Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires the PUC, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the Independent System Operator, to take specified actions to facilitate the commercialization of microgrids for distribution customers of large electrical corporations, including developing microgrid service standards necessary to meet state and local permitting requirements and developing methods to reduce barriers for microgrid deployment without shifting costs between ratepayers.

This bill would require a large electrical corporation, upon request, to collaborate with local governments, tribal governments, or community choice aggregators within its service area to identify critical circuits and microgrid projects. support resiliency planning, as provided. The bill would require large electrical corporations to provide local governments, tribal governments, and community choice aggregators with access to data, including electrical distribution equipment data, transmission and distribution circuit data, grid hardening plans, and other information requested by those entities to ensure that they are able to plan and develop microgrid projects collaboratively with the large electrical corporations. If a local government, tribal government, or community choice aggregator requests information relating to individual customers, customers personal information, or customers locations, the bill would require the large electrical corporation to provide the information on a confidential basis, and would require the local government, tribal government, or community choice aggregator to not use the information for any other purpose than planning and developing microgrid projects. The bill would require a local government, tribal government, or community choice aggregator that requests and accepts data to maintain the confidentiality of any information designated as confidential by the large electrical corporation. as directed by the commission, to support resiliency planning by local governments and tribal governments to ensure local governments, tribal governments, and community choice aggregators are able to plan potential microgrid projects to support critical facilities. The bill would authorize the commission to require large electrical corporations to share this information in aggregated and anonymized form to protect customer privacy and electrical grid security.

Under existing law, a violation of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime.

Because the violation of a PUC action implementing the bills requirements would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory jurisdiction over public utilities, including electrical corporations, while local publicly owned electric utilities are under the direction of their governing boards. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and charges for every public utility and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable. prohibits a local publicly owned electric utility from sharing, disclosing, or otherwise making accessible to any third party, or selling, data about a customers electrical usage that is made available as part of an advanced metering infrastructure, except as specified. Existing law requires a local publicly owned electric utility that utilizes an advanced metering infrastructure that allows a customer to access their data to ensure that the customer has an option to access that data without being required to agree to the sharing of the customers personally identifiable information, including that data, with a third party.

This bill would require the commission to require each electrical corporation, and the governing board of each local publicly owned electric utility, on or before January 1, 2028, to analyze the feasibility of deploying advanced metering infrastructure to all customers. Based on that analysis, the bill would require each electrical corporation and the governing board of each local publicly owned electric utility, on or before January 1, 2029, to develop a plan for complete advanced metering infrastructure deployment, where feasible.

By imposing new duties on local publicly owned electric utilities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law makes every person who, with intent to defraud, sells, transfers, or conveys an access card, as defined, without the cardholders or issuers consent guilty of grand theft. Existing law makes every person who, with the intent to defraud, designs, makes, alters, or embosses a counterfeit access card or utters or otherwise attempts to use a counterfeit access card guilty of forgery. Existing law makes every person who, with the intent to defraud, uses a forged or altered card guilty of theft.

This bill would make a person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires or retains possession of a gift card or gift card redemption information, as defined, or uses an acquired or forged card, without the consent of the cardholder, card issuer, or gift card seller, or, with the intent to defraud, devises a scheme to obtain a gift card or gift card redemption information from a cardholder, card issuer, or gift card seller by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises guilty of theft, punishable as a misdemeanor, and, if the things of value that are acquired or used exceed $950, guilty of grand theft, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. The bill would make a person who, with the intent to defraud, alters or tampers with a gift card guilty of forgery, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

Existing law makes every person who, with intent to defraud, sells, transfers, or conveys an access card, as defined, without the cardholders or issuers consent guilty of grand theft. Existing law makes every person who, with the intent to defraud, designs, makes, alters, or embosses a counterfeit access card or utters or otherwise attempts to use a counterfeit access card guilty of forgery. Existing law makes every person who, with the intent to defraud, uses a forged or altered card guilty of theft.

This bill would make a person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires or retains possession of a gift card or gift card redemption information, as defined, or uses an acquired or forged card, without the consent of the cardholder, card issuer, or gift card seller, or, with the intent to defraud, devises a scheme to obtain a gift card or gift card redemption information from a cardholder, card issuer, or gift card seller by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises guilty of theft, punishable as a misdemeanor, and, if the things of value that are acquired or used exceed $950, guilty of grand theft, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. The bill would make a person who, with the intent to defraud, alters or tampers with a gift card guilty of forgery, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 710 (Irwin) - Electrical corporations: resiliency planning: microgrid projects

Bill Summary:

This bill would require large electrical corporations, upon request, to collaborate with local governments, tribal governments, or community choice aggregators (CCAs) in their service areas on resiliency planning, and to provide those entities with access to specified data — including electrical distribution equipment data, transmission and distribution circuit data, and grid hardening plans, along with any other information the PUC directs — for the purposes of planning potential microgrid projects serving critical facilities.

Fiscal Impact:

• The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) estimates ongoing costs of about $244,000 (ratepayer funds) to conduct a new rulemaking in order to determine the appropriate data to be disclosed per the requirements of the bill, how the data should be shared, and identify the recipients. Additionally, implementation of this bill may require the CPUC to monitor the data management and use by the recipients on an annual basis to ensure compliance with data privacy laws.

Background:

Microgrids are small, self-contained electricity systems — typically combining distributed energy resources, storage, and demand response, though they can be as simple as a diesel generator serving a hospital — that can disconnect from the larger grid and keep critical customer loads powered during outages, making them attractive to customers seeking reliability and resiliency amid wildfire, flooding, and similar threats. SB 1339 (Stern, 2018) directed the CPUC and CEC to facilitate microgrid commercialization, and the CPUC has run an open proceeding (R.19-09-009) since September 2019. Among its actions, the CPUC required large electrical corporations to modify net energy metering tariffs so storage can charge from the grid ahead of deenergization events, and adopted rules requiring those utilities to collaborate with local and tribal governments on resiliency information for critical facilities and to educate them on interconnection processes for solar, storage, and microgrid projects. The same June 2020 decision (D.20-06-017) directed the utilities to build an access-restricted data portal giving local and tribal governments grid data while protecting customer privacy and grid security, and, under Track 2, directed PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE to jointly develop a statewide Microgrid Incentive Program with a $200 million ratepayer-funded budget for clean energy microgrids serving vulnerable communities and testing new technologies and regulatory approaches.

Some of the interest in microgrids stems from deenergization events. Utility infrastructure — downed lines, arcing, and conductor contact with vegetation — has ignited several of California's catastrophic wildfires, with risk compounded by drought and bark beetle-driven tree mortality that added fuel to the landscape. Electrical corporations have responded by proactively shutting off distribution and sometimes transmission lines, known as Public Safety Power Shutoffs, during high-wind, dry-condition days. Despite community opposition and concerns, the CPUC acknowledged utilities' deenergization authority under Public Utilities Code §451 and §399.2 while adopting protocols governing who is notified, when, by whom, and how customer groups are identified; those protocols require work groups including representatives of the access and functional needs population and have expanded over time to require needs assessments, coordination plans for that population, identification of critical infrastructure, and coordination with public safety partners.

Proposed Law:

This bill would:

1. Define terms. In particular:
   1. “Access and functional needs population” would have the same meaning as defined in Section 8593.3 of the Government Code.
   2. “Critical circuit” would mean an electrical circuit that supplies electricity to one or more critical facilities or to critical infrastructure, as reported to the commission by each electrical corporation.
   3. “Critical customer” would mean a customer of an electrical corporation receiving a medical baseline allowance pursuant to Section 739 who resides within a high fire-threat district or vulnerable transmission area, or a customer of a local publicly owned electric utility enrolled in a life support discount program who resides within a high fire-threat district or vulnerable transmission area.
   4. “Critical facilities and critical infrastructure” would mean facilities and infrastructure that are essential to health and public safety that require assistance and advance planning to ensure their resiliency during a deenergization event, as reported to the commission by the Office of Emergency Services based on consultations with local governments, including, but not limited to, facilities and infrastructure within the United States Department of Homeland Security’s critical infrastructure sectors.
   5. “Deenergization event” would have the same meaning as defined in Section 8385.
   6. “High fire-threat district” would mean a geographic area identified by the commission as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 fire-threat area, where there is an elevated or extreme risk for fires caused by electrical infrastructure igniting and spreading rapidly.
   7. “Project” would mean a microgrid project that meets the resiliency needs of a local government, joint powers authority, or special district and may include microgrid projects that meet the resiliency needs for critical facilities and critical infrastructure, critical customers, or customers from an access and functional needs population that can operate disconnected from the distribution system for a predetermined period of time.
   8. “Resiliency” would mean the ability to mitigate and recover from an electrical service disruption using generation resources that maintain all or essential electrical service to customers, including critical facilities and critical infrastructure. Electrical service disruptions would include, but not be limited to, emergencies, natural disasters, planned or unplanned electricity outages, or other events that may cause disruptions to important public services.
2. Require large electrical corporations to collaborate with local governments, tribal governments, or community choice aggregators within its service area to support resiliency planning, including identifying critical facilities that may be vulnerable to repeated deenergization events.
3. Require large electrical corporations to, consistent with privacy, customer consent, confidentiality, and electrical grid security laws, provide local governments, tribal governments, and community choice aggregators with access to data, including electrical distribution equipment data, transmission and distribution circuit data, grid hardening plans, and other information as directed by the CPUC, to support resiliency planning by local governments and tribal governments to ensure the local governments, tribal governments, and community choice aggregators are able to plan potential microgrid projects to support critical facilities.
   1. Authorize the CPUC to require large electrical corporations to share this information in an aggregated and anonymized form to protect customer privacy and electrical grid security.
   2. Require large electrical corporations to respond to data requests within the timelines determined by the CPUC.
4. Provide that no reimbursement would be required pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district would be incurred because this bill would create a new crime or infraction, eliminate a crime or infraction, or change the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

Related Legislation:

SB 453 (Stern, 2025) would require the CPUC to review the status of a ratepayer-funded microgrid incentive program and consider specified actions to direct any available funds to support vulnerable communities affected by deenergization events.

SB 533 (Stern, Chapter 244, Statutes of 2021) required electrical corporations to identify circuits that have frequently been deenergized to mitigate the risk of wildfire and the measures taken to reduce the need for future deenergization of those circuits.

AB 1144 (Friedman, Chapter 934, Statutes of 2019) required a percentage of funding from the Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) was directed to energy storage and other DER for customers that operate critical facilities or critical infrastructure serving communities in high fire threat districts.

SB 700 (Wiener, Chapter 839, Statutes of 2018) authorized the CPUC to extend collections up to $166 million in ratepayer funds annually for the SGIP to December 31, 2024.

SB 1339 (Stern, Chapter 566, Statutes 2018) required the CPUC and CEC to facilitate the commercialization of microgrids.

AB 1637 (Low, Chapter 658, Statutes of 2016) doubled the annual funding authorization for SGIP and revised and extended the net energy metering program for fuel cells by five years.

Staff Comments:

The CPUC notes that this bill would duplicate existing requirements established by the Commission in Rulemaking 19-09-009, which directed the utilities to grant local and tribal governments access to data necessary to plan for microgrid development opportunities. Decision 20-06-017 required the utilities to create a data portal which includes information demonstrating the utility’s planned work/grid investments (including project locations and timelines) and data reflecting high fire threat districts (including impacted electrical infrastructure and weather-related factors that led to a de-energization decision from each prior public safety power shutoff event). The CPUC states that the D.20-06-017 portal was carefully designed in response to the problem this bill identifies. The Commission evaluated different options for improving local and Tribal government access to grid data for microgrid planning and selected an approach that balanced multiple competing concerns. According to the CPUC, AB 710 would require the Commission to revisit that balance without any showing that the existing framework has failed. 

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS

Senator Benjamin Allen, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 6/24/2026

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill requires a large electrical corporation, upon request, to collaborate with local governments, tribal governments, or community choice aggregators (CCAs) within its service area to identify critical circuits and microgrid projects.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Article 1, §3 of the California Constitution)
2. Establishes and vests the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. (Article 12 of the California Constitution)
3. Requires the CPUC, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (also known as the California Energy Commission (CEC)) and California the Independent System Operator (CAISO), to take specified actions to facilitate the commercialization of microgrids for distribution customers of large electrical corporations, including developing microgrid service standards necessary to meet state and local permitting requirements and developing methods to reduce barriers for microgrid deployment without shifting costs between ratepayers. (Public Utilities Code §8370 et seq.)
4. Requires an electrical corporation to construct, maintain, and operate its electrical lines and equipment in a manner that will minimize the risk of catastrophic wildfire posed by those electrical lines and equipment. Requires each electrical corporation to annually prepare a wildfire mitigation plan and to submit its plan to the CPUC for review and approval, as specified. Following approval, the CPUC is required to oversee an electrical corporation’s compliance with the plans. (Public Utilities Code §8386)

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations concerning the need to procure energy resources that do not emit greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts of deenergization events, medically vulnerable customers’ unique threats to health and safety from the loss of electricity, and the electric utility’s responsibility to provide safe and reliable electrical service.
2. Requires a large electrical corporation, upon request, to collaborate with local governments, tribal governments, or CCAs within its service area to identify critical circuits and microgrid projects.
3. Requires large electrical corporations to provide local governments, tribal governments, and CCAs with electrical distribution equipment data, transmission and distribution circuit data, grid hardening plans, and other information requested by those entities to ensure that they are able to plan and develop microgrid projects collaboratively with the large electrical corporations.
4. Requires the large electrical corporation, if a local government, tribal government, or CCAs requests information relating to individual customers, customers’ personal information, or customers’ locations to provide the information on a confidential basis, and requires the local government, tribal government, or CCA to not use the information for any other purpose than planning and developing microgrid projects.
5. Requires a local government, tribal government, or CCA that requests and accepts data to maintain the confidentiality of any information designated as confidential by the large electrical corporation.
6. Includes findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
7. Makes legislative findings that the limitation on the public’s right of access to the ensure the safety of the electrical distribution and transmission grid and the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy of individual customers.

Background

Microgrids. Generally, a microgrid is understood to be a self-contained, small (relative to the electrical grid), electricity system with the ability to manage critical customer resources, disconnect from the electric grid when the need arises, and provide the customer with different levels of critical support. A microgrid can be as simple as a diesel-fuel generator located near a building, such as for a hospital, that is able to provide needed power during an electric power outage. Customers tend to seek reliability and resiliency services from microgrids. In particular, customers may value the desire for sufficient resources both at the utility scale, but also at the local level in order to better manage challenges, such as power outages due to wildfire, flooding, etc. Although each microgrid can vary in component configuration, size, and applications, generally, microgrids are made of a combination of distributed energy resources (DER), energy storage, and demand response capabilities.

Statute directs state energy agencies to facilitate commercialization of microgrids. SB 1339 (Stern, Chapter 566, Statutes of 2018) required the CPUC and CEC to facilitate the commercialization of microgrids. Since September 2019, the CPUC has held an open and active proceeding (R. 19-09-009) with various decisions, and tracks. These include requiring large electrical corporations to adjust their net energy metering tariffs to allow storage devices to charge from the grid during pre-deenergization events. Additionally, the proceeding adopted rules to require large electrical corporations to collaborate with local and tribal governments to provide information about resiliency for critical facilities vulnerable to deenergization events and to educate local and tribal governments on electrical corporations’ interconnection processes for solar, storage, and microgrid projects. Under that same decision in June 2020 (D.20-06-017), the CPUC directed the large electrical corporations to develop an access restricted data portal that local and tribal governments can use to gain data about the electrical grid, while protecting customer privacy and security of the electrical grid. Under Track 2 of the proceeding, via CPUC Decision (D. 20-06-017), the CPUC directed Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE) to jointly develop a statewide microgrid incentive program (Microgrid Incentive Program or MIP) with a $200 million budget, collected from ratepayers, to fund clean energy microgrids to support the critical needs of vulnerable communities impacted by grid outages and test new technologies or regulatory approaches to inform future action on microgrids.

Deenergization events. In recent years, California has experienced a number of catastrophic wildfires, including several ignited by electrical utility infrastructure. Electrical equipment, including downed power lines, arcing, and conductor contact with trees and grass, can act as an ignition source. Risks for wildfires also increased with extended drought and bark beetle infestation that has increased tree mortalities and, as a result, increased the fuel, and risk for wildfires. As a result, electrical corporations have increasingly utilized proactive power shutoffs, deenergization of electric distribution (and sometimes transmission) lines, as a tool to prevent igniting wildfires, particularly during high wind event days with dry ground conditions. Although the use of proactive power shutoffs, coined as Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) were met with opposition and concerns about its use by affected communities, ultimately the CPUC acknowledged electrical corporations’ authority to deenergize lines in order to protect public safety, noting this authority in Public Utilities Code §451 and §399.2. However, the CPUC adopted protocols for deenergizing electric lines with a focus on who should receive notice and when, who should be responsible for notification, how different customer groups should be identified. The protocols require electrical corporations to develop work groups that include representatives of the access and functional needs population. As the protocols have evolved over the years, there has been expanded requirements to develop needs assessments and plans to coordinate with identified access and functional needs population, identify critical infrastructure, and coordinate with public safety partners.

Comments

Need for this bill. According to the author:

California communities continue to face prolonged power outages caused by wildfires, public safety power shutoffs, extreme weather, and other grid reliability challenges. AB 710 helps communities plan microgrid projects to bolster local grid reliability by requiring the utilities, upon request, to collaborate with local governments, tribal governments, and community choice aggregators to identify critical circuits and share necessary grid information. This bill ensures that the local entities responsible for emergency response and community resilience have the information needed to plan effectively, while protecting any sensitive utility information by requiring confidential treatment and limiting its use to microgrid planning.

Proponents seek opportunities for greater collaboration between electric investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and local and tribal governments. The proponents for this bill seek a standardized statutory requirement on IOUs to share localized distribution grid data with localities. While local governments, tribal nations, and CCAs are statutorily tasked with emergency response and climate resilience planning, they allege they lack the technical visibility required to design viable, targeted microgrid projects. They argue that the core regulatory deficiency is that current law provides no formal, streamlined mechanism for local entities to access circuit-level data, equipment specifications, or planned utility investments. Consequently, public jurisdictions waste finite resources designing microgrid proposals that may be technically unfeasible or redundant with unpublicized utility hardening plans. They believe the statutory omission undermines local self-reliance and delays the deployment of critical backup power systems in high-fire-threat districts.

Opponents point to existing processes for data sharing. The electrical corporations opposed to this bill point to existing processes for data sharing with local governments, specifically CPUC decisions in the microgrid proceeding noted above. They raise concerns that the language in this bill encourages uncoordinated, duplicative, and costly microgrid development rather than targeted, cost-effective deployment. among electrical corporations and local governments, tribal governments, CCAs, and others. They raise concerns that the bill creates significant risks to electrical grid security and violates customer privacy by requiring sharing of their personal identifiable data.

Need for amendments. The author intends for this bill to make explicit in statute a requirements on large electrical corporations to collaborate with local and tribal governments, and CCAs to provide data sharing to support resiliency planning, including potential to locate microgrids that support critical facilities. However, according to the author’s office, they intend to require data sharing consistent with state privacy laws, laws regarding customer consent to protect their information, and consistent with security of the electrical grid. As such, the author and committee members may wish to amend this bill to recast the provisions of this bill to make explicit the CPUC’s requirements on large electrical corporations to provide data sharing opportunities with local and tribal governments to support resiliency planning, including potential locations for microgrids to support critical facilities vulnerable to deenergization events; and to remove unnecessary language concerning confidentiality and changes to individual customer’s right to privacy.

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

Prior/Related Legislation

SB 453 (Stern, 2025) requires the CPUC to review the status of a ratepayer-funded microgrid incentive program and consider specified actions to direct any available funds to support vulnerable communities affected by deenergization events. The bill is pending on the Assembly Floor.

SB 533 (Stern, Chapter 244, Statutes of 2021) required electrical corporations to identify circuits that have frequently been deenergized to mitigate the risk of wildfire and the measures taken to reduce the need for future deenergization of those circuits.

AB 1144 (Friedman, Chapter 934, Statutes of 2019) required a percentage of funding from the Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) was directed to energy storage and other DER for customers that operate critical facilities or critical infrastructure serving communities in high fire threat districts.

SB 700 (Wiener, Chapter 839, Statutes of 2018) authorized the CPUC to extend collections up to $166 million in ratepayer funds annually for the SGIP to December 31, 2024.

SB 1339 (Stern, Chapter 566, Statutes 2018) required the CPUC and CEC to facilitate the commercialization of microgrids.

AB 1637 (Low, Chapter 658, Statutes of 2016) doubled the annual funding authorization for SGIP and revised and extended the net energy metering program for fuel cells by five years.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT:

California State Association of Counties
League of California Cities

OPPOSITION:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
San Diego Gas and Electric Company

Southern California Edison

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities states:

Microgrids improve reliability by allowing critical facilities and essential services to continue receiving power even when the broader electric grid experiences outages, reducing dependence on a single source of electricity and enhancing the resilience of local communities. While microgrids offer significant potential to improve community resilience, local governments often lack access to the utility system information necessary to identify feasible projects and prioritize investments. Counties may know which critical facilities require reliable backup power, but frequently do not have visibility into the underlying distribution infrastructure needed to determine where microgrids can be most effectively deployed.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The electric IOUs oppose this bill stating it is duplicative of existing requirements in the microgrid proceeding at the CPUC, this bill creates risky data-sharing requirements that undermine customer privacy and grid security and undermine effective grid planning. SDG&E states:

AB 710 diminishes California’s established customer privacy framework, which is built on the principle that customer-specific energy usage data may not be disclosed to third parties absent customer authorization. While the bill does not explicitly repeal these protections, it creates new pathways for third parties to request and obtain sensitive grid and customer data, shifting the focus away from customer-driven consent toward a third-party request driven model.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 710

Author:(Irwin)

As Amended Ver:January 7, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes requirements on both electrical corporations and publicly owned utilities (POUs) related to smart grid readiness.

