An act to amend Sections 25524.1 and 25524.2 of the Public Resources Code, and to add Section 711 to the Public Utilities Code, relating to energy.
AB 305 would revise California’s nuclear power siting and certification rules to create an explicit exemption for small modular reactors (SMRs). Under current law, most nuclear fission thermal powerplants cannot be certified or permitted as a land use unless the state makes findings about nuclear fuel reprocessing technology and high-level waste disposal. The bill would leave those general restrictions in place for other nuclear facilities, but carve SMRs out of both sets of prohibitions. It defines an SMR as a nuclear reactor with an electrical generating capacity of up to 300 megawatts per unit.
The bill would also add a new requirement for the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to adopt, by January 1, 2028, a plan to increase procurement of electricity from nuclear facilities and phase out procurement from natural gas facilities. In effect, AB 305 would move state energy planning toward greater reliance on nuclear generation while directing a transition away from gas-fired electricity procurement. The measure does not appropriate funds and is identified as having fiscal committee implications.
In terms of state law, AB 305 would amend two sections of the Public Resources Code governing when the Energy Commission may certify nuclear plants and when such plants are permitted land uses in California. It would also add a new section to the Public Utilities Code directing the PUC to develop a procurement plan. The bill would not repeal the existing restrictions on conventional nuclear plants, but it would create a separate pathway for SMRs and preserve the existing exemptions for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 and San Onofre Units 2 and 3.
The available context shows little recorded public debate, and the bill was introduced and then filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56 on the same day, with no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts. Based on the bill’s structure and coauthors, the general policy direction appears supportive of nuclear energy expansion, especially newer reactor designs, and supportive of reducing natural gas dependence. Because there is no recorded hearing discussion in the provided materials, the overall sentiment can only be characterized as limited but procedurally neutral at this stage.
The main point of contention is likely to be the policy shift toward nuclear procurement and the relaxation of land-use and certification barriers for SMRs. Supporters would likely emphasize decarbonization, grid reliability, and diversification away from natural gas, while opponents may raise concerns about nuclear waste, safety, siting, regulatory oversight, and whether SMRs should receive special treatment before broader waste-disposal issues are resolved. The bill’s carveout for SMRs, while preserving restrictions on larger plants, is the central substantive change and the most likely source of debate.
AB 305 would amend Public Resources Code Sections 25524.1 and 25524.2 to exempt small modular reactors from California’s existing restrictions on nuclear fission thermal powerplants that depend on fuel reprocessing and high-level waste disposal findings. It would also add Public Utilities Code Section 711, requiring the PUC to adopt a plan by January 1, 2028, to increase nuclear electricity procurement and phase out natural gas procurement. The bill would therefore affect the Energy Commission, the PUC, nuclear project developers, utilities, and state energy planning, while leaving current restrictions in place for non-SMR nuclear facilities.
The provided record shows no committee transcript, no recorded votes, and no substantive floor debate, so there is no documented opposition or support in the materials beyond the bill’s introduction and referral status. The bill’s authorship and policy direction suggest a pro-nuclear, pro-decarbonization intent, with an emphasis on newer reactor technology and reduced reliance on natural gas. Procedurally, the bill appears to have stalled early, as indicated by the filing with the Chief Clerk under Joint Rule 56.
The likely contention centers on whether California should ease its longstanding restrictions on nuclear plant certification for small modular reactors and whether the state should actively steer procurement toward nuclear power. Supporters would likely argue that SMRs offer a lower-carbon, potentially more flexible source of electricity and that the state should plan to replace natural gas generation. Critics would likely focus on unresolved nuclear waste disposal, safety and emergency planning concerns, cost and deployment uncertainty, and whether the state should prioritize nuclear procurement over other zero-carbon resources. The bill’s special treatment of SMRs, while excluding larger reactors, is the key policy dividing line.