California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate 1 D cosponsors

SB 332 — Investor-Owned Utilities Accountability Act.

Last action — August 29 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has passed the Senate. Introduced February 12, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.

Next likely step: consideration and a floor vote in the Assembly.

Prognosis

Advancing 48% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Moderate

How often bills like it became law.

  • Passed Senate

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 5 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) Existing law vests the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) with various responsibilities for developing and implementing the state's energy policies. This bill would require the Energy Commission to select a research institute, as defined, to conduct a comparative analysis of the benefits and challenges of transitioning the electrical corporations to a public entity, nonprofit public benefit corporation, or mutual benefit corporation in order to identify a recommended model, as provided. The bill would require the research institute to complete the analysis on or before January 1, 2029, and, upon completion, to submit the analysis to the Legislature and the Energy Commission. The bill would require the Energy Commission to make a draft of the analysis available to the public for comment before submitting the final draft to the Legislature, and would limit the cost of conducting the analysis to $5,000,000. This bill would require the research institute to conduct the first phase of the comparative analysis and to submit an interim report, on or before December 31, 2026, to the Energy Commission on threshold legal issues, as provided. The bill would require the Energy Commission to convene a group of state attorneys from the legal departments of state agencies that regulate electrical corporations to advise the research institute on the first phase of the comparative analysis, as specified. This bill would, upon completion of the analysis by the research institute, require the Energy Commission to present the analysis at a publicly noticed business meeting on or before September 30, 2029. (2) Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations, while local publicly owned utilities are under the direction of their governing boards. Existing law prohibits an electrical corporation, gas corporation, or water corporation from terminating a customer's residential service for nonpayment of a delinquent account in certain circumstances, including, among other circumstances, unless the corporation first gives notice to the customer of the delinquency and impending termination, during the pendency of an investigation by the corporation of the customer's dispute or complaint, or when the customer has been granted an extension of the period for payment of a bill. This bill would require each electrical corporation and gas corporation, on or before March 1, 2026, and each local publically owned electric utility, on or before March 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, to post specified information concerning terminations of service due to nonpayment on their respective internet websites, as provided. (3) Existing law requires the Director of the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety to issue a safety certification that is valid for 12 months after the date of issuance to an electrical corporation if the electrical corporation provides documentation that it is meeting certain requirements and that it has an approved executive incentive compensation structure that is structured to promote safety as a priority and to ensure public safety and utility financial stability with performance metrics, as specified. This bill would additionally require that the electrical corporation's executive incentive compensation structure is structured to ensure ratepayer affordability, as provided. The bill would also require, for purposes of the safety certification, that documentation related to compensation include specified dollar amounts. Existing law requires the PUC to develop policies, rules, or regulations with a goal of reducing the statewide level of gas and electrical service disconnections for nonpayment by residential customers, as specified. Existing law requires the PUC to include in an annual report to the Legislature information on residential and household gas and electrical service disconnections, disaggregated by certain customer categories. This bill would require the PUC to provide any public nonconfidential data collected pursuant to the above-described provisions to the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety for the purpose of reviewing ratepayer affordability when assessing executive compensation under the above-described provisions. (4) Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because certain provisions of this bill would be part of the act and a violation of a PUC action implementing the bill's requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. In addition, to the extent the bill would impose new requirements on local publicly owned utilities, 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 specified reasons.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. August 29 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  2. August 20 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  3. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 5.) (July 9).

  5. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on U. & E.

  6. Referred to Com. on U. & E.

  7. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  8. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 25. Noes 10. Page 1408.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  9. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 1196.) (May 23).

  11. Set for hearing May 23.

  12. May 5 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  13. Set for hearing May 5.

  14. Withdrawn from committee.

  15. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  16. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  17. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 12. Noes 4. Page 810.) (April 21). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  18. Set for hearing April 29 in JUD. pending receipt.

  19. Set for hearing April 21.

  20. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on E., U & C.

  21. Referred to Coms. on E., U & C. and JUD.

  22. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 15.

