Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires all charges demanded or received by a public utility for a product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or a service rendered or to be rendered to be just and reasonable. Existing law, except as provided, prohibits a public utility from changing a rate unless there is a showing before the PUC and a finding by the PUC that the new rate is justified. Existing law requires the PUC to publish and maintain on its internet website particular documents regarding the PUCs agendas, actions, decisions, resolutions, rules, and other information.

This bill would prohibit the PUC from placing the consideration of a decision in a ratesetting proceeding that would result in an increase in rates to customers of an electrical corporation that has a revenue requirement that exceeds $1,000,000,000 on its consent agenda. The bill would, except as provided, require the PUC to provide, at a meeting to vote on a decision of a ratesetting proceeding that increases the rates of an electrical corporations customers by more than 5%, before its vote on the decision, a public comment period of at least 30 minutes on the decision.

Under existing law, the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program requires retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources during certain compliance periods up to December 31, 2030. Existing law provides that a local publicly owned electric utility is not required to procure a certain amount of eligible renewable energy resources if, during a year within those compliance periods, the local publicly owned electric utility receives more than 40% of its retail sales from large hydroelectric generation under an ownership agreement or contract in effect as of January 1, 2018. Existing law authorizes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) to establish appropriate multiyear compliance periods for local publicly owned electric utilities beyond December 31, 2030.

This bill would provide that the provision related to the procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by local publicly owned electric utilities also applies to the compliance periods established by the Energy Commission.

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires all charges demanded or received by a public utility for a product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or a service rendered or to be rendered to be just and reasonable. Existing law, except as provided, prohibits a public utility from changing a rate unless there is a showing before the PUC and a finding by the PUC that the new rate is justified. Existing law requires the PUC to publish and maintain on its internet website particular documents regarding the PUCs agendas, actions, decisions, resolutions, rules, and other information.

This bill would prohibit the PUC from placing the consideration of a decision in a ratesetting proceeding that would result in an increase in rates to customers of an electrical corporation ratesetting proceeding that has a revenue requirement that exceeds $1,000,000,000 on its consent calendar. agenda. The bill would, except as provided, require the PUC to provide, at a meeting to vote on a decision of a ratesetting proceeding, proceeding that increases the rates of an electrical corporations customers by more than 5%, before its vote on the ratesetting proceeding, decision, a public comment period of at least 30 minutes on the ratesetting proceeding. decision.

Under existing law, the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program requires retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources during certain compliance periods up to December 31, 2030. Existing law provides that a local publicly owned electric utility is not required to procure a certain amount of eligible renewable energy resources if, during a year within those compliance periods, the local publicly owned electric utility receives more than 40% of its retail sales from large hydroelectric generation under an ownership agreement or contract in effect as of January 1, 2018. Existing law authorizes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) to establish appropriate multiyear compliance periods for local publicly owned electric utilities beyond December 31, 2030.

This bill would provide that the provision related to the procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by local publicly owned electric utilities also applies to the compliance periods established by the Energy Commission.

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires all charges demanded or received by a public utility for a product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or a service rendered or to be rendered to be just and reasonable. Existing law, except as provided, prohibits a public utility from changing a rate unless there is a showing before the PUC and a finding by the PUC that the new rate is justified. Existing law requires the PUC to publish and maintain on its internet website particular documents regarding the PUCs agendas, actions, decisions, resolutions, rules, and other information.

This bill would prohibit the PUC from placing the consideration of an electrical corporation ratesetting proceeding on its consent calendar. The bill would, except as provided, require the PUC to provide, at a meeting to vote on a ratesetting proceeding, before its vote on the ratesetting proceeding, a public comment period for the application of not less than 30 minutes at the hearing to consider and vote on the electrical corporation ratesetting proceeding. of at least 30 minutes on the ratesetting proceeding.

Under existing law, the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program requires retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources during certain compliance periods up to December 31, 2030. Existing law provides that a local publicly owned electric utility is not required to procure a certain amount of eligible renewable energy resources if, during a year within those compliance periods, the local publicly owned electric utility receives more than 40% of its retail sales from large hydroelectric generation under an ownership agreement or contract in effect as of January 1, 2018. Existing law authorizes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) to establish appropriate multiyear compliance periods for local publicly owned electric utilities beyond December 31, 2030.

This bill would provide that the provision related to the procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by local publicly owned electric utilities also applies to the compliance periods established by the Energy Commission.

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires all charges demanded or received by a public utility for a product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or a service rendered or to be rendered to be just and reasonable. Existing law, except as provided, prohibits a public utility from changing a rate unless there is a showing before the Public Utilities Commission PUC and a finding by the commission PUC that the new rate is justified.

This bill would prohibit the commission PUC from placing the consideration of an electrical corporation general rate case ratesetting proceeding on its consent calendar. The bill would, except as provided, require the commission PUC to provide provide, before its vote on the ratesetting proceeding, a public comment period for the application of not less than 30 minutes at the hearing to consider and vote on the electrical corporation general rate case ratesetting proceeding.

Existing law requires all charges demanded or received by a public utility for a product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or a service rendered or to be rendered to be just and reasonable. Existing law, except as provided, prohibits a public utility from changing a rate unless there is a showing before the Public Utilities Commission and a finding by the commission that the new rate is justified.

This bill would prohibit the commission from placing the consideration of an application from an electrical corporation for a rate increase general rate case proceeding on its consent calendar. The bill would, except as provided, require the commission to provide a public comment period for the application of not less than 30 minutes at the hearing considering the application. to consider and vote on the electrical corporation general rate case proceeding.

Existing law requires all charges demanded or received by a public utility for a product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or a service rendered or to be rendered to be just and reasonable. Existing law, except as provided, prohibits a public utility from changing a rate unless there is a showing before the Public Utilities Commission and a finding by the commission that the new rate is justified.

This bill would prohibit the commission from placing the consideration of an application from an electrical corporation for a rate increase on its consent calendar. The bill would, except as provided, require the commission to provide a public comment period for the application of not less than 30 minutes at the hearing considering the application.

GOVERNOR′S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 1273

Author:(Patterson)

As Enrolled Ver:September 16, 2025

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Changes the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules regarding items eligible for the consent agenda and public comment periods for rate setting cases. The bill also changes the eligibility of Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) compliance for local publically owned electric utilities (POUs) who have existing large hydroelectric resources.

Senate Amendments

1. Prohibits rate increases to be placed on the consent agenda at CPUC meetings for only electrical corporations with a revenue requirement exceeding $1,000,000,000.
2. Mandate the public comment period only for increases in rates of an electrical corporation′s customers by more than 5 percent.
3. Maintains an exemption for POUs that allows the inclusion of large hydroelectric resources in meeting their RPS mandate past 2030.

Governor′s Veto Message

This bill would prohibit the CPUC from placing on its consent agenda a Decision in a rate-setting proceeding that significantly increases rates for certain electric customers. This bill also clarifies eligibility rules for electric POUs in meeting compliance periods under the RPS. The CPUC is currently bound by strict transparency, accountability, and public access requirements under the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and several statutes enshrined in the agency′s publicly developed Rules of Practice and Procedure. All these requirements provide ample opportunity for public input and comment, and provide the agency with flexibility to decide important matters before its full Commission.

While the clarification of eligibility for electric POUs under the RPS deserves attention, this bill′s requirements on the CPUC′s public decision-making processes risk delaying action on critical issues, including ones that the CPUC is often accused of not acting on judiciously and expediently.

COMMENTS

The CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure states that a case ″non-controversial, of a routine nature, and/or not requiring subsequent Commission action,″ is currently worthy of inclusion on the consent agenda. Decisions that increase costs may be considered routine at the CPUC, since they happen frequently. As a result, the CPUC puts such items on the consent agenda to expedite business, where the Commissioners do not comment and vote on all Consent Agenda items together. AB 1273 prohibits the CPUC from placing ratesetting proceedings on its consent agenda that increase rates to customers of an electrical corporation that has a revenue requirement that exceeds $1,000,000,000. By moving these proceedings off the consent agenda, Commission voting meetings would likely be longer.

The number of rate cases on the consent agenda in the last five voting meetings was limited to five rate cases (including all types of utilities). All other proceedings that increase ratepayer costs, as identified in the CPUC′s published agenda, would result in a total of 38 cases on the consent agenda. All 38 additional cases were regarding energy utilities. Most of the cases in this expanded category were intervenor compensation proceedings (the payment to consumer protection groups) and were each less than $350,000 dollars. One of the cases in this expanded category was for $36.4 million for Wildfire Mitigation Cost Recovery. If the authors focus on just rate cases for energy utilities, this would have minimal impact on the length and efficiency of hearings. Including rate cases in the regular agenda provides an opportunity for the public to hear the Commissioners orally justify their thinking about rate-increases as growing energy bills has led to frustrations and concerns about cost of living.

AB 1273 mandates a minimum of a 30-minute public comment period on ratesetting proceedings that increase rates of an electrical corporation′s customers by more than 5 percent. According to current CPUC rules the public may address the CPUC during the Public Comment Period during a CPUC Voting Meeting. The committee is not aware of a limit on total time for this portion of the agenda but every speaker is limited to 1 minute. However, because these rules are at the discretion of the CPUC, this could change at any time. This law would ensure a minimum comment period.

SB 100 (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) established the state policy that renewable and zero-carbon resources should supply 100% of retail sales and electricity procured in the state by 2045. This policy was recently updated under SB 1020 (Laird, Chapter 361, Statutes of 2022) which accelerated the requirement on state agencies to 100% by 2035, and established interim targets of 90% by 2035 and 95% by 2040 for all other entities. California has made progress in decarbonizing its energy sector, almost 58% of the state′s electricity mix arising from zero-carbon resources. Solar energy has been the dominant source of California′s renewable energy resources. This growth is largely attributed by the cheaper prices of solar photovoltaics in recent years and California′s abundant solar capacity. However, as solar generation increases in California, the mismatch between when energy is generated and when it is needed poses challenges for grid stability and operation. As a result, California′s retail electric providers often need to purchase electricity to serve both RPS and reliability compliance (capacity) obligations

According to the CEC, in 2023 total generation for California was 281,141 gigawatt-hours (GWh). Approximately 58% was due to zero-carbon generation (nuclear, hydroelectric, and renewables); while almost 12% was due solely to large hydro generation. California′s RPS program, and other energy programs predating RPS, have distinguished between smaller and larger hydroelectric facilities as those that are either at or below (small) or over (large) 30 MW – enough electricity to power nearly 30,000 households. These distinctions have reflected state policy concerning natural river habitats which discourage more damming of rivers, as well as to encourage the development of new, alternative renewable energy projects.

SB 100 (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018), and previous RPS updates (SB 350, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015), include an exemption for POUs that requires they procure renewable energy only up to the retail sales unserved by large hydroelectric generation. This applies to POUs that generate more than 40% of their electricity from existing large hydroelectric sources in a given year. The exemption applies only through the year 2030, while the RPS program itself extends indefinitely beyond 2030. This gap between the exemption timeline and expected lifetime of the RPS program affects a small group of POUs who source much of their renewable energy from large hydroelectric generation. The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is one of the POUs negatively affected by expiration of this exemption; their analysis estimates it will cost CPAU roughly $25 million from 2030 – 2045 in excess renewable energy procurement. This bill would clarify that the current exemption continues beyond the 2030 date to include future compliance periods.

