California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 D cosponsors

AB 2338 — Electrical corporations and gas corporations: rates: inflation-constrained rate case scenario: standard of review.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 19, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Prognosis

Stalled 28% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

  • Introduced

    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 1 recorded vote 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.

In plain language

The bill mandates a cost-of-living adjustment scenario in rate cases for gas and electric companies.

AB 2338 requires electrical and gas corporations to submit a scenario for rate cases that aligns with federal cost-of-living adjustments. The Public Utilities Commission can approve higher expenditures if justified.

What this means for you
  • Consumers: This bill may impact consumers by potentially influencing the rate increases set by electrical and gas corporations.

Summary

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations. 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. This bill would require the commission to require every electrical corporation or gas corporation, as part of every general rate case application, to submit an inflation-constrained rate case scenario in which cumulative increases in annual expenditures proposed to be authorized in that proceeding do not exceed the projected federal social security beneficiary cost-of-living adjustment, and to compare that inflation-constrained rate case scenario with the primary rate case plan submitted by the corporation. The bill would authorize the commission to authorize expenditures in excess of the inflation-constrained rate case scenario if it determines that the electrical corporation or gas corporation has provided clear and convincing evidence that a higher level of expenditures is necessary to ensure the safe and reliable operation of its electrical system or gas system. The bill would require the commission to apply heightened scrutiny to a request that is not a general rate case application that is submitted by an electrical corporation or gas corporation that is likely to increase total systemwide expenditures beyond the projected federal social security beneficiary cost-of-living adjustment. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the above-described provisions would be part of the act and a violation of a commission action implementing the above-described provisions 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  3. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 3.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. Re-referred to Com. on U. & E.

  5. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on U. & E. Read second time and amended.

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

  7. From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

  8. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 3 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 and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 11 Yea · 3 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 11002
Republican 0302
Total 11304
% of votes cast 61%17%0%22%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
González, Mark Democratic Yea
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 Not Voting
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Not Voting
Ta, Tri Republican Not Voting
Wallis, Greg Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety finance 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 AB 2338 do?
Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations. 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. This bill would require the commission to require every electrical corporation or gas corporation, as part of every general rate case application, to submit an inflation-constrained rate case scenario in which cumulative increases in annual expenditures proposed to be authorized in that proceeding do not exceed the projected federal social security beneficiary cost-of-living adjustment, and to compare that inflation-constrained rate case scenario with the primary rate case plan submitted by the corporation. The bill would authorize the commission to authorize expenditures in excess of the inflation-constrained rate case scenario if it determines that the electrical corporation or gas corporation has provided clear and convincing evidence that a higher level of expenditures is necessary to ensure the safe and reliable operation of its electrical system or gas system. The bill would require the commission to apply heightened scrutiny to a request that is not a general rate case application that is submitted by an electrical corporation or gas corporation that is likely to increase total systemwide expenditures beyond the projected federal social security beneficiary cost-of-living adjustment. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the above-described provisions would be part of the act and a violation of a commission action implementing the above-described provisions 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.
Who sponsors AB 2338?
AB 2338 is sponsored by Ransom, Rhodesia (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 2338?
This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 19, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track AB 2338?
Track AB 2338 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2338

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 AB 2338

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →