The Powering Up Californians Act requires the Public Utilities Commission, on or before September 30, 2024, to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods, as defined, and a procedure for customers to report energization delays to the commission, as provided. The act requires the commission to require electrical corporations to take remedial actions necessary to achieve those target energization time periods and to require certain reports to be publicly available.

This bill would require the commission, in a new or existing proceeding, to require each large electrical corporation to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny an energization application, to post an example of a complete, approved energization application and an example of a complete energization application for a housing development project, and to make those items available on its internet website by a date specified by the commission. The bill would also require the commission to require each large electrical corporation to determine if an energization application is complete and provide notice or otherwise provide certain information under a specified procedure. The bill would require the commission to require each large electrical corporation, upon approval of an energization application, to immediately transmit that determination to the applicant by electronic mail and, if applicable, by posting the response on its internet website, as specified.

Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime.

Because the above provisions would be part of the Public Utilities Act and a violation of a commission action implementing this bills requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

The Powering Up Californians Act requires the Public Utilities Commission, on or before September 30, 2024, to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods, as defined, and a procedure for customers to report energization delays to the commission, as provided. The act requires the commission to require the electrical corporation to take remedial actions necessary to achieve the commissions targets and requires all reports to be publicly available.

This bill would require an the commission, in a new or existing proceeding, to require each large electrical corporation to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny an application for energization, to post an example of a complete, approved energization application and an example of a complete energization application for a housing development project, and to make those items available on its internet website by no later than July 1, 2026. a date specified by the commission. The bill would also require an the commission to require each large electrical corporation to determine if an application for energization is complete and provide notice or otherwise provide certain information under a specified procedure and timeframe. procedure. The bill would require an the commission to require each large electrical corporation, upon approval of the application, to immediately transmit that determination to the applicant by electronic mail and, if applicable, by posting the response on its internet website, as specified.

Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime.

Because the above provisions would be part of the Public Utilities Act and a violation of a commission action implementing this bills requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

This bill would require an electrical corporation, as defined, corporation to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny an application for energization, to post an example of a complete, approved energization application and an example of a complete energization application for a housing development project, and to make those items available by no later than July 1, 2026. The bill would also require an electrical corporation to determine if an application for energization is complete and provide notice or otherwise provide certain information under a specified procedure and timeframe. The bill would require an electrical corporation, upon approval of the application, to immediately transmit that determination to the applicant by electronic mail and, if applicable, by posting the response on its internet website, as specified. The bill would define various terms for its purposes.

Existing law relating to housing development approval requires a local agency to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least 5 types of housing development projects in the jurisdiction, as specified, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits no later than January 1, 2024.

This bill would require an electrical corporation, as defined, to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, an application for energization, to post an example of a complete, approved energization application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits energization application for a housing development project, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits by no later than July 1, 2026. The bill would also require an electrical corporation to determine if an application for those permits energization is complete and provide notice or otherwise provide certain information under a specified procedure. procedure and timeframe. The bill would require an electrical corporation, upon approval of the application, to immediately transmit that determination to the applicant by electronic mail and, if applicable, by posting the response on its internet website, as specified. The bill would define various terms for its purposes.

Existing law relating to housing development approval requires a local agency to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least 5 types of housing development projects in the jurisdiction, as specified, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits no later than January 1, 2024. Existing law defines local agency to mean any city, county, or city and county. Existing law defines postentitlement phase permit to include all nondiscretionary permits and reviews that are required or issued by the local agency after the entitlement phase has been completed to begin construction of a development that is intended to be at least ²/₃ residential, excluding discretionary and ministerial planning permits, entitlements, and certain other permits and reviews. Existing law excludes from the definition of postentitlement phase permit permits required and issued by the California Coastal Commission, a special district, a utility that is not owned and operated by a local agency, or any other entity that is not a city, county, or city and county.

Existing law relating to housing development approval requires a local agency to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least 5 types of housing development projects in the jurisdiction, as specified, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits no later than January 1, 2024. Existing law establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant. Existing law also defines various terms for its purposes. defines local agency to mean any city, county, or city and county. Existing law defines postentitlement phase permit to include all nondiscretionary permits and reviews that are required or issued by the local agency after the entitlement phase has been completed to begin construction of a development that is intended to be at least ²/₃ residential, excluding discretionary and ministerial planning permits, entitlements, and certain other permits and reviews. Existing law excludes from the definition of postentitlement phase permit permits required and issued by the California Coastal Commission, a special district, a utility that is not owned and operated by a local agency, or any other entity that is not a city, county, or city and county.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions. modify the definition of local agency to additionally include any electrical corporation, as defined, thereby requiring these entities to comply with the above-described requirements relating to postentitlement phase permits. The bill would also modify the definition of postentitlement phase permit to remove the exclusion for permits required and issued by utilities that are not owned and operated by a local agency, thereby expanding the scope of the above-described requirements on a local agency to apply to postentitlement phase permits required and issued by those entities.

Existing law relating to housing development approval requires a local agency to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least 5 types of housing development projects in the jurisdiction, as specified, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits no later than January 1, 2024. Existing law establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant. Existing law also defines various terms for its purposes.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 1026

Author:(Wilson)

As Enrolled Ver:September 8, 2025

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), through a proceeding, to direct large electrical corporations to post required energization application information and a sample approved application (including one for housing) on their websites, by a date set by the CPUC.

Senate Amendments

1. Requires the CPUC, through a new or existing proceeding, to direct large electrical corporations to compile the information needed to approve or deny an energization application, post a sample of a complete and approved application (including one for a housing development project), and make these items available on their websites by a date specified by the CPUC rather than by July 1, 2026.
2. Deletes timelines requiring large electrical corporations to determine completeness of energization applications within 10 to 45 business days, and instead requires them to comply with energization timelines established by the CPUC.
3. Deletes the 30-day period for notifying applicants of energization application approval and instead requires large electrical corporations to provide immediate email notice and, if applicable, post responses online.
4. Move the provisions of the bill from the Government Code to the Public Utilities Code.

Governor's Veto Message

This bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to direct the electric investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to adopt standardized customer connection and energization procedures for housing development projects.

The development and growth of the state's economy, as well as the achievement of our 2045 carbon neutrality goal, hinge upon the clean electrification of the state's building and transportation sectors. Timely access to electric service is foundational to achieving these outcomes, and it is why, in 2023, I signed Assembly Bill 50 (Wood) and Senate Bill 410 (Becker). These bills require the CPUC to develop criteria aimed at expediting the connection and energization of customers to the electric grid, as well as improving information sharing between the electric IOUs and local governments. These bills also require the CPUC to establish reasonable average and maximum target customer connection and energization time periods on the electric IOUs. The CPUC fulfilled these tasks in September 2024 and is actively exploring additional efforts to further the intended outcomes of both measures.

Although this bill is well-intended, it is largely duplicative of existing efforts and risks disrupting the current public decision-making processes at the CPUC, and worse, complicates the application process that customers use to request expedited electric grid connections and electric service from the state's electric IOUs.

COMMENTS

Energization Delays in IOU Territories – California's clean energy and climate policies—including the expansion of renewable electricity, the electrification of buildings, and the transition to zero-emission transportation—are driving increased demand for new electric service connections and upgrades to the distribution grid. In parallel, the state's efforts to accelerate housing supply—driven by statutory requirements—rely on timely, reliable, and accessible electric service connections. The process of energization varies widely based on project type (from single-family homes to multifamily complexes or commercial facilities), utility territory, required system upgrades, and external conditions such as weather, supply chain delays, or incomplete customer applications or permits. Depending on these variables, energization can take anywhere from a few weeks to several years.

Legislative Response to Energization Delays – To provide customers with certainty regarding expected timelines for grid connections and service upgrades, the Legislature passed SB 410 (Becker, Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023). The bill directs the CPUC to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods by September 30, 2024.To ensure transparency and accountability, this measure requires IOUs to report their performance in meeting these targets, including detailed analyses of staffing levels and workforce projections. The CPUC is also expected to implement procedures for customers to report energization delays, enabling the CPUC to take remedial actions if necessary. In parallel, AB 50 (Wood, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023) complements SB 410 by focusing on utility accountability and transparency in the energization process. It directs the CPUC to define criteria for timely electric service, including establishing categories of service, setting average energization timeframes, and identifying exceptions for complex projects. On September 12, 2024, the CPUC issued the decision in response to SB 410 and AB 50. This decision establishes statewide energization timelines, reporting requirements, and customer engagement standards for the state's three major investor-owned utilities (IOUs): Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E).

According to the Author

According to the author, "California's housing crisis demands action—not just in building new homes, but in removing unnecessary roadblocks that slow down production. Too often, housing developments that have already been approved face excessive delays in the utility connection process, leaving new units unoccupied and driving up costs for developers and future residents. These delays are not only frustrating, but they also contribute to California's housing shortage by making it harder to get projects completed on time. AB 1026 addresses this issue by requiring investor-owned utility companies to adhere to clear, standardized timelines for reviewing applications, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process. By streamlining utility connections, this bill will help get housing projects across the finish line faster—meaning more Californians will get into homes sooner."

Arguments in Support

This legislation is supported by diverse organizations that include housing advocates, developers, legal aid groups, trade associations, and local governments. They argue that this bill is necessary to address persistent delays in the processing of energization applications for housing developments by electric IOUs. While they acknowledge that SB 410 and AB 50 directed the CPUC to establish guidelines and timelines for customer energization, they note that those provisions do not fully address certain aspects of the application process. They emphasize that this bill is intended to supplement, rather than conflict with, existing law by reinforcing the timelines established through the CPUC's proceedings.

Arguments in Opposition

Utilities oppose this bill, arguing that it could disrupt ongoing efforts to implement SB 410 and AB 50. They further contend that AB 1026 gives preferential treatment to housing development projects at the expense of other critical energization needs, including commercial and medical facilities, as well as transportation and building electrification upgrades.

FISCAL COMMENTS

Pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, this bill did not receive a hearing in the Senate Committee on Appropriations due to a determination that any state costs of the bill are not significant.

VOTES

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 11-0-1

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Gallagher, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Wicks, Wilson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Caloza

ASM UTILITIES AND ENERGY: 15-0-3

YES: Petrie-Norris, Patterson, Calderon, Chen, Davies, Mark González, Harabedian, Hart, Kalra, Papan, Rogers, Schiavo, Schultz, Ta, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Boerner, Irwin, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-8

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Stefani, Ta, Valencia, Wallis, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarez, Bryan, Chen, Nguyen, Solache, Soria, Tangipa, Ward

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0-3

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Ahrens, Alvarez, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: September 8, 2025

CONSULTANT: Lina Malova / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0002203

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1026

Author:(Wilson)

As Amended Ver:July 8, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), through a proceeding, to direct large electrical corporations to post required energization application information and a sample approved application (including one for housing) on their websites, by a date set by the CPUC.

Senate Amendments

1. Requires the CPUC, through a new or existing proceeding, to direct large electrical corporations to compile the information needed to approve or deny an energization application, post a sample of a complete and approved application (including one for a housing development project), and make these items available on their websites by a date specified by the CPUC rather than by July 1, 2026.
2. Deletes timelines requiring large electrical corporations to determine completeness of energization applications within 10 to 45 business days, and instead requires them to comply with energization timelines established by the CPUC.
3. Deletes the 30-day period for notifying applicants of energization application approval and instead requires large electrical corporations to provide immediate email notice and, if applicable, post responses online.
4. Move the provisions of the bill from the Government Code to the Public Utilities Code.

