An act relating to cost of living. to add Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 25560) to Division 15 of the Public Resources Code, and to amend Section 739.9 of, and to add Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 8410) to Division 4.1 of, the Public Utilities Code, relating to energy, and making an appropriation therefor.
AB 23, titled the Cost of Living Reduction Act of 2025, is a broad energy-affordability bill aimed at reducing California household costs by targeting gasoline, electricity, and natural gas prices. It would require the Energy Commission and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to publish monthly public dashboards comparing California energy prices with national averages and identifying California-specific taxes, fees, regulations, and policies that contribute to higher prices. Both agencies would also have to report to the Legislature by July 1, 2026 on the drivers of higher California energy prices and recommend policy changes.
The bill creates automatic relief triggers tied to price thresholds. If California gasoline prices exceed the national average by more than 10% in a preceding quarter, state gasoline taxes and fees would be suspended for six months, and the State Air Resources Board would suspend cap-and-trade requirements and related collections for oil refineries. A similar trigger would suspend PUC-collected fees on electricity and natural gas bills, and cap-and-trade obligations for electrical and gas corporations, if utility prices exceed the national average by more than 10%. The bill also requires the Energy Commission to develop a rebate methodology and, beginning in fiscal year 2026-27, directs the Controller to issue household rebates in qualifying years, funded by transfers from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund into a newly created Cost of Living Reduction Fund.
AB 23 would also change utility rate design by repealing the PUC’s authority to adopt new or expanded fixed charges for residential electric customers and requiring repeal of a specified fixed charge adopted in a prior PUC decision. It would further prohibit both the PUC and local publicly owned electric utilities from adopting or expanding fixed charges on and after January 1, 2026. In addition, the Little Hoover Commission would be tasked with studying the effectiveness of the bill’s approach and reporting on whether similar methods could be applied to other cost-of-living areas such as housing, homeowners insurance, health care, and water utilities.
The bill’s impact on state law would be substantial. It would add new reporting and dashboard requirements to the Public Resources Code, create a continuously appropriated state fund, redirect money from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for rebates, and impose automatic suspensions of taxes, fees, and cap-and-trade obligations when price triggers are met. It would also amend the Public Utilities Code to restrict future fixed charges for electric service, affecting both investor-owned utilities regulated by the PUC and local publicly owned utilities.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to consumers concerned about high energy costs, while also signaling skepticism toward taxes, utility fees, and climate-related charges as contributors to those costs. The main likely points of contention are the proposed suspension of taxes and cap-and-trade programs, the use of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund money for rebates, and the elimination of fixed charges, which could draw opposition from environmental, utility, and fiscal stakeholders concerned about revenue loss, rate design, and climate policy impacts.
AB 23 would significantly alter California energy and utility law by adding new Public Resources Code provisions for price transparency, reporting, automatic tax/fee suspensions, and household rebates, while also creating the Cost of Living Reduction Fund and continuously appropriating money for rebate payments. It would amend Public Utilities Code Section 739.9 to eliminate future PUC authority to expand or adopt fixed charges and would add a new section barring local publicly owned utilities from doing so as well. The bill would also affect the operation of cap-and-trade and several state fee programs by tying their suspension to relative price thresholds, and it would redirect funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to support rebates.
No votes or committee discussion are included in the provided record, so there is no documented legislative sentiment to report. The bill’s structure suggests a strong consumer-cost-reduction message and a focus on visible relief for households, especially around gasoline and utility bills. At the same time, its reliance on suspending taxes, fees, and climate-program collections indicates it would likely generate mixed reactions among stakeholders, with support from cost-conscious advocates and likely concern from environmental, utility, and budget-oriented interests.
The most notable points of contention are likely to be the bill’s automatic suspension of gasoline and utility taxes and fees, its temporary suspension of cap-and-trade obligations for refineries and utilities, and its use of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund dollars for rebates. Opponents may argue these provisions undermine climate policy, utility funding, and long-term infrastructure or program costs, while supporters would likely argue they provide direct relief and accountability for high California prices. The repeal of the PUC’s authority to adopt or expand fixed charges is another likely flashpoint, since utilities and some regulators have viewed fixed charges as a way to recover system costs more predictably, while critics see them as burdensome to customers.