Major Provisions

1. Requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), by January 1, 2028, to require each electrical corporation to offer optional dynamic pricing tariffs consistent with California Energy Commission (CEC) standards and a CPUC pricing framework.
2. Requires both electrical corporations and POUs to analyze, by January 1, 2028, the feasibility of deploying advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) to all customers, and develop a plan, by January 1, 2029, for complete advanced metering infrastructure deployment, where feasible.

COMMENTS

Load flexibility generally refers to the capability to shift or shed electric demand (referred to as "load") away from times when electricity is, as described by the CEC, "expensive, polluting and scarce" to times when it is "inexpensive, clean and plentiful." According to the CEC, load flexibility will be critical to "aligning customer demand with the supply of clean energy to integrate new renewables onto the grid, reduce the strain new electric load places on the grid, and help maintain electric reliability."

Recently, the Legislature passed SB 846 (Dodd), Chapter 239, Statutes of 2022, which, among many other things, directed the CEC, in consultation with the CPUC and the California Independent System Operator, a) to adopt, and regularly adjust, a goal for load shifting to reduce net peak electrical demand and b), to recommend policies to increase demand response and load shifting that do not increase greenhouse gas emissions or increase electric rates.

Accordingly, in May 2023, the CEC released a report—the appropriately named "Senate Bill 846 Load-Shift Goal Report"—which established a load-shifting goal of 7,000 megawatts by 2030. The CEC report notes "many pathways exist to achieve the load-shift goal" and that the goal reflects "growth of loads under TOU [time-of-use] rates such as electric vehicles and the policy preference for dynamic pricing-based load flexibility." The CEC report also made several recommendations, among them:

1. The CPUC should direct the IOUs to implement dynamic pricing options for as many customers as possible, consistent with the CEC Load Management Standards and the CPUC California Flexible Unified Signal for Energy hourly dynamic pricing proposal.
2. All California utilities, including POUs, should analyze the feasibility of advanced metering infrastructure deployment to all customers. Using this analysis, utilities should then move toward developing plans for complete AMI deployment, where feasible.

The author intends this bill to ensure implementation of these two recommendations, tying these actions to reduced electricity costs.

According to the Author

According to the author, "Californians are facing an affordability crisis in the form of rapidly rising electricity rates. One mechanism to help promote affordability in the electric sector is the widespread use of dynamic pricing, also known as time-of-use rates, which encourages customers to use electricity at times when it is inexpensive while discouraging usage during peak times, when electricity is both more expensive to generate and more emissions-intensive. Advanced metering infrastructure, often referred to as smart meters, can facilitate dynamic pricing and support better utilization of the electrical grid, potentially providing additional cost savings to ratepayers. Encouraging the adoption of dynamic pricing and the installation of advanced metering infrastructure will help move California toward a modernized electrical grid and reduce costs to ratepayers."

Arguments in Support

The California State Association of Counties note that counties "support the adoption of real-time metering and time-of-use metering, allowing consumers to make choices about their consumption of electrical energy based on the real-time price of electricity."

Arguments in Opposition

Two of the state's largest utilities, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) and Pacific Gas & Electric, oppose the bill. SDG&E describes the state as facing a choice: either the state can "let expert regulators, utilities, and stakeholders do their job to implement modern pricing structures thoughtfully," or, SDG&E warns, "it can impose rigid statutory requirements and deadlines that will waste money, delay system upgrades, and potentially increase customer bills." According to SDG&E, "AB 710 takes the second path," describing the bills as "rushed legislative micromanagement."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, this bill will entail new work of the CPUC with the resultant costs ranging in the hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars. However, the CPUC contends it cannot more accurately estimate the workload implications of this bill unless the bill were amended to provide "more specificity."

VOTES

ASM UTILITIES AND ENERGY: 11-0-7

YES: Petrie-Norris, Boerner, Mark González, Harabedian, Irwin, Kalra, Papan, Rogers, Schiavo, Schultz, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Patterson, Calderon, Chen, Davies, Hart, Ta, Wallis

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Stefani, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Bauer-Kahan, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: January 7, 2026

CONSULTANT: Laura Shybut / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0002232

Date of Hearing: January 22, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 710

Author:(Irwin) – As Amended Ver:January 7, 2026

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires both electrical corporations (also known as investor-owned utilities or IOUs) and publicly owned utilities (POUs) related to smart grid readiness to facilitate electrical load flexibility.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), by January 1, 2028, to require each IOU to offer optional dynamic pricing tariffs consistent with the California Energy Commission’s (CEC’s) electric load management standards and with the CPUC’s hourly dynamic pricing framework, as specified.
2. Directs the CPUC, by January 1, 2028, to require each IOU (a) to analyze the feasibility of deploying advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) to all customers and (b), based on that analysis, by January 1, 2029, to develop a plan for complete AMI deployment, where feasible.
3. Requires the governing board of each POU, by January 1, 2028, (a) to analyze the feasibility of deploying AMI to all customers and (b), based on that analysis, by January 1, 2029, to develop a plan for complete AMI deployment, where feasible.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Implementation of this bill will entail new work of the CPUC. Resulting costs are unknown, but likely in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars to low millions of dollars (Public Utilities Commission Utilities Reimbursement Account). According to the CPUC, the bill might require work of multiple sections of the CPUC’s Energy Division, at least. However, the CPUC contends it cannot more accurately estimate the workload implications of this bill unless the bill were amended to provide “more specificity.” 

COMMENTS:

Load flexibility generally refers to the capability to shift or shed electric demand (referred to as “load”) away from times when electricity is, as described by the CEC, “expensive, polluting and scarce” to times when it is “inexpensive, clean and plentiful.” According to the CEC, load flexibility will be critical to “aligning customer demand with the supply of clean energy to integrate new renewables onto the grid, reduce the strain new electric load places on the grid, and help maintain electric reliability.”

Recently, the Legislature passed SB 846 (Dodd), Chapter 239, Statutes of 2022, which, among many other things, directed the CEC, in consultation with the CPUC and the California Independent System Operator, (a) to adopt, and regularly adjust, a goal for load shifting to reduce net peak electrical demand and (b), to recommend policies to increase demand response and load shifting that do not increase greenhouse gas emissions or increase electric rates.

Accordingly, in May 2023, the CEC released a report—the appropriately named “Senate Bill 846 Load-Shift Goal Report”—which established a load-shifting goal of 7,000 megawatts by 2030. The CEC report notes “many pathways exist to achieve the load-shift goal” and that the goal reflects “growth of loads under TOU [time-of-use] rates such as electric vehicles and the policy preference for dynamic pricing-based load flexibility.” The CEC report also made several recommendations, among them:

• The CPUC should direct the IOUs to implement dynamic pricing options for as many customers as possible, consistent with the CEC Load Management Standards and the CPUC California Flexible Unified Signal for Energy hourly dynamic pricing proposal.
• All California utilities, including POUs, should analyze the feasibility of advanced metering infrastructure deployment to all customers. Using this analysis, utilities should then move toward developing plans for complete AMI deployment, where feasible.

The author intends this bill to ensure implementation of these two recommendations, tying these actions to reduced electricity costs. According to the author:

Utilizing dynamic pricing in utility rates can lower peak demand and reduce the overall cost of electricity generation and grid upgrades, particularly when paired with advanced metering infrastructure. Encouraging the adoption of dynamic pricing and the installation of advanced metering infrastructure will help move California toward a modernized electrical grid and reduce costs to ratepayers.

The California State Association of Counties agrees, noting that counties “support the adoption of real-time metering and time-of-use metering, allowing consumers to make choices about their consumption of electrical energy based on the real-time price of electricity.”

Despite the author’s assertions, two of the state’s largest IOUs oppose the bill. San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) describes the state as facing a choice—either the state can “let expert regulators, utilities, and stakeholders do their job to implement modern pricing structures thoughtfully,” or, SDG&E warns, “it can impose rigid statutory requirements and deadlines that will waste money, delay system upgrades, and potentially increase customer bills.” According to SDG&E, “AB 710 takes the second path,” describing the bills as “rushed legislative micromanagement.” More substantively, SDG&E writes:

We encourage the Legislature to allow the Commission to complete the Demand Flexibility Rulemaking and pending IOU applications for AMI deployment. The Commission’s measured approach will allow for technical analysis, customer impact studies, and proper implementation planning without mandating specific frameworks and deadlines that may be in the adverse interest of customers. Statutory mandates with compressed timelines reduce the Commission’s ability to thoughtfully design these protections.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) expresses concerns like those of SDG&E. In addition, PG&E objects:

For IOUs like PG&E, this requirement [a feasibility study for deployment of AMI to all customers] is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. PG&E completed its full AMI deployment in 2013, enabling all our customer classes to review and manage energy usage, receive timely billing services, participate in demand response programs, and default to time-of-use pricing.

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

Date of Hearing: January 15, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND ENERGY

Cottie Petrie-Norris, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 710 (

Author:Irwin) – As Amended Ver:January 7, 2026

SUBJECT: Electricity: dynamic pricing: advanced metering infrastructure

SUMMARY: Establishes requirements on both electrical corporations and publicly owned utilities (POUs) related to smart grid readiness. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), by January 1, 2028, to require each electrical corporation to offer optional dynamic pricing tariffs consistent with California Energy Commission (CEC) standards and a CPUC pricing framework.
2. Requires both electrical corporations and POUs to analyze, by January 1, 2028, the feasibility of deploying advanced metering infrastructure to all customers, and develop a plan, by January 1, 2029, for complete advanced metering infrastructure deployment, where feasible.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires that all rates for any service or product charged by an electrical corporation be just and reasonable. (Public Utilities Code § 451)
2. Requires each customer with distributed energy resources (DERs), as specified, to participate in real-time metering and pricing programs; and requires the CPUC to adopt a real-time pricing tariff by December 31, 2001, to serve these customers. (Public Utilities Code § 353.3)
3. Requires investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to offer default rates to residential customers with at least two usage tiers. (Public Utilities Code § 739.9)
4. Permits IOUs, with approval of the CPUC, to offer residential customers the option of receiving electric service pursuant to “time-variant pricing,” which includes time-of-use rates (TOU), critical peak-pricing, and real-time pricing. (Public Utilities Code § 745)
5. Requires the CPUC to report to the Legislature and Governor biennially on progress made toward modernizing the state’s distribution and transmission grid, largely focused on connecting DERs. (Public Utilities Code § 913.6)
6. Declares it state policy to modernize the electrical transmission and distribution system with infrastructure that could be characterized as a smart grid, including consumer devices for metering and ones that provide consumers with timely information and control options. (Public Utilities Code § 8360)
7. Requires, by July 1, 2011, both electrical corporations and larger POUs^[1] to develop a smart grid deployment plan. The electrical corporations must submit their plans to the CPUC for approval, who must ensure the plan meets specified policy objectives and federal operability rules. (Public Utilities Code §§ 8362, 8364, 8369)
8. Requires the CPUC, in consultation with the CEC and California Independent System Operator (CAISO), to evaluate the impact of smart grid technology deployment on major initiatives and policies, including implementation of new advanced metering initiatives. (Public Utilities Code § 8366)
9. Prohibits a business from sharing with any third party a customer’s electrical or natural gas usage data made available by advanced metering without first obtaining the express consent of the customer and conspicuously disclosing to whom the disclosure will be made and how the data will be used. (Civil Code § 1798.98, Public Utilities Code §§ 8380-8381)
10. Authorizes the Department of Energy to award $4 billion in grants ranging from $500,000 to $20 million for smart grid technology deployments and grants of $100,000 to $5 million for the deployment of grid monitoring devices. (federal Public Law 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009)
11. Requires the National Institute of Standards and Technology to be the lead agency to develop standards and protocols for the smart grid, and creates a research, development, and demonstration program for smart grid technologies at the Department of Energy, among other provisions. (federal Public Law 110-140, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007)

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 mandates an optional tariff. For customers who do not participate, they will likely be unaffected. For customers that do, there is potential for cost savings given the greater load management envisioned with the tariffs. However, these potential savings assume smooth deployment; if challenges materialize in updating utility systems, costs could escalate. The bill also mandates an advanced meter deployment plan. Both the planning for and the actual deployment of advanced metering will cost ratepayers money; however, most utilities in the state have already deployed advanced meters extensively throughout their service territory.