According to the Author

″Currently the CPUC uses a consent calendar to consolidate multiple agenda items into one. The issue is that electricity rate increases get put on the consent calendar causing electric utility users to be prohibited from commenting on the electricity rate hikes. The consent calendar has been misused to bypass public comment on several critical issues. For instance, the CPUC′s February 20, 2025 agenda included 32 items on the consent calendar, compared to just 6 regular agenda items. These items have increasingly impacted consumers. According to KMPH, at least two rate increases were passed in 2024 using the consent calendar.″

Arguments in Support

The transparency advocacy group Media Alliance writes in support AB 1273, arguing that rate increases by electrical corporations should not be part of the CPUC′s consent agenda as these type of actions decrease the public′s trust in government oversight. The Northern California Power Agency writes in support of AB 1273 because it includes an extension of the state policy including POU large hydroelectric generation under the RPS program. They state that it ″ensures that communities that help fund the federal hydropower system can realize the benefits of their long-term investment in critical public infrastructure.″

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations the bill will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to the CPUC for the increased length of Commission agenda meetings and to otherwise implement the provisions of this bill.

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, which evaluated the bill with few material differences regarding Commission meetings, the bill will have no significant costs to the CPUC.

Since these evaluations, the bill has narrowed its impact to (1) ratesetting proceedings that would result in an increase in rates to customers of an electrical corporation that has a revenue requirement that exceeds one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) and (2) ratesetting proceedings that increases the rates of an electrical corporation′s customers by more than 5 percent.

VOTES

ASM UTILITIES AND ENERGY: 18-0-0

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

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Pellerin

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0-10

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Boerner, Carrillo, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Irwin, Celeste Rodriguez, Sanchez, Wallis

SENATE FLOOR: 37-0-3

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, 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: Archuleta, Choi, Gonzalez

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-0-7

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, 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, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bonta, Elhawary, Garcia, Jackson, Lee, McKinnor, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: September 16, 2025

CONSULTANT: Laura Shybut / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0002161

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1273

Author:(Patterson)

As Amended Ver:September 4, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Changes the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules regarding items eligible for the consent agenda and public comment periods for rate setting cases. The bill also changes the eligibility of Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) compliance for local publically owned electric utilities (POUs) who have existing large hydroelectric resources.

Senate Amendments

1. Prohibits rate increases to be placed on the consent agenda at CPUC meetings for only electrical corporations with a revenue requirement exceeding $1,000,000,000.
2. Mandate the public comment period only for increases in rates of an electrical corporation's customers by more than 5%.
3. Maintains an exemption for POUs that allows the inclusion of large hydroelectric resources in meeting their RPS mandate past 2030.

COMMENTS

The CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure states that a case "non-controversial, of a routine nature, and/or not requiring subsequent Commission action," is currently worthy of inclusion on the consent agenda. Decisions that increase costs may be considered routine at the CPUC, since they happen frequently. As a result, the CPUC puts such items on the consent agenda to expedite business, where the Commissioners do not comment and vote on all Consent Agenda items together. AB 1273 prohibits the CPUC from placing ratesetting proceedings on its consent agenda that increase rates to customers of an electrical corporation that has a revenue requirement that exceeds $1,000,000,000. By moving these proceedings off the consent agenda, Commission voting meetings would likely be longer.

The number of rate cases on the consent agenda in the last five voting meetings was limited to five rate cases (including all types of utilities). All other proceedings that increase ratepayer costs, as identified in the CPUC's published agenda, would result in a total of 38 cases on the consent agenda. All 38 additional cases were regarding energy utilities. Most of the cases in this expanded category were intervenor compensation proceedings (the payment to consumer protection groups) and were each less than $350,000 dollars. One of the cases in this expanded category was for $36.4 million for Wildfire Mitigation Cost Recovery. If the authors focus on just rate cases for energy utilities, this would have minimal impact on the length and efficiency of hearings. Including rate cases in the regular agenda provides an opportunity for the public to hear the Commissioners orally justify their thinking about rate-increases as growing energy bills has led to frustrations and concerns about cost of living.

AB 1273 mandates a minimum of a 30-minute public comment period on ratesetting proceedings that increase rates of an electrical corporation's customers by more than 5%. According to current CPUC rules the public may address the CPUC during the Public Comment Period during a CPUC Voting Meeting. The committee is not aware of a limit on total time for this portion of the agenda but every speaker is limited to one minute. However, because these rules are at the discretion of the CPUC, this could change at any time. This law would ensure a minimum comment period.

SB 100 (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) established the state policy that renewable and zero-carbon resources should supply 100% of retail sales and electricity procured in the state by 2045. This policy was recently updated under SB 1020 (Laird, Chapter 361, Statutes of 2022) which accelerated the requirement on state agencies to 100% by 2035, and established interim targets of 90% by 2035 and 95% by 2040 for all other entities. California has made progress in decarbonizing its energy sector, almost 58% of the state's electricity mix arising from zero-carbon resources. Solar energy has been the dominant source of California's renewable energy resources. This growth is largely attributed by the cheaper prices of solar photovoltaics in recent years and California's abundant solar capacity. However, as solar generation increases in California, the mismatch between when energy is generated and when it is needed poses challenges for grid stability and operation. As a result, California's retail electric providers often need to purchase electricity to serve both RPS and reliability compliance (capacity) obligations

According to the CEC, in 2023 total generation for California was 281,141 gigawatt-hours (GWh). Approximately 58% was due to zero-carbon generation (nuclear, hydroelectric, and renewables); while almost 12% was due solely to large hydro generation. California's RPS program, and other energy programs predating RPS, have distinguished between smaller and larger hydroelectric facilities as those that are either at or below (small) or over (large) 30 MW – enough electricity to power nearly 30,000 households. These distinctions have reflected state policy concerning natural river habitats which discourage more damming of rivers, as well as to encourage the development of new, alternative renewable energy projects.

SB 100 (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018), and previous RPS updates (SB 350, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015), include an exemption for POUs that requires they procure renewable energy only up to the retail sales unserved by large hydroelectric generation. This applies to POUs that generate more than 40% of their electricity from existing large hydroelectric sources in a given year. The exemption applies only through the year 2030, while the RPS program itself extends indefinitely beyond 2030. This gap between the exemption timeline and expected lifetime of the RPS program affects a small group of POUs who source much of their renewable energy from large hydroelectric generation. The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is one of the POUs negatively affected by expiration of this exemption; their analysis estimates it will cost CPAU roughly $25 million from 2030 – 2045 in excess renewable energy procurement. This bill would clarify that the current exemption continues beyond the 2030 date to include future compliance periods.

According to the Author

"Currently the CPUC uses a consent calendar to consolidate multiple agenda items into one. The issue is that electricity rate increases get put on the consent calendar causing electric utility users to be prohibited from commenting on the electricity rate hikes. The consent calendar has been misused to bypass public comment on several critical issues. For instance, the CPUC's February 20, 2025 agenda included 32 items on the consent calendar, compared to just six regular agenda items. These items have increasingly impacted consumers. According to KMPH, at least two rate increases were passed in 2024 using the consent calendar."

Arguments in Support

The transparency advocacy group Media Alliance writes in support AB 1273, arguing that rate increases by electrical corporations should not be part of the CPUC's consent agenda as these type of actions decrease the public's trust in government oversight. The Northern California Power Agency writes in support of AB 1273 because it includes an extension of the state policy including POU large hydroelectric generation under the RPS program. They state that it "ensures that communities that help fund the federal hydropower system can realize the benefits of their long-term investment in critical public infrastructure."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations the bill will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to the CPUC for the increased length of Commission agenda meetings and to otherwise implement the provisions of this bill.

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, which evaluated the bill with few material differences regarding Commission meetings, the bill will have no significant costs to the CPUC.

Since these evaluations, the bill has narrowed its impact to (1) ratesetting proceedings that would result in an increase in rates to customers of an electrical corporation that has a revenue requirement that exceeds one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) and (2) ratesetting proceedings that increases the rates of an electrical corporation's customers by more than 5%.

VOTES:

ASM UTILITIES AND ENERGY: 18-0-0

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

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Pellerin

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0-10

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Boerner, Carrillo, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Irwin, Celeste Rodriguez, Sanchez, Wallis

UPDATED

VERSION: September 4, 2025

CONSULTANT: Kristen Koenig / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0001967

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1273

Author: Patterson (R)

Amended: 9/4/25 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 15-0, 7/15/25

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Archuleta, Ashby

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/29/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 5/8/25 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Public utilities: ratesetting proceedings: local publicly owned electric utilities: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill includes two unrelated provisions: (1) makes changes to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules regarding the treatment of rate-setting proceeding decisions at CPUC voting meetings; and (2) clarifies eligibility related to compliance with future compliance periods of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for local publicly owned electric utilities (POUs) who have existing procurement of large hydroelectric resources.

Senate Floor Amendments of 9/4/25 to address administration requests to narrow the provisions of this bill related to items that can be placed on consent on the agenda of CPUC voting meetings and additional clarifying language.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes and vests the CPUC with regulatory authority over public utilities. (Article XII of the California Constitution)
2. Requires all charges demanded or received by a public utility for a product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or a service rendered or to be rendered to be just and reasonable. (Public Utilities Code §451)
3. Prohibits, except as provided, a public utility from changing a rate unless there is a showing before the CPUC and a finding by the CPUC that the new rate is justified. (Public Utilities Code §454)
4. Mandates that items on the CPUC public agenda will be made subject to public review and comment before the commissioners can vote on the matter. Mandates the CPUC to adopt rules that provide for the time and manner of public review and comment. (Public Utilities Code §311(e))
5. Requires that before voting on a case, the CPUC must provide the decision to the parties involved and must be subject to at least 30 days public review and comment. (Public Utilities Code §311(g))
6. Requires the CPUC to inform the Legislature whenever it reduces or waives the time for public review or comment. (Public Utilities Code §311(i))
7. Requires the CPUC to publish and maintain on its internet website particular documents regarding the agency’s agendas, actions, decisions, resolutions, rules, and other information. (Public Utilities Code §311.5)
8. Establishes the office of the public advisor at the CPUC, which helps members of the public and ratepayers communicate with the CPUC during any hearing or proceeding, including opportunities to comment on proceedings. (Public Utilities Code §321)
9. Grants the CPUC authority to adopt rules of practice and procedure to be applied during CPUC hearings and proceedings. (Public Utilities Code §1701)
10. Requires the CPUC, where feasible and appropriate, to seek the participation of those who are likely to be affected by a proceeding prior to determining the proceeding’s scope. Sunset this requirement on January 1, 2020. (Public Utilities Code §1711)
11. Defines a “renewable electrical generation facility” as one that, among other requirements, uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation of 30 megawatts (MW) or less, digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current, and any additions or enhancements to the facility using that technology. (Public Resources Code §25741)
12. Requires, the California RPS Program, retail sellers and local POUs to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources during certain compliance periods up to December 31, 2030. (Public Utilities Code §§399.15 and 399.30(a)(b)(c))
13. Defines eligible renewable energy resources include small hydroelectric generation facilities of 30 MW or less, conduit hydroelectric facilities, and the incremental increase in electrical generation resulting from efficiency improvements of existing small hydroelectric facilities. (Public Utilities Code §§399.12, 399.12.5)
14. Provides that a local POU is not required to procure a certain amount of eligible renewable energy resources if, during a year within those compliance periods, the local POU receives more than 40% of its retail sales from large hydroelectric generation under an ownership agreement or contract in effect as of January 1, 2018. (Public Utilities Code §399.30(k)(2))
15. Authorizes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (California Energy Commission (CEC)) to establish appropriate multiyear compliance periods for local POUs beyond December 31, 2030. (Public Utilities Code §399.30(c)(2))

This bill:

1. Relevant to rules regarding the treatment of ratesetting proceedings:
   1. Prohibits the CPUC from placing the consideration of an electrical corporation ratesetting proceeding decisions on its consent calendar when the decision would result in a more than 5% rate increase for customers of electrical corporations with revenue requirements that exceed $1 billion.
   2. Requires, except as provided, the CPUC to provide, at a meeting to vote on the above ratesetting proceeding decision, a public comment period for at least 30 minutes before a vote by the commissioners.
2. Relevant to the RPS: Provides that the provision related to the procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by POUs also applies to the compliance periods established by the CEC beyond 2030.

Background

CPUC monthly voting meetings. The CPUC meets monthly (often twice a month) to take up items that require a vote of the commissioners. These meetings are held throughout the state, with the majority held in San Francisco. The agendas for the meetings encompass four parts: the Public Comment Period, the Consent Agenda, the Regular Agenda, and the Closed Session Agenda. At the beginning of the meeting, the CPUC takes up public comment where members of the public can speak about items on the agenda (with some exceptions) and public members often use this time to raise issues that are not on the agenda but may become part of a future meeting agenda. Generally, the public is limited to one minute of comments. The CPUC accepts participation from members who joined in person and members who call in.

Consent Agenda. The CPUC’s meeting agenda notes items on the “Consent Agenda” which are items can be taken up for a vote as a group. However, at the beginning of the meeting, usually the President (or the presiding commissioner), will announce if items are being removed from the Consent list to the Regular meeting agenda (generally at the request of a commissioner) or being held over for a future meeting. Members of the public are allowed to speak to the items on the Consent agenda. Items on the Regular Agenda are individually presented, discussed, allowed public comment, and voted on by the commissioners.

Relevant to the Renewable Portfolio Standard. The CEC administers the state’s landmark RPS, ensures the state’s utilities disclose electricity sources to consumers, supports renewable energy development, and tracks the state’s progress toward its renewable energy goals. Enacted by SB 1078 (Sher, Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) and accelerated and expanded by subsequent legislation, California’s RPS establishes increasing renewable energy procurement targets spanning multiyear compliance periods for the state’s electric load-serving entities (LSE). Originally applicable to retail sellers, the statewide mandatory RPS was expanded by SBX1-2 (Simitian, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2011, First Extraordinary Session) to include local POUs. As a result of SB 100 (DeLeón, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018), LSEs are required to increase their procurement of eligible renewable energy resources to 60% of retail sales by 2030. As part of its responsibilities, the CEC verifies the eligibility of renewable energy procured by retail sellers and POUs that are obligated to participate in California’s RPS. The CEC is also responsible for certifying RPS-eligible renewable energy resources, designing and implementing an accounting system to track and report renewable energy procurement for all program participants, and overseeing compliance and enforcement of POUs. The CEC participated in the development of the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS), an independently administered renewable energy tracking system to verify renewable energy procurement for all program participants. The CPUC is responsible for compliance and enforcement for retail sellers.

RPS and large hydroelectric generation. California’s RPS program, and other energy programs predating RPS, have distinguished between smaller hydroelectric facilities and larger facilities, those that are over 30 MW. These distinctions have largely reflected the state policy to discourage more damming of rivers out of concern for the natural habitats rivers provide and the state’s desire to encourage development of new renewable energy projects (including, but not limited to, solar and wind). The passage of SB 100 (De León, 2018) accelerated the RPS requirements by requiring all LSEs to meet a 60% RPS requirement by 2030 and requiring a planning goal of 100% zero-carbon resources by 2045.

Comments

Need for this bill. The author states:

Currently the CPUC uses a consent calendar to consolidate multiple agenda items into one. The issue is that electricity rate increases get put on the consent calendar causing electric utility users to be prohibited from commenting on the electricity rate hikes. The consent calendar has been misused to bypass public comment on several critical issues. For instance, the CPUC’s February 20, 2025 agenda included 32 items on the consent calendar, compared to just 6 regular agenda items. These items have increasingly impacted consumers. According to KMPH, at least two rate increases were passed in 2024 using the consent calendar.

Desire to have CPUC commissoners hear public comment and vote on individual ratesetting cases. Consent agenda items are generally bundled as a group because all commissioners are voting in support and taking them up together can help speed up a voting meeting. Members of the public are allowed to speak to the items on the Consent agenda, but they do not have the benefit of having the item be presented and discussed by commissioners individually as the case is for Regular agenda items. Given that the bulk of the proceedings the CPUC commissioners votes on at the voting meetings concern rate-setting proceedings it happens that some of these cases have been placed as consent items on the agenda. The author opposed this practice, particularly for recent ratesetting cases that resulted in rate increases for customers of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). This bill would require the rate-cases for PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison, would be prohibited from being included as consent items in future voting meetings if the decisions would result in rate increase that are more than 5% and would require the CPUC to allot at least 30 minutes for these ratesetting case decisions, if the number of public commenters merits the need for 30 minutes.

RPS and POUs. SB 100 (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018), and previous RPS updates (SB 350, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015), included an exemption for POUs that requires they procure renewable energy only up to the retail sales unserved by large hydroelectric generation. This applies to POUs that generate more than 40% of their electricity from existing large hydroelectric sources in a given year. The goal of this exemption is to prevent unnecessary over-procurement of renewable energy, while recognizing that hydroelectric generation is a flexible and zero carbon resource that complements intermittent renewables. The exemption applies only through the year 2030, while the RPS program itself extends indefinitely beyond 2030. This gap between the exemption timeline and expected lifetime of the RPS program affects a very small group of POUs who source much of their renewable energy from large hydroelectric generation. However, for these utilities the dollar impacts of aligning the large hydroelectric exemption with the duration of the RPS program are substantial.

The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is one of the POUs negatively affected by expiration of this exemption; their analysis estimates it will cost CPAU roughly $25 million from 2030 – 2045 in excess renewable energy procurement. The additional purchase of unneeded renewable energy will also increase electric rates for other utilities, particularly as the current energy market is very tight and has been characterized as a seller’s market. From CPAU’s perspective, this is an unacceptable prospect considering the affordability issues that California utility ratepayers face. Based on current resource portfolios, other potentially affected POUs include Biggs, Gridley, Healdsburg, and Silicon Valley. This bill would clarify that the current exemption continues beyond the 2030 date to include future compliance periods.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 705 (Boerner) of 2025, would have established the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations at the CPUC, which would be led by the Inspector General. The new office would be responsible for assessing accounting practices, or any fraud or malfeasance among other responsibilities. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 13 (Ransom) of 2025, establishes additional legislative oversight and proposes reform of the CPUC, to include, among other mandates, specific requirements for CPUC commissioner appointees and additional CPUC reporting requirements to the Legislature. The bill is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 386 (Caballero) of 2020, would have limited the RPS obligations for Turlock and Modesto Districts to the electricity demands that are unsatisfied by the Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project, and in exchange requires the districts to procure energy storage, as specified. The bill was held in the Senate, Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee.

SB 100 (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) established the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2017 which increased the RPS requirement from 50% by 2030 to 60%, and creates the policy of planning to meet all of the state's retail electricity supply with a mix of RPS-eligible and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045, for a total of 100% clean energy.

SB 350 (De León, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) established the goal of receiving 50 of California’s electricity from eligible renewable energy resources.

SB 591 (Cannella, Chapter 520, Statutes of 2013) limited the Merced Irrigation District’s RPS obligation to the electricity demands that are unsatisfied by the New Exchequer Dam.

SBX1 2 (Simitian, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2011-12 First Extraordinary Session) required retail sellers of electricity and POUs to procure at least 33% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: the CPUC estimates ongoing costs of about $700,000 annually (ratepayer funds) for three positions to support the increased length of Commission agenda meetings and to otherwise implement the provisions of this bill.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/3/25)

Media Alliance

Northern California Power Agency

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/3/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Media Alliance states:

A fundamental public policy precept is the people most impacted by any action of a legislative or regulatory body need to have input into the policy. A consent calendar process robs both the taxpaying public of the opportunity to explain how the action will affect them and it robs regulators of necessary input prior to their vote. Obviously, no one likes rate increases and even if they are necessary, it can be a hard pill to swallow, but it is important that regulators and legislators of all kinds face the public, explain their rationale for the action they are taking and hear about how that affects the people. Using the consent process, which is intended for administrative efficiency, to short circuit that responsive process is undemocratic and angers the public. Moreover, it makes it extremely difficult for the public to understand why rates are going up, what the rate increase is going to be used for and what problems the regulatory agency is trying to address by agreeing to another rate increase.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 5/8/25

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Boerner, Carrillo, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Irwin, Celeste Rodriguez, Sanchez, Wallis

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

9/9/25 17:24:55

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1273

Author: Patterson (R)

Amended: 7/22/25 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 15-0, 7/15/25

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Archuleta, Ashby

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 5/8/25 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Public utilities: ratesetting proceedings: local publicly owned electric utilities: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill includes two unrelated provisions: (1) makes changes to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules regarding the treatment of rate-setting proceedings at CPUC hearings; and (2) clarifies eligibility related to compliance with future compliance periods of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for local publicly owned electric utilities (POUs) who have existing procurement of large hydroelectric resources.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes and vests the CPUC with regulatory authority over public utilities. (Article XII of the California Constitution)
2. Requires all charges demanded or received by a public utility for a product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or a service rendered or to be rendered to be just and reasonable. (Public Utilities Code §451)
3. Prohibits, except as provided, a public utility from changing a rate unless there is a showing before the CPUC and a finding by the CPUC that the new rate is justified. (Public Utilities Code §454)
4. Mandates that items on the CPUC public agenda will be made subject to public review and comment before the commissioners can vote on the matter. Mandates the CPUC to adopt rules that provide for the time and manner of public review and comment. (Public Utilities Code §311(e))
5. Requires that before voting on a case, the CPUC must provide the decision to the parties involved and must be subject to at least 30 days public review and comment. (Public Utilities Code §311(g))
6. Requires the CPUC to inform the Legislature whenever it reduces or waives the time for public review or comment. (Public Utilities Code §311(i))
7. Requires the CPUC to publish and maintain on its internet website particular documents regarding the agency’s agendas, actions, decisions, resolutions, rules, and other information. (Public Utilities Code §311.5)
8. Establishes the office of the public advisor at the CPUC, which helps members of the public and ratepayers communicate with the CPUC during any hearing or proceeding, including opportunities to comment on proceedings. (Public Utilities Code §321)
9. Grants the CPUC authority to adopt rules of practice and procedure to be applied during CPUC hearings and proceedings. (Public Utilities Code §1701)
10. Requires the CPUC, where feasible and appropriate, to seek the participation of those who are likely to be affected by a proceeding prior to determining the proceeding’s scope. Sunset this requirement on January 1, 2020. (Public Utilities Code §1711)
11. Defines a “renewable electrical generation facility” as one that, among other requirements, uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation of 30 megawatts (MW) or less, digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current, and any additions or enhancements to the facility using that technology. (Public Resources Code §25741)
12. Requires, the California RPS Program, retail sellers and local POUs to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources during certain compliance periods up to December 31, 2030. (Public Utilities Code §§399.15 and 399.30(a)(b)(c))
13. Defines eligible renewable energy resources include small hydroelectric generation facilities of 30 MW or less, conduit hydroelectric facilities, and the incremental increase in electrical generation resulting from efficiency improvements of existing small hydroelectric facilities. (Public Utilities Code §§399.12, 399.12.5)
14. Provides that a local POU is not required to procure a certain amount of eligible renewable energy resources if, during a year within those compliance periods, the local POU receives more than 40% of its retail sales from large hydroelectric generation under an ownership agreement or contract in effect as of January 1, 2018. (Public Utilities Code §399.30(k)(2))
15. Authorizes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (California Energy Commission (CEC)) to establish appropriate multiyear compliance periods for local POUs beyond December 31, 2030. (Public Utilities Code §399.30(c)(2))