  23. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 15 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 11 Yea · 5 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 11101
Republican 0401
Total 11502
% of votes cast 61%28%0%11%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Nay
González, Mark Democratic Not Voting
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Schultz, Nick Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Not Voting
Ta, Tri Republican Nay
Wallis, Greg Republican Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 25 Yea · 10 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 25005
Republican 01000
Total 251005
% of votes cast 63%25%0%13%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Cabaldon, Christopher Democratic Not Voting
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Not Voting
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
McNerney, Jerry Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Pérez, Sasha Renée Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Not Voting
Richardson, Laura Democratic Not Voting
Rubio, Susan Democratic Not Voting
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Nay
Choi, Steven S. Republican Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Nay
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Nay
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]

Passed 12 Yea · 4 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 12001
Republican 0400
Total 12401
% of votes cast 71%24%0%6%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McNerney, Jerry Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Not Voting
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Nay
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety labor energy
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 332 do?
(1) Existing law vests the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) with various responsibilities for developing and implementing the state's energy policies. This bill would require the Energy Commission to select a research institute, as defined, to conduct a comparative analysis of the benefits and challenges of transitioning the electrical corporations to a public entity, nonprofit public benefit corporation, or mutual benefit corporation in order to identify a recommended model, as provided. The bill would require the research institute to complete the analysis on or before January 1, 2029, and, upon completion, to submit the analysis to the Legislature and the Energy Commission. The bill would require the Energy Commission to make a draft of the analysis available to the public for comment before submitting the final draft to the Legislature, and would limit the cost of conducting the analysis to $5,000,000. This bill would require the research institute to conduct the first phase of the comparative analysis and to submit an interim report, on or before December 31, 2026, to the Energy Commission on threshold legal issues, as provided. The bill would require the Energy Commission to convene a group of state attorneys from the legal departments of state agencies that regulate electrical corporations to advise the research institute on the first phase of the comparative analysis, as specified. This bill would, upon completion of the analysis by the research institute, require the Energy Commission to present the analysis at a publicly noticed business meeting on or before September 30, 2029. (2) Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations, while local publicly owned utilities are under the direction of their governing boards. Existing law prohibits an electrical corporation, gas corporation, or water corporation from terminating a customer's residential service for nonpayment of a delinquent account in certain circumstances, including, among other circumstances, unless the corporation first gives notice to the customer of the delinquency and impending termination, during the pendency of an investigation by the corporation of the customer's dispute or complaint, or when the customer has been granted an extension of the period for payment of a bill. This bill would require each electrical corporation and gas corporation, on or before March 1, 2026, and each local publically owned electric utility, on or before March 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, to post specified information concerning terminations of service due to nonpayment on their respective internet websites, as provided. (3) Existing law requires the Director of the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety to issue a safety certification that is valid for 12 months after the date of issuance to an electrical corporation if the electrical corporation provides documentation that it is meeting certain requirements and that it has an approved executive incentive compensation structure that is structured to promote safety as a priority and to ensure public safety and utility financial stability with performance metrics, as specified. This bill would additionally require that the electrical corporation's executive incentive compensation structure is structured to ensure ratepayer affordability, as provided. The bill would also require, for purposes of the safety certification, that documentation related to compensation include specified dollar amounts. Existing law requires the PUC to develop policies, rules, or regulations with a goal of reducing the statewide level of gas and electrical service disconnections for nonpayment by residential customers, as specified. Existing law requires the PUC to include in an annual report to the Legislature information on residential and household gas and electrical service disconnections, disaggregated by certain customer categories. This bill would require the PUC to provide any public nonconfidential data collected pursuant to the above-described provisions to the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety for the purpose of reviewing ratepayer affordability when assessing executive compensation under the above-described provisions. (4) Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because certain provisions of this bill would be part of the act and a violation of a PUC action implementing the bill's requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. In addition, to the extent the bill would impose new requirements on local publicly owned utilities, 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 specified reasons.
Who sponsors SB 332?
SB 332 is sponsored by Wahab, Aisha (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 332?
This bill has passed the Senate. Introduced February 12, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.
Where can I track SB 332?
Track SB 332 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 332

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 332

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →