills such as empathy, trust, and problem solving. In recognition of the mental health needs of foster youth, and pursuant to federal and state laws and regulations, California provides a number of services and supports to meet the mental health needs of children involved in the child welfare system. These supports include child and family teams, functional assessment of needs and useful strengths, and STRTPs, which provide short-term, 24-hour care and supervision to youth. STRTPs are intended to provide mental health interventions to stabilize, support, and transition youth with high level mental health needs to lower levels of care using trauma-informed, culturally relevant services, including SMHS.

Early Periodic and Screening Diagnostic, and Treatment Services. Medi-Cal, which is California’s Medicaid program, provides free or low-cost health coverage to foster youth, among other eligible populations, and is administered by DHCS. Medi-Cal contains a child health component, known as the EPSDT, which provides comprehensive health care services to children under the age of 21 who have full-scope Medicaid eligibility, which includes foster youth, who are categorically eligible for Medi-Cal and, therefore, EPSDT. EPSDT services provide preventive, dental, mental health, developmental and specialty services which include screening, diagnostic, and treatment services that seek to ensure youth receive adequate health care. EPSDT also includes SMHS through county MHPs who are responsible for providing or arranging the provision of SMHS to foster youth in their counties, which are available to children and certain adults who meet specific medical necessity criteria.

Presumptive transfer. A primary goal of the child welfare services system is to preserve familial ties whenever possible, while still providing for the best placement possible that meets the needs of the youth. At times, the best placement for a youth, be it with relatives, approved caregivers, or in a congregate care setting, is located outside of the county in which a youth entered the child welfare services system. The county in which a youth has entered the child welfare services system is known as the "county of original jurisdiction," while the county in which a youth is placed is known as the "county of residence."

Currently, “presumptive transfer” means that absent any exceptions, responsibility for providing or arranging for SMHS shall promptly transfer from the county of original jurisdiction to the county in which the foster child resides.

On a case-by-case basis, presumptive transfer can be waived, and the responsibility for the provision of SMHS can remain within the county of original jurisdiction. Presumptive transfer can be waive if any of the exceptions described below exist:

• It is determined that the transfer would disrupt continuity of care or delay access to services provided to the foster child.
• It is determined that the transfer would interfere with family reunification efforts documented in the individual case plan.
• The foster child’s placement in a county other than the county of original jurisdiction is expected to last less than six months.
• The foster child’s residence is within 30 minutes of travel time to the child’s established specialty mental health care provider in the county of original jurisdiction.

AB 1051 (Bennett), Chapter 402, Statutes of 2022. Because community treatment facilities, group homes, STRTPs, or children’s crisis residential programs are not distributed evenly throughout California’s 58 counties, some counties are required to absorb the caseload of those counties that do not have the appropriate facilities to treat these youth, which has resulted in some youth not receiving timely and adequate access to the SMHS to which they are entitled. In an effort to coordinate timely access to SMHS treatment for out-of-county youth while balancing the needs of the counties who have taken a disproportionate number of these youth, AB 1051 allowed an exception if the foster youth is transferred permanently to the new county, or if the transfer of responsibility would result in better care.

The provisions of AB 1051 refined how presumptive transfer operates and instead has a foster youth’s county of original jurisdiction retain the responsibility to arrange and provide SMHS if the foster child is placed out of the county of original jurisdiction and unless either of the following circumstances exist:

• The case plan specifies that the child will transition to a less restrictive placement in the same county as the facility in which the child has been placed; or,
• The placing agency determines, as informed by the child and family team, that the child will be negatively impacted if responsibility for providing or arranging for SMHS is not transferred to the same county as the facility in which the child has been placed. Requires the placing agency to document the basis for making this determination in the child’s case record and may include in a child and family team meeting the MHP of the receiving county where the facility is located. States legislative intent to encourage local coordination with the receiving county MHP.

These provisions were intended to take effect July 1, 2023; however, this bill is proposing to delay these provisions by another year. Some counties have reported logistical challenges in determining the responsibility of arranging and providing mental health services between counties that these temporary out-of-county transfers create, and this delay would allow for the necessary system changes underway to be completed. The delayed implementation would not impact the services to foster youth as the delay does not impact the onsite mental health staff. The delay would just permit counties and STRTPs sufficient time to update relevant payment structures.