This bill:

1. Relevant to rules regarding the treatment of ratesetting proceedings:
   1. Prohibits the CPUC from placing the consideration of an electrical corporation ratesetting proceeding on its consent calendar.
   2. Requires, except as provided, the CPUC to provide, at a meeting to vote on a ratesetting proceeding, before its vote on the ratesetting proceeding, a public comment period for the application of at least 30 minutes on the ratesetting proceeding.
2. Relevant to the RPS: Provides that the provision related to the procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by POUs also applies to the compliance periods established by the CEC beyond 2030.

Background

CPUC monthly voting meetings. The CPUC meets monthly (often twice a month) to take up items that require a vote of the commissioners. These meetings are held throughout the state, with the majority held in San Francisco. The agendas for the meetings encompass four parts: the Public Comment Period, the Consent Agenda, the Regular Agenda, and the Closed Session Agenda. At the beginning of the meeting, the CPUC takes up public comment where members of the public can speak about items on the agenda (with some exceptions) and public members often use this time to raise issues that are not on the agenda but may become part of a future meeting agenda. Generally, the public is limited to one minute of comments. The CPUC accepts participation from members who joined in person and members who call in.

Consent Agenda. The CPUC’s meeting agenda notes items on the “Consent Agenda” which are items can be taken up for a vote as a group. However, at the beginning of the meeting, usually the President (or the presiding commissioner), will announce if items are being removed from the Consent list to the Regular meeting agenda (generally at the request of a commissioner) or being held over for a future meeting. Members of the public are allowed to speak to the items on the Consent agenda. Items on the Regular Agenda are individually presented, discussed, allowed public comment, and voted on by the commissioners.

Relevant to the Renewable Portfolio Standard. The CEC administers the state’s landmark RPS, ensures the state’s utilities disclose electricity sources to consumers, supports renewable energy development, and tracks the state’s progress toward its renewable energy goals. Enacted by SB 1078 (Sher, Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) and accelerated and expanded by subsequent legislation, California’s RPS establishes increasing renewable energy procurement targets spanning multiyear compliance periods for the state’s electric load-serving entities (LSE). Originally applicable to retail sellers, the statewide mandatory RPS was expanded by SBX1-2 (Simitian, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2011, First Extraordinary Session) to include local POUs. As a result of SB 100 (DeLeón, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018), LSEs are required to increase their procurement of eligible renewable energy resources to 60% of retail sales by 2030. As part of its responsibilities, the CEC verifies the eligibility of renewable energy procured by retail sellers and POUs that are obligated to participate in California’s RPS. The CEC is also responsible for certifying RPS-eligible renewable energy resources, designing and implementing an accounting system to track and report renewable energy procurement for all program participants, and overseeing compliance and enforcement of POUs. The CEC participated in the development of the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS), an independently administered renewable energy tracking system to verify renewable energy procurement for all program participants. The CPUC is responsible for compliance and enforcement for retail sellers.

RPS and large hydroelectric generation. California’s RPS program, and other energy programs predating RPS, have distinguished between smaller hydroelectric facilities and larger facilities, those that are over 30 MW. These distinctions have largely reflected the state policy to discourage more damming of rivers out of concern for the natural habitats rivers provide and the state’s desire to encourage development of new renewable energy projects (including, but not limited to, solar and wind). The passage of SB 100 (De León, 2018) accelerated the RPS requirements by requiring all LSEs to meet a 60% RPS requirement by 2030 and requiring a planning goal of 100% zero-carbon resources by 2045.

Comments

Need for this bill. The author states:

Currently the CPUC uses a consent calendar to consolidate multiple agenda items into one. The issue is that electricity rate increases get put on the consent calendar causing electric utility users to be prohibited from commenting on the electricity rate hikes. The consent calendar has been misused to bypass public comment on several critical issues. For instance, the CPUC’s February 20, 2025 agenda included 32 items on the consent calendar, compared to just 6 regular agenda items. These items have increasingly impacted consumers. According to KMPH, at least two rate increases were passed in 2024 using the consent calendar.

Desire to have CPUC commissoners hear public comment and vote on individual ratesetting cases. Consent agenda items are generally bundled as a group because all commissioners are voting in support and taking them up together can help speed up a voting meeting. Members of the public are allowed to speak to the items on the Consent agenda, but they do not have the benefit of having the item be presented and discussed by commissioners individually as the case is for Regular agenda items. Given that the bulk of the proceedings the CPUC commissioners votes on at the voting meetings concern rate-setting proceedings it happens that some of these cases have been placed as consent items on the agenda. The author opposed this practice, particularly for recent ratesetting cases that resulted in rate increases for customers of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). This bill would require the rate-cases for PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison, would be prohibited from being included as consent items in future voting meetings and would require the CPUC to allot at least 30 minutes for these ratesetting cases, if the number of public commenters merits the need for 30 minutes.

RPS and POUs. SB 100 (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018), and previous RPS updates (SB 350, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015), include an exemption for POUs that requires they procure renewable energy only up to the retail sales unserved by large hydroelectric generation. This applies to POUs that generate more than 40% of their electricity from existing large hydroelectric sources in a given year. The goal of this exemption is to prevent unnecessary over-procurement of renewable energy, while recognizing that hydroelectric generation is a flexible and zero carbon resource that complements intermittent renewables. The exemption applies only through the year 2030, while the RPS program itself extends indefinitely beyond 2030. This gap between the exemption timeline and expected lifetime of the RPS program affects a very small group of POUs who source much of their renewable energy from large hydroelectric generation. However, for these utilities the dollar impacts of aligning the large hydroelectric exemption with the duration of the RPS program are substantial.

The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is one of the POUs negatively affected by expiration of this exemption; their analysis estimates it will cost CPAU roughly $25 million from 2030 – 2045 in excess renewable energy procurement. The additional purchase of unneeded renewable energy will also increase electric rates for other utilities, particularly as the current energy market is very tight and has been characterized as a seller’s market. From CPAU’s perspective, this is an unacceptable prospect considering the affordability issues that California utility ratepayers face. Based on current resource portfolios, other potentially affected POUs include Biggs, Gridley, Healdsburg, and Silicon Valley. This bill would clarify that the current exemption continues beyond the 2030 date to include future compliance periods.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 705 (Boerner) of 2025, would have established the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations at the CPUC, which would be led by the Inspector General. The new office would be responsible for assessing accounting practices, or any fraud or malfeasance among other responsibilities. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 13 (Ransom) of 2025, establishes additional legislative oversight and proposes reform of the CPUC, to include, among other mandates, specific requirements for CPUC commissioner appointees and additional CPUC reporting requirements to the Legislature. The bill is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 386 (Caballero) of 2020, would have limited the RPS obligations for Turlock and Modesto Districts to the electricity demands that are unsatisfied by the Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project, and in exchange requires the districts to procure energy storage, as specified. The bill was held in the Senate, Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee.

SB 100 (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) established the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2017 which increased the RPS requirement from 50% by 2030 to 60%, and creates the policy of planning to meet all of the state's retail electricity supply with a mix of RPS-eligible and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045, for a total of 100% clean energy.

SB 350 (De León, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) established the goal of receiving 50 of California’s electricity from eligible renewable energy resources.

SB 591 (Cannella, Chapter 520, Statutes of 2013) limited the Merced Irrigation District’s RPS obligation to the electricity demands that are unsatisfied by the New Exchequer Dam.

SBX1 2 (Simitian, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2011-12 First Extraordinary Session) required retail sellers of electricity and POUs to procure at least 33% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020.

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

• According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: the CPUC estimates ongoing costs of about $700,000 annually (ratepayer funds) for three positions to support the increased length of Commission agenda meetings and to otherwise implement the provisions of this bill.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/2/25)

Media Alliance

Northern California Power Agency

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/2/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Media Alliance states:

A fundamental public policy precept is the people most impacted by any action of a legislative or regulatory body need to have input into the policy. A consent calendar process robs both the taxpaying public of the opportunity to explain how the action will affect them and it robs regulators of necessary input prior to their vote. Obviously, no one likes rate increases and even if they are necessary, it can be a hard pill to swallow, but it is important that regulators and legislators of all kinds face the public, explain their rationale for the action they are taking and hear about how that affects the people. Using the consent process, which is intended for administrative efficiency, to short circuit that responsive process is undemocratic and angers the public. Moreover, it makes it extremely difficult for the public to understand why rates are going up, what the rate increase is going to be used for and what problems the regulatory agency is trying to address by agreeing to another rate increase.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 5/8/25

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Boerner, Carrillo, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Irwin, Celeste Rodriguez, Sanchez, Wallis

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

9/2/25 11:33:00

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1273

Author: Patterson (R)

Amended: 7/22/25 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 15-0, 7/15/25