COMMENTS

Energization Delays in IOU Territories – California’s clean energy and climate policies—including the expansion of renewable electricity, the electrification of buildings, and the transition to zero-emission transportation—are driving increased demand for new electric service connections and upgrades to the distribution grid. In parallel, the state’s efforts to accelerate housing supply—driven by statutory requirements—rely on timely, reliable, and accessible electric service connections. The process of energization varies widely based on project type (from single-family homes to multifamily complexes or commercial facilities), utility territory, required system upgrades, and external conditions such as weather, supply chain delays, or incomplete customer applications or permits. Depending on these variables, energization can take anywhere from a few weeks to several years.

Legislative Response to Energization Delays – To provide customers with certainty regarding expected timelines for grid connections and service upgrades, the Legislature passed SB 410 (Becker, Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023). The bill directs the CPUC to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods by September 30, 2024.To ensure transparency and accountability, this measure requires IOUs to report their performance in meeting these targets, including detailed analyses of staffing levels and workforce projections. The CPUC is also expected to implement procedures for customers to report energization delays, enabling the CPUC to take remedial actions if necessary. In parallel, AB 50 (Wood, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023) complements SB 410 by focusing on utility accountability and transparency in the energization process. It directs the CPUC to define criteria for timely electric service, including establishing categories of service, setting average energization timeframes, and identifying exceptions for complex projects. On September 12, 2024, the CPUC issued the decision in response to SB 410 and AB 50. This decision establishes statewide energization timelines, reporting requirements, and customer engagement standards for the state's three major investor-owned utilities (IOUs): Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E).

According to the Author

According to the author, "California's housing crisis demands action—not just in building new homes, but in removing unnecessary roadblocks that slow down production. Too often, housing developments that have already been approved face excessive delays in the utility connection process, leaving new units unoccupied and driving up costs for developers and future residents. These delays are not only frustrating, but they also contribute to California's housing shortage by making it harder to get projects completed on time. AB 1026 addresses this issue by requiring investor-owned utility companies to adhere to clear, standardized timelines for reviewing applications, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process. By streamlining utility connections, this bill will help get housing projects across the finish line faster—meaning more Californians will get into homes sooner."

Arguments in Support

This legislation is supported by diverse organizations that include housing advocates, developers, legal aid groups, trade associations, and local governments. They argue that this bill is necessary to address persistent delays in the processing of energization applications for housing developments by electric IOUs. While they acknowledge that SB 410 and AB 50 directed the CPUC to establish guidelines and timelines for customer energization, they note that those provisions do not fully address certain aspects of the application process. They emphasize that this bill is intended to supplement, rather than conflict with, existing law by reinforcing the timelines established through the CPUC's proceedings.

Arguments in Opposition

Utilities oppose this bill, arguing that it could disrupt ongoing efforts to implement SB 410 and AB 50. They further contend that AB 1026 gives preferential treatment to housing development projects at the expense of other critical energization needs, including commercial and medical facilities, as well as transportation and building electrification upgrades.

FISCAL COMMENTS

Pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, this bill did not receive a hearing in the Senate Committee on Appropriations due to a determination that any state costs of the bill are not significant.

VOTES:

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 11-0-1

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Gallagher, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Wicks, Wilson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Caloza

ASM UTILITIES AND ENERGY: 15-0-3

YES: Petrie-Norris, Patterson, Calderon, Chen, Davies, Mark González, Harabedian, Hart, Kalra, Papan, Rogers, Schiavo, Schultz, Ta, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Boerner, Irwin, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-8

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Stefani, Ta, Valencia, Wallis, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarez, Bryan, Chen, Nguyen, Solache, Soria, Tangipa, Ward

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jones

UPDATED

VERSION: July 8, 2025

CONSULTANT: Lina V. Malova / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0001635

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1026

Author: Wilson (D), et al.

Amended: 7/8/25 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 17-0, 7/1/25

AYES: Becker, Ochoa Bogh, Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Dahle, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Limón, McNerney, Rubio, Stern, Strickland, Wahab

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/29/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Public utilities: electrical corporations: energization

SOURCE: Housing Action Coalition

DIGEST:

This bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to require greater customer transparency and specified timelines by when an electrical corporation must respond to an application for an energization project, a project seeking electrical service on the electrical distribution grid.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes and vests the CPUC with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. (California Constitution Article XII)
2. Requires electrical corporations, as part of their distribution planning processes, to consider that produced fleet data, and other available data, to facilitate the readiness of their distribution systems to support the state’s anticipated level of electric vehicle (EV) charging, as specified. (Public Utilities Code §740.21)
3. Authorizes the CPUC to establish an expedited distribution grid interconnection dispute resolution process with the goal of resolving disputes over interconnection applications within the jurisdiction of the CPUC in no more than 60 days from the time the dispute is formally brought to the CPUC. (Public Utilities Code §769.5)
4. Requires an electrical corporation to permit any new or existing customer who applies for an extension of service from that electrical corporation to install an electric extension in accordance with the regulations of the CPUC and any applicable specifications of that electrical corporation. (Public Utilities Code §783)
5. Establishes the Powering Up Californians Act which requires the CPUC, on or before September 30, 2024, to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods, as defined, and a procedure for customers to report energization delays to the commission, as provided. Requires the CPUC to require the electrical corporation to take remedial actions necessary to achieve the commission’s targets and requires all reports to be publicly available. (Public Utilities Code §930 et seq.)
6. Defines “Energization” and “energize” to mean connecting customers to the electrical distribution grid and establishing adequate electrical distribution capacity or upgrading electrical distribution or transmission capacity to provide electrical service for a new customer, or to provide upgraded electrical service to an existing customer. “Energization” and “energize” does not include activities related to connecting electrical supply resources.
7. Defines “energization time period” means the elapsed time beginning when the electrical corporation receives a substantially complete energization project application and ending when the electric service is installed and energized. (Public Utilities Code §931)

This bill:

1. Requires the CPUC, in a new or existing proceeding, to require each large electrical corporation to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny an application for energization, to post an example of a complete, approved energization application and an example of a complete energization application for a housing development project, and to make those items available by a date determined by the CPUC.
2. Requires the CPUC to require each large electrical corporation to determine if an application for energization is complete and provide notice or otherwise provide certain information under a specified procedure.
3. Requires the CPUC to require each large electrical corporation, upon approval of the application, to immediately transmit that determination to the applicant by electronic mail and, if applicable, by posting the response on its internet website, as specified.

Background

Connecting to the electric distribution grid. Rules governing the ability of new buildings and generation and storage resources to connect to the electric distribution grid are generally determined by statute, CPUC rules, and tariffs, (i.e., document that specify rates, charges, rules, and conditions under which an electrical corporation will provide services to the public) for each of the electrical corporations. These service connections include: new service connections which refers to extending an electricity line or expanding distribution infrastructure to service new or expanded customer load, known as “energization.”  

Electric Tariff Rules 15 and 16 establish the guidelines for design, cost allocation, and responsibilities of a project applicant and a utility for electric distribution line extensions. The ability to connect to the larger electrical system can take months (if not, years, in some cases) as the process can entail the need for designs, assessments on costs allocations associated with improvements on the electric distribution system to allow for the connection, and other issues. In the case of new building developments, depending on the size of the development, the need for electric service extensions may be needed in phases over months, or years.

Growing backlog of utility energization projects. The demands for new service connections and/or upgrades to existing distribution lines have been increasing, especially as California advances policies to deploy more EVs, shift natural gas usages to electricity in buildings, and increase housing supply, including affordable housing. These projects all rely on access to the electric grid and, often require upgrades to the electric distribution system. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has created supply shortages and challenges affecting many sectors of the economy, including supply shortages for electrical equipment needed to connect new customers or expand energy load, such as transformers. Delays and challenges have been especially acute within the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) service territory as the backlog for energization projects has grown substantially and delays have increased. The utility has previously acknowledged the growing backlog of identified capacity work that has delayed – sometimes by years – the in-service dates for new business customers. PG&E had shared that it is attempting to better manage their queue for projects, including forming a monthly Technical Committee work group with representatives from their labor partners, California Building Industry Association, and regional building association staff and members to work on all technical and field issues. These monthly meetings are used to provide updates on the actions underway to improve the new service connection process, the impacts of those actions and next steps.  Additionally, these meetings are used to collaborate and collect feedback on the improvement efforts and to address emerging areas of concern or interest.  Nonetheless, the backlog has been a growing frustration for the project developers, customers, local governments, and others waiting to have their projects energized.

CPUC adopts resolution to address energization timing. In response to a proposal from the electric investor-owned utilities (IOUs), the CPUC issued Resolution E-5247 in December 2022, which established an interim 125-business day average service energization timeline for projects taking service under the EV Infrastructure Rules. This timeline excludes projects that must go through Rule 15 for distribution upgrades, projects above two megawatts, and projects that require upgrades to a substation. The resolution directed the IOUs to collect one year of EV Infrastructure Rule implementation data to inform an updated proposal for a permanent service energization timeline.

Legislature authors legislation to address energization project backlogs. With growing customer frustration concerning the inability of various energization requests from being fulfilled, spanning hospitals, affordable and market rate housing, EV and electrification electric grid capacity upgrades, and others, the Legislature passed SB 410 (Becker, Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023) to provide customers with certainty regarding expected timelines for grid connections and service upgrades. The bill directed the CPUC to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods by September 30, 2024. To ensure transparency and accountability, the legislation required electric IOUs to report their performance in meeting these targets, including detailed analyses of staffing levels and workforce projections. The CPUC is also expected to implement procedures for customers to report energization delays, enabling the CPUC to take remedial actions if necessary. In parallel, AB 50 (Wood, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023) complemented SB 410 by focusing on utility accountability and transparency in the energization process. The bill directed the CPUC to define criteria for timely electric service, including establishing categories of service, setting average energization timeframes, and identifying exceptions for complex projects.

CPUC Decision (D. 24-09-020) to implement SB 410 and AB 50. On September 12, 2024, the CPUC issued the decision in Rulemaking 24-01-018 in response to SB 410 and AB 50. This decision establishes statewide energization timelines, reporting requirements, and customer engagement standards for the state's three major IOUs: PG&E, Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), with expectations to establish timelines in future decisions for the smaller IOUs. Some of the key provisions include:

• Statewide Energization Timelines: Establishes average and maximum timeframes for various types of service requests.
• Customer Engagement Standards: Utilities are required to assign a project manager within 10 business days of application approval to serve as the main point of contact during the energization process. The project manager must:
• Provide an overview of the energization process, including steps to complete a request and responsible parties.
• Within 48 hours of identifying a delay or potential delay, discuss with the customer the cause, responsible party, estimated resolution timeframe, and potential remedies.
• Within 10 business days of identifying issues that could delay or cancel a customer's energization request, provide clear steps to keep the project on track.
• Customer Engagement and Communication Plan: Utilities must submit plans to the CPUC outlining how they will build the workforce needed to respond to energization requests and how they will communicate timelines and processes to customers.

Comments

Need for this bill. The supporters contend that this bill is needed to address the issue of delays in energization application timelines for housing developments as it relates to electric IOUs. They argue that though there are many parts of a development’s process before it is complete, and delays can be experienced at any of these stages, utility connection is one aspect of the development process that does not have consistent timeline standards. They suggest it is one of the stages where the most problematic delays are seen. While they acknowledge that SB 410 and AB 50 directed the CPUC to provide guidelines and set timelines for the energization of electrical corporation customers, the provisions do not provide guidance for certain aspects of the application process (not the project builds). This bill aims to be additive and seeks to reinforce timelines established by the CPUC proceeding, and further clarify application review standards to reduce the amount of time a developer may be on the hook for an incomplete application and to provide greater customer transparency to the process of the review of the application (not the project build out).

