An act to add and repeal Section 25236 of the Public Resources Code, and to add and repeal Section 913.16 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to electricity, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
SB 810 would require two California agencies — the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the Public Utilities Commission — to each submit a report to the Legislature by July 1, 2025, examining electrical ratepayer-funded programs, rules, and orders that may be contributing to higher electricity rates. The reports would need to identify programs whose costs may not be justified by their benefits to ratepayers, consider whether some funding should come from sources other than ratepayers, and recommend statutory or regulatory changes. The bill also specifically asks the agencies to evaluate whether underperforming or underused programs should be modified or eliminated and whether unused ratepayer funds could be returned to customers, including through bill credits.
The measure is framed as an urgency statute, meaning it would take effect immediately if enacted. It is temporary: the new reporting requirements would become inoperative on July 1, 2029, and be repealed on January 1, 2030. The bill is tied to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-5-24, which directed the agencies to review ratepayer-funded programs for possible cost reductions, and it cites recent findings that California electricity rates have risen faster than inflation and are among the highest in the nation.
In practical terms, SB 810 would not directly change electricity rates or eliminate any programs by itself. Instead, it would impose a legislative reporting mandate on the Energy Commission and the PUC and could create a basis for later statutory or regulatory changes aimed at reducing electricity costs. It would affect the two commissions, electrical corporations and program administrators subject to their oversight, and California ratepayers who fund these programs through utility bills.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of ratepayer relief and cost scrutiny. The findings emphasize affordability concerns, the high cost of electricity in California, and the need for immediate legislative action. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, there is no evidence here of formal opposition or support beyond the bill’s stated rationale.
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s premise that ratepayer-funded climate, efficiency, or other utility programs may be overcostly or underperforming, and that some funding should be shifted away from ratepayers or returned to them. Supporters would likely view the bill as a transparency and affordability measure, while critics could argue that it risks undermining programs that advance public health, safety, grid reliability, or long-term energy goals. The bill itself tries to address that concern by stating that any recommended changes should not compromise public health and safety or electrical grid reliability.
SB 810 would add temporary reporting requirements to the Public Resources Code and Public Utilities Code, directing the Energy Commission and the PUC to analyze ratepayer-funded programs and identify opportunities to reduce electricity costs. It would not itself amend rate-setting laws or authorize new spending, but it could influence future legislative or regulatory changes by requiring formal recommendations on modifying, repealing, or eliminating programs and on returning unused ratepayer funds. The bill would sunset after its reporting purpose is complete.
The bill’s tone and findings indicate a strong pro-affordability, pro-scrutiny sentiment, with the author arguing that California’s electricity rates are too high and that immediate action is needed. The measure appears designed to reinforce the Governor’s executive order and accelerate legislative review. No committee testimony or vote data were provided, so the available record does not show organized support or opposition beyond the bill’s stated policy rationale.
The likely contention centers on whether ratepayer-funded programs are truly excessive or whether they provide benefits that justify their costs. Supporters of the bill are likely to argue that some programs should be cut, restructured, or funded differently to lower bills, while opponents may contend that these programs support energy efficiency, climate policy, public health, and grid reliability. Another possible dispute is whether the Legislature should direct agencies to revisit programs already reviewed under the Governor’s executive order, or whether the bill could lead to pressure for cuts before the full policy consequences are understood.