California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA). CalMHSA was formed in 2009 by counties as a Joint Powers of Authority and focuses on multi-county projects aimed at improving behavioral health care using pooled resources and is included in the efforts to help counties transition to DHCS’ California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) initiatives. CalMHSA, in collaboration with DHCS and CDSS, administers the inter-county transfer of health information and payments for counties to administer the presumptive transfer process. Currently, 34 of the 58 counties in California participate and are actively involved in the presumptive transfer program, which is centered around a web portal that includes information about each individual served, confirms eligibility, and permits transfer of funds by participating counties, which pool resources. Counties also receive monthly reports relating to all finances in the portal. 

According to the sponsors, CalMHSA is in the process of upgrading the portal to simplify its use, including automatic population of certain data elements. These changes include streamlining the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) 835 insurance transaction report, which will allow for invoices to be created much more quickly. The 835 transaction is the HIPAA-compliant format that allows for receiving third party reimbursement payments and adjustment information in an electronic format.

Author’s Statement: According to the Author, “This bill simply delays of the implementation of AB 1051 (Bennett,’22) by a year to bring the program in line with existing efforts to implement CalAIM by the State and Counties. It is crucial that we ensure that these programs are successful so that we don’t interrupt the continuum of care for our most vulnerable youth.”

Need for this bill: The provisions of this bill are seeking to delay by one year, implementation of presumptive transfer for SMHS provided to foster children placed in group homes, community treatment facilities, children’s crisis residential programs, or STRTPs outside of their counties of original jurisdiction. AB 1051 clarified the responsibility associated with providing and paying for mental health services when a foster youth is temporarily placed in an STRTP outside of their original county, by requiring the county of origin to retain financial responsibility when placing a foster youth. AB 1051 allowed an exception if the foster youth is transferred permanently to the new county, or if the transfer of responsibility would result in better care. This delay would allow for system changes, local guidance and training intended to streamline its use and make the presumptive transfer process more efficient locally, facilitate participation by more counties, and will ease connections among counties and their STRTP partners.

Equity Impact: It is well documented that foster youth encounter greater barriers to receiving mental health services, especially when they are moved to a home or other placement outside of the county in which they entered care. Youths who are placed across county lines, or “out-of-county,” often experience lengthy delays or denials in accessing treatment. Children of color are overrepresented in the foster system. As an example, 8% of children in California are Black, while they make up 23% of the state’s youth foster system. This bill will enable children in foster care to maintain effective services across county transfers. Given the high number of children of color in the foster care system, any work we do to ensure more equitable services will have a greater impact on them.

Policy Considerations: This bill delays AB 1051 presumptive transfer provisions by one year. More specifically, current law requires these provisions to be implemented by July 1, 2023, and this bill is proposing a delayed date of July 1, 2024. Should this bill move forward without an urgency clause, counties would still be required to implement AB 1051 on July 1, 2023, until this bill, if chaptered, went into effect on January 1, 2024. Therefore, in order for this bill to be implemented as intended, an urgency clause is required so that the bill may take an immediate effect. The author intends to adopt an urgency clause in the Assembly Health Committee.

Double referral: This bill will be referred to the Assembly Health Committee should it pass out of this committee.

RELATED AND PRIOR LEGISLATION:

AB 1051 (Bennett), Chapter, Statutes of 2022, required a foster child or probation-supervised youth’s county of original jurisdiction to retain responsibility to arrange and provide SMHS if placed out of the county of original jurisdiction in a community treatment facility, group home, or STRTP unless specified circumstances exist.

AB 826 (Reyes) of 2019, as introduced, was substantially similar to this bill and would have excluded foster youth placed in STRTPs outside of their county of original jurisdiction from being subject to presumptive transfer unless a specific exception is invoked, among other requirements. AB 826 was amended on July 2, 2020, to pertain to emergency food assistance.

AB 1299 (Ridley-Thomas), Chapter 603, Statutes of 2016, provided for presumptive transfer of SMHS for foster youth placed out of county, and required CalHHS to coordinate with DHCS and CDSS to facilitate the prompt receipt of specialty mental health services, among other things.

AB 785 (Steinberg), Chapter 469, Statutes of 2007, required the Department of Mental Health (now, DHCS) to standardize certain contracts, authorization procedures, and documentation standards and forms, and required the provision of specialty mental health services for certain foster youth to transfer from the county of jurisdiction to the county of residence of their legal guardians or adoptive parents.

SB 745 (Escutia), Chapter 811, Statutes of 2000, adopted, among other things, the requirement that each local MHP establish a procedure for ensuring access to EPSDT-required outpatient specialty mental health services for any youth in foster care who has been placed outside of their county of jurisdiction.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California (Sponsor)

Alliance of Child and Family Services

RCRC

Urban Counties of California (UCC)

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Langtry / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089