Concerns about previous language in the bill that prescribed specific timelines. The utilities in opposition to this bill raise concerns that this bill could undermine the existing proceedings to implement SB 410 and AB 50. They also contend that the timelines previously in this bill, specifically the 10 business days by when an application for energization must be reviewed for completeness, are unworkable. Additionally, they argue that this bill prioritizes housing development projects above other request for energization, such as new commercial or medical buildings, upgrades related to transportation and building electrification, and others. However, the only part of this bill that speaks to housing projects is the requirement that electrical corporations provide an example (just one) of a completed application of a housing development project (with a wide range of housing types that can be selected, ranging from single family home to a large mixed-use building, farmworker or transitional housing).

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 50 (Wood, Chapter 317. Statutes of 2023) required the CPUC, to determine the criteria for customers to receive timely electricity service when requesting new service connections or upgraded service, known as "energization." Proposes several policies to address delays in connecting customers to the electrical grid, including improved information sharing with local governments, reporting by electric IOUs, and other measures.

SB 410 (Becker, Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023) required the CPUC to establish by September 30, 2024, reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods in order to connect new customers and upgrade the service of existing customers to the electrical grid.

AB 1026 (Wood, Chapter 446, Statutes of 2019) required an electrical or gas corporation to apply only those construction and design specifications, standards, terms, and conditions that are applicable to a new extension of service project for the 18 months following the date the application for a new extension of service project is approved. Authorized an electrical or gas corporation to adopt modifications, as specified, of the construction and design specifications, standards, terms, and conditions of a new extension of service project.

AB 2861 (Ting, Chapter 672, Statutes of 2016) authorized the CPUC to establish an expedited dispute resolution process for generating facility interconnection disputes.

SB 48 (Vuich, Chapter 1229, Statutes of 1983) established rules governing the extension of service by gas and electrical corporations to new residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial customers.

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

Senate Rule 28.8

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/25)

Housing Action Coalition (Source)
Abundant Housing LA
California Building Industry Association
California Council for Affordable Housing

California Housing Partnership
California YIMBY
Circulate San Diego
City of El Cerrito
East Bay Housing Organizations
Fieldstead and Company, Inc.
Habitat for Humanity California
Housing California
Inner City Law Center
MidPen Housing
The Two Hundred for Homeownership

Town of Hillsborough

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/19/25)

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Southern California Edison

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Housing Action Coalition, the source of this bill, states:

California is in the midst of a housing crisis, and recent unprecedented natural disasters have exacerbated the situation. As we work to rebuild our communities and construct more housing, it is essential to remove barriers that unnecessarily delay production. …In the context of utility connection, these delays can be caused by fragmented work order submittal procedures and a declining reliability of project queues. Though the average accepted wait time for utility connection following application approval is expected to vary depending on project size and other circumstances (i.e., natural disasters), developers have reported delays far exceeding an acceptable timeline – making their projects much harder to finance and delaying the speed at which units can be occupied. AB 1026 seeks to address this issue by requiring investor-owned utility companies to comply with application review standards, including preparing specified application lists to be made available at the outset of an application. AB 1026 also reinforces timelines established by the CPUC’s decision 24-09-20.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: PG&E and SCE express concerns that this bill would undermine the critical work taking place in the Establishing Energization Timelines Order Instituting Rulemaking (Energization OIR) established by SB 410 (2023). They raise specific concerns about language that was previously in the bill regarding the 10-day average review time. They argue that imposing a 10-day average timeline will result in application rejections, particularly when submissions are incomplete. The opposition also contends this bill would prioritize affordable housing over other projects by requiring them to provide a sample of a completed application for an energization project for a housing development project.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/29/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Stefani, Ta, Valencia, Wallis, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarez, Bryan, Chen, Nguyen, Solache, Soria, Tangipa, Ward

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

8/20/25 23:28:45

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS

Senator Josh Becker, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 1026 Hearing Date: 7/1/2025

SUBJECT: Public utilities: electrical corporations: energization

DIGEST: This bill requires greater customer transparency and specified timelines by when an electrical corporation must respond to an application for an energization project.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes and vests the California Public Utilities Committee (CPUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. (California Constitution Article XII)
2. Requires electrical corporations, as part of their distribution planning processes, to consider that produced fleet data, and other available data, to facilitate the readiness of their distribution systems to support the state’s anticipated level of electric vehicle (EV) charging, as specified. (Public Utilities Code §740.21)
3. Authorizes the CPUC to establish an expedited distribution grid interconnection dispute resolution process with the goal of resolving disputes over interconnection applications within the jurisdiction of the CPUC in no more than 60 days from the time the dispute is formally brought to the CPUC. (Public Utilities Code §769.5)
4. Requires an electrical corporation to permit any new or existing customer who applies for an extension of service from that electrical corporation to install an electric extension in accordance with the regulations of the CPUC and any applicable specifications of that electrical corporation. (Public Utilities Code §783)
5. Establishes the Powering Up Californians Act which requires the CPUC, on or before September 30, 2024, to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods, as defined, and a procedure for customers to report energization delays to the commission, as provided. Requires the CPUC to require the electrical corporation to take remedial actions necessary to achieve the commission’s targets and requires all reports to be publicly available. (Public Utilities Code §930 et seq.)
6. Defines “Energization” and “energize” to mean connecting customers to the electrical distribution grid and establishing adequate electrical distribution capacity or upgrading electrical distribution or transmission capacity to provide electrical service for a new customer, or to provide upgraded electrical service to an existing customer. “Energization” and “energize” does not include activities related to connecting electrical supply resources.
7. Defines “energization time period” means the elapsed time beginning when the electrical corporation receives a substantially complete energization project application and ending when the electric service is installed and energized. (Public Utilities Code §931)

This bill:

1. Requires an electrical corporation to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny an application for energization, to post an example of a complete, approved energization application and an example of a complete energization application for a housing development project, and to make those items available by no later than July 1, 2026.
2. Requires an electrical corporation to determine if an application for energization is complete and provide notice or otherwise provide certain information under a specified procedure and timeframe.
3. Requires an electrical corporation, upon approval of the application, to immediately transmit that determination to the applicant by electronic mail and, if applicable, by posting the response on its internet website, as specified.

Background

Connecting to the electric distribution grid. Rules governing the ability of new buildings and generation and storage resources to connect to the electric distribution grid are generally determined by statute, CPUC rules, and tariffs, (i.e., document that specify rates, charges, rules, and conditions under which an electrical corporation will provide services to the public) for each of the electrical corporations. These service connections include: new service connections which refers to extending an electricity line or expanding distribution infrastructure to service new or expanded customer load, known as “energization.”  

Electric Tariff Rules 15 and 16 establish the guidelines for design, cost allocation, and responsibilities of a project applicant and a utility for electric distribution line extensions. The ability to connect to the larger electrical system can take months (if not, years, in some cases) as the process can entail the need for designs, assessments on costs allocations associated with improvements on the electric distribution system to allow for the connection, and other issues. In the case of new building developments, depending on the size of the development, the need for electric service extensions may be needed in phases over months, or years.

Growing backlog of utility energization projects. The demands for new service connections and/or upgrades to existing distribution lines have been increasing, especially as California advances policies to deploy more EVs, shift natural gas usages to electricity in buildings, and increase housing supply, including affordable housing. These projects all rely on access to the electric grid and, often require upgrades to the electric distribution system. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has created supply shortages and challenges affecting many sectors of the economy, including supply shortages for electrical equipment needed to connect new customers or expand energy load, such as transformers. Delays and challenges have been especially acute within the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) service territory as the backlog for energization projects has grown substantially and delays have increased. The utility has previously acknowledged the growing backlog of identified capacity work that has delayed – sometimes by years – the in-service dates for new business customers. PG&E had shared that it is attempting to better manage their queue for projects, including forming a monthly Technical Committee work group with representatives from their labor partners, California Building Industry Association, and regional building association staff and members to work on all technical and field issues. These monthly meetings are used to provide updates on the actions underway to improve the new service connection process, the impacts of those actions and next steps.  Additionally, these meetings are used to collaborate and collect feedback on the improvement efforts and to address emerging areas of concern or interest.  Nonetheless, the backlog has been a growing frustration for the project developers, customers, local governments, and others waiting to have their projects energized.

CPUC adopts resolution to address energization timing. In response to a proposal from the electric IOUs, the CPUC issued Resolution E-5247 in December 2022, which established an interim 125-business day average service energization timeline for projects taking service under the EV Infrastructure Rules. This timeline excludes projects that must go through Rule 15 for distribution upgrades, projects above two megawatts, and projects that require upgrades to a substation. The resolution directed the IOUs to collect one year of EV Infrastructure Rule implementation data to inform an updated proposal for a permanent service energization timeline.

Legislature authors legislation to address energization project backlogs. With growing customer frustration concerning the inability of various energization requests from being fulfilled, spanning hospitals, affordable and market rate housing, EV and electrification electric grid capacity upgrades, and others, the Legislature passed SB 410 (Becker, Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023) to provide customers with certainty regarding expected timelines for grid connections and service upgrades. The bill directed the CPUC to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods by September 30, 2024. To ensure transparency and accountability, the legislation required electric IOUs to report their performance in meeting these targets, including detailed analyses of staffing levels and workforce projections. The CPUC is also expected to implement procedures for customers to report energization delays, enabling the CPUC to take remedial actions if necessary. In parallel, AB 50 (Wood, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023) complements SB 410 by focusing on utility accountability and transparency in the energization process. It directed the CPUC to define criteria for timely electric service, including establishing categories of service, setting average energization timeframes, and identifying exceptions for complex projects.

CPUC Decision (D. 24-09-020) to implement SB 410 and AB 50. On September 12, 2024, the CPUC issued the decision in Rulemaking 24-01-018 in response to SB 410 and AB 50. This decision establishes statewide energization timelines, reporting requirements, and customer engagement standards for the state's three major IOUs: PG&E, Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), with expectations to establish timelines in future decisions for the smaller IOUs. Some of the key provisions include:

• Statewide Energization Timelines: Establishes average and maximum timeframes for various types of service requests.
• Customer Engagement Standards: Utilities are required to assign a project manager within 10 business days of application approval to serve as the main point of contact during the energization process. The project manager must:
• Provide an overview of the energization process, including steps to complete a request and responsible parties.
• Within 48 hours of identifying a delay or potential delay, discuss with the customer the cause, responsible party, estimated resolution timeframe, and potential remedies.
• Within 10 business days of identifying issues that could delay or cancel a customer's energization request, provide clear steps to keep the project on track.
• Customer Engagement and Communication Plan: Utilities must submit plans to the CPUC outlining how they will build the workforce needed to respond to energization requests and how they will communicate timelines and processes to customers.

Comments

Need for this bill. The supporters contend that this bill is needed to address the issue of delays in energization application timelines for housing developments as it relates to electric IOUs. They argue that though there are many parts of a development’s process before it is complete, and delays can be experienced at any of these stages, utility connection is one aspect of the development process that does not have consistent timeline standards. They suggest it is one of the stages where the most problematic delays are seen. While they acknowledge that SB 410 and AB 50 directed the CPUC to provide guidelines and set timelines for the energization of electrical corporation customers, the provisions do not provide guidance for certain aspects of the application process (not the project builds). This bill aims to be additive and seeks to reinforce timelines established by the CPUC proceeding, and further clarify to application review standards to reduce the amount of time a developer may be on the hook for an incomplete application and to provide greater customer transparency to the process of the review of the application (not the project build out).