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Archuleta, Ashby

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 5/8/25 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Public utilities: ratesetting proceedings: local publicly owned electric utilities: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill includes two unrelated provisions: (1) makes changes to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules regarding the treatment of rate-setting proceedings at CPUC hearings; and (2) clarifies eligibility related to compliance with future compliance periods of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for local publicly owned electric utilities (POUs) who have existing procurement of large hydroelectric resources.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes and vests the CPUC with regulatory authority over public utilities. (Article XII of the California Constitution)
2. Requires all charges demanded or received by a public utility for a product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or a service rendered or to be rendered to be just and reasonable. (Public Utilities Code §451)
3. Prohibits, except as provided, a public utility from changing a rate unless there is a showing before the CPUC and a finding by the CPUC that the new rate is justified. (Public Utilities Code §454)
4. Mandates that items on the CPUC public agenda will be made subject to public review and comment before the commissioners can vote on the matter. Mandates the CPUC to adopt rules that provide for the time and manner of public review and comment. (Public Utilities Code §311(e))
5. Requires that before voting on a case, the CPUC must provide the decision to the parties involved and must be subject to at least 30 days public review and comment. (Public Utilities Code §311(g))
6. Requires the CPUC to inform the Legislature whenever it reduces or waives the time for public review or comment. (Public Utilities Code §311(i))
7. Requires the CPUC to publish and maintain on its internet website particular documents regarding the agency’s agendas, actions, decisions, resolutions, rules, and other information. (Public Utilities Code §311.5)
8. Establishes the office of the public advisor at the CPUC, which helps members of the public and ratepayers communicate with the CPUC during any hearing or proceeding, including opportunities to comment on proceedings. (Public Utilities Code §321)
9. Grants the CPUC authority to adopt rules of practice and procedure to be applied during CPUC hearings and proceedings. (Public Utilities Code §1701)
10. Requires the CPUC, where feasible and appropriate, to seek the participation of those who are likely to be affected by a proceeding prior to determining the proceeding’s scope. Sunset this requirement on January 1, 2020. (Public Utilities Code §1711)
11. Defines a “renewable electrical generation facility” as one that, among other requirements, uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation of 30 megawatts (MW) or less, digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current, and any additions or enhancements to the facility using that technology. (Public Resources Code §25741)
12. Requires, the California RPS Program, retail sellers and local POUs to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources during certain compliance periods up to December 31, 2030. (Public Utilities Code §§399.15 and 399.30(a)(b)(c))
13. Defines eligible renewable energy resources include small hydroelectric generation facilities of 30 MW or less, conduit hydroelectric facilities, and the incremental increase in electrical generation resulting from efficiency improvements of existing small hydroelectric facilities. (Public Utilities Code §§399.12, 399.12.5)
14. Provides that a local POU is not required to procure a certain amount of eligible renewable energy resources if, during a year within those compliance periods, the local POU receives more than 40% of its retail sales from large hydroelectric generation under an ownership agreement or contract in effect as of January 1, 2018. (Public Utilities Code §399.30(k)(2))
15. Authorizes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (California Energy Commission (CEC)) to establish appropriate multiyear compliance periods for local POUs beyond December 31, 2030. (Public Utilities Code §399.30(c)(2))

This bill:

1. Relevant to rules regarding the treatment of ratesetting proceedings:
   1. Prohibits the CPUC from placing the consideration of an electrical corporation ratesetting proceeding on its consent calendar.
   2. Requires, except as provided, the CPUC to provide, at a meeting to vote on a ratesetting proceeding, before its vote on the ratesetting proceeding, a public comment period for the application of at least 30 minutes on the ratesetting proceeding.
2. Relevant to the RPS: Provides that the provision related to the procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by POUs also applies to the compliance periods established by the CEC beyond 2030.

Background

CPUC monthly voting meetings. The CPUC meets monthly (often twice a month) to take up items that require a vote of the commissioners. These meetings are held throughout the state, with the majority held in San Francisco. The agendas for the meetings encompass four parts: the Public Comment Period, the Consent Agenda, the Regular Agenda, and the Closed Session Agenda. At the beginning of the meeting, the CPUC takes up public comment where members of the public can speak about items on the agenda (with some exceptions) and public members often use this time to raise issues that are not on the agenda but may become part of a future meeting agenda. Generally, the public is limited to one minute of comments. The CPUC accepts participation from members who joined in person and members who call in.

Consent Agenda. The CPUC’s meeting agenda notes items on the “Consent Agenda” which are items can be taken up for a vote as a group. However, at the beginning of the meeting, usually the President (or the presiding commissioner), will announce if items are being removed from the Consent list to the Regular meeting agenda (generally at the request of a commissioner) or being held over for a future meeting. Members of the public are allowed to speak to the items on the Consent agenda. Items on the Regular Agenda are individually presented, discussed, allowed public comment, and voted on by the commissioners.

Relevant to the Renewable Portfolio Standard. The CEC administers the state’s landmark RPS, ensures the state’s utilities disclose electricity sources to consumers, supports renewable energy development, and tracks the state’s progress toward its renewable energy goals. Enacted by SB 1078 (Sher, Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) and accelerated and expanded by subsequent legislation, California’s RPS establishes increasing renewable energy procurement targets spanning multiyear compliance periods for the state’s electric load-serving entities (LSE). Originally applicable to retail sellers, the statewide mandatory RPS was expanded by SBX1-2 (Simitian, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2011, First Extraordinary Session) to include local POUs. As a result of SB 100 (DeLeón, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018), LSEs are required to increase their procurement of eligible renewable energy resources to 60% of retail sales by 2030. As part of its responsibilities, the CEC verifies the eligibility of renewable energy procured by retail sellers and POUs that are obligated to participate in California’s RPS. The CEC is also responsible for certifying RPS-eligible renewable energy resources, designing and implementing an accounting system to track and report renewable energy procurement for all program participants, and overseeing compliance and enforcement of POUs. The CEC participated in the development of the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS), an independently administered renewable energy tracking system to verify renewable energy procurement for all program participants. The CPUC is responsible for compliance and enforcement for retail sellers.

RPS and large hydroelectric generation. California’s RPS program, and other energy programs predating RPS, have distinguished between smaller hydroelectric facilities and larger facilities, those that are over 30 MW. These distinctions have largely reflected the state policy to discourage more damming of rivers out of concern for the natural habitats rivers provide and the state’s desire to encourage development of new renewable energy projects (including, but not limited to, solar and wind). The passage of SB 100 (De León, 2018) accelerated the RPS requirements by requiring all LSEs to meet a 60% RPS requirement by 2030 and requiring a planning goal of 100% zero-carbon resources by 2045.

Comments

Need for this bill. The author states:

Currently the CPUC uses a consent calendar to consolidate multiple agenda items into one. The issue is that electricity rate increases get put on the consent calendar causing electric utility users to be prohibited from commenting on the electricity rate hikes. The consent calendar has been misused to bypass public comment on several critical issues. For instance, the CPUC’s February 20, 2025 agenda included 32 items on the consent calendar, compared to just 6 regular agenda items. These items have increasingly impacted consumers. According to KMPH, at least two rate increases were passed in 2024 using the consent calendar.

Desire to have CPUC commissoners hear public comment and vote on individual ratesetting cases. Consent agenda items are generally bundled as a group because all commissioners are voting in support and taking them up together can help speed up a voting meeting. Members of the public are allowed to speak to the items on the Consent agenda, but they do not have the benefit of having the item be presented and discussed by commissioners individually as the case is for Regular agenda items. Given that the bulk of the proceedings the CPUC commissioners votes on at the voting meetings concern rate-setting proceedings it happens that some of these cases have been placed as consent items on the agenda. The author opposed this practice, particularly for recent ratesetting cases that resulted in rate increases for customers of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). This bill would require the rate-cases for PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison, would be prohibited from being included as consent items in future voting meetings and would require the CPUC to allot at least 30 minutes for these ratesetting cases, if the number of public commenters merits the need for 30 minutes.

RPS and POUs. SB 100 (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018), and previous RPS updates (SB 350, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015), include an exemption for POUs that requires they procure renewable energy only up to the retail sales unserved by large hydroelectric generation. This applies to POUs that generate more than 40% of their electricity from existing large hydroelectric sources in a given year. The goal of this exemption is to prevent unnecessary over-procurement of renewable energy, while recognizing that hydroelectric generation is a flexible and zero carbon resource that complements intermittent renewables. The exemption applies only through the year 2030, while the RPS program itself extends indefinitely beyond 2030. This gap between the exemption timeline and expected lifetime of the RPS program affects a very small group of POUs who source much of their renewable energy from large hydroelectric generation. However, for these utilities the dollar impacts of aligning the large hydroelectric exemption with the duration of the RPS program are substantial.

The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is one of the POUs negatively affected by expiration of this exemption; their analysis estimates it will cost CPAU roughly $25 million from 2030 – 2045 in excess renewable energy procurement. The additional purchase of unneeded renewable energy will also increase electric rates for other utilities, particularly as the current energy market is very tight and has been characterized as a seller’s market. From CPAU’s perspective, this is an unacceptable prospect considering the affordability issues that California utility ratepayers face. Based on current resource portfolios, other potentially affected POUs include Biggs, Gridley, Healdsburg, and Silicon Valley. This bill would clarify that the current exemption continues beyond the 2030 date to include future compliance periods.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 705 (Boerner) of 2025, would have established the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations at the CPUC, which would be led by the Inspector General. The new office would be responsible for assessing accounting practices, or any fraud or malfeasance among other responsibilities. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 13 (Ransom) of 2025, establishes additional legislative oversight and proposes reform of the CPUC, to include, among other mandates, specific requirements for CPUC commissioner appointees and additional CPUC reporting requirements to the Legislature. The bill is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 386 (Caballero) of 2020, would have limited the RPS obligations for Turlock and Modesto Districts to the electricity demands that are unsatisfied by the Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project, and in exchange requires the districts to procure energy storage, as specified. The bill was held in this committee.

SB 100 (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) established the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2017 which increased the RPS requirement from 50% by 2030 to 60%, and creates the policy of planning to meet all of the state's retail electricity supply with a mix of RPS-eligible and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045, for a total of 100% clean energy.

SB 350 (De León, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) established the goal of receiving 50 of California’s electricity from eligible renewable energy resources.

SB 591 (Cannella, Chapter 520, Statutes of 2013) limited the Merced Irrigation District’s RPS obligation to the electricity demands that are unsatisfied by the New Exchequer Dam.

SBX1 2 (Simitian, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2011-12 First Extraordinary Session) required retail sellers of electricity and POUs to procure at least 33% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020.

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

• The CPUC estimates ongoing costs of about $700,000 annually (ratepayer funds) for three positions to support the increased length of Commission agenda meetings and to otherwise implement the provisions of this bill.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/25)

Media Alliance

Northern California Power Agency

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Media Alliance states:

A fundamental public policy precept is the people most impacted by any action of a legislative or regulatory body need to have input into the policy. A consent calendar process robs both the taxpaying public of the opportunity to explain how the action will affect them and it robs regulators of necessary input prior to their vote. Obviously, no one likes rate increases and even if they are necessary, it can be a hard pill to swallow, but it is important that regulators and legislators of all kinds face the public, explain their rationale for the action they are taking and hear about how that affects the people. Using the consent process, which is intended for administrative efficiency, to short circuit that responsive process is undemocratic and angers the public. Moreover, it makes it extremely difficult for the public to understand why rates are going up, what the rate increase is going to be used for and what problems the regulatory agency is trying to address by agreeing to another rate increase.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 5/8/25

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Boerner, Carrillo, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Irwin, Celeste Rodriguez, Sanchez, Wallis

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

8/30/25 16:34:19

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1273 (Patterson) - Public utilities: ratesetting proceedings: local publicly owned electric utilities: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program

Bill Summary:

This bill would (1) make changes to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules regarding the treatment of rate-setting proceedings at CPUC hearings; and (2) clarify eligibility related to compliance with future compliance periods of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for local publicly owned electric utilities (POUs) who have existing procurement of large hydroelectric resources.

Fiscal Impact:

• Ongoing costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually (ratepayer funds) to the CPUC for the increased length of Commission agenda meetings and to otherwise implement the provisions of this bill.

