Assembly committee orders study of investor‑owned utilities and ties executive pay to affordability metrics in amended SB 332

Senator Wahab presented SB 332, a measure described to the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee as a study bill to analyze whether California’s investor‑owned utility (IOU) model best serves ratepayers on safety, affordability and reliability.

Sponsor testimony said IOU rates in California are considerably higher than publicly owned utilities, and the bill would direct a public, phased feasibility study managed with a university labor center to evaluate alternative ownership and finance models, protect labor, and examine how to improve affordability and transparency around disconnections. The sponsor emphasized the bill is primarily a study and that a prior “best‑value procurement” provision was removed; the text as presented would also require more detailed disclosures related to executive compensation and define “ratepayer affordability” with reference to existing Commission data on disconnections and uncollectible accounts.

The hearing drew broad public support from environmental justice groups, consumer advocates and climate organizations. The California Chamber of Commerce, investor‑owned utilities (SCE, PG&E, SDG&E) and industry groups testified in opposition or concern, saying the bill could destabilize investment, put a thumb on the scale in favor of non‑IOU ownership, and create perverse incentives if executive pay is linked to affordability metrics.

Committee members raised concerns about the bill’s framing and the language of its legislative findings. Supporters and the bill’s author said amendments narrowed the legislative findings to verifiable facts, committed to an interim report on legal threshold issues after one year, and adjusted the executive compensation language to include affordability alongside safety using data the commission already collects. The bill was advanced to appropriations as amended.

Why it matters: SB 332 asks for a structured, public evaluation of potential systemic changes to how electricity service is owned and financed in California — a high‑stakes question with implications for rates, wildfire safety, infrastructure investment and labor. Supporters framed it as due diligence; opponents warned of market signals that could raise borrowing costs and damage reliability.

Limitations: The hearing transcript shows robust disagreement about framing and potential market impacts, and the committee accepted targeted amendments to narrow findings and add interim reporting; final outcomes across the legislature would depend on how the study is scoped and whether any statutory changes follow.