Concerns about prescribing specific timelines in statute. The utilities in opposition to this bill raise concerns that this bill could undermine the existing proceedings to implement SB 410 and AB 50. They also contend that the timelines in this bill, specifically the 10 business days by when an application for energization must be reviewed for completeness is unworkable. Additionally, they argue that this bill prioritizes housing development projects above other request for energization, such as new commercial or medical buildings, upgrades related to transportation and building electrification, and others. As it relates to the concerns regarding prioritizing housing projects, the only part of this bill that speaks to housing projects is the requirement that electrical corporations provide an example (just one) of a completed application of a housing development project (with a wide range of housing types that can be selected, ranging from single family home to a large mixed-use building, farmworker or transitional housing). As to the concerns regarding the feasibility of the timeline by when an applications must be reviewed for completeness by the electrical corporation, the 10 days and maximum 45 days is reflective of the CPUC’s recent decision to implement SB 410 for large electrical corporations.

Amendments needed. Although the opposition’s concerns regarding the specific timelines may be misplaced relative to the feasibility of these timelines (as that would also require the CPUC to reconsider their decision), the author and committee may wish to preserve future CPUC discretion to changing conditions (should they be warranted) as well as, the different approach the CPUC is taking between the large electrical corporations and the smaller (relatively) electrical corporations in the state. To this end, the author and committee may wish to amend this bill to structure it similarly to both SB 410 and AB 50 which did not prescribe in statute specific timelines, but instead requires the CPUC to develop these timelines and requirements by a given date. Additional amendments would provide clarifying changes make clear the requirements in this bill relate specifically to the review of the application for completeness (not the approval or build out of the final energization project).

Dual Referral. Should this bill be approved by this committee, it will be re-referred to the Senate Housing Committee.

Prior/Related Legislation

AB 50 (Wood, Chapter 317. Statutes of 2023) required the CPUC, to determine the criteria for customers to receive timely electricity service when requesting new service connections or upgraded service, known as "energization." Proposes several policies to address delays in connecting customers to the electrical grid, including improved information sharing with local governments, reporting by electric IOUs, and other measures.

SB 410 (Becker, Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023) required the CPUC to establish by September 30, 2024, reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods in order to connect new customers and upgrade the service of existing customers to the electrical grid.

AB 1026 (Wood, Chapter 446, Statutes of 2019) required an electrical or gas corporation to apply only those construction and design specifications, standards, terms, and conditions that are applicable to a new extension of service project for the 18 months following the date the application for a new extension of service project is approved. Authorized an electrical or gas corporation to adopt modifications, as specified, of the construction and design specifications, standards, terms, and conditions of a new extension of service project.

AB 2861 (Ting, Chapter 672, Statutes of 2016) authorized the CPUC to establish an expedited dispute resolution process for generating facility interconnection disputes.

SB 48 (Vuich, Chapter 1229, Statutes of 1983) established rules governing the extension of service by gas and electrical corporations to new residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial customers.

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

SUPPORT:

Housing Action Coalition (Sponsor)
Abundant Housing LA
California Building Industry Association
California Housing Partnership
California YIMBY
Circulate San Diego
City of El Cerrito
East Bay Housing Organizations
Fieldstead and Company, Inc.
Habitat for Humanity California
Housing California
Inner City Law Center
MidPen Housing
The Two Hundred for Homeownership

OPPOSITION:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Southern California Edison

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Housing Action Coalition, the sponsor of this bill, states:

California is in the midst of a housing crisis, and recent unprecedented natural disasters have exacerbated the situation. As we work to rebuild our communities and construct more housing, it is essential to remove barriers that unnecessarily delay production. …In the context of utility connection, these delays can be caused by fragmented work order submittal procedures and a declining reliability of project queues. Though the average accepted wait time for utility connection following application approval is expected to vary depending on project size and other circumstances (i.e., natural disasters), developers have reported delays far exceeding an acceptable timeline – making their projects much harder to finance and delaying the speed at which units can be occupied. AB 1026 seeks to address this issue by requiring investor-owned utility companies to comply with application review standards, including preparing specified application lists to be made available at the outset of an application. AB 1026 also reinforces timelines established by the CPUC’s decision 24-09-20.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: PG&E and SCE express concerns that this bill would undermine the critical work taking place in the Establishing Energization Timelines Order Instituting Rulemaking (Energization OIR) established by SB 410 (2023). They argue that the 10-day average review timeline proposed within AB 1026 is unworkable and would likely reduce the number of approved applications. Many applicants, specifically developers, are unable to pay for their engineering advance within 30-days due to their own internal processes. Imposing a 10-day average timeline will result in application rejections, particularly when submissions are incomplete. The opposition also contends this bill would prioritize affordable housing over other projects by requiring them to provide a sample completed application for an energization project for a housing development project.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1026

Author:(Wilson)

As Amended Ver:May 8, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires an electrical corporation to compile a list of the information necessary to approve or deny an application for energization, to post an example of a complete, and approved energization application, as well as an example of a complete application for a housing development project, and to make these items available no later than July 1, 2026.

Major Provisions

1. Requires an electrical corporation to determine whether an application for energization is complete and to provide notice or other specified information in accordance with a defined procedure and timeframe.
2. Requires an electrical corporation, upon approving an application, to promptly notify the applicant of its determination via electronic mail and, if applicable, by posting the response on its internet website, as specified. The bill would also define various terms for its purposes.

COMMENTS

The Department of Housing and Community Development has identified permitting delays and procedural requirements as key factors that hinder housing production. In many cases, approval delays substantially increase overall development housing costs. In California, housing projects must secure approvals from multiple levels of government and coordinate with investor-owned utilities (IOUs) for electric service connections and related infrastructure.

California's clean energy and climate policies—including the expansion of renewable electricity, building electrification, and the shift to zero-emission transportation—are driving increased demand for new electric service connections and upgrades to the distribution grid. At the same time, the state's efforts to accelerate housing production, pursuant to statutory mandates, depend on timely, reliable, and accessible electric service. The energization process varies significantly based on project type—ranging from single-family homes to multifamily developments and commercial facilities—as well as utility territory, the scope of required system upgrades, and external factors such as weather, supply chain disruptions, or incomplete applications and permits. Depending on these variables, energization timelines can range from a few weeks to several years.

To provide customers with better certainty around energization timelines, the Legislature passed SB 410 (Becker), Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish average and maximum target energization timeframes by September 30, 2024. Additionally, the CPUC must implement procedures for customers to report energization delays and take remedial action if necessary. AB 50 (Wood), Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023, complements SB 410 by enhancing utility accountability and transparency. It requires the CPUC to define timely service criteria, including service categories, average energization timeframes, and exceptions for complex projects.

On September 12, 2024, the CPUC issued a decision implementing SB 410 and AB 50, establishing statewide energization timelines, reporting requirements, and customer engagement standards for the state's three major IOUs—PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E.

Key provisions include:

1. Statewide Energization Timelines: Sets average and maximum timeframes for different types of electric service requests.
2. Customer Engagement Standards: Requires utilities to assign a project manager within 10 business days of application approval to serve as the primary point of contact. Among other requirements, the project manager must:
   1. Notify the customer within 48 hours of any delay or potential delay, outlining the cause, responsible party, estimated resolution timeline, and available remedies;
   2. Provide, within 10 business days of identifying issues that could delay or derail the project, a clear path forward to keep the project on schedule.

According to the Author

"California's housing crisis demands action—not just in building new homes, but in removing unnecessary roadblocks that slow down production. Too often, housing developments that have already been approved face excessive delays in the utility connection process, leaving new units unoccupied and driving up costs for developers and future residents. These delays are not only frustrating, but they also contribute to California's housing shortage by making it harder to get projects completed on time. AB 1026 addresses this issue by requiring investor-owned utility companies to adhere to clear, standardized timelines for reviewing applications, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process. By streamlining utility connections, this bill will help get housing projects across the finish line faster—meaning more Californians will get into homes sooner."

Arguments in Support

This bill is sponsored by the Housing Action California who write that this legislation, "will streamline housing development by bringing parity to the application review timelines for investor-owned utility companies."

Arguments in Opposition

This bill is opposed by PG&E, Edison International and Affiliates, Including SCE. Specifically, SCE states that, "this legislation would force electrical corporations to put housing projects at the front of the line over other critically important projects, including schools, hospitals, or other critical infrastructure."

FISCAL COMMENTS

This legislation is keyed non-fiscal.

VOTES

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 11-0-1

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Gallagher, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Wicks, Wilson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Caloza

ASM UTILITIES AND ENERGY: 15-0-3

YES: Petrie-Norris, Patterson, Calderon, Chen, Davies, Mark González, Harabedian, Hart, Kalra, Papan, Rogers, Schiavo, Schultz, Ta, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Boerner, Irwin, Zbur

UPDATED

VERSION: May 8, 2025

CONSULTANT: Lina V. Malova / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0000436

Date of Hearing: May 21, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1026

Author:(Wilson) – As Amended Ver:May 8, 2025

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires and electrical corporation (also known as an electrical investor-owned utility, or “IOU”), by July 1, 2026, to compile and make available on its website a list or lists that specifies in detail information needed from an applicant for energization, and post an example of a complete, approved energization application for a housing development project on its website.

The bill provides numerous related timelines and procedures governing an IOU’s review of an application for energization.

FISCAL EFFECT:

No state costs.

COMMENTS:

The author intends this to speed up IOU approval of energization requests so more housing can be built in the state, more quickly. According to the author:

California’s housing crisis demands action—not just in building new homes, but in removing unnecessary roadblocks that slow down production. Too often, housing developments that have already been approved face excessive delays in the utility connection process, leaving new units unoccupied and driving up costs for developers and future residents. These delays are not only frustrating, but they also contribute to California’s housing shortage by making it harder to get projects completed on time. AB 1026 addresses this issue by requiring investor-owned utility companies to adhere to clear, standardized timelines for reviewing applications, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process. By streamlining utility connections, this bill will help get housing projects across the finish line faster— meaning more Californians will get into homes sooner.

The Legislature recently approved two bills—SB 410 (Becker), Chapter 394 and AB 50, Chapter 317, both statutes of 2023—that, together, require the CPUC to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods for new customers and service upgrades and to require IOUs to better coordinate with local governments regarding energization.

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1026

Author:(Wilson)

As Amended Ver:May 08, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes specific timelines and procedural requirements for investor-owned utilities (IOUs), involved in energization for housing development projects.

Major Provisions

1. Requires an IOU to compile lists specifying information required from any applicant for energization. The IOU may revise the lists of information required from an applicant, but any revisions shall not apply to permit applications that are already pending review.
2. Requires an IOU to post an example of a complete, approved energization application and an example of a complete energization application for a housing development project.
3. Requires an IOU to make the items referenced in (2) and (3) available on its internet website no later than July 1, 2026.
4. Requires an OPI to determine whether an energization application is complete and to provide written notice of its determination to the applicant within an average of 10 business days and a maximum of 45 business days of receiving the application, unless a different timeline is specified by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). If an IOU determines that an application is incomplete, it shall provide the applicant with a list of the missing items and a description of the steps needed to complete the application.
5. Requires that, upon receiving notice that an application is incomplete, the applicant may address and correct the deficiencies identified by the IOU. When reviewing an application, the IOU may not require any items not included in the previous list as specified.
6. Provides that upon approval of the application, the IOU shall immediately transmit that determination to the applicant by electronic mail and, if applicable, by posting the response on its internet website not later than 30 business days after the electrical corporation determines that an application for energization is complete.
7. Requires an IOU to provide a process for applicants to appeal a determination that an energization application is incomplete.
8. Clarifies that the provisions of this bill do not limit the amount of feedback an IOU may provide or the number of revisions it may request from an applicant.
9. Clarifies that the provisions of this bill do not preclude an applicant and an IOU from mutually agreeing to extend any established time limits. However, an IOU shall not require such an agreement as a condition for accepting or processing an energization application, unless the extension is intended to allow concurrent processing of related approvals.