BACKGROUND:

Smart Grids. The term smart grid refers to an electric system that enables two-way communication between a customer’s meter and the utility. By incorporating advanced, information-based technologies, a smart grid seeks to increase efficiency, reliability, and operational flexibility, while reducing the need for new grid infrastructure. Smart grids have been a critical component of California’s clean energy transition. Since 2009, it has been state policy to “modernize the electric system” with infrastructure that increases the use of digital information and control technology, provides for dynamic grid optimization, develops cost-effective demand response, and integrates cost-effective, smart consumer devices (like appliances), among other characteristics.^[2]

The most important step to achieving a smart grid is installing smart meters, also known as “advanced metering infrastructure.” These meters allow utilities and customers to monitor real time usage, manage the system more effectively, and better handle electricity from renewable sources like rooftop solar. Beyond the data-sharing benefits, smart meters also save utilities money on avoided meter operation costs and truck dispatch. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) saw over $8.6 million in savings in the first 13 months of smart meter deployment from reduction in manual meter readings and service calls alone.^[3] Smart meters are also critical in achieving advanced rate design –such as dynamic, real-time tariffs – which rely on the fast flow of customer usage data to be implementable. In other words, you can only manage what you can measure; and smart meters enable more real-time measurement – and therefore management – of the electric system.

In 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the federal government awarded billions of dollars in grants for smart grid infrastructure, including smart meters. Tens of millions of those dollars flowed to California utilities, largely to finance smart meter installations.^[4] From 2009-2020, the CPUC annually reported on the state’s smart grid activities.^[5] As part of their last report, the CPUC provided a status update on the deployment of smart meters as of October 2019.^[6] Less than one percent (<1%) of all San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) customers remained on older, analog meters.^[7]

A Decade of Residential Rate Re-Design. There are several ways to price electricity used by the customers of an electric utility. Traditionally, customers paid the same price for each unit of electricity, regardless of when they used it. More recently, IOUs have offered their customers electricity pricing that varies by time of day. For example, the IOUs have offered time-of-use (TOU) rates to their nonresidential customers for over a decade and have made them available to their residential customers, on an opt-in basis, for several years. This rate structure is to better align the price the customer pays for electricity with the cost to the IOU to generate, transport, and deliver that electricity.^[8]

To illustrate, an IOU customer subject to TOU rates pays more for each unit of electricity they use on a hot, sunny afternoon—when demand for electricity and costs of electricity generation are both high—than they do for each unit of electricity the customer uses in the middle of the night—when demand for electricity and the cost of generation typically are both low. In this way, TOU rates align costs and price signals, thereby encouraging customers to shift their use of electricity to times of low cost and low demand. By June 2022, all eligible residential customers of the state’s three largest IOUs^[9] transitioned to TOU rates.

The TOU rate structure, however, is a blunt signal. TOU time blocks encompass hours—say, 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. for the most expensive TOU block—and the amount an IOU charges for each kilowatt of electricity a customer uses during those time blocks only loosely mirror wholesale electricity costs. In contrast, dynamic electricity rates price electricity on closer to real time (typically every hour), better aligning with the actual cost to produce and deliver electricity. This is a common business practice, experienced by anyone who has faced surge pricing in an Uber or booked airline tickets during the summer travel season. In this way, dynamic pricing sends a much more precise signal to customers than do TOU rates, and customers can make fine-tuned changes in their use of electricity based on those precise price signals.

Figure 1: Non-summer and Summer TOU prices for SMUD, showing 2 daily prices in the non-summer months and 3 daily prices in the summer months. In both seasons, the highest prices are those associated with the “peak” (yellow) from 5pm-8pm.

On July 14, 2022, the CPUC opened a rulemaking,^[10] following the release of a CPUC Energy Division staff white paper on the California Flexible Unified Signal for Energy (CalFUSE), a proposal that includes integrating real-time price signals in customer rates with better DER management.^[11] Recent studies that have analyzed the costs and benefits of DERs and other flexible resources show that a co-optimized system – i.e., a system that optimizes both the planning and dispatch of DERs with real-time price signals – can achieve significant long-term cost savings and partially mitigate the curtailment of renewable resources.^[12] As part of the rulemaking, the CPUC initiated dynamic pricing pilots for SDG&E,^[13] PG&E,^[14] and SCE^[15] to examine various customer behavior, system modifications, and customer needs before seeking to apply these activities statewide.^[16]

In August 2025, the CPUC closed the proceeding and directed SDG&E to propose demand flexibility rates for all customer classes by late November 2025.^[17] The decision directed PG&E and SCE to provide additional information within their pilot programs’ proceedings, and to share any learnings from their pilots by May 2028.^[18]

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “Californians are facing an affordability crisis in the form of rapidly rising electricity rates. One mechanism to help promote affordability in the electric sector is the widespread use of dynamic pricing, also known as time-of-use rates, which encourages customers to use electricity at times when it is inexpensive while discouraging usage during peak times, when electricity is both more expensive to generate and more emissions-intensive. Advanced metering infrastructure, often referred to as smart meters, can facilitate dynamic pricing and support better utilization of the electrical grid, potentially providing additional cost savings to ratepayers. Encouraging the adoption of dynamic pricing and the installation of advanced metering infrastructure will help move California toward a modernized electrical grid and reduce costs to ratepayers.”
2. Purpose of Bill. AB 710 seeks to increase the rate options for electrical corporation customers, providing them the opportunity to voluntarily subscribe to dynamic rates, and thereby increasing their load management abilities. Both residential and business consumers, as well as renters, can save on their bills by using programmable load-shifting devices to automatically schedule appliance operations based on electricity cost. Smart technology automation already exists and may be installed in your home or business. However, the implementation of dynamic prices to harness these technologies is still largely in the pilot phase; though, as noted above, SDG&E has recently proposed demand flexibility rates for all customer classes. This bill would require all electrical corporations to offer optional dynamic pricing tariffs by January 1, 2028.
3. Unequal Smart Meter Deployment. AB 710 also recognizes that the main infrastructure barrier to dynamic rates is the availability of smart meters. As noted above, this is not a barrier in the large IOU territories, which have had near-universal adoption of smart meters for over a decade (since 2013). Less information is available for POUs. Many – such as SMUD and Glendale Water & Power – received federal money under the ARRA to fully deploy smart meters.^[19] Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) received $60 million in ARRA funding in 2013 for their “Smart Grid LA” program, which installed 52,000 smart meters – only a small share of their roughly 1.6 million LADWP customer accounts.^[20] More than a decade later, LADWP reports that it has begun deploying additional smart meter infrastructure in 2025,^[21] and estimates needing about 1.5-2 years to reach full deployment.^[22] The status of smart meter deployment at other small, multijurisdictional IOUs, electric co-operatives, or small POUs is unknown to the committee.

This bill requires all IOUs and POUs to analyze the feasibility of deploying smart meters to all customers by January 1, 2028, and to develop a deployment plan by January 1, 2029. Writing in opposition, SDG&E notes this requirement duplicates and overrides the existing decade of work, forcing a new process and new work when smart meter infrastructure is already well established. (SDG&E for its part is already in its second smart meter deployment, having requested additional funding during in its 2024 General Rate Case.) It is unclear how much the requirements of the bill will be interpreted by the CPUC or POU governing boards as new work, or if past feasibility analyses and deployment plans would meet the bill’s obligations. If the effect of this bill is to create new obligations in addition to what has already happened, the opposition’s emphasis on duplication seems warranted, at least for most utility customers in the state. However, this bill also captures utilities who otherwise have been statutorily excluded from these obligations.

1. Unequal Utility Impacts. Statute related to smart grid technologies and smart metering deployment permits the CPUC to modify or adjust the requirements for any electrical corporation with fewer than 100,000 service connections and excludes outright any POU under that threshold.^[23] These off-ramps include all the state’s electric co-operatives, which are considered “electrical corporations” under current Public Utilities Code definitions. This bill makes no such modification and instead requires all utilities in the state to establish deployment plans for smart meters. Given the deployment that has been underway for over a decade with the large IOUs^[24] and many of the large POUs, this bill will largely impact just these smaller utilities that have been excluded from statutory requirements since 2009. (That is, if one assumes new deployment plans won’t be required for the earlier adopters, which is not a guarantee.) Back in 2009 many stakeholders were uncertain of the benefits of smart meter technology; ^[25] especially given IOUs smart meter project costs ran into the billions of dollars.^[26] However, over a decade later, the smart grid is here, and many customers are demanding more opportunities to install load-modifying devices or tailor their energy consumption. This measure proposes revisiting these past off-ramps, to instead require all utilities to plan for this technology.
2. Which Customers? The customers likeliest to benefit from the dynamic pricing tariffs required under this bill are solar and storage customers with on-site equipment that tracks dynamic grid conditions and price signals, and savvy commercial and industrial customers with the time and financing (and, likely, dedicated staff) to maximize savings from dynamic pricing. However, the bill is not clear which customers must be included in the optional dynamic tariffs.

Any change to customer rate design, even an optional one, may create unintended consequences. Vulnerable customers – i.e., elderly, low-income, or those with medical needs – may have limited access or understanding of the technology needed to optimize for cost savings under the new rate design. Moreover, they may have limited flexibility in adapting to grid needs, such as being unable to reduce air conditioning usage during a heat wave. There also exists the potential cost shifts between participating or nonparticipating bundled and unbundled customers.

However, the bill gives the CPUC only broad direction to require each electrical corporation to offer optional dynamic pricing rates. As noted above, in August 2025 the CPUC already directed SDG&E to adopt such rates. PG&E and SCE already offer dynamic pricing to some customers through pilot programs, which appear to satisfy the bill’s requirements. By contrast, smaller, multi-jurisdictional utilities and electric cooperatives – which have not previously been required by the CPUC to run pilots or change their rate structures – could be newly required under this bill to offer these options.

1. Prior Legislation.

AB 44 (Schultz, 2025) required the CEC on or before December 1, 2026, to create and publicize methodologies for load modification protocols, as specified. Status: Vetoed.