Background:

CPUC monthly voting meetings. The CPUC meets monthly (often twice a month) to take up items that require a vote of the commissioners. These meetings are held throughout the state, with the majority held in San Francisco. The agendas for the meetings encompass four parts: the Public Comment Period, the Consent Agenda, the Regular Agenda, and the Closed Session Agenda. At the beginning of the meeting, the CPUC takes up public comment where members of the public can speak about items on the agenda (with some exceptions) and public members often use this time to raise issues that are not on the agenda but may become part of a future meeting agenda. Generally, the public is limited to one minute of comments. The CPUC accepts participation from members who joined in person and members who call in.

Consent Agenda. The CPUC’s meeting agenda notes items on the Consent Agenda. These agenda items can be taken up as a group. However, at the beginning of the meeting, usually the President (or the presiding commissioner), will announce if items are being removed from the Consent list to the Regular meeting agenda (generally at the request of a commissioner) or being held over for a future meeting. Members of the public are allowed to speak to the items on the Consent agenda. Items on the Regular Agenda are individually presented, discussed, allowed public comment, and voted on by the commissioners.

Relevant to the Renewable Portfolio Standard:

The CEC administers the state’s landmark RPS, ensures the state’s utilities disclose electricity sources to consumers, supports renewable energy development, and tracks the state’s progress toward its renewable energy goals. Enacted by Senate Bill 1078 (Sher, Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) and accelerated and expanded by subsequent legislation, California’s RPS establishes increasing renewable energy procurement targets spanning multiyear compliance periods for the state’s electric load-serving entities (LSE). Originally applicable to retail sellers, the statewide mandatory RPS was expanded by Senate Bill X1-2 (Simitian, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2011, First Extraordinary Session) to include local POUs. As a result of Senate Bill 100 (DeLeón, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018), LSEs are required to increase their procurement of eligible renewable energy resources to 60% of retail sales by 2030. As part of its responsibilities, the CEC verifies the eligibility of renewable energy procured by retail sellers and POUs that are obligated to participate in California’s RPS. The CEC is also responsible for certifying RPS-eligible renewable energy resources, designing and implementing an accounting system to track and report renewable energy procurement for all program participants, and overseeing compliance and enforcement of POUs. The CEC participated in the development of the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS), an independently administered renewable energy tracking system to verify renewable energy procurement for all program participants. The CPUC is responsible for compliance and enforcement for retail sellers.

RPS and large hydroelectric generation. California’s RPS program, and other energy programs predating RPS, have distinguished between smaller hydroelectric facilities and larger facilities, those that are over 30 megawatts (MW). These distinctions have largely reflected the state policy to discourage more damming of rivers out of concern for the natural habitats rivers provide and the state’s desire to encourage development of new renewable energy projects (including, but not limited to, solar and wind). The passage of SB 100 (De León, 2018) accelerated the RPS requirements by requiring all LSEs to meet a 60% RPS requirement by 2030 and requiring a planning goal of 100% zero-carbon resources by 2045.

Proposed Law:

This bill would (1) make changes to CPUC)rules regarding the treatment of rate-setting proceedings at CPUC hearings; and (2) clarify eligibility related to compliance with future compliance periods of the RPS for local POUs who have existing procurement of large hydroelectric resources.

Related Legislation:

AB 705 (Boerner) of 2025, would establish the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations at the CPUC, which would be led by the Inspector General. The new office would be responsible for assessing accounting practices, or any fraud or malfeasance among other responsibilities.

AB 13 (Ransom) of 2025, would establish additional legislative oversight and proposes reform of the CPUC, to include, among other mandates, specific requirements for CPUC commissioner appointees and additional CPUC reporting requirements to the Legislature.

SB 386 (Caballero) of 2020, would have limited the RPS obligations for Turlock and Modesto Districts to the electricity demands that are unsatisfied by the Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project, and in exchange requires the districts to procure energy storage, as specified.

SB 100 (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) established the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2017 which increased the RPS requirement from 50% by 2030 to 60%, and creates the policy of planning to meet all of the state's retail electricity supply with a mix of RPS-eligible and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045, for a total of 100% clean energy.

SB 350 (De León, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) established the goal of receiving 50 of California’s electricity from eligible renewable energy resources.

SB 591 (Cannella, Chapter 520, Statutes of 2013) limited the Merced Irrigation District’s RPS obligation to the electricity demands that are unsatisfied by the New Exchequer Dam.

SBX1 2 (Simitian, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2011-12 First Extraordinary Session) required retail sellers of electricity and POUs to procure at least 33% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS

Senator Josh Becker, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 1273 Hearing Date: 7/15/2025

SUBJECT: Public utilities: ratesetting proceedings: local publicly owned electric utilities: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program

DIGEST: This bill includes two unrelated provisions: (1) makes changes to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules regarding the treatment of rate-setting proceedings at CPUC hearings; and (2) clarifies eligibility related to compliance with future compliance periods of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for local publicly owned electric utilities (POUs) who have existing procurement of large hydroelectric resources.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes and vests the CPUC with regulatory authority over public utilities. (Article XII of the California Constitution)
2. Requires all charges demanded or received by a public utility for a product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or a service rendered or to be rendered to be just and reasonable. (Public Utilities Code §451)
3. Prohibits, except as provided, a public utility from changing a rate unless there is a showing before the CPUC and a finding by the CPUC that the new rate is justified. (Public Utilities Code §454)
4. Mandates that items on the CPUC public agenda will be made subject to public review and comment before the commissioners can vote on the matter. Mandates the CPUC to adopt rules that provide for the time and manner of public review and comment. (Public Utilities Code §311(e))
5. Requires that before voting on a case, the CPUC must provide the decision to the parties involved and must be subject to at least 30 days public review and comment. (Public Utilities Code §311(g))
6. Requires the CPUC to inform the Legislature whenever it reduces or waives the time for public review or comment. (Public Utilities Code §311(i))
7. Establishes the office of the public advisor at the CPUC, which helps members of the public and ratepayers communicate with the CPUC during any hearing or proceeding, including opportunities to comment on proceedings. (Public Utilities Code §321)
8. Grants the CPUC authority to adopt rules of practice and procedure to be applied during CPUC hearings and proceedings. (Public Utilities Code §1701)
9. Requires the CPUC, where feasible and appropriate, to seek the participation of those who are likely to be affected by a proceeding prior to determining the proceeding’s scope. Sunset this requirement on January 1, 2020. (Public Utilities Code §1711)
10. Defines a “renewable electrical generation facility” as one that, among other requirements, uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation of 30 megawatts (MW) or less, digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current, and any additions or enhancements to the facility using that technology. (Public Resources Code §25741)
11. Requires, the California RPS Program, retail sellers and local POUs to procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources during certain compliance periods up to December 31, 2030. (Public Utilities Code §§399.15 and 399.30(a)(b)(c))
12. Defines eligible renewable energy resources include small hydroelectric generation facilities of 30 MW or less, conduit hydroelectric facilities, and the incremental increase in electrical generation resulting from efficiency improvements of existing small hydroelectric facilities. (Public Utilities Code §§399.12, 399.12.5)
13. Provides that a local POU is not required to procure a certain amount of eligible renewable energy resources if, during a year within those compliance periods, the local POU receives more than 40% of its retail sales from large hydroelectric generation under an ownership agreement or contract in effect as of January 1, 2018. (Public Utilities Code §399.30(k)(2))
14. Authorizes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (California Energy Commission (CEC)) to establish appropriate multiyear compliance periods for local POUs beyond December 31, 2030. (Public Utilities Code §399.30(c)(2))

This bill:

1. Relevant to rules regarding the treatment of ratesetting proceedings:
   1. Prohibits the CPUC from placing the consideration of an electrical corporation ratesetting proceeding on its consent calendar.
   2. Requires, except as provided, the CPUC to provide a public comment period for the application of not less than 30 minutes at the hearing to consider and vote on the electrical corporation ratesetting proceeding.
2. Relevant to the RPS: Provides that the provision related to the procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by local publicly owned electric utilities also applies to the compliance periods established by the CEC beyond 2030.

Background

CPUC monthly voting meetings. The CPUC meets monthly (often twice a month) to take up items that require a vote of the commissioners. These meetings are held throughout the state, with the majority held in San Francisco. The agendas for the meetings encompass four parts: the Public Comment Period, the Consent Agenda, the Regular Agenda, and the Closed Session Agenda. At the beginning of the meeting, the CPUC takes up public comment where members of the public can speak about items on the agenda (with some exceptions) and public members often use this time to raise issues that are not on the agenda but may become part of a future meeting agenda. Generally, the public is limited to one minute of comments. The CPUC accepts participation from members who joined in person and members who call in.

Consent Agenda. The CPUC’s meeting agenda notes items on the Consent Agenda. These agenda items can be taken up as a group. However, at the beginning of the meeting, usually the President (or the presiding commissioner), will announce if items are being removed from the Consent list to the Regular meeting agenda (generally at the request of a commissioner) or being held over for a future meeting. Members of the public are allowed to speak to the items on the Consent agenda. Items on the Regular Agenda are individually presented, discussed, allowed public comment, and voted on by the commissioners.

Relevant to the Renewable Portfolio Standard:

The CEC administers the state’s landmark RPS, ensures the state’s utilities disclose electricity sources to consumers, supports renewable energy development, and tracks the state’s progress toward its renewable energy goals. Enacted by Senate Bill 1078 (Sher, Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) and accelerated and expanded by subsequent legislation, California’s RPS establishes increasing renewable energy procurement targets spanning multiyear compliance periods for the state’s electric load-serving entities (LSE). Originally applicable to retail sellers, the statewide mandatory RPS was expanded by Senate Bill X1-2 (Simitian, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2011, First Extraordinary Session) to include local POUs. As a result of Senate Bill 100 (DeLeón, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018), LSEs are required to increase their procurement of eligible renewable energy resources to 60% of retail sales by 2030. As part of its responsibilities, the CEC verifies the eligibility of renewable energy procured by retail sellers and POUs that are obligated to participate in California’s RPS. The CEC is also responsible for certifying RPS-eligible renewable energy resources, designing and implementing an accounting system to track and report renewable energy procurement for all program participants, and overseeing compliance and enforcement of POUs. The CEC participated in the development of the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS), an independently administered renewable energy tracking system to verify renewable energy procurement for all program participants. The CPUC is responsible for compliance and enforcement for retail sellers.

RPS and large hydroelectric generation. California’s RPS program, and other energy programs predating RPS, have distinguished between smaller hydroelectric facilities and larger facilities, those that are over 30 megawatts (MW). These distinctions have largely reflected the state policy to discourage more damming of rivers out of concern for the natural habitats rivers provide and the state’s desire to encourage development of new renewable energy projects (including, but not limited to, solar and wind). The passage of SB 100 (De León, 2018) accelerated the RPS requirements by requiring all LSEs to meet a 60% RPS requirement by 2030 and requiring a planning goal of 100% zero-carbon resources by 2045.

Comments

Need for this bill. The author states:

Currently the CPUC uses a consent calendar to consolidate multiple agenda items into one. The issue is that electricity rate increases get put on the consent calendar causing electric utility users to be prohibited from commenting on the electricity rate hikes. The consent calendar has been misused to bypass public comment on several critical issues. For instance, the CPUC’s February 20, 2025 agenda included 32 items on the consent calendar, compared to just 6 regular agenda items. These items have increasingly impacted consumers. According to KMPH, at least two rate increases were passed in 2024 using the consent calendar.