COMMENTS

Housing Approval Process: The process to gain approval to build new housing in California is often arduous, unpredictable, and expensive. A 2025 study found that California is the most expensive state for multifamily housing production, in part due to the long timeline it takes to go from an application to an approved project.^[1] This report found that longer production timelines are strongly associated with higher costs, and the time to bring a project to completion in California is more than 22 months longer than the average time required in Texas.^[2]

In order to build housing in California, developers must seek approval from various levels of government, as well as, often, investor owned utilities, or IOUs. The process starts at the local level, through the entitlement and permitting process. Under the California Constitution, cities and counties have broad authority, known as the police power, to regulate land use in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. Local governments enforce this authority through an entitlement process, which includes both discretionary and ministerial approvals.

Gaining "entitlement" is essentially a local government's confirmation that a housing project complies with all applicable local zoning regulations and design standards. Once a project receives entitlement, or approval, from the local planning department, it must obtain postentitlement permits, such as building, demolition, and grading permits. Postentitlement permits are related to the physical construction of the development proposal before construction can begin. Over the years, the Legislature has passed many bills to address delays both in the local entitlement and postentitlement process. However, in 2023, the average local approval time, inclusive of the entitlement and postentitlement stage, for a single-family home in California was 10 months, while approvals for apartment projects with five or more units took an average of 23 months.^[3]

IOUs play a critical role in the housing approval process, but delays in their energization application review and service connection timelines can significantly slow down development. Companies like Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) are responsible for ensuring new housing projects have access to electricity and natural gas. In an attempt provide customers with certainty regarding expected timelines for grid connections and service upgrades, the Legislature passed SB 410 (Becker, Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023), directing the CPUC to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods by September 30, 2024. To ensure transparency and accountability, the legislation requires IOUs to report their performance in meeting these targets, including detailed analyses of staffing levels and workforce projections. The CPUC is also expected to implement procedures for customers to report energization delays, enabling the CPUC to take remedial actions if necessary. In parallel, AB 50 (Wood, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023) complements SB 410 by focusing on utility accountability and transparency in the energization process. It directs the CPUC to define criteria for timely electric service, including establishing categories of service, setting average energization timeframes, and identifying exceptions for complex projects.

CPUC Decision in Response to Legislative Efforts. On September 12, 2024, the CPUC issued the decision in response to SB 410 and AB 50.^[4]8 This decision establishes statewide energization timelines, reporting requirements, and customer engagement standards for the state's three major investor-owned utilities (IOUs): PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E. Some of the key provisions include:

1. Statewide Energization Timelines: Establishes average and maximum timeframes for various types of service requests.
2. Customer Engagement Standards: Utilities are required to assign a project manager within 10 business days of application approval to serve as the main point of contact during the energization process. The project manager must:
3. Provide an overview of the energization process, including steps to complete a request and responsible parties.
4. Within 48 hours of identifying a delay or potential delay, discuss with the customer the cause, responsible party, estimated resolution timeframe, and potential remedies.
5. Within 10 business days of identifying issues that could delay or cancel a customer's energization request, provide clear steps to keep the project on track.
6. Customer Engagement and Communication Plan: Utilities must submit plans to the CPUC outlining how they will build the workforce needed to respond to energization requests and how they will communicate timelines and processes to customers.

AB 2234 (R. Rivas): AB 2234 (Rivas), Chapter 651, Statutes of 2022, established clear timelines and review standards for local governments processing postentitlement phase permits, as follows:

1. Deemed Complete Timeframe: Local governments must determine application completeness within 15 business days of receipt;
2. Substantive Review Timeframe: Local governments must approve or deny postentitlement permits within 30-60 business days, depending on project size; and
3. Revision and Appeal Process: Developers have a clear process to amend applications and appeal denials or incomplete determinations.

Furthermore, AB 2234 requires local governments to prepare lists specifying required application materials and post examples of approved permits. It also establishes strict timelines and procedures that must be followed to appeal decisions made on postentitlement permits. If a local government violates the timelines stipulated in AB 2234, it is considered a violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).

Developers commonly cite delays in IOUs processing utility applications as complicating factors in the housing approvals process. This bill would apply the general framework, including energization application transparency requirements and review shot clocks, established in AB 2234 for local governments to IOUs. To align with previous legislative efforts, it would apply the general timeframes established by SB 410 and AB 50 (an average of 10 business days and a maximum of 45 days) to the energization review process, unless a different timeline is specified by the CPUC. In doing so, this bill could provide homebuilders with more certainty and transparency in the energization process.

According to the Author

"California's housing crisis demands action—not just in building new homes, but in removing unnecessary roadblocks that slow down production. Too often, housing developments that have already been approved face excessive delays in the utility connection process, leaving new units unoccupied and driving up costs for developers and future residents. These delays are not only frustrating, but they also contribute to California's housing shortage by making it harder to get projects completed on time. AB 1026 addresses this issue by requiring investor-owned utility companies to adhere to clear, standardized timelines for reviewing applications, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process. By streamlining utility connections, this bill will help get housing projects across the finish line faster—meaning more Californians will get into homes sooner."

Arguments in Support

The Housing Action Coalition writes in support: "AB 1026 seeks to address this issue by requiring investor-owned utility companies to comply with post-entitlement application review provisions found in the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65913.3), including preparing specified application lists and coordinating with local agencies to ensure materials needed from the utility company are clear at the time of application. This bill will bring parity to the post-entitlement permitting process, incentivize faster timelines in the energization process, and allow units to be occupied more quickly."

Arguments in Opposition

The Pacific Gas & Electric Company writes in opposition: "All LSEs typically have distinct application and energization processes that apply to different customer types. These processes operate independently and are not limited to housing, which is the primary focus of AB 1026. Furthermore, IOUs have timelines specific to the application and energization process as a result of SB 410 (Becker) Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023 and AB 50 (Wood) Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023. The CPUC established reasonable average timelines for both the application and energization process in September 2024 and the IOUs recently submitted data on compliance with these timelines on March 31, 2025. While these new timelines apply to IOUs, there are no timelines required for POUs or Co-Ops."

FISCAL COMMENTS

None.

VOTES

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 11-0-1

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Gallagher, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Wicks, Wilson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Caloza

ASM UTILITIES AND ENERGY: 15-0-3

YES: Petrie-Norris, Patterson, Calderon, Chen, Davies, Mark González, Harabedian, Hart, Kalra, Papan, Rogers, Schiavo, Schultz, Ta, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Boerner, Irwin, Zbur

UPDATED

VERSION: May 08, 2025

CONSULTANT: Dori Ganetsos / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0000382

1. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3743-1.html ↑

2. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3743-1.html ↑

3. Based on self-reported Annual Progress Report (APR) data provided by local governments to HCD for housing developments approved the year 2023. These timelines includes time where the applicant was responsible for responding to feedback or any corrections identified by the local government, so they are not entirely representative of the length of time that a local government spent reviewing any given development. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-element-implementation-and-apr-dashboard ↑

4. 8 ^{D. 24-09-020; Decision on, "Establishing Target Energization Time Periods and Procedure for Customers to Report Energization Delays"; R. 24-01-018; September 12, 2024.} ↑

Date of Hearing: May 7, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND ENERGY

Cottie Petrie-Norris, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1026 (

Author:Wilson) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

SUBJECT: Planning and zoning: housing development projects: postentitlement phase permits: electrical corporations

SUMMARY: Establishes specific timelines and procedural requirements for investor-owned utilities (IOUs), involved in postentitlement permits for housing development applications.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Includes electrical corporations to the definition of a “local agency”, for purposes of postentitlement permit issuance.
2. Requires an electrical corporation to compile lists specifying information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit. The electrical corporation may revise the lists of information required from an applicant, but any revisions shall not apply to permit applications that are already pending review.
3. Requires an electrical corporation to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for a housing development project.
4. Requires an electrical corporation to make the items referenced in (2) and (3) available on its internet website no later than July 1, 2026.
5. Requires an electrical corporation that determines an application is incomplete to provide the applicant with a list of the missing items and a description of how the application can be completed as specified.
6. Requires an electrical corporation to determine whether a postentitlement phase permit application is complete and to provide written notice of its determination to the applicant within 15 business days of receiving the application. If an electrical corporation determines that an application is incomplete, it shall provide the applicant with a list of the missing items and a description of the steps needed to complete the application.
7. Requires that, upon receiving notice that an application is incomplete, the applicant may address and correct the deficiencies identified by the electrical corporation. When reviewing an application, the electrical corporation may not require any items not included in the previous list as specified.
8. Requires that, if an applicant submits a revised application, it shall be subject to the same timeline and requirements, including a determination of completeness within 15 business days.
9. Requires that, if an electrical corporation fails to make a timely determination as required, and the application or resubmitted application states that it is for a postentitlement phase permit, the application shall be deemed complete.
10. Requires an electrical corporation to complete the application review process, as specified, for housing development projects with 25 or fewer units. Once the application is deemed complete, the electrical corporation must transmit its determination to the applicant by email—and, if applicable, post the response on its website—within 30 business days.
11. Provides that if the electrical corporation requires an outside entity to review the application, the applicable time limits under this bill shall be tolled until the review is completed and the application is returned to the electrical corporation. The electrical corporation is then required to complete the review within the remaining time. The electrical corporation is also required to notify the applicant of the tolling and the resumption of the timeline within three business days, via electronic mail and, if applicable, by posting the notice on its website.
12. Requires that if an electrical corporation finds that a complete application is noncompliant, the electrical corporation shall provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant.
13. Requires an electrical corporation to provide a process for applicants to appeal a determination that a postentitlement phase permit application is incomplete, denied, or noncompliant.
14. Clarifies that the provisions of this bill do not limit the amount of feedback an electrical corporation may provide or the number of revisions it may request from an applicant.
15. Clarifies that the provisions of this bill do not preclude an applicant and an electrical corporation from mutually agreeing to extend any time limit established by this section. However, an electrical corporation shall not require such an agreement as a condition for accepting or processing a postentitlement phase permit application, unless the extension is intended to allow concurrent processing of related approvals or environmental review for the same housing development project.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines “postentitlement phase permit” as follows:
2. All nondiscretionary permits required by a local agency after the entitlement process to begin construction of a development that is intended to be at least two-thirds residential, excluding specified planning permits, entitlements, and other permits. These permits include, but are not limited to, all of the following:

i) Building permits, and all inter-departmental review required for the issuance of a

building permit;

ii) Permits for minor or standard off-site improvements;

iii) Permits for demolition; and

iv) Permits for minor or standard excavation and grading.