AB 740 (Harabedian, 2025) required the CEC, by January 1, 2027, to adopt a virtual power plant deployment plan, as specified. Status: Vetoed.

AB 1117 (Schultz, 2025) created optional, dynamic electricity rates for IOU customers. The bill also aimed to ensure that adopting these new rates doesn’t unfairly shift costs between different customer groups. Additionally, the bill authorized medium and large commercial and industrial customers to receive generation service through the Direct Access (DA) program, thereby, opening the current statutory cap on this third-party service. Status: Held in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

SB 541 (Becker, 2025) required the CEC, as part of an existing biennial report, to estimate each retail supplier’s load-shifting potential, considering certain factors, including cost-effectiveness; and to publish, on or before July 1, 2028, and biennially thereafter, the amount of load shifting that each retail supplier achieved in the prior calendar year. Status: Vetoed.

AB 2891 (Friedman, 2024) required the CEC to adopt technical requirements and load modification protocols, as specified. Status: Died – Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

SB 846 (Dodd), among its many provisions, requires the CEC to adopt a goal for load shifting by June 1, 2023, to reduce net peak electrical demand, and requires biennial updates to the targets. Status: Chapter 239, Statutes of 2022.

AB 242 (Holden) struck a statutory requirement that the CPUC annually report on smart grid deployment (previously Public Utilities Code § 913.2) and updated an existing report focused on DER technology to include “progress made toward modernizing…the grid” (now Public Utilities Code § 913.6). Status: Chapter 228, Statutes of 2021.

SB 17 (Padilla) establishes the smart grid policy of the state and requires the CPUC to determine the requirements for a smart grid deployment plan no later than July 1, 2011. Status: Chapter 327, Statutes of 2009.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Note: This bill was significantly amended on January 7^th. Any position letters on file are in reference to the previous version of the bill, which is unrelated to its current policy.

Support

California State Association of Counties (CSAC)

Opposition

San Diego Gas and Electric Company

Analysis Prepared by: Laura Shybut / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083

1. Those with more than 100,000 service connections ↑

2. Public Utilities Code § 8360 ↑

3. Pg. 54, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, US DOE, Advanced metering Infrastructure and Customer Systems, September 2016; https://gridmap.gridwise.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AMI-Summary-Report_09-26-16.pdf ↑

4. Ibid. ↑

5. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/infrastructure/smart-grid-landing-page ↑

6. CPUC, California Smart Grid Annual Report, 2019, February 2020; https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/files/uploadedfiles/cpucwebsite/content/about_us/organization/divisions/office_of_governmental_affairs/legislation/2020/2019-smart-grid-annual-report.pdf ↑

7. largely due to their opting-out of the installation; see Table 4, pg. 38, Ibid. ↑

8. Energy Upgrade California website; “Time Matters – FAQs;” accessed 03.25.2025; https://energyupgradeca.org/time-of-use-faqs#:~:text=When%20did%20Time%20Of%20Use,to%20TOU%20by%20June%202022. ↑

9. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). ↑

10. R. 22-07-005 ↑

11. Madduir, A., et al., Advanced Strategies for Demand Flexibility Management and Customer DER Compensation; CPUC; June 22, 2022; https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/demand-response/demand-response-workshops/advanced-der---demand-flexibility-management/ed-white-paper---advanced-strategies-for-demand-flexibility-management.pdf ↑

12. Reeve, Hayden, et. al., “Distribution System Operator with Transactive (DSO+T) Study Volume 1: Main Report,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), 2022. https://doi.org/10.2172/1842485. ↑

13. D. 21-07-010 ↑

14. D. 21-12-015, D. 24-01-032 ↑

15. D. 21-12-015, D. 22-10-022 ↑

16. D. 24-01-032 ↑

17. D. 25-08-049 ↑

18. Order #7 of D. 25-08-049, pg. 148, directs a Tier 1 AL within 90 days after the final evaluation reports. D. 24-01-032 directed the expanded the pilots to conclude around December 2027, with final evaluation reports due March 1, 2028; putting the Tier 1 ALs at May 2028. ↑

19. Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, US DOE, Advanced metering Infrastructure and Customer Systems, September 2016; https://gridmap.gridwise.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AMI-Summary-Report_09-26-16.pdf ↑

20. https://www.ladwp.com/who-we-are/power-system/advanced-metering-infrastructure ↑

21. https://www.ladwp.com/who-we-are/power-system/advanced-metering-infrastructure ↑

22. In correspondence with the committee. ↑

23. Public Utilities Code §§ 8368-8369 ↑

24. CPUC. (2025). “The Benefits of Smart Meters.” CPUC. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/infrastructure/the-benefits-of-smart-meters ↑

25. See the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce analysis for SB 17 (Padilla) from June 22, 2009; https://lis.calegis.net/LISWeb/faces/bills/billdetail.xhtml;jsessionid=rBm3lYbFr_5PL2WMvzE3WE1kbjFVmAf_Bxj4tySGZWmvpH-mLqs1!414268824!-637988048# ↑

26. https://lis.calegis.net/LISWeb/faces/bills/billdetail.xhtml;jsessionid=rBm3lYbFr_5PL2WMvzE3WE1kbjFVmAf_ Bx j4tySGZWmvpH-mLqs1!414268824!-637988048# ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 710

Author:(Irwin)

As Amended Ver:March 18, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Creates four new crimes relating to the theft and forgery of gift cards.

Major Provisions

1. Provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires or retains possession of a gift card or gift card redemption information without the consent of the cardholder, card issuer, or gift card seller is guilty of theft.
2. Provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, alters or tampers with a gift card is guilty of forgery, punishable by imprisonment in county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years.
3. Provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, uses a gift card or gift card redemption information for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, services, or anything else of value that has been obtained in violation of either of the above crimes is guilty of theft.
4. Provides that person who, with the intent to defraud, devises a scheme to obtain a gift card or gift card redemption information from a cardholder, card issuer, or gift card seller by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises is guilty of theft.
5. Provides that if the value of all money, goods, services, and other things of value obtained exceeds $950, the person is guilty of grand theft.
6. Defines the below terms as follows:
   1. ″Cardholder″ means a person to whom a physical or virtual gift card is issued through a purchase or a person who receives a gift card from a willing party.
   2. ″Card issuer″ means a person that issues a gift card or the agent of that person with respect to that card.
   3. ″Gift card″ means a physical or digital card, code, or device that is either activated or inactivated and is issued to a consumer on a prepaid basis primarily for personal, family, or household purposes in a specified amount, regardless of whether that amount may be increased or reloaded in exchange for payment, and can be either of the following:
      1. A closed-loop gift card, meaning that it is redeemable upon presentation by a consumer at a single merchant or group of affiliated merchants; or
      2. An open-loop gift card, meaning that it is redeemable upon presentation by a consumer at multiple unaffiliated merchants for goods or services within the payment card network.
   4. ″Gift card redemption information″ means information unique to a gift card that allows the cardholder to access, transfer, or spend the funds accessed by the gift card.
   5. ″Gift card seller″ means a merchant that is engaged in the business of selling open-loop or closed-loop gift cards to consumers.
   6. ″Value″ means the greatest amount of economic loss the owner of the property might reasonably suffer, including the full monetary face value of a gift card or the potential value for variable load gift cards.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

″Organized criminal networks within California and across the United States are stealing gift cards in bulk from retailers and manipulating gift card packaging to steal the card information. Offenders then stealthily return the cards to store displays and drain the funds after a customer purchases and loads the card with funds.

″Whether you got a gift card for your birthday, from a charitable organization after a disaster, or rely on gift cards due to lack of traditional banking access, every Californian deserves peace of mind when receiving a gift card. We must close loopholes that enable scammers to take advantage of California consumers and sow seeds of distrust in our economy. AB 710 hold organized retail crime networks accountable and ensures that consumers can confidently purchase, share, receive and use their gift cards.″

Arguments in Support

According to the California District Attorneys Association, ″As you are aware, sophisticated thieves are increasingly targeting gift cards due to their ease of transferability and resale. These thefts are costly to consumers and retailers. And, though current law already penalizes various forms of access card fraud, AB 710 is a necessary and timely update to explicitly criminalize theft and fraud of gift cards.

″AB 710 is a necessary legislative update that targets a modern method of financial fraud and theft. The bill aligns with existing theft and forgery statutes but will improve current provisions by specifically criminalizing fraudulent possession, alteration, and misuse of gift cards. In this way AB 710 will strengthen consumer protection and prosecutorial effectiveness in addressing retail crime.″

Arguments in Opposition

According to Californians United for a Responsible Budget, ″AB 710…would create multiple new criminal offenses for gift card theft and forgery. This legislature should protect small businesses and consumers from gift card scams. However, AB 710 needlessly expands the Penal Code without providing the protection Californians deserve.

″Instead of AB 710, the legislature should follow the model set by other states and pass smarter, tailored solutions that will keep our communities safe and thriving. For example, New Jersey requires sellers to train employees to identify and mitigate gift card scams, and New York passed a law to alert customers of potential gift card scams and ways they can protect themselves against fraud. Most importantly, legislators can target the heart of the problem by requiring gift card sellers to distribute gift cards with improved and secure packaging, as Maryland legislators did.

″First, AB 710 is unnecessary because existing laws already cover these crimes. The four new proposed gift card crimes are already punishable under California′s larceny statute, and the proposed new forgery crime is already punishable under the existing forgery and counterfeiting statute. Adding redundant statutes will further complicate the Penal Code without addressing any gaps in enforcement. Research is clear that lengthening sentences does not effectively deter crime—in this case, few people are likely to know about this obscure law change, let alone factor it into their actions.

″Second, AB 710′s overbroad language risks inflating the prison population. For example, under this bill, a person who ″devises a scheme to obtain a gift card″ could be sentenced to prison. This implies that the intent to steal a gift card—with no corresponding action—could be penalized, contradicting one of the most basic protections in criminal law, namely that someone cannot be punished for their thoughts alone.

″Additionally, AB 710 redefines the threshold for felony theft ($950) by basing convictions on ″what one might reasonably suffer,″ including ″the potential value″ of the gift card. Research shows retail theft penalties disproportionality harm Black and Latinx people, thus AB 710 risks exacerbating racial disparities in the criminal legal system.

″All Californians deserve thriving local economies, and both businesses and customers deserve to be protected from gift card scams. But adding a redundant law will waste taxpayer resources without addressing people′s real concerns. Instead, we need proven solutions that prevent crime like empowering employees and increasing awareness of gift card scams.″

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown.

VOTES

UPDATED

VERSION: March 18, 2025

CONSULTANT: Ilan Zur / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001662

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 710

Author:(Irwin)

As Amended Ver:March 18, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Creates four new crimes relating to the theft and forgery of gift cards.