Amendments needed. A common complaint about the CPUC is the pace of decision-making. Many regulated entities and active stakeholders have routinely expressed frustration with the agency making timely decisions. In many respects, this is often a function of the various rules under which the CPUC must adhere, particularly as it handles a large volume of utilities and their corresponding rate cases (which are not restricted to the solely the general rate cases) which are handled under quasi-judicial rules involving hearings and taking evidence. Given that the bulk of the proceedings the CPUC commissioners take votes on at its voting meetings concern rate-setting proceedings, in its laudable efforts to provide greater transparency for the public by prohibiting ratesetting proceedings from being placed on the Consent agenda, this bill could result in voting meetings taking longer than necessary, thereby potentially delaying decisions when the CPUC has a full agenda of items to be heard. Therefore, the author and committee may wish to amend this bill to require a financial threshold above which certain rate-setting proceedings should not be placed on the Consent Agenda instead of prohibiting all rate-setting proceedings from being placed on the Consent Agenda. Additional amendments would make technical and clarifying changes.

RPS and POUs. SB 100 (De León, 2018), and previous RPS updates (SB 350, 2015), include an exemption for POUs that requires they procure renewable energy only up to the retail sales unserved by large hydroelectric generation. This applies to POUs that generate more than 40% of their electricity from existing large hydroelectric sources in a given year. The goal of this exemption is to prevent unnecessary over-procurement of renewable energy, while recognizing that hydroelectric generation is a flexible and zero carbon resource that complements intermittent renewables. The exemption applies only through the year 2030, while the RPS program itself extends indefinitely beyond 2030. This gap between the exemption timeline and expected lifetime of the RPS program affects a very small group of POUs who source much of their renewable energy from large hydroelectric generation. However, for these utilities the dollar impacts of aligning the large hydroelectric exemption with the duration of the RPS program are substantial.

The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is one of the POUs negatively affected by expiration of this exemption; their analysis estimates it will cost CPAU roughly $25 million from 2030 – 2045 in excess renewable energy procurement. The additional purchase of unneeded renewable energy will also increase electric rates for other utilities, particularly as the current energy market is very tight and has been characterized as a seller’s market. From CPAU’s perspective, this is an unacceptable prospect considering the affordability issues that California utility ratepayers face. This bill would clarify that the current exemption continues beyond the 2030 date to include future compliance periods.

Prior/Related Legislation

AB 705 (Boerner) of 2025, establishes the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations at the CPUC, which would be led by the Inspector General. The new office would be responsible for assessing accounting practices, or any fraud or malfeasance among other responsibilities. The bill is pending in this committee.

AB 13 (Ransom) of 2025, establishes additional legislative oversight and proposes reform of the CPUC, to include, among other mandates, specific requirements for CPUC commissioner appointees and additional CPUC reporting requirements to the Legislature. The bill is pending in this committee.

SB 386 (Caballero) of 2020, would have limited the RPS obligations for Turlock and Modesto Districts to the electricity demands that are unsatisfied by the Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project, and in exchange requires the districts to procure energy storage, as specified. The bill was held in this committee.

SB 100 (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) established the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2017 which increased the RPS requirement from 50% by 2030 to 60%, and creates the policy of planning to meet all of the state's retail electricity supply with a mix of RPS-eligible and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045, for a total of 100% clean energy.

SB 350 (De León, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) established the goal of receiving 50 of California’s electricity from eligible renewable energy resources.

SB 591 (Cannella, Chapter 520, Statutes of 2013) limited the Merced Irrigation District’s RPS obligation to the electricity demands that are unsatisfied by the New Exchequer Dam.

SBX1 2 (Simitian, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2011-12 First Extraordinary Session) required retail sellers of electricity and POUs to procure at least 33% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020.

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

SUPPORT:

Media Alliance

OPPOSITION:

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Media Alliance states:

A fundamental public policy precept is the people most impacted by any action of a legislative or regulatory body need to have input into the policy. A consent calendar process robs both the taxpaying public of the opportunity to explain how the action will affect them and it robs regulators of necessary input prior to their vote. Obviously, no one likes rate increases and even if they are necessary, it can be a hard pill to swallow, but it is important that regulators and legislators of all kinds face the public, explain their rationale for the action they are taking and hear about how that affects the people. Using the consent process, which is intended for administrative efficiency, to short circuit that responsive process is undemocratic and angers the public. Moreover, it makes it extremely difficult for the public to understand why rates are going up, what the rate increase is going to be used for and what problems the regulatory agency is trying to address by agreeing to another rate increase.

-- END --

Date of Hearing: April 30, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1273

Author:(Patterson) – As Amended Ver:April 7, 2025

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

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) from placing consideration of an electrical corporation general rate case proceeding on its consent calendar during a voting meeting.

The bill further requires, to “ensure that an open discussion of an electrical corporation general rate case proceeding occurs, at the hearing to consider and vote on the general rate case proceeding,” the CPUC provide a public comment period of not less than 30 minutes, unless there is an insufficient number of commenters to require a 30-minute comment period.

FISCAL EFFECT:

No significant costs to the CPUC.

COMMENTS:

The CPUC regulates the “rates,” that is, the prices, entities subject to its jurisdiction may charge their customers. There is a great deal of law governing how the CPUC is to undertake this rate regulation, but, at a very high level, the law allows the CPUC to approve rates that are sufficient to allow the regulated entity to recover a “just and reasonable” amount of revenue and that are sufficient to allow the regulated entity to provide adequate service to its customers.

The electrical corporations, also known as electrical investor-owned utilities, or IOUs, are subject to rate regulation by the CPUC. For a long time, California’s IOUs had rates that were relatively high, compared to the rates charged by electrical utilities operating in other parts of the country; however, the rates were stable, usually hewing more or less to the rate of inflation, and IOU customer electricity bills were relatively low. In recent years, this has changed. To wit, according the Public Advocates Office (an independent office within the CPUC that advocates before the CPUC on behalf of residential and small business ratepayers), rates for the state’s three largest electrical IOUs have increased between 71 percent and 101 percent over the past ten years. The Public Advocate attributes the bulk of these rate increases to wildfire mitigation and to transmission and distribution investments. The Public Advocate notes that electrical IOU customer bills have also increased over the past decade and have, in some cases, fluctuated considerably from month to month and year to year.

The CPUC generally considers an IOU’s request to alter the rates the IOU charges its customers through a proceeding known as a general rate case, or GRC. A GRC is a massive undertaking involving requests for billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of customers, dozens of highly engaged and oftentimes legally and technically sophisticated interested parties and thousands of pages of documents, some of them thoroughly complex. For this reason, the CPUC considers the GRC of each IOU according to a staggered, four-year cycle. In addition, the CPUC may consider an IOU’s requests for a rate change outside of the IOU’s GRC.

The five commissioners of the CPUC must vote to approve an IOU rate increase. At such voting meetings, the CPUC regularly maintains a consent calendar on which it places “routine” items. The commissioners do not comment on items on the consent calendar, and they vote on all items on the consent calendar in one motion. As shown in the analysis of this bill prepared by the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy, the CPUC regularly places electrical IOU rate increases on its consent calendar, along with many other items on which the commissioners votes.

The author objects to the practice of placing CPUC approval of an electrical IOU rate increase on the commission’s consent calendar and wants the commissioners to discuss such increases, and wants commissioners to hear public expressions of opinion on the proposed rate increases. According to the author:

AB 1273 is a crucial step in ensuring that Californians have a voice in decisions that directly impact their wallets. By prohibiting the California Public Utilities Commission from adding rate increase applications to the consent calendar and requiring a minimum of 30 minutes of public comment at hearings, we are promoting transparency and accountability. It’s vital that ratepayers are heard, and that these decisions are made with the utmost consideration of their concerns.

The CPUC describes some language in the bill as ambiguous, and, therefore, contends it is difficult to determine exactly what the bill requires of the CPUC. According to the CPUC, this ambiguity comes from the bill’s reference to “hearings” and to “proceedings.” The CPUC states that its commissioners vote on items at what the CPUC refers to as “business meetings,” and not at hearings, nor at proceedings. This analysis notes the ambiguity but understands the bill to address only CPUC voting meetings, that is, “business meetings.” Still, the author may wish to amend the bill to clarify what CPUC sees as ambiguity. 

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

Date of Hearing: April 2, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND ENERGY

Cottie Petrie-Norris, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1273 (

Author:Patterson) – As Introduced Ver:February 21, 2025

SUBJECT: Public utilities: electricity rates

SUMMARY: This bill forbids the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) from placing applications for a rate increase from electrical corporations onto its consent calendar. The bill also requires at least 30 minutes of public comment at a hearing to consider an application for a rate increase from electrical corporations.

EXISTING LAW:

1) Mandates that items on the CPUC public agenda will be made subject to public review and comment before the commissioners can vote on the matter. (Public Utilities Code § 311(e))

2) Mandates the CPUC to adopt rules that provide for the time and manner of public review and comment (Public Utilities Code § 311(e))

3) Requires that before voting on a case, the CPUC must provide the decision to the parties involved and must be subject to public review and comment for 30 days (Public Utilities Code § 311(g))

4) Requires the CPUC to inform the Legislature whenever it reduces or waives the time for public review or comment (Public Utilities Code § 311(i))

5) Establishes the office of the public advisor at the CPUC, which helps members of the public and ratepayers communicate with the commission during any hearing or proceeding. This includes publicizing the commission’s hearings and opportunities to comment on proceedings. (Public Utilities Code § 321)

6) Grants the CPUC authority to adopt rules of practice and procedure to be applied during CPUC hearings (Public Utilities Code § 1701)

7) Required the CPUC, where feasible and appropriate, to seek the participation of those who are likely to be affected by a proceeding prior to determining the proceeding’s scope. Sunset this requirement on January 1, 2020. (Public Utilities Code § 1711)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal and will be referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations for its review.

CONSUMER COST IMPACTS: Unknown. This bill seeks transparency of CPUC actions that result in a utility rate increase. Increased transparency may result in a reduction in rate increases.

BACKGROUND:

Rules Governing CPUC Proceedings — Statute requires the CPUC to provide opportunities for public involvement during proceedings (see Existing Law) but the statutory requirements are minimal. Most of the rules dictating CPUC proceedings are defined by the CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure.^[1]

Rule 1.1. Existing Rules of Practice and Procedure governs public participation:

1. Allows any member of the public to submit written comment in any CPUC proceeding using the “Public Comment” tab of the online Docket Card.
2. Ensures that all written public comment submitted in a proceeding will be entered into the administrative record.
3. Ensures that relevant written comment submitted in a proceeding will be summarized in the final decision issued in that proceeding.
4. Allows for parties to respond to any public comment submitted in a proceeding.
5. Allows the assigned Commissioner and/or Administrative Law Judge to invite parties to a proceeding to comment on any matter identified in public comment.

Ways for the Public to Participate in Review and Comment on Rate-Setting Proceedings — Outlined below are the standard steps in a utility rate setting proceeding. There are three primary ways for the public to participate. (1) Submit comments on the proceeding’s Docket Card. (2) Request to become a formal party in a proceeding. (3) Speak at CPUC meetings where there are opportunities to make public comment. These three opportunities are outlined in the timeline of the proceeding below. The steps in the process where the public can participate are in bold.

1. Utilities submit an application.
   • Interested parties can protest the application.
2. A CPUC commissioner and Administrative Law Judge are assigned to the Proceeding.
3. A Pre-hearing Conference can be scheduled (45-60 days from the start of the proceeding).
   • A Scoping Memo is issued which defines the scope of the proceeding.
4. Evidentiary Hearing or submission of written comments in responses.
   • Formal parties to the proceeding can provide evidence to the hearing.
5. Administrative Law Judge writes a Proposed Decision
6. A closed door Rate-Setting Deliberative Meeting can be scheduled to discuss the proceeding.
7. The public has 30 days to comment by submitting comment to the Docket Card.
8. The Commissioners vote on the Proposed Decision at a public Voting Meeting.
   • The public can make a comment at the Voting Meeting.

CPUC Standard Voting Meeting Agenda — In a CPUC Voting Meeting, there are four parts of the agenda^[2]: the Public Comment Period, the Consent Agenda, the Regular Agenda, and the Closed Session Agenda.

The Public Comment Period is the portion of the meeting where the CPUC allows for public comment. Members of the public may address the Commission CPUC about items on the agenda, except closed session matters and certain complaint and license cases. The instructions provided to the public are found below. The committee is not aware of a limit on the total time for this portion of the agenda. However, every speaker is limited to 1 minute. Currently, these rules are set by and could change at the discretion of the CPUC.

Items on the Consent Agenda are voted on as a group and are not discussed or considered individually. The CPUC considers Consent Agenda items to be non-controversial, of a routine nature, and/or not requiring subsequent Commission action. Consent Agenda items may be moved to the Regular Agenda for discussion at the request of a Commissioner or a Commission Division Director. They may also be held to a subsequent meeting for further consideration.

Items on the Regular Agenda are individually discussed and voted on. The Regular Agenda is divided into specific sections: Energy, Telecommunications, Water/Sewer, Transportation/Rail Safety, Other Utility, Legislative Matters, Commissioner Reports, Management Reports and Resolutions.

Items discussed in Closed or Executive Session include applications to rehear an issue, pending or threatened litigation, or personnel issues. This session is not open to the public.

Instructions for Public Comment from the Public Advisor — Below are the current instructions provided by the CPUC to members of the public who want to make comment at CPUC Voting Meetings.^[3]

• If you are attending in-person and wish to make a public comment, please sign-up at the Public Advisor’s table.
• To make a comment by phone, dial 1-800-857-1917 and enter the passcode for the English or Spanish phone line, as indicated above. To make a public comment, unmute your phone, and press *1 (star one) when prompted by the operator. Once you press *1 you will be prompted to state your name and/or organization, please do so slowly and clearly. The operator will call on you when it is your turn to speak.
• Wait times depend on the number of speakers in the public comment queue. During times of high call volumes, wait times will be long. The operator will call on you when it is your turn to speak.
• Each speaker will have 1 minute to speak. Commenters requiring a translator will have at least twice the amount of time allotted to English speakers.
• The President of the Commission maintains discretion on individual speaker time allocations, depending on the number of speakers. A speaker may not cede time to another speaker.
• In-person comments will generally be taken first, and the order of speakers will generally be based on the order in which speakers sign-up or call-in. The President of the Commission maintains the discretion to alter the order of speakers.
• At the end of Public Comment Session, the CPUC’s President will ask if there any additional individuals who wish to speak. Anyone who has already made a public comment may not comment again at the same meeting.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “AB 1273 is a crucial step in ensuring that Californians have a voice in decisions that directly impact their wallets. By prohibiting the California Public Utilities Commission from adding rate increase applications to the consent calendar and requiring a minimum of 30 minutes of public comment at hearings, we are promoting transparency and accountability. It’s vital that ratepayers are heard, and that these decisions are made with the utmost consideration of their concerns."
2. Rate-cases and Other Ratepayer Costs on the Consent Agenda: AB 1273 prohibits the CPUC from placing applications that increase rates on the consent calendar. It is unclear to the committee, based on the CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure, how the Commission deems a case “non-controversial, of a routine nature, and/or not requiring subsequent Commission action,”^[4] and thus worthy of inclusion on the Consent Agenda. Decisions that increase costs may be considered routine at the CPUC, since they happen frequently. As a result, the CPUC puts such items on the Consent Agenda to expedite business, where the Commissioners do not comment and vote on all Consent Agenda items together. By moving either Rate Cases or all cases that increase ratepayer costs off the Consent Agenda, Commission Voting Meetings would likely be longer.

Cross-checking the published public agenda with updates on items that were withdrawn, held, or moved from the Consent to the Regular Agenda, the committee has found the following:

Table 1: Rate Cases and Ratepayer Impacted Cases on the Consent Agenda

The number of Rate Cases on the Consent Agenda in the last five Voting Meetings was limited to five rate cases (including all types of utilities). All other proceedings that increase ratepayer costs, as identified in the CPUC’s published agenda, would result in a total of 38 cases on the Consent Agenda. All 38 additional cases were regarding energy utilities. Most of the cases in this expanded category were Intervenor Compensation proceedings (the payment to consumer protection groups) and were each less than $350,000 dollars. One of the cases in this expanded category was for $36.4 million for Wildfire Mitigation Cost Recovery.^[15] If the authors focus on just Rate Cases for energy utilities, this would have minimal impact on the length and efficiency of hearings. Including Rate Cases in the Regular Agenda provides an opportunity for the public to hear the Commissioners orally justify their thinking about rate-increases as growing energy bills has led to frustrations and concerns about cost of living.

1. Public Comment: AB 1273 mandates a minimum of a 30-minute public comment period. According to the current CPUC rules and the instructions provided above, the committee is not aware of an issue with access to public comment at CPUC Voting Meetings. However, because these rules are at the discretion of the CPUC, this could change at any time. This law would ensure a minimum comment period. Another way to achieve greater transparency in the process, would be to mandate a public hearing to receive feedback from ratepayers within the 30-day comment period prior to the Voting Meeting on any Rate Case proceeding.
2. Definition of application and hearing to consider the application: AB 1273 requires that “an application from an electrical corporation for a rate increase” is not placed on the consent calendar. “An application” is not sufficiently specific. Rate Cases are the primary proceeding for the CPUC to determine electricity rates and grant rate increases. In addition, the language in the bill requires 30 minutes of public commentary at “a hearing to consider the application.” There are many types of hearings in the process of a CPUC proceeding (see the rate-case timeline above). The committee recommends striking “an application” and “a hearing to consider an application,” and replacing with “any general rate case proceeding” and “the hearing to consider and vote on the electrical corporation general rate case proceeding”, respectively.
3. Related Legislation.

AB 1295 (Patterson, 2025) requires public utilities to include the costs of state-mandated programs on customer billing statements on a quarterly basis. Status: Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy.

AB 705 (Boerner, 2025) establishes the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations at the CPUC, which would be led by the Inspector General. The new office would be responsible for assessing accounting practices, or any fraud or malfeasance among other responsibilities. Status: Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy.

AB 13 (Ransom, 2025) establishes additional legislative oversight and proposes reform of the CPUC, to include, among other mandates, specific requirements for CPUC commissioner appointees and additional CPUC reporting requirements to the Legislature. Status: Heard in this Committee on March 26^th, 2025, where it passed out 18-0-0.

SB 593 (Hurtado, 2025) requires, among many provisions, that the CPUC shall submit a report to the Legislature regarding the implementation and effectiveness of power surge notifications and impact of the bill on reducing damages from power surges. This is not directly related to subject matter but does require the generation of an additional report from the CPUC to the Legislature. Status: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee.

1. Prior Legislation.

AB 2205 (Patterson and Gallagher) required the commission to reduce the kilowatt-per-hour rate for electricity charged to ratepayers by at least 30%. Status: died in committee.

SB 215 (Leno) mandates a series of reforms over the rules and operations governing the CPUC. This in particular relates to laws and rules governing ex parte communications and recusal processes for commissioners. Status: Chapter 807, Statutes of 2016.

SB 512 (Hill) proposes a suite of reforms to the operations and governance of the CPUC, including removing the requirement that the CPUC monthly meetings be held in San Francisco; requiring the CPUC to solicit input from customers from diverse regions of the state, process that input into CPUC decision making, and report on the efforts to increase public participation; and requiring the CPUC to list the public meetings held outside San Francisco both for the previous year and anticipated in the coming year; report on timeliness of rate cases. Status: Chapter 808, Statutes of 2016.

AB 825 (Rendon, 2015) proposed a suite of reforms of the CPUC to make the agency more accessible and transparent to the public. Status: Vetoed by the Governor.

AB 1023 (Rendon, 2015) proposed to codify the summary log requirements currently required at the CPUC for ratesetting proceedings and extend those requirements to quasi-legislative proceedings. Status: Vetoed by the Governor.

SB 48 (Hill, 2015) proposed a suite of reforms of the governance and operations of the CPUC, including some of the same reforms in SB 611 (Hill, 2013). Status: Vetoed by the Governor.

SB 660 (Leno and Hueso, 2015) proposed many of the same reforms included in SB 215 of the ex parte communications laws related to ratesetting and quasi-legislative proceedings, addresses the process for disqualifying a commissioner from a proceeding, and other reforms of the CPUC. Status: Vetoed by the Governor.

SB 695 (Kehoe) among many provisions, the bill required the commission to report to the Governor and Legislature recommendations for actions that can be undertaken during the upcoming year to limit utility costs and rate increases. The bill would require the commission to annually require electrical and gas corporations to study and report to the commission on measures that they recommend be undertaken to limit costs and rate increases. Status: Chapter 337, Statutes of 2009.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Media Alliance

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Kristen Koenig / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083

1. CPUC, Rules of Practice and Procedure, California Code of Regulations, Title 20, Division 1, Chapter 1, 2021 ↑

2. CPUC, “Guide to the Commission Meeting and Meeting Agenda” ↑

3. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/about-cpuc/transparency-and-reporting/cpuc-voting-meetings, Accessed March 23^rd, 2025 ↑

4. CPUC, “Guide to the Commission Meeting and Meeting Agenda” ↑

5. CPUC Public Agenda 3556, Thursday, December 16, 2024, 11:00 a.m. ↑

6. CPUC Public Agenda 3556, Thursday, December 16, 2024, 11:00 a.m., Remote Presentation ↑

7. CPUC Public Agenda 3557, Thursday, January 16, 2025, 11:00 a.m. ↑

8. CPUC Public Agenda 3557, Thursday, January 16, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Remote Presentation ↑

9. CPUC, Public Agenda 3558, Thursday, January 30, 2025, 11:00 a.m. ↑

10. CPUC, Public Agenda 3558, Thursday, January 30, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Remote Presentation ↑

11. CPUC Public Agenda 3559, Thursday, February 20, 2025, 11:00 a.m. ↑

12. CPUC Public Agenda 3559, Thursday, February 20, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Remote Presentation ↑

13. CPUC Public Agenda 3560, Thursday, March 13, 2025, 11:00 a.m ↑

14. CPUC Public Agenda 3560, Thursday, March 13, 2025, 11:00 a.m, Remote Presentation ↑

15. CPUC Public Agenda 3559, Thursday, February 20, 2025, 11:00 a.m. ↑