An act to add and repeal Section 25308.1 of the Public Resources Code, and to amend Sections 454.51 and 454.57 of, and to add Section 454.57.5 to, the Public Utilities Code, relating to electricity.
AB 2111 would revise California’s electricity transmission planning framework to better align state planning with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order 1920-A. It requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the California Energy Commission, and the California Independent System Operator (ISO) to update their existing memorandum of understanding and workplan by January 1, 2028, so that the state’s resource and transmission planning processes reflect the federal order and support cost-effective, risk-prudent transmission development. The bill also directs the CPUC to provide transmission-focused guidance to the ISO using longer planning horizons, more robust scenario analysis, and at least three actionable resource portfolios.
The bill expands the planning criteria the CPUC must use when identifying resource portfolios and transmission needs. It changes the statutory standard from cost-effective integration of renewable energy and resource diversity to cost-effective and risk-prudent integration, and it requires the CPUC to consider planning uncertainties, stress-test near-term decisions, and identify supplemental or accelerated transmission needs. It also extends the forecast horizon for resource and demand projections from 15 years to at least 20 years, removes the requirement that those projections be provided annually, and requires the CPUC to publish nonconfidential input and output data used in integrated resource planning and transmission planning beginning in 2028.
In practical terms, the bill would affect the CPUC, the Energy Commission, the ISO, electrical corporations, and community choice aggregators by changing how they plan for future generation and transmission. It reinforces the state’s policy goals of supporting renewable energy, zero-carbon resources, wildfire risk reduction, reliability, cost efficiency, and reduced interconnection timelines. It also emphasizes transmission needed to serve load centers, local capacity areas, offshore wind, and increased imports of clean energy from the Western Interconnection.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s history appears supportive and policy-driven, with the measure receiving a unanimous 17-0 do pass vote in committee. The bill’s findings frame the need for more transmission as urgent, especially given long lead times for new lines and California’s clean-energy targets. The fact that it was amended and re-referred to Appropriations suggests the main focus is on implementation details and fiscal review rather than opposition to the underlying policy direction.
The main points of contention are likely to be the scope and complexity of the new planning mandates, the cost and rate impacts of accelerated transmission development, and the administrative burden of producing longer-range, more data-intensive planning outputs. The bill also creates a state-mandated local program through potential criminal enforcement of Public Utilities Act violations, though it states no reimbursement is required. Any debate would likely center on whether the added planning requirements and transparency obligations are necessary and manageable, and whether they will speed transmission development without increasing costs or compromising confidentiality.
AB 2111 would amend the Public Utilities Code and add a temporary section to the Public Resources Code to reshape California’s transmission planning process. It would require the CPUC, Energy Commission, and ISO to update their memorandum of understanding to conform to FERC Order 1920-A, require longer-term and more scenario-based transmission guidance, expand the planning horizon to 20 years, and require public posting of nonconfidential planning data. The bill also revises the CPUC’s resource portfolio standard to include a risk-prudent framework and adds statutory policy goals emphasizing reduced interconnection timelines, reliability, wildfire risk reduction, and support for clean-energy procurement and transmission buildout.
The bill’s overall sentiment appears favorable and consensus-oriented. The committee vote recorded in the bill history was unanimous, indicating no visible opposition at that stage. The bill’s findings and structure reflect a strong legislative preference for accelerating transmission development to support renewable and zero-carbon goals, while also trying to preserve cost discipline and ratepayer protections.
Likely areas of contention include whether the CPUC and ISO can realistically implement the more detailed planning requirements on the bill’s timeline, how much the expanded transmission planning and data disclosure will cost, and whether the new mandates could affect rates or procurement flexibility. Stakeholders concerned about utility costs, confidentiality, or regulatory burden may question the requirement to publish planning inputs and outputs and to develop multiple actionable portfolios. Others may focus on the bill’s reliance on FERC Order 1920-A and whether state law should be tied so closely to federal planning standards.