Major Provisions

1. Provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires or retains possession of a gift card or gift card redemption information without the consent of the cardholder, card issuer, or gift card seller is guilty of theft.
2. Provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, alters or tampers with a gift card is guilty of forgery, punishable by imprisonment in county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years.
3. Provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, uses a gift card or gift card redemption information for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, services, or anything else of value that has been obtained in violation of either of the above crimes is guilty of theft.
4. Provides that person who, with the intent to defraud, devises a scheme to obtain a gift card or gift card redemption information from a cardholder, card issuer, or gift card seller by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises is guilty of theft.
5. Provides that if the value of all money, goods, services, and other things of value obtained exceeds $950, the person is guilty of grand theft.
6. Defines the below terms as follows:
   1. ″Cardholder″ means a person to whom a physical or virtual gift card is issued through a purchase or a person who receives a gift card from a willing party.
   2. ″Card issuer″ means a person that issues a gift card or the agent of that person with respect to that card.
   3. ″Gift card″ means a physical or digital card, code, or device that is either activated or inactivated and is issued to a consumer on a prepaid basis primarily for personal, family, or household purposes in a specified amount, regardless of whether that amount may be increased or reloaded in exchange for payment, and can be either of the following:
      1. A closed-loop gift card, meaning that it is redeemable upon presentation by a consumer at a single merchant or group of affiliated merchants; or
      2. An open-loop gift card, meaning that it is redeemable upon presentation by a consumer at multiple unaffiliated merchants for goods or services within the payment card network.
   4. ″Gift card redemption information″ means information unique to a gift card that allows the cardholder to access, transfer, or spend the funds accessed by the gift card.
   5. ″Gift card seller″ means a merchant that is engaged in the business of selling open-loop or closed-loop gift cards to consumers.
   6. ″Value″ means the greatest amount of economic loss the owner of the property might reasonably suffer, including the full monetary face value of a gift card or the potential value for variable load gift cards.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

″Organized criminal networks within California and across the United States are stealing gift cards in bulk from retailers and manipulating gift card packaging to steal the card information. Offenders then stealthily return the cards to store displays and drain the funds after a customer purchases and loads the card with funds.

″Whether you got a gift card for your birthday, from a charitable organization after a disaster, or rely on gift cards due to lack of traditional banking access, every Californian deserves peace of mind when receiving a gift card. We must close loopholes that enable scammers to take advantage of California consumers and sow seeds of distrust in our economy. AB 710 hold organized retail crime networks accountable and ensures that consumers can confidently purchase, share, receive and use their gift cards.″

Arguments in Support

According to the California District Attorneys Association, ″As you are aware, sophisticated thieves are increasingly targeting gift cards due to their ease of transferability and resale. These thefts are costly to consumers and retailers. And, though current law already penalizes various forms of access card fraud, AB 710 is a necessary and timely update to explicitly criminalize theft and fraud of gift cards.

″AB 710 is a necessary legislative update that targets a modern method of financial fraud and theft. The bill aligns with existing theft and forgery statutes but will improve current provisions by specifically criminalizing fraudulent possession, alteration, and misuse of gift cards. In this way AB 710 will strengthen consumer protection and prosecutorial effectiveness in addressing retail crime.″

Arguments in Opposition

According to Californians United for a Responsible Budget, ″AB 710…would create multiple new criminal offenses for gift card theft and forgery. This legislature should protect small businesses and consumers from gift card scams. However, AB 710 needlessly expands the Penal Code without providing the protection Californians deserve.

″Instead of AB 710, the legislature should follow the model set by other states and pass smarter, tailored solutions that will keep our communities safe and thriving. For example, New Jersey requires sellers to train employees to identify and mitigate gift card scams, and New York passed a law to alert customers of potential gift card scams and ways they can protect themselves against fraud. Most importantly, legislators can target the heart of the problem by requiring gift card sellers to distribute gift cards with improved and secure packaging, as Maryland legislators did.

″First, AB 710 is unnecessary because existing laws already cover these crimes. The four new proposed gift card crimes are already punishable under California′s larceny statute, and the proposed new forgery crime is already punishable under the existing forgery and counterfeiting statute. Adding redundant statutes will further complicate the Penal Code without addressing any gaps in enforcement. Research is clear that lengthening sentences does not effectively deter crime—in this case, few people are likely to know about this obscure law change, let alone factor it into their actions.

″Second, AB 710′s overbroad language risks inflating the prison population. For example, under this bill, a person who ″devises a scheme to obtain a gift card″ could be sentenced to prison. This implies that the intent to steal a gift card—with no corresponding action—could be penalized, contradicting one of the most basic protections in criminal law, namely that someone cannot be punished for their thoughts alone.

″Additionally, AB 710 redefines the threshold for felony theft ($950) by basing convictions on ″what one might reasonably suffer,″ including ″the potential value″ of the gift card. Research shows retail theft penalties disproportionality harm Black and Latinx people, thus AB 710 risks exacerbating racial disparities in the criminal legal system.

″All Californians deserve thriving local economies, and both businesses and customers deserve to be protected from gift card scams. But adding a redundant law will waste taxpayer resources without addressing people′s real concerns. Instead, we need proven solutions that prevent crime like empowering employees and increasing awareness of gift card scams.″

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown.

VOTES

UPDATED

VERSION: March 18, 2025

CONSULTANT: Ilan Zur / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001662

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Ilan Zur

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 710

Author:(Irwin) – As Amended Ver:March 18, 2025

SUMMARY:

Creates four new crimes relating to the theft and forgery of gift cards. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires or retains possession of a gift card or gift card redemption information without the consent of the cardholder, card issuer, or gift card seller is guilty of theft.
2. Provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, alters or tampers with a gift card is guilty of forgery, punishable by imprisonment in county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years.
3. Provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, uses a gift card or gift card redemption information for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, services, or anything else of value that has been obtained in violation of either of the above crimes is guilty of theft.
4. Provides that person who, with the intent to defraud, devises a scheme to obtain a gift card or gift card redemption information from a cardholder, card issuer, or gift card seller by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises is guilty of theft.
5. Provides that if the value of all money, goods, services, and other things of value obtained exceeds $950, the person is guilty of grand theft.
6. Defines the below terms as follows:
   1. “Cardholder” means a person to whom a physical or virtual gift card is issued through a purchase or a person who receives a gift card from a willing party.
   2. “Card issuer” means a person that issues a gift card or the agent of that person with respect to that card.
   3. “Gift card” means a physical or digital card, code, or device that is either activated or inactivated and is issued to a consumer on a prepaid basis primarily for personal, family, or household purposes in a specified amount, regardless of whether that amount may be increased or reloaded in exchange for payment, and can be either of the following:
      1. A closed-loop gift card, meaning that it is redeemable upon presentation by a consumer at a single merchant or group of affiliated merchants; or
      2. An open-loop gift card, meaning that it is redeemable upon presentation by a consumer at multiple unaffiliated merchants for goods or services within the payment card network.
   4. “Gift card redemption information” means information unique to a gift card that allows the cardholder to access, transfer, or spend the funds accessed by the gift card.
   5. “Gift card seller” means a merchant that is engaged in the business of selling open-loop or closed-loop gift cards to consumers.
   6. “Value” means the greatest amount of economic loss the owner of the property might reasonably suffer, including the full monetary face value of a gift card or the potential value for variable load gift cards.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that every person who feloniously steals, takes, carries, leads, or drives away the personal property of another, or who fraudulently appropriates property which has been entrusted to them, or who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, is guilty of theft. Divides theft into two degrees, petty theft and grand theft. (Pen. Code §§ 484, subd. (a), 486.)
2. Provides that in determining the value of the property obtained pursuant to the above, the reasonable and fair market value shall be the test, in determining the value of services received the contract price shall be the test, and if there be no contract price, the reasonable and going wage for the service rendered shall govern. (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a).)
3. Punishes petty theft as a misdemeanor, punishable by fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or both. (Pen. Code, § 490.)
   
4. Defines grand theft as theft of money, labor, real or personal property of a value exceeding $950, and punishes grand theft as a “wobbler” – subject to imprisonment in county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years (Pen. Code, §§ 487, 489.)
   
5. Provides that in any case involving one or more acts of theft or shoplifting, including but not limited to, shoplifting, theft, and petty theft, the value of property or merchandise stolen may be aggregated into a single count or charge, with the sum of the value of all property or merchandise being the values considered in determining the degree of theft. (Pen. Code, § 490.2.)
6. Defines “shoplifting” as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed $950. Shoplifting is. Shoplifting shall be punished as a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 459.5.)
   
7. Makes it a crime to buy or receive stolen property. If the value of the property is less than $950, the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in county jail for one year. If the value of the property is over $950, the offense is punishable as a “wobbler” – subject to imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years (Pen. Code, §§ 487, 489, 496.)
8. Provides that a person who has two or more prior convictions for specified theft offenses and who is convicted of petty theft or shoplifting, is punishable by imprisonment in county jail for up to one year, or by 16 months, or two or three years, and makes a second or subsequent conviction of petty theft with two priors punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or by imprisonment in state prison.. (Pen. Code, § 666.1, subd. (a).)
9. Provides that a person that unlawfully possesses property acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from a retail business, where the property is not possessed for personal use and the person has the intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, or the intent to act in concert with one or more persons to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value; and value of the possessed property exceeds $950, is guilty of unlawful deprivation of a retail business opportunity, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or by imprisonment in county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years. (Pen. Code, § 496.6.)
10. Provides that any person that: 1) acts in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise with the intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value; 2) acts in concert with two or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess merchandise knowing or believing it to have been stolen; 3) acts as the agent of another individual or group of individuals to steal merchandise from one or more merchant as part of a plan to commit theft; or, 4) recruits, coordinates, organizes, supervises, directs, manages, or finances another to undertake acts of theft, is guilty of organized retail theft. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (a).
11. Punishes organized retail theft as follows:
    1. If violations of the above provisions, except the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another provision, are committed on two or more separate occasions within a one-year period, and if the aggregated value of the merchandise stolen, received, purchased, or possessed within that period exceeds $950 the offense is punishable as either a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or as a jail-eligible felony;
    2. Any other violation of the above provisions, except the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another provision, is punishable as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year; and,
    3. A violation of the recruiting, coordinating, organizing, supervising, directing, managing, or financing another provision is punishable as either a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or as a jail-eligible felony. (Pen. Code, § 490.1, subd. (b).)
12. Creates several crimes pertaining to the theft and forgery of debit and credit cards (also known as “access cards”). (Pen. Code, §§ 484e, 484f, 484g, 484h.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Organized criminal networks within California and across the United States are stealing gift cards in bulk from retailers and manipulating gift card packaging to steal the card information. Offenders then stealthily return the cards to store displays and drain the funds after a customer purchases and loads the card with funds.

“Whether you got a gift card for your birthday, from a charitable organization after a disaster, or rely on gift cards due to lack of traditional banking access, every Californian deserves peace of mind when receiving a gift card. We must close loopholes that enable scammers to take advantage of California consumers and sow seeds of distrust in our economy. AB 710 hold organized retail crime networks accountable and ensures that consumers can confidently purchase, share, receive and use their gift cards.”

