Senate holds informational hearing on SB 254 package to shore up wildfire fund and lower electricity costs

Senators held an informational hearing on SB 254, a multipart bill authored by Senator Becker with Assemblymember Petrie Norris as a joint author, to address wildfire liability, electric‑bill affordability and transmission financing.

Senator Becker described SB 254 as a package that combines provisions on wildfire mitigation spending, securitization of capital investments, public or public‑private financing for transmission, permitting reforms to speed clean‑energy projects, stronger scrutiny of utility profits and a strengthened successor wildfire fund. “This is a big bill for some big problems,” Becker said during the informational presentation, noting it includes “seven major topics” that the authors say together can reduce ratepayer costs and stabilize utilities after the recent fires.

Key elements described by witnesses and authors at the hearing included: a requirement that investor‑owned utilities finance $6 billion of future wildfire mitigation capital investments using ratepayer‑backed securitized debt (presenters estimated this would save $300 million to $400 million per year); measures to reduce the cost of building major transmission projects through public financing or ownership (presenters cited potential savings up to 50 percent on some projects); and creation of a successor wildfire fund capitalized with roughly $9 billion from ratepayers (by extending an existing non‑bypassable fee) and $9 billion from utility shareholders. The bill would also require the fund administrator to deliver a report to the Governor and Legislature evaluating longer‑term approaches to socializing catastrophic wildfire risk.

Anne Patterson, senior counselor to the Governor, testified in support and reviewed the 2019 wildfire fund’s origins and why the administration believes an interim solution and a longer review are both necessary after this year’s large losses. “We recognized we had a crisis,” Patterson said, summarizing the administration’s rationale for a successor account and a six‑month study of financing options.

Consumer and survivor groups urged additional protections. Mark Toney of TURN (The Utility Reform Network) said his organization “regretfully opposes” SB 254 because, in TURN’s view, late changes removed safeguards included in earlier bills and because he feared the regional market governance and certain financing mechanisms could expose ratepayers to out‑of‑state liabilities. Will Abrams of the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition testified in strong opposition, saying prior commitments to fully compensate 2018–19 wildfire victims were not satisfied and urging the Legislature not to move forward without addressing outstanding survivor claims.

Local governments and cities raised narrow objections to the bill’s permitting opt‑in language for the California Energy Commission (CEC), arguing a strike‑out of existing coordination language could reduce required collaboration with local jurisdictions on certain project certifications. Agricultural and large energy consumers cautioned that a volumetric fee to capitalize the fund would disproportionately affect business ratepayers.

Authors said the bill is intended as a combination of short‑term steps (an interim capital structure and right of first refusal to limit speculative purchases of insurer claims) and longer‑term work (a study and recommendations on risk‑sharing and liability). Because this session was strictly informational, there was no committee vote on SB 254 at the hearing. The bill’s authors said they expect further negotiations and potential amendments before the proposal receives a vote.