1. Allows a local agency to identify by ordinance a threshold for determining whether a permit constitutes a “minor” or “standard” permit if supported by written findings; and
2. Excludes a permit required and issued by the California Coastal Commission (Commission), a special district, or a utility that is not owned and operated by a local agency, or any other entity that is not a city or county. (Government Code § 65913.3)
3. Requires a local agency, defined to include a city or county, to compile one or more lists of information that will be required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit. (Government Code § 65913.3)
4. Defines “electrical corporation” as every corporation or person owning or managing any electric plant for compensation within the state, except as specified. This definition would be inclusive of the three largest investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in the state—Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E)—but also smaller or multi-state IOUs and rural electric cooperatives. (Public Utilities Code § 218)
5. Authorizes the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish an expedited distribution grid interconnection dispute resolution process with the goal of resolving disputes over interconnection applications within the jurisdiction of the CPUC in no more than 60 days from the time the dispute is formally brought to the CPUC. (Public Utilities Code § 769.5)
6. Requires an electrical corporation to permit any new or existing customer who applies for an extension of service from that electrical corporation to install an electric extension in accordance with the regulations of the CPUC and any applicable specifications of that electrical corporation. (Public Utilities Code § 783)
7. Establishes guidelines for the design, cost allocation, and responsibilities of a project applicant and a utility for electric distribution line extensions necessary to furnish permanent electric service. (Electric Rule 15)
8. Establishes guidelines for the design, cost allocation, and responsibilities of a project applicant and a utility for the extension of electric service from an investor-owned utility (IOU) distribution line. (Electric Rule 16)

FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal.

CUSTOMER COST IMPACTS: Unknown.

BACKGROUND:

Role of Local Government in Housing Development — According to multiple reports, California is the most expensive state for building multifamily housing, due in part to prolonged approval timelines, regulatory complexities, high development fees and other related challenges.^[1],[2],3 The Department of Housing and Community Development also cites permitting delays and procedural requirements as factors that impede housing production. Often, approval delays contribute significantly to overall development costs. In California, housing development requires developers to obtain approvals from multiple levels of government, and coordinate with IOUs for electric service connections and related infrastructure. The approval process begins at the local level. The California Constitution⁴ grants cities and counties broad authority— known as police power— to shape land use decisions that promote public health, safety, and general welfare.⁵ Local governments exercise this authority through the entitlement process, which includes —discretionary approvals, such as conditional use permits that require case-by-case review—and ministerial approvals, like building permits that are issued based on pre-established standards.

Postentitlement Permits — Securing “entitlement” involves obtaining formal approval from a local government, confirming that a proposed housing project meets the applicable zoning regulations and design standards, including aspects such as land use, density, height, and site layout.^[3]6 Once a project secures entitlement—or formal approval—from the local planning department, it must also obtain post-entitlement permits, such as building and demolition permits. These permits, typically issued by the local building or public works department, ensure the project complies with structural, fire, and environmental safety codes, as well as site-specific engineering requirements before construction can begin.

Legislative Attempts to Address Permitting Delays – Over the years, the Legislature has passed numerous bills to address delays in both the local entitlement and post-entitlement processes. Recently, AB 2234 (Rivas, Chapter 651, Statutes of 2022) established specific timelines and digital application requirements to expedite the issuance of ministerial permits, including those for building, demolition, and excavation permits. Under this legislation, cities and counties must now act on these permit applications within 30 to 60 business days, depending on the project type.

Energization Delays in IOU Territories – California’s clean energy and climate policies—including the expansion of renewable electricity, the electrification of buildings, and the transition to zero-emission transportation—are driving increased demand for new electric service connections and upgrades to the distribution grid. In parallel, the state’s efforts to accelerate housing supply—driven by statutory requirements^[4]7—rely on timely, reliable, and accessible electric service connections. The process of energization varies widely based on project type (from single-family homes to multifamily complexes or commercial facilities), utility territory, required system upgrades, and external conditions such as weather, supply chain delays, or incomplete customer applications or permits. Depending on these variables, energization can take anywhere from a few weeks to several years.

Legislative Response to Energization Delays – To provide customers with certainty regarding expected timelines for grid connections and service upgrades, the Legislature passed SB 410 (Becker, Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023). This bill directs the CPUC to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods by September 30, 2024.To ensure transparency and accountability, the legislation requires IOUs to report their performance in meeting these targets, including detailed analyses of staffing levels and workforce projections. The CPUC is also expected to implement procedures for customers to report energization delays, enabling the CPUC to take remedial actions if necessary. In parallel, AB 50 (Wood, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023) complements SB 410 by focusing on utility accountability and transparency in the energization process. It directs the CPUC to define criteria for timely electric service, including establishing categories of service, setting average energization timeframes, and identifying exceptions for complex projects.

CPUC Decision in Response to Legislative Efforts – On September 12, 2024, the CPUC issued the decision in response to SB 410 and AB 50.^[5]8 This decision establishes statewide energization timelines, reporting requirements, and customer engagement standards for the state's three major investor-owned utilities (IOUs): Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). Some of the key provisions include:

• Statewide Energization Timelines: Establishes average and maximum timeframes for various types of service requests.
• Customer Engagement Standards: Utilities are required to assign a project manager within 10 business days of application approval to serve as the main point of contact during the energization process. The project manager must:
• Provide an overview of the energization process, including steps to complete a request and responsible parties.
• Within 48 hours of identifying a delay or potential delay, discuss with the customer the cause, responsible party, estimated resolution timeframe, and potential remedies.
• Within 10 business days of identifying issues that could delay or cancel a customer's energization request, provide clear steps to keep the project on track.
• Customer Engagement and Communication Plan: Utilities must submit plans to the CPUC outlining how they will build the workforce needed to respond to energization requests and how they will communicate timelines and processes to customers.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “California’s housing crisis demands action—not just in building new homes, but in removing unnecessary roadblocks that slow down production. Too often, housing developments that have already been approved face excessive delays in the utility connection process, leaving new units unoccupied and driving up costs for developers and future residents. These delays are not only frustrating, but they also contribute to California’s housing shortage by making it harder to get projects completed on time. AB 1026 addresses this issue by requiring investor-owned utility companies to adhere to clear, standardized timelines for reviewing applications, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process. By streamlining utility connections, this bill will help get housing projects across the finish line faster—meaning more Californians will get into homes sooner.”
2. New Customer Energization Map. Figure 1: The Customer Energization Map (Titled New Project Customer Process): The illustration outlines the sequence of actions that a customer (e.g., a project developer) and an IOU—PG&E, in this case—must take to establish electric service for new construction projects.^[6]9 It outlines responsibilities on both sides—from submitting an application to final service activation—organized by project phase (e.g., application intake, engineering, construction).The process begins once a customer submits project details and site plans—typically after obtaining local postentitlement permits such as a building or demolition permit. PG&E then contacts the customer, then performs technical reviews and finalizes engineering designs. The customer must also sign contracts, pay fees, and submit all required documents. After the site is prepared, PG&E inspects the site and schedules construction. PG&E’s responsibilities include installing infrastructure (like transformers or line extensions) and ultimately energizing the service. The utility’s role is to carry out the work needed to deliver power to permitted projects. This operational workflow is not regulatory in nature—it is logistical, technical, and governed by utility tariffs and CPUC oversight. By applying permitting rules to utilities, AB 1026 incorrectly assumes that electrical corporations operate like local permitting agencies. In practice, IOU energization processes occur in parallel to local permitting, with the IOU ultimately providing service only after permits have been issued, not as part of the permitting process itself.
3. Streamlining Postentitlement Permit Processing. As previously mentioned, AB 2234 (R. Rivas, Chapter 651, Statutes of 2022) established specific timelines and procedural requirements for local governments when processing postentitlement permits for housing developments. This legislation applies only to non-discretionary approvals—such as building, excavation, and encroachment permits—that are required after a project receives its land use entitlements, such as zoning changes or site plan approvals, but before construction can begin. The measure is intended to address administrative delays that occur after a project has secured all discretionary land use approvals—such as zoning changes, conditional use permits, or site plan approvals—but before construction can begin. Specifically:
   • Deemed Complete Timeline: Local governments must determine whether an application is complete within 15 business days of receipt;
   • Permit Decision Timeline: Local governments must approve or deny postentitlement permits within 30 to 60 business days, depending on project size;
   • Revision Timeline: If an application is deemed incomplete, the local government must notify the applicant in writing within 15 business days of receipt, clearly identifying the missing information, and allow the applicant to submit a revised application.
   • Appeal Process: Requires local agencies to establish clear procedures and timelines for applicants to appeal permit denials or completeness determinations.

Additionally, the legislation requires local governments to prepare lists specifying required application materials and post examples of approved permits on their official websites.

1. IOUs and Postentitlement Permits. AB 1026 extends the post entitlement permitting framework established by AB 2234 (R.Rivas, 2022) to IOUs by redefining “local agency” to include electrical corporations regulated by the CPUC. This change makes IOUs subject to the same procedural timelines and requirements as cities and counties when responding to postentitlement phase applications. IOUs are also required to publish lists of required materials and examples of completed applications—mirroring transparency provisions originally designed for permit-issuing agencies.

However, the measure may be difficult to implement as drafted because IOUs are not permitting authorities. Unlike cities or counties, IOUs do not issue postentitlement permits such as building or demolition permits. These permits fall under the jurisdiction of local governments, which have land use and regulatory authority under state and local law. In contrast, IOUs are regulated by the CPUC and are responsible for providing electric service infrastructure—such as designing, constructing, and energizing utility connections—after a project has already received the necessary permits to build.

Therefore, it is unclear how this bill would be implemented. The intention of this measure, in aligning IOU processes with local permitting processes, is to create a unified approach to all the requirements project developers need to get their development constructed and finished. IOUs do play an important role in this process, as buildings must be energized; however, the role articulated in this measure is inaccurate. To address this discrepancy but also retain the value of the measure in articulating IOU requirements for project developers, the committee recommends deleting language that assigns postentitlement service responsibilities to IOUs and instead recommends aligning this bill to the energization process to ensure it appropriately reflects the utility’s actual scope of authority.

1. As noted earlier, SB 410 (Becker, 2024) directs the CPUC to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time lines. In response, the CPUC issued a decision in September 2024, requiring IOUs to determine whether an energization application is complete within an average of 10 business days. Consistent with this effort, the committee recommends requiring IOUs to provide written notice to applicants confirming whether an energization application is complete within an average of 10 business days—and no later than 45 business days—unless a different timeline is set by the CPUC.
2. Recent CPUC Decision. As alluded to earlier, the CPUC is taking steps to improve utility coordination by requiring a dedicated project manager for each new service application. This individual serves as the applicant’s primary point of contact throughout the energization process and helps identify and resolve potential delays. Given this existing structure to improve coordination, increase accountability, and reduce uncertainty, the extent to which this bill is still needed to achieve those same objectives may warrant further consideration.
3. Related Legislation.

AB 301 (Schiavo, 2025) establishes specific timeframes for all state departments involved in postentitlement reviews and approvals for housing developments. Status: Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

1. Prior Legislation.

AB 281 (Grayson) requires special districts to comply with specified timeframes, similar to those for cities and counties, when reviewing and approving postentitlement phase permit applications from housing developers. Status: Chapter 735, Statutes of 2023.

SB 410 (Becker) requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish by September 30, 2024, reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods in order to connect new customers and upgrade the service of existing customers to the electrical grid. Status: Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023.

AB 50 (Wood) Requires the CPUC, to determine the criteria for customers to receive timely electricity service when requesting new service connections or upgraded service, known as "energization." Proposes several policies to address delays in connecting customers to the electrical grid, including improved information sharing with local governments, reporting by electric IOUs, and other measures. Status: Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023.

