Assembly committee advances bill to standardize utility energization reviews for housing projects

Assemblymember Wilson, author of AB 1026, told the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy that the bill seeks to ‘‘address[] a too often overlooked barrier, unpredictable utility connection delays that hold up housing projects even after they’ve been fully approved.’’ The committee voted to pass the bill as amended, sending it to the Assembly floor.

AB 1026 would require electrical corporations to publicly post what is required to approve or deny a post‑entitlement energization application, set consistent review timelines, and prohibit last‑minute changes to application requirements. Supporters said the bill brings parity between investor‑owned utilities and the standardized permitting rules already in place for cities, counties and special districts.

Corey Smith, executive director of Housing Action Coalition, told the committee AB 1026 ‘‘brings much needed transparency and efficiency to the permitting process for developers’’ and cited prior state laws (AB 2234 and AB 281) that created a standardized post‑entitlement application process for local governments and special districts. Kevin Kitchingham, housing development director at Mission Housing in San Francisco, said his organization experienced a roughly one‑year delay on a project while waiting for transformer approval and described another 31‑unit transit‑oriented project delayed about two years while awaiting reconductoring approval from an investor‑owned utility.

Investor‑owned utilities opposed the bill or raised concerns about specific timelines. Brandon Ebeck of Pacific Gas & Electric told the committee the utility ‘‘respectfully opposed’’ AB 1026, and while PG&E acknowledged progress in connection performance, it said a 10‑day timeline proposed in amendment language was ‘‘not reasonable’’ and that the utility is responsible for roughly half the average 330‑day end‑to‑end application process. Catherine Borg of Southern California Edison said the company opposed the bill, arguing it could interfere with an ongoing CPUC rulemaking (the Energization OIR) and that the CPUC‑established timelines should be allowed to conclude before new statutes are enacted.

Assemblymember Wilson told the committee she would accept committee amendments and thanked IOUs and other stakeholders for participating in discussions before and after introduction. After questions from members, the committee adopted a motion to pass the bill as amended. A roll call showed the committee vote recorded as 15 Aye, 0 No; the clerk left the roll open for absent members to add on.

The bill’s sponsors and supporters said the measure is intended to reduce avoidable delays that ‘‘drive up costs and further exacerbate our housing affordability and displacement crisis,’’ by setting consistent, statewide expectations for what utilities must provide during post‑entitlement energization reviews.

Next steps: AB 1026 was reported out of committee as amended and will be scheduled for consideration by the full Assembly.

Votes at a glance: Item 1 — AB 1026 (Wilson) — Do pass as amended to the floor. Motion by Assemblymember Hara Bedian; second by Assemblymember Schiavo. Vote recorded Aye: Petrie Norris; Patterson; Calderon; Chen; Davies; Gonzales; Herabetian; Heart; Cholera; Pappan; Rogers; Chiavo; Schultz; Ta; Wallace—15 Aye, 0 No. The clerk left the roll open for absent members to add on.