1. Need for this Bill: Reports suggest that there is a growing trend where people are stealing gift cards, for the purposes of defrauding consumers. For example, people steal numerous gift cards from a retail business. Upon stealing such cards, they gain access to the gift card or otherwise access redemption information using specified technological equipment, and subsequently return that card to the retail business. Once a consumer purchases the card (i.e. loads the card with a certain amount of funds), the people who stole the card proceeds to utilize the gift card redemption information they have secured to steal the loaded funds directly from the consumer. As stated in a recent report on rising gift card fraud:

Experts say there are numerous ways fraudsters can steal gift card balances before the intended recipients can use them. The cards are often displayed in kiosks on sales floors, allowing scammers to steal them and copy their barcode numbers and PINs or security codes before returning the tampered cards to the store. The thieves then wait for the cards to be purchased and loaded with money by unsuspecting customers before they use the stolen codes and pins to drain the funds from the cards.^[1]

1. Effect of this Bill: AB 710 creates four new crimes specific to the theft of gift cards. Such crimes are in addition to California’s existing theft statutes that, by punishing theft of any property generally, already encompass theft of gift cards.

First, it provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires or retains possession of a gift card or gift card redemption information without the consent of the cardholder, card issuer, or gift card seller is guilty of theft. Second, it provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, alters or tampers with a gift card is guilty of forgery, punishable as a “wobbler” – subject to imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years. Notably, this new forgery crime would apply irrespective of whether any harm or loss occurs due to such tampering. In effect this purports to treat forgery of a gift card similar to forgery of critical legal documents such as wills, deeds, and records of evidence, as well as akin to credit card fraud. (Pen. Code, §§ 470, 473.)

Third, it provides that a person who, with the intent to defraud, uses a gift card or gift card redemption information for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, services, or anything else of value that has been obtained in violation of either of the above crimes is guilty of theft.

Fourth, it states that person who, with the intent to, defraud, devises a scheme to obtain a gift card or gift card redemption information from a cardholder, card issuer, or gift card seller by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises is guilty of theft. In practice, this would make it a crime for a person to devise a mental criminal scheme, without requiring any actual action from the offender. As discussed more below, this is inconsistent with fundamental principles of criminal law and can be expected to open this bill up to litigation.

Finally, AB 710 would define “value,” for the purposes of this bill to mean the greatest amount of economic loss the owner of the property might reasonably suffer, including the full monetary face value of a gift card or the potential value for variable load gift cards. As discussed more below, this definition of value is inconsistent with the definitions of value elsewhere in the Penal Code, and can be expected to punish persons for the most potential harm they could have caused, even if little to no harm actually occurs.

1. Existing Penalties for Conduct Prohibited by this Bill: There are numerous criminal penalties that can already be used to address the type of gift card schemes at issue here, many of which were specifically created by the Legislature last year to address concerns of rising retail theft. Further, Proposition 36, which was passed by the voters in November of 2024 established additional penalties for repeat theft violators, and made it easier to prosecute grand theft. Available tools that can be utilized to target gift card theft schemes include the following:
   1. Theft

A person who feloniously steals or takes away the personal property of another, or who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, is guilty of theft. If the value of the property is under $950, it is petty theft punishable by imprisonment in county jail for one year. If the value of stolen property exceeds $950, the offense can be charged as grand theft, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, or by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years. (Pen. Code, §§ 487, 489, 496.)

Here, a person who steals numerous gift cards from a store, gains access to the gift card redemption information, returns those cards, and subsequently steals money from consumers who have loaded them with money, can be prosecuted for theft in numerous ways. First, the initial theft of the gift cards themselves can be prosecuted as either petty theft, or grand theft, depending on the number of cards stolen. Second, the subsequent theft from consumers, once they have loaded money onto the cards, can additionally be prosecuted as theft of the consumer’s personal property.

Notably, after the passage of Prop 36 in November of 2024, it is now easier for prosecutors to charge persons with grand, rather than petty theft. First, Prop 36 targeted repeat theft offenders, by making a conviction for theft and shoplifting, where that person has two prior theft convictions, punishable by imprisonment in county jail for up to one year or by 16 months, or two or three years; and it made a second or subsequent conviction of petty theft with two priors punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or by imprisonment in state prison. (Pen. Code, § 666.1, subd. (a).) Here, a person with two priors who is caught stealing gift cards, whether they ultimately defraud consumers or not, can face up to three years in county jail. (Pen. Code, § 666.1, subd. (a).)

Second, Prop 36 made it easier to aggregate the value of stolen property in order to trigger the $950 grand theft threshold. Previously, the value of stolen property could be aggregated to charge grand theft where the acts were motivated by one intention, one impulse, and one plan. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (e).) However, Prop 36 authorized a more generous method of aggregation by stating that, in multiple cases of theft the value of property may be aggregated into a single charge, with the sum of the value of all property or merchandise being the value considered in determining the degree of theft. (Pen. Code, § 490.3.) As such, pursuant to Prop 36’s aggregation standard, prosecutors will have greater leeway to aggregate all theft associated with the type of gift card scheme at issue in this bill, making it easier to charge such persons with grand theft.

• 1. Organized Retail Theft:

A person commits organized retail theft where they: 1) act in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise with the intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value; 2) act in concert with two or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess merchandise knowing or believing it to have been stolen; 3) act as the agent of another individual or group of individuals to steal merchandise from one or more merchant as part of a plan to commit theft; or, 4) recruit, coordinate, organize, supervise, direct, manage, or finance another to undertake acts of theft. (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (a).) Violations of the above provisions that are committed on two or more separate occasions within a one-year period, and where the aggregated value of the merchandise exceeds $950, are in most cases punishable as either a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or a felony.

Here, individuals who act in concert to steal gift cards from a store and subsequently return those cards for the purposes of defrauding consumers can be prosecuted for organized retail theft, as that statute specifically covers the theft of property and the subsequent return of such property for value. More importantly, organizing, directing, and financing such gift card schemes is punishable by up to 16 months, two years, or three years in county jail for first time violations under the organized retail theft statute.

• 1. Receipt of Stolen Property

Any persons who receives stolen gift cards for the purpose of gaining access to gift card redemption information and subsequently returning such cards for the purpose of defrauding consumers can be prosecuted for receipt of stolen property. Under existing law, it is a crime to buy or receive stolen property, knowing the property is stolen. Receipt of stolen property is punishable as a wobbler, depending on the amount stolen. (Pen. Code, §§ 487, 489, 496.) As such, persons who are not directly involved in the theft of gift cards from a retail business, but nonetheless participate by receiving such cards and gaining access to gift card redemption information, can be prosecuted for receipt of stolen property.

• 1. Deprivation of a Retail Opportunity

Gift card fraud schemes can be prosecuted under the specific statute of deprivation of a retail business opportunity. The statute provides that a person that unlawfully possesses property acquired through one or more acts of theft from a retail business, where the property is not possessed for personal use and the person has the intent to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, or the intent to act in concert with one or more persons to sell, exchange, or return the merchandise for value, and value of the possessed property exceeds $950, is guilty of unlawful deprivation of a retail business opportunity, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months, two years, or three years. (Pen. Code, § 496.6.)

This statute is particularly applicable to the type of gift card schemes at issue because it targets unlawful possession of property that is stolen from a retail business, where the property is not possessed for personal use, and the person has intent to return the merchandise for value. Here a person who possesses hundreds of stolen gift cards that have not yet been loaded with funds will undoubtedly meet the requirement that they are not possessing the property for personal use. Further, to be convicted of this crime a person does not actually need to return the merchandize for value, but simply requires intent to do so.

• 1. Retail Crime Restraining Orders

Retailers now have statutory authority to petition for retail crime restraining orders, prohibiting persons convicted of specified theft offenses from entering the premises of a retail establishment, and such orders may be valid for up to two years. (Pen. Code, § 490.8, subd. (a).) These specifically apply to shoplifting, any theft from a retail establishment, and any organized retail theft. Given that the type of gift card scheme at issue here can already be prosecuted as theft as well as organized retail theft, a person who steals gift cards from a retail business may be subject to up to two year restraining order, a violation of which is a misdemeanor.

• 1. Sentence Enhancements.

Additionally, a person who steals gift cards, where the ultimate value of the amount stolen exceeds $50,000, can be subject to additional sentence enhancements created by Prop. 36. Specifically, Prop. 36 provided that, if a person takes any property in the attempted commission of a felony, or commits a felony violation including receiving stolen property, the court shall impose additional sentence enhancements of between one year and four years, depending on the value of the property taken. (Pen. Code, § 12022.6.) Here, given the proposed method of valuating gift cards in this bill, a person who steals or receives hundreds of stolen gift cards could not only be prosecuted with felony grand theft but also could be subject to multi-year enhancements, even if no consumers are ultimately defrauded.

Given the significant effort the Legislature has made in recent years to provide prosecutor’s with tools to prosecute organize theft, and increase punishments associated with such theft, the need for this bill is unclear.

1. Conspiracy for Organized Gift Card Schemes: The author cites the concern that persons who steal hundreds of gift cards with the intent defraud consumers, but are caught before they are able to do, will not be adequately held accountable. Specifically, they cite the concern that the market value of hundreds of cards, which are not loaded with any money, will be under $950, in which case such persons cannot be charged with grand theft. But persons who steal hundreds of gift cards, but are caught prior to returning the gift card to stores and defrauding consumers, may be charged with conspiracy or attempt to commit all the aforementioned crimes.
   
   A conspiracy to commit a crime requires an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, where one or more persons commits an overt act to further that agreement. (Pen. Code, § 182.) Notably, a conspiracy to commit a felony (e.g. felony grand theft, felony organized retail theft, felony deprivation of a retail opportunity, felony receipt of stolen property, etc.) is punished “in the same manner and to the same extent as provided for the punishment of that felony.” (Ibid.) Further, for persons that conspire to commit two or more felonies, which have different punishments, and the commission of those felonies constitute one offense of conspiracy, the penalty is the felony with the greater maximum term. (Ibid.) As such, where a person is caught stealing hundreds of gift cards, law enforcement may secure search warrants to identify evidence demonstrating intent to commit the type of gift card scheme at issue here, enabling prosecutors to charge such persons with conspiracy to commit the aforementioned crimes. Additionally, while this bill intends to target organized gift card schemes, in the case of a person without co-conspirators, prosecutors can charge that person with attempt to commit the aforementioned crimes.
2. Constitutional Concerns: Two provisions of this bill authorize disproportionate punishments such that they can reasonably be expected to open this bill up to litigation.

First, a core principal of criminal law, is that every crime, except for strict liability offenses, “has two components: (1) an act or omission, sometimes called the actus reus; and (2) a necessary mental state, sometimes called the mens rea.” (People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1117.) This bill would make it a crime for a person to intend to defraud and to devise a specified scheme. This would not require any actual action by the defendant. For example, a person who plans in their head how to steal gift cards would be guilty of theft under this bill, even if their mental plan resulted in no physical act of any kind. Such an intent-only crime, absent any action, is inconsistent with a core criminal law principle. As previously noted, conspiracy and attempt are available for persons with the requisite intent and who take some actions to complete those crimes, even if the crime itself is not ultimately committed.

Second, AB 710 proposes a new method of valuating stolen property that purports to punish persons who steal gift cards that have not been loaded with money, for theft of the maximum possible value had the cards been loaded with the maximum possible amount. Specifically, it defines “value” to mean “the greatest amount of economic loss the owner of the property might reasonably suffer, including the full monetary face value of a gift card or the potential value for variable load gift cards.”