AB 2234 (Rivas) requires a local agency to post information related to postentitlement phase permits for housing development projects, process those permits in a specified time period depending on the size of the housing development, and establish a digital permitting system if the local agency meets a specific population threshold. Status: Chapter 651, Statutes of 2022.

1. Double referral. This bill was heard in the Housing and Community Development Committee on April 9 and passed by a vote of 11-0-1.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Abundant Housing LA
California Building Industry Association (CBIA)
Californiayimby
Central City Association of Los Angeles
Circulate San Diego
East Bay Yimby
Grow the Richmond
Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco
Housing Action Coalition
Housing California
Midpen Housing
Midpen Housing Corporation
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-solano for Everyone
Northern Neighbors
Peninsula for Everyone
Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
Sf Yimby
South Bay Yimby
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
The Two Hundred
Ventura County Yimby
Yimby Action
Yimby LA
Yimby Slo

Opposition

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Edison International and Affiliates, Including Southern California Edison

Analysis Prepared by: Lina V. Malova / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083

1. ^{RAND; “Cost to Build Multifamily Housing in California More Than Twice as High as in Texas.”; https://www.rand.org/news/press/2025/04/cost-to-build-multifamily-housing-in-california-more.html; Accessed May 2, 2025.} ↑

2. ^{GV Wire, “California's Multifamily Housing Production Costs Soar Above Other States.”; https://gvwire.com/2025/04/30/californias-multifamily-housing-production-costs-soar-above-other-states/; Accessed May 2, 2025}

   ^{3 CAL MATTERS; “Californians: Here’s why your housing costs are so high”;}

   ^{https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-housing-costs-explainer/; Accessed May 3, 2025}

   ^{4 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7}

   ^{5 Institute for Local Government; “LOCAL GOVERNMENT 101 - Local Agency Powers and Limitations”; 2012} ↑

3. 6 ^{University of California Berkeley; “Examining the Local Land Use Entitlement Process in California to Inform Policy and Process.” Accessed May 2, 2025} ↑

4. 7 ^{Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the process by which the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines how many housing units each city and county must plan for within their Housing Element, while laws like SB 35 (and its successor, SB 423) streamline the approval process for} ↑

5. 8 ^{D. 24-09-020; Decision on, “Establishing Target Energization Time Periods and Procedure for Customers to Report Energization Delays”; R. 24-01-018; September 12, 2024.} ↑

6. 9 ^{PG&E, “New Project Customer Process”; https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/localized/en/docs/account/service-requests/GraphicFlowProcess.pdf} ↑

Date of Hearing: April 9, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Matt Haney, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1026 (

Author:Wilson) – As Amended Ver:March 24, 2025

SUBJECT: Planning and zoning: housing development projects: postentitlement phase permits

SUMMARY: Establishes specific timeframes and requirements for investor-owned utilities (IOUs), involved in postentitlement permitting for housing development proposals. Specifically, this bill:

1. Deletes the exemption for IOUs from established statewide postentitlement permitting timelines and adds electrical corporations to the definition of a “local agency” for purposes of postentitlement permit issuance. In doing so, this bill:
   1. Requires an IOU to compile one or more lists of information that will be required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit;
   2. Allows IOUs to revise the lists specified in 1)a), above, however, any revised list cannot apply to any permits pending review;
   3. Requires IOUs to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least five types of housing development projects in the jurisdiction, as specified. Requires the lists and example permits to be posted on the IOUs’ website by January 1, 2024;
   4. Requires IOUs to determine whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and provide written notice of this determination to the applicant within 15 business days after the IOU received the application, as follows:
      1. If an IOU determines an application is incomplete, the IOU must provide the applicant with a list of incomplete items and a description of how the application can be made complete, but the local agency can’t request new information that wasn’t on the original list of needed information;
      2. After receiving a notice that the application was incomplete, an applicant may cure and address the items that are deemed to be incomplete by the IOU. Upon receipt of a corrected application, the IOU must notify the applicant whether the additional application has remedied all incomplete items within 15 business days; and
      3. If an IOU does not meet the timelines required for determining an application complete, and the application or resubmitted application states that it is for a postentitlement phase permit.
   5. Specifies a process for approving postentitlement permits, as follows:
      1. Requires IOUs to complete review, either return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a comprehensive request for revisions or return the approved permit application, and electronically notify the applicant of its determination within:
         1. Thirty business days of the application being complete for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer; or
         2. Sixty business days of the application being complete for housing development projects with 26 units or more.
      2. Provides that the time limits in (e)(i) do not apply if the IOU makes written findings within the applicable time limit that the proposed postentitlement phase permit might have a specific, adverse impact, as defined, on public health or safety and that additional time is necessary to process the application;
      3. Tolls the time limits for approval in (e)(i) if the IOU requires review of the application by an outside entity, as specified;
      4. If an IOU finds that a complete application is noncompliant, the IOU must provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within the applicable time limit, as provided, and must allow the applicant to correct the application; and
      5. Requires IOUs to establish an appeals process. If an applicant appeals, the IOU must make a final determination within:
         1. Sixty business days of the appeal for a project of 25 units or fewer; or
         2. Ninety business days of the appeal for a project of 26 units or more.
   6. Provides that failure to meet the time limits in this bill constitutes a violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
   7. Allows extension of any of the time limits upon mutual agreement by the IOU and the applicant. However, an IOU cannot require as a condition of submitting the application that the applicant waive the time limits in this bill, with an exception for environmental review associated with the project.
   8. Allows IOUs to provide any amount of feedback to, or request any amount of revisions from, an applicant.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines “local agency” as any county, city, or city and county. (GOV 65913.3)
2. Defines “postentitlement phase permit” as follows:
   1. All nondiscretionary permits required by a local agency after the entitlement process to begin construction of a development that is intended to be at least two-thirds residential, excluding specified planning permits, entitlements, and other permits. These permits include, but are not limited to, all of the following:
      1. Building permits, and all inter-departmental review required for the issuance of a building permit;
      2. Permits for minor or standard off-site improvements;
      3. Permits for demolition; and
      4. Permits for minor or standard excavation and grading.
   2. Allows a local agency to identify by ordinance a threshold for determining whether a permit constitutes a “minor” or “standard” permit if supported by written findings; and
   3. Excludes a permit required and issued by the California Coastal Commission (Commission), a special district, or a utility that is not owned and operated by a local agency, or any other entity that is not a city or county. (GOV 65913.3)
3. Requires a local agency, defined to include a city or county, to compile one or more lists of information that will be required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit. (GOV 65913.3)
4. Allows the local agency to revise the lists specified in (2), however, any revised list cannot apply to any permits pending review. (GOV 65913.3)
5. Requires a local agency to also post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least five types of housing development projects in the jurisdiction, as specified. Requires the lists and example permits to be posted on the city or county’s website by January 1, 2024. (GOV 65913.3)
6. Requires a local agency to determine whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and provide written notice of this determination to the applicant within 15 business days after the local agency received the application, as follows:
   1. If the local agency determines an application is incomplete, the local agency must provide the applicant with a list of incomplete items and a description of how the application can be made complete, but the local agency can’t request new information that wasn’t on the original list of needed information;
   2. After receiving a notice that the application was incomplete, an applicant may cure and address the items that are deemed to be incomplete by the local agency. Upon receipt of a corrected application, the local agency must notify the applicant whether the additional application has remedied all incomplete items within 15 business days; and
   3. If a local agency does not meet the timelines required for determining an application complete, and the application or resubmitted application states that it is for a postentitlement phase permit. (GOV 65913.3)
7. Specifies a process for approving postentitlement permits, as follows:
   1. Requires local agencies to complete review, either return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a comprehensive request for revisions or return the approved permit application, and electronically notify the applicant of its determination within:
      1. Thirty business days of the application being complete for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer; or
      2. Sixty business days of the application being complete for housing development projects with 26 units or more.
   2. Provides that these time limits do not apply if the local agency makes written findings within the applicable time limit that the proposed postentitlement phase permit might have a specific, adverse impact, as defined, on public health or safety and that additional time is necessary to process the application;
   3. Tolls the time limits for approval if the local agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, as specified;
   4. If a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, the local agency must provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within the applicable time limit, as provided, and must allow the applicant to correct the application;
   5. Requires local agencies to establish an appeals process. If an applicant appeals, the local agency must make a final determination within:
      1. Sixty business days of the appeal for a project of 25 units or fewer; or
      2. Ninety business days of the appeal for a project of 26 units or more. (GOV 65913.3)
8. Provides that failure to meet the time limits in this bill constitutes a violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). (GOV 65913.3)
9. Allows extension of any of the time limits upon mutual agreement by the local government and the applicant. However, a local agency cannot require as a condition of submitting the application that the applicant waive the time limits in this bill, with an exception for environmental review associated with the project. (GOV 65913.3)
10. Allows a local agency to provide any amount of feedback to, or request any amount of revisions from, an applicant. (GOV 65913.3)

FISCAL EFFECT: None.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “California’s housing crisis demands action—not just in building new homes, but in removing unnecessary roadblocks that slow down production. Too often, housing developments that have already been approved face excessive delays in the utility connection process, leaving new units unoccupied and driving up costs for developers and future residents. These delays are not only frustrating, but they also contribute to California’s housing shortage by making it harder to get projects completed on time. AB 1026 addresses this issue by requiring investor-owned utility companies to adhere to clear, standardized timelines for reviewing applications, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process. By streamlining utility connections, this bill will help get housing projects across the finish line faster—meaning more Californians will get into homes sooner.”

Housing Approval Process: The process to gain approval to build new housing in California is often arduous, unpredictable, and expensive. A 2025 study found that California is the most expensive state for multifamily housing production, in part due to the long timeline it takes to go from an application to an approved project.^[1] This report found that longer production timelines are strongly associated with higher costs, and the time to bring a project to completion in California is more than 22 months longer than the average time required in Texas.^[2]

The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identifies lengthy permit processing timelines and procedures as a governmental constraint to housing development. In HCD’s San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review, the department found that procedural complexities associated with housing entitlement and permitting are “not only a barrier to entry to new development professionals pursuing [housing] projects,” but they may also cause developers to exit housing markets with complex permitting ecosystems and pursue developments in neighboring jurisdictions with less complex procedural requirements instead.^[3]

In order to build housing in California, developers must seek approval from various levels of government, as well as, often, investor owned utilities, or IOUs. The process starts at the local level, through the entitlement and permitting process. Under the California Constitution, cities and counties have broad authority, known as the police power, to regulate land use in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. Local governments enforce this authority through an entitlement process, which includes both discretionary and ministerial approvals.

Gaining “entitlement” is essentially a local government’s confirmation that a housing project complies with all applicable local zoning regulations and design standards. Once a project receives entitlement, or approval, from the local planning department, it must obtain postentitlement permits, such as building, demolition, and grading permits. Postentitlement permits are related to the physical construction of the development proposal before construction can begin. Over the years, the Legislature has passed many bills to address delays both in the local entitlement and postentitlement process. However, in 2023, the average local approval time, inclusive of the entitlement and postentitlement stage, for a single-family home in California was 10 months, while approvals for apartment projects with five or more units took an average of 23 months.^[4]

Various state departments also play a role in housing approvals. For example, the California Coastal Commission oversees development within the coastal zone and sometimes issues Coastal Development Permits (CDPs), ensuring projects comply with environmental protections and public access requirements. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) oversees the remediation of contaminated sites, ensuring that housing developments on former industrial or hazardous sites meet environmental safety standards before approval. The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) assesses development proposals that impact state highways, reviewing traffic impact analyses, access modifications, and right-of-way needs to ensure housing developments do not create congestion or safety hazards. AB 301 (Schiavo), of this session, would impose the same postentitlement timeframes on state agencies that local governments are subject to.

