An act to amend Section 8387 of, and to add Section 8386.8 8386.9 to, the Public Utilities Code, relating to electricity.
SB 618 would require investor-owned electric utilities to automatically provide a customer reimbursement credit after a deenergization event, commonly known as a public safety power shutoff, at a rate of $30 for every 24 hours a customer is without service. The credit would have to be issued automatically on the customer’s bill within one billing cycle, and the bill specifies that the credit cannot be paid for with ratepayer money. If the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) later assesses a fine or penalty against a utility for violating deenergization protocols or related rules, the bill would require those penalty revenues to be redirected into automatic customer credits for the affected customers, with the penalty ultimately recovered from shareholders rather than ratepayers.
The bill also adds new reporting requirements after a deenergization event. Electrical corporations would have to file a post-event report with the PUC describing the duration of the outage, the circuits affected, the number of customers impacted, and other information the commission requires. The report would also have to estimate the cost of the interruption to each affected customer and the total cost across all affected customers. To support that reporting, the PUC would be required to develop a standardized methodology for calculating outage costs in a new or existing proceeding.
For local publicly owned electric utilities and electrical cooperatives, SB 618 expands wildfire mitigation plan requirements to include “appropriate and feasible procedures” for compensating customers who may be impacted by deenergizing electrical lines. Existing wildfire mitigation planning requirements would remain in place, including protocols for shutoffs, public safety considerations, customer notification, vegetation management, inspections, risk identification, service restoration, and independent review, but the bill would add compensation planning as an explicit element. The measure also declares that violations of commission actions implementing these requirements could create a state-mandated local program, while stating that no reimbursement is required under the bill’s reimbursement provisions.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears generally supportive but cautious. The bill advanced out of committee on a 14-2 vote and later was placed on the suspense file, indicating that lawmakers saw policy merit but also likely recognized fiscal or implementation concerns. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to show detailed arguments for or against the measure.
The main points of contention are likely to be cost, funding source, and administrative feasibility. Utilities may face opposition to mandatory automatic credits, especially the requirement that credits not be funded by ratepayers and that penalties be shifted to shareholders. Local publicly owned utilities may also be concerned about the new duty to build compensation procedures into wildfire mitigation plans. Supporters would likely emphasize customer fairness, accountability for shutoffs, and transparency about the economic harm caused by deenergization events.
SB 618 would amend the Public Utilities Code by creating new customer compensation and reporting obligations for electrical corporations and by expanding wildfire mitigation planning requirements for local publicly owned electric utilities and electrical cooperatives. It would direct the PUC to establish a standardized method for valuing outage-related customer losses, authorize penalties for shutoff-related violations, and require that any such penalties be converted into customer credits rather than retained by the state or recovered from ratepayers. The bill would also impose new compliance duties that could be enforced through commission action, with potential criminal implications under existing law for violations of commission orders.
The bill appears to have received a favorable but measured reception. Its 14-2 committee vote suggests broad support for the policy goal of compensating customers affected by deenergization events, while the later suspense-file placement indicates concern about fiscal impacts, implementation complexity, or both. Because no committee transcript is available, the record does not show detailed public arguments, but the voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as significant and potentially costly rather than controversial in principle.
The most notable contention centers on who should bear the cost of customer credits and penalties. The bill expressly bars reimbursement credits from being funded by ratepayer moneys and requires penalties to be recovered from shareholders, which may draw resistance from utilities and possibly regulators concerned about financial impacts and incentives. Another likely point of debate is the practicality of calculating customer interruption costs through a standardized methodology, as well as the burden on local publicly owned utilities to develop compensation procedures within wildfire mitigation plans. Supporters are likely focused on consumer protection and accountability for shutoffs, while opponents are likely to emphasize cost, administrative burden, and the risk of discouraging necessary wildfire safety deenergizations.