This punishes persons not for the harm they caused, but the most potential harm they could have caused, undermining the constitutional principle of proportionate punishment. The Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution outlines this proportionality, prohibiting “imposition of a sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime.” (Ewing v. California (2003) 538 U.S. 11, 21.) Here, a person who is caught stealing 101 gift cards that have not been purchased or loaded with any actual money, where the maximum amount of money that can be added to each card is $500, could be prosecuted for $50,500 worth of theft, punishable by up to four years of incarceration (up to three years for grand theft, plus an additional one year under the sentence enhancements). Alternatively, a person who steals two gift cards that could be loaded with up to $500, that are each loaded with $10 by subsequent purchasers, instead of being prosecuted for the $20 that was stolen, could be prosecuted for theft of $1,000 and punished by up to three years in county jail.

In addition to constitutional and fairness concerns, this method of valuating property is inconsistent with how property is valued for the purposes of theft of other types of property. Specifically, in determining the value of stolen property under California law “the reasonable and fair market value shall be the test, in determining the values of services received the contract price shall be the test, and if there be no contract price, the reasonable and going wage for the service rendered shall govern.” (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a).)

1. Reports of Exaggerated Losses by Retailers: Some complaints of retail theft have been overstated. For example, in 2021, Walgreens closed five stores in San Francisco purportedly due to retail theft. However, the San Francisco Police Department’s data on shoplifting did not support this explanation for the closures. Recently, the chief financial officer of Walgreens acknowledged the shoplifting threat had probably been overstated. The company likely spent too much on security measures and mischaracterized the amount of theft at stores. In fact, shrinkage (the inventory that was bought but could not be sold primarily due to shoplifting) actually decreased to around 2.5 to 2.6 percent of sales, compared to 3.5 percent the prior year.^[2]
   

Others say retail theft, while an issue, might be overstated as an excuse to write off mediocre sales and historic inflation and might be a key reason why we’re seeing any theft bump at all. Things have become expensive – “we are in an economy right now where some everyday staples have risen in price six times faster than the overall rate of inflation. Until July of this year, American paychecks grew at a slower rate than inflation as a whole.” Some retailers lump theft in with heavy discounting, soft sales and macroeconomic conditions as other factors that cut into their margins.^[3]

What’s more, the National Retail Federation has not solidified any data around increased rates of organized retail theft or what percentage of external theft is organized crime. Retailers are not required to break down how much they actually lose to theft. “Retailers and trade associations are increasingly using their positions to influence lawmakers to pass new legislation that benefits them, hurts competitors and could disproportionally affect marginalized people.”^[4]

From 2020 to 2021, the number of news stories covering smash-and-grab incidents nearly doubled. However, the information available does show that the vast majority of shoplifting is not committed by mobs of people.^[5]

Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission recently reported that retail stores likely inflated prices to accommodate for lost revenue resulting from the pandemic. The FTC states, in summary, that:

Notably, consumers are still facing the negative impact of the pandemic’s price hikes, as the Commission’s report finds that some in the grocery [including drug stores] retail industry seem to have used rising costs as an opportunity to further raise prices to increase their profits, which remain elevated today.

Retail stores actually saw significant profits over the past few years despite claims that stores are losing profits as a result of theft and other market forces.^[6]

Finally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data on crime statistics reports that crime is actually down nationwide by a significant margin – contributing to the conclusion that the crime rate was a temporary phenomenon brought on by the pandemic and rapidly escalating costs for basic goods and services.^[7]

1. Argument in Support: According to the California District Attorneys Association, “As you are aware, sophisticated thieves are increasingly targeting gift cards due to their ease of transferability and resale. These thefts are costly to consumers and retailers. And, though current law already penalizes various forms of access card fraud, AB 710 is a necessary and timely update to explicitly criminalize theft and fraud of gift cards.

“AB 710 is a necessary legislative update that targets a modern method of financial fraud and theft. The bill aligns with existing theft and forgery statutes but will improve current provisions by specifically criminalizing fraudulent possession, alteration, and misuse of gift cards. In this way AB 710 will strengthen consumer protection and prosecutorial effectiveness in addressing retail crime.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to Californians United for a Responsible Budget, “AB 710…would create multiple new criminal offenses for gift card theft and forgery. This legislature should protect small businesses and consumers from gift card scams. However, AB 710 needlessly expands the Penal Code without providing the protection Californians deserve.

“Instead of AB 710, the legislature should follow the model set by other states and pass smarter, tailored solutions that will keep our communities safe and thriving. For example, New Jersey requires sellers to train employees to identify and mitigate gift card scams, and New York passed a law to alert customers of potential gift card scams and ways they can protect themselves against fraud. Most importantly, legislators can target the heart of the problem by requiring gift card sellers to distribute gift cards with improved and secure packaging, as Maryland legislators did.

“First, AB 710 is unnecessary because existing laws already cover these crimes. The four new proposed gift card crimes are already punishable under California’s larceny statute, and the proposed new forgery crime is already punishable under the existing forgery and counterfeiting statute. Adding redundant statutes will further complicate the Penal Code without addressing any gaps in enforcement. Research is clear that lengthening sentences does not effectively deter crime—in this case, few people are likely to know about this obscure law change, let alone factor it into their actions.

“Second, AB 710’s overbroad language risks inflating the prison population. For example, under this bill, a person who “devises a scheme to obtain a gift card” could be sentenced to prison. This implies that the intent to steal a gift card—with no corresponding action—could be penalized, contradicting one of the most basic protections in criminal law, namely that someone cannot be punished for their thoughts alone.

“Additionally, AB 710 redefines the threshold for felony theft ($950) by basing convictions on “what one might reasonably suffer,” including “the potential value” of the gift card. Research shows retail theft penalties disproportionality harm Black and Latinx people, thus AB 710 risks exacerbating racial disparities in the criminal legal system.

“All Californians deserve thriving local economies, and both businesses and customers deserve to be protected from gift card scams. But adding a redundant law will waste taxpayer resources without addressing people’s real concerns. Instead, we need proven solutions that prevent crime like empowering employees and increasing awareness of gift card scams.”

1. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 2943 (Zbur), Chapter 168, Statutes of 2024, creates a new crime of unlawful deprivation of a retail business opportunity and make various changes to provisions of law on arrest authority, aggregation, and probation terms for theft-related offenses.
   2. AB 3209 (Berman), Chaper 169, Statutes of 2024, allows a court to issue an order prohibiting a person from being present on the grounds of, or any parking lot adjacent to and used to service, a retail establishment and any other retail establishments in that chain or franchise, as specified.
   3. AB 1802 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 166, Statutes of 2024, eliminates the sunset date for the crime of organized retail theft and for the existence of a taskforce established by the California Highway Patrol to analyze organized retail theft and vehicle burglary and to assist local law enforcement in counties identified as having elevated property crime.
   4. AB 1960 (Soria), Chapter 220, Statutes of 2024, re-enacts a sentence enhancement for felony offenses for a person who intentionally takes, damages, or destroys property, when the loss exceeds specified dollar amounts, but lowers the amounts to below 2017 levels when the enhancement sunset.
   5. SB 982 (Wahab), Chapter 982, Statutes of 2024, bill removes the sunset date on the provision of law that criminalizes organized retail theft, thereby making the operation of the law permanent.
   6. AB 331 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 113, Statutes of 2021, extended the sunset date for organized retail theft through January 1, 2026.
      
   7. AB 329 (Ta), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have imposed higher penalties for shoplifting and petty theft if the crime is committed by a non-citizen of the state of California. AB 329 failed passage in this committee.
      
   8. AB 2356 (Rodriguez), Chapter 22, Statues of 2022, expanded the definition of “grand theft” where the aggregate amount taken by all participants exceeds $950.
      
   9. AB 1603 (Salas), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have reduced the threshold amount for petty theft and shoplifting to be punished as a misdemeanor from $950 to $400. AB 1603 failed passage in this Committee.
      
   10. AB 2390 (Muratsuchi), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have authorized the aggregation of the value of property from one or more acts of theft or shoplifting, as specified. AB 2390 failed passage in this Committee.
       
   11. AB 1065 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 803, Statutes of 2018, created the crime of organized retail theft and expanded jurisdiction to prosecute cases of theft or receipt of stolen merchandise.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Attractions and Parks Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California District Attorneys Association
California Grocers Association
California Retailers Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
National Association of Theatre Owners of California
Nfib California
San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office
San Diego County District Attorney's Office
San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins
Tri County Chamber Alliance
Ventura County District Attorney's Office

Oppose

ACLU California Action
All of Us or None Los Angeles
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California for Safety and Justice
Californians United for A Responsible Budget
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Initiate Justice
Initiate Justice Action
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Local 148 Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union
San Francisco Public Defender
Silicon Valley De-bug
Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy
Vera Institute of Justice

Analysis Prepared by:

Ilan Zur / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. Mussa, The gift card industry is booming – and so is related fraud and organized crime, CBC (March 10, 2025), available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/gopublic/go-public-gift-cards-theft-organized-crime-1.7475283 ↑

2. See New York Times, Walgreens Executive Says Shoplifting Threat Was Overstated (Jan. 6, 2023) <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shoplifting.html> ; see also Los Angeles Times, Retailers Say Thefts Are at Crisis Level. The Numbers Say Otherwise (Dec. 15, 2021) <https://www.latimes.com/‌business/story/2021-12-15/organized-retail-theft-crime-rate>; CNN Business, ‘Maybe We Cried Too Much’ Over Shoplifting, Walgreens Executive Says (Jan. 7, 2023) <https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shoplifting-retail/index.html>; The Atlantic, The Great Shoplifting Freak-Out (Dec. 203, 2021) <https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/12/shoplifting-holiday-theft-panic/621108/>.) ↑

3. (Freight Waves, What’s Behind the Reports of ‘Unprecedented’ Retail Theft (Oct. 2023). Available at: <https://‌www.freightwaves.‌com/news/‌whats-‌behind-the-reports-of-unprecedented-retail-theft>; see also Bloomberg, Thieves Target Donuts and Ham as Food Prices Jump (Feb. 2024). Available at: <https://www.‌bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-02-23/supply-chain-latest-food-theft-rises-on-grocery-‌inflation>.) ↑

4. (CNBC, Companies say organized retail crime is on the rise, but there’s no data to prove it. (Aug. 2023). Available at < https://‌www.cnbc.‌com/2023/‌08/09/‌claims-about-‌organized-retail-theft-are-nearly-impossible-to-verify.html>.) ↑

5. (Council on Criminal Justice, Shoplifting Trends: What You Need to Know (Nov. 2023) Available at: <https://‌counciloncj.‌org/‌shoplifting-‌trends-‌‌what-you-need-to-know/>.) ↑

6. Federal Trade Commission, “Feeding America in a Time of Crisis, The United States Grocery Supply Chain and the COVID-19 Pandemic” (March 21, 2024). ↑

7. FTC, Report on Grocery Supply Chain Disruptions (March 2024). Available at: <https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/03/ftc-releases-report-grocery-supply-chain-disruptions>.) ↑