And lastly, IOUs play a critical role in the housing approval process, but delays in their application review and service connection timelines can significantly slow down development. Companies like Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) are responsible for ensuring new housing projects have access to electricity and natural gas. However, while recent legislation has established review timelines for cities, counties, and special districts, no clear "shot clock" exists for utility application processing, leading to unpredictability and delays. Though SB 410 (Becker), Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023 and AB 50 (Wood, 2023), Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023 addressed delays in energization timelines, they did not set standards or timelines for the application phase, leaving developers uncertain about when service requests will be approved. Establishing clear timelines for this process, as proposed by this bill, could provide much-needed predictability and help expedite housing development.

AB 2234 (R. Rivas): AB 2234 (Rivas), Chapter 651, Statutes of 2022, established clear timelines and review standards for local governments processing postentitlement phase permits, as follows:

• Deemed Complete Timeframe: Local governments must determine application completeness within 15 business days of receipt;
• Substantive Review Timeframe: Local governments must approve or deny postentitlement permits within 30-60 business days, depending on project size; and
• Revision and Appeal Process: Developers have a clear process to amend applications and appeal denials or incomplete determinations.

Furthermore, AB 2234 requires local governments to prepare lists specifying required application materials and post examples of approved permits. It also establishes strict timelines and procedures that must be followed to appeal decisions made on postentitlement permits. If a local government violates the timelines stipulated in AB 2234, it is considered a violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). HCD has enforcement authority over the HAA, among other state housing laws. HCD initiates enforcement reviews based on various sources, including stakeholder complaints. If there is suspected violation of a housing law such as the HAA, the process typically begins with discussions with the local government for HCD to better understand the issue. If further action is needed, HCD may issue a letter of inquiry, technical assistance, or corrective action, usually allowing 30 days for a response. Depending on the outcome, HCD may acknowledge compliance, issue a violation notice, or revoke housing element certification. If the issue remains unresolved, HCD may escalate the matter to the California Attorney General, who may take legal action, including potentially imposing fines or other penalties.

Developers commonly cite delays in IOUs processing utility applications as complicating factors in the housing approvals process. This bill would apply the aforementioned postentitlement provisions established in AB 2234 for local governments to IOUs. In doing so, this bill would provide homebuilders with more certainty and address a critical postentitlement delay that homebuilders face. While certain provisions in AB 2234, such as the clear application processing timelines and predictable standards requirements, translate well to the review and approval of utility service requests by IOUs, other provisions of AB 2234 may need to be refined in order to work for IOUs. For example, this bill would apply deadlines to IOUs that have already passed, require them to post five types of approved housing projects in each jurisdiction, and would establish provisions for time tolling for outside reviews which may not apply to IOUs. As such, the Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to move it to its own code section and clarify these inconsistencies with the existing provisions of AB 2234.

Committee Amendments: The Committee may wish to consider the following amendments, which would move the provisions of this bill out of GOV 65913.3 and into their own code section, and to clarify inconsistencies with the existing provisions of AB 2234 (Rivas) as they apply to reviews done by IOUs.

1. Deleting all provisions of the bill; and
2. Adding Section 65913.3.2 to GOV, as follows:

SECTION 1.   Section 65913.3.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:

65913.3.2.   (a) (1) An electrical corporation shall compile one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit. The local agency may revise the lists of information required from an applicant. Any revised list shall not apply to any permit pending review.

(2) An electrical corporation shall post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for a housing development project.

(3) An electrical corporation shall make the items required by paragraphs (1) and (2) available on it’s internet website no later than July 1, 2026.

(b) (1) (A) An electrical corporation shall determine whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and provide written notice of this determination to the applicant not later than 15 business days after the electrical corporation received the application.

(B) If the electrical corporation determines an application is incomplete, the electrical corporation shall provide the applicant with a list of incomplete items and a description of how the application can be made complete. The list shall be limited to incomplete items that are included on the lists required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a). The list and description shall be provided with the written notice required by subparagraph (A).

(2) (A) After receiving a notice that the application was incomplete, an applicant may cure and address the items that are deemed to be incomplete by the electrical corporation.

(B) In the review of an application submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A), the electrical corporation shall not require the application to include an item that was not included in the list required by subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1).

(C) If an applicant submits an application pursuant to subparagraph (A), the electrical corporation shall determine whether the additional application has remedied all incomplete items listed in the determination issued pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). This additional application is subject to the timelines and requirements specified in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1).

(3) If an electrical corporation does not make a timely determination as required by paragraph (1) or (2) and the application or resubmitted application states that it is for a postentitlement phase permit, the application or resubmitted application shall be deemed to be complete for the purposes of this chapter.

(c) (1) (A) For housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, an electrical corporation shall complete the review and do either of the following:

(i) If the electrical corporation determines that the complete application is not compliant with the permit standards, return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a comprehensive request for revisions.

(ii) If the electrical corporation determines that the complete application is compliant with the permit standards, return the approved permit application on each postentitlement phase permit requested.

(B) The electrical corporation shall immediately transmit that determination to the applicant by electronic mail and, if applicable, by posting the response on its internet website not later than 30 business days after the electrical corporation determines that an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete pursuant to subdivision (b).

(2) (A) For housing development projects with 26 units or more, an electrical corporation shall complete the review and do either of the following:

(i) If the electrical corporation determines that the complete application is not compliant with the permit standards, return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a comprehensive request for revisions.

(ii) If the electrical corporation determines that the complete application is compliant with the permit standards, return the approved permit application on each postentitlement phase permit requested.

(B) The electrical corporation shall immediately transmit that determination to the applicant by electronic mail and, if applicable, by posting the response on its internet website not later than 60 business days after the electrical corporation determines that an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete pursuant to subdivision (b).

(3) If the electrical corporation requires review of the application by an outside entity, the time limits in this subdivision shall be tolled until the outside entity completes the review and returns the application to the electrical corporation, at which point the electrical corporation shall complete the review within the time remaining under the time limit, provided that the electrical corporation notifies the applicant within three business days by electronic mail and, if applicable, by posting the notification on its internet website of the tolling and resumption of the time limit.

(d) (1) If an electrical corporation finds that a complete application is noncompliant, the electrical corporation shall provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within the time limits specified in subdivision (c).

(2) The electrical corporation shall provide the list and description authorized by paragraph (1) when it transmits its determination to the applicant as required by subdivision (c).

(3) If an electrical corporation denies a postentitlement phase permit application based on a determination that the application is noncompliant, the applicant may attempt to remedy the application.

(4) If an applicant submits an application pursuant to paragraph (3), the additional application is subject to the timelines of a new application as specified in subdivision (c).

(e) (1) If a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete under subdivision (b) or denied or determined to be noncompliant under subdivision (c) or (d), the electrical corporation shall provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision.

(2) (A) With respect to a postentitlement phase permit concerning housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, an electrical corporation on the appeal shall provide a final written determination by not later than 60 business days after receipt of the applicant’s written appeal.

(B) With respect to a postentitlement phase permit concerning housing development projects with 26 units or more, an electrical corporation on the appeal shall provide a final written determination by not later than 90 business days after receipt of the applicant’s written appeal.

(f) If an electrical corporation fails to meet the time limits in this section, it shall be in violation of Section 65589.5.

(g) This section does not place limitations on the amount of feedback that an electrical corporation may provide or revisions that an electrical corporation may request of an applicant.

(h) This section does not preclude an applicant and an electrical corporation from mutually agreeing to an extension of any time limit provided by this section. However, an electrical corporation shall not require an agreement as a condition of accepting the application for, or processing of, a postentitlement phase permit, unless the agreement is obtained for the purpose of permitting concurrent processing of related approvals or an environmental review on the same housing development project.

(i) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Electrical corporation” has the same meaning as in Section 218 of the Public Utilities Code.

(2) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 65905.5.

(3) (A) “Postentitlement phase permit” includes both of the following:

(i) All nondiscretionary permits and reviews that are required or issued by the electrical corporation after the entitlement process has been completed to begin construction of a development that is intended to be at least two-thirds residential, excluding discretionary and ministerial planning permits, entitlements, and other permits and reviews that are covered under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920). A postentitlement phase permit includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:

(I) Building permits, and all interdepartmental review required for the issuance of a building permit.

(II) Permits for minor or standard off-site improvements.

(III) Permits for demolition.

(IV) Permits for minor or standard excavation and grading.

(ii) All building permits and other permits issued under the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) or any applicable local building code for the construction, demolition, or alteration of buildings, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary.

(B) An electrical corporation may identify a threshold for determining whether a permit constitutes a “minor” or “standard” permit for the purposes of this paragraph, which shall be supported by written findings.

(C) A postentitlement phase permit does not include a permit required and issued by the California Coastal Commission, a special district, or any other entity that is not a city, county, or city and county.

Arguments in Support: According to the Housing Action Coalition, the bill sponsor, “though the average accepted wait time for utility connection following application approval is expected to vary depending on project size and other circumstances (i.e., natural disasters), developers have reported delays far exceeding an acceptable timeline – making their projects much harder to finance and delaying the speed at which units can be occupied.

AB 1026 seeks to address this issue by requiring investor-owned utility companies to comply with post-entitlement application review provisions found in the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65913.3), including preparing specified application lists and coordinating with local agencies to ensure materials needed from the utility company are clear at the time of application. This bill will bring parity to the post-entitlement permitting process, incentivize faster timelines in the energization process, and allow units to be occupied more quickly.”

Arguments in Opposition: None on file.

Related Legislation:

AB 301 (Schiavo) of this Legislative session would apply the same postentitlement timelines and provisions established in AB 2234 (Rivas) to state departments involved in the housing approvals process. This bill passed out of the Assembly floor and is pending referral in the Senate.

SB 410 (Becker), Chapter 394, Statutes of 2023, required the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to establish average and maximum target energization time periods, as defined, and a procedure for customers to report energization delays to the PUC.

AB 50 (Wood), Chapter 317, Statutes of 2023 required the PUC to determine the criteria for timely service for electric customers to be energized, including, among other things, categories of timely electric service through energization.

AB 2234 (Rivas) Chapter 651, Statutes of 2022, established the same timeframes and requirements as proposed in this bill for the review of postentitlement permits conducted by local governments.

Double-referred: This bill was also referred to the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy where it will be heard should it pass out of this Committee

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Housing Action Coalition (Sponsor)

Abundant Housing LA

California Building Industry Association (CBIA)

California YIMBY

Circulate San Diego

East Bay YIMBY

Grow the Richmond

Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco

Housing California

MidPen Housing Corporation

Mountain View YIMBY

Napa-Solano for Everyone

Northern Neighbors

Peninsula for Everyone

Santa Cruz YIMBY

Santa Rosa YIMBY

SF YIMBY

South Bay YIMBY

The Two Hundred

Ventura County YIMBY

YIMBY Action

YIMBY LA

YIMBY SLO

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Dori Ganetsos / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085

1. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3743-1.html ↑

2. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3743-1.html ↑

3. HCD San Francisco Policy & Practice Review, Page 13. Published October 2023. Accessed from: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/plans-and-reports ↑

4. Based on self-reported Annual Progress Report (APR) data provided by local governments to HCD for housing developments approved the year 2023. These timelines includes time where the applicant was responsible for responding to feedback or any corrections identified by the local government, so they are not entirely representative of the length of time that a local government spent reviewing any given development. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-element-implementation-and-apr-dashboard ↑