Bill Commons

CA AB 2338

in committee

Electrical corporations and gas corporations: rates: inflation-constrained rate case scenario: standard of review.

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower

Follow this bill’s action updates (Atom)

Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.

Quick answers

Did CA AB 2338 pass?

Not yet. CA AB 2338 is in committee and has not come to a final vote. Latest recorded action (2026-05-14): In committee: Held under submission.

What is CA AB 2338 about?

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and charges for every public utility and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable. This bill would require the commission to require every electrical corporation or gas corporation, as part of every general rate case application, to submit an inflation-constrained rate case scenario in which cumulative increases in annual expenditures proposed to be authorized in that proceeding do not exceed the projected federal social security beneficiary cost-of-living adjustment, and to compare that inflation-constrained rate case scenario with the primary rate case plan submitted by the corporation. The bill would authorize the commission to authorize expenditures in excess of the inflation-constrained rate case scenario if it determines that the electrical corporation or gas corporation has provided clear and convincing evidence that a higher level of expenditures is necessary to ensure the safe and reliable operation of its electrical system or gas system. The bill would require the commission to apply heightened scrutiny to a request that is not a general rate case application that is submitted by an electrical corporation or gas corporation that is likely to increase total systemwide expenditures beyond the projected federal social security beneficiary cost-of-living adjustment. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the above-described provisions would be part of the act and a violation of a commission action implementing the above-described provisions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Who sponsors CA AB 2338?

Ransom is the primary sponsor of CA AB 2338.

Description

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and charges for every public utility and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable. This bill would require the commission to require every electrical corporation or gas corporation, as part of every general rate case application, to submit an inflation-constrained rate case scenario in which cumulative increases in annual expenditures proposed to be authorized in that proceeding do not exceed the projected federal social security beneficiary cost-of-living adjustment, and to compare that inflation-constrained rate case scenario with the primary rate case plan submitted by the corporation. The bill would authorize the commission to authorize expenditures in excess of the inflation-constrained rate case scenario if it determines that the electrical corporation or gas corporation has provided clear and convincing evidence that a higher level of expenditures is necessary to ensure the safe and reliable operation of its electrical system or gas system. The bill would require the commission to apply heightened scrutiny to a request that is not a general rate case application that is submitted by an electrical corporation or gas corporation that is likely to increase total systemwide expenditures beyond the projected federal social security beneficiary cost-of-living adjustment. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the above-described provisions would be part of the act and a violation of a commission action implementing the above-described provisions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Introduced
2026-03-24
Latest action
2026-05-14 — In committee: Held under submission.
Bill type
bill
Last updated
—

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Ransomauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

Newest first

  1. 2026-05-14

    In committee: Held under submission.

  2. 2026-05-06

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

    referral-committee

  3. 2026-04-23

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 3.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  4. 2026-03-25

    Re-referred to Com. on U. & E.

    referral-committee

  5. 2026-03-24

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on U. & E. Read second time and amended.

    amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  6. 2026-03-23

    Referred to Com. on U. & E.

    referral-committee

  7. 2026-02-20

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

  8. 2026-02-19

    Read first time. To print.

    reading-1

Versions

Documents

Votes

  • Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

    2026-04-22 · pass · 11-3

    Member-level votes (18)
    • Boerner: yes
    • Kalra: yes
    • Irwin: yes
    • Hart: yes
    • Schiavo: yes
    • Papan: yes
    • Rogers: yes
    • Schultz: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Petrie-Norris: yes
    • Wallis: no
    • Davies: no
    • Chen: no
    • Ta: other
    • Patterson: other
    • Zbur: other
    • Calderon: other

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

Attribution

Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z

Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:

Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:

Use this data

Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 2338. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.

Known limitations

  • Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
  • Committee referrals are not yet captured.
  • Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.

See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.