Bill Commons

CA SB 978

in committee

Data centers: labor: electricity rates.

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper

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 SB 978 pass?

Not yet. CA SB 978 is in committee and has not come to a final vote. Latest recorded action (2026-05-14): May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

What is CA SB 978 about?

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law authorizes the PUC 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 PUC to establish a special rate structure for data centers, as defined, taking transmission level electrical service with an estimated peak demand of at least 75 megawatts of electricity to, among other things, protect other customers of electrical corporations, prohibit cost shifts to those other customers, and require data centers to pay for the electrical corporations' upfront costs of transmission or distribution infrastructure upgrades necessary for the provision of electrical service to the data centers. The bill would require the construction of data centers subject to the special rate structure to comply with certain labor requirements. Existing law establishes the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 90% of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2035, 95% by December 31, 2040, and 100% by December 31, 2045. Existing law requires the PUC, the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, and the State Air Resources Board, in consultation with all California balancing authorities, to annually issue a joint report related to meeting that state policy. This bill would require that the joint report also includes the impacts of data centers subject to the special rate structure on the state's ability to achieve the above-described state policy. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because the provisions of the bill would be part of the act and a violation of a PUC action implementing the bill's requirements 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 SB 978?

Pérez is the primary sponsor of CA SB 978, joined by 7 cosponsors.

Description

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law authorizes the PUC 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 PUC to establish a special rate structure for data centers, as defined, taking transmission level electrical service with an estimated peak demand of at least 75 megawatts of electricity to, among other things, protect other customers of electrical corporations, prohibit cost shifts to those other customers, and require data centers to pay for the electrical corporations' upfront costs of transmission or distribution infrastructure upgrades necessary for the provision of electrical service to the data centers. The bill would require the construction of data centers subject to the special rate structure to comply with certain labor requirements. Existing law establishes the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 90% of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2035, 95% by December 31, 2040, and 100% by December 31, 2045. Existing law requires the PUC, the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, and the State Air Resources Board, in consultation with all California balancing authorities, to annually issue a joint report related to meeting that state policy. This bill would require that the joint report also includes the impacts of data centers subject to the special rate structure on the state's ability to achieve the above-described state policy. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because the provisions of the bill would be part of the act and a violation of a PUC action implementing the bill's requirements 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
2026-02-04
Latest action
2026-05-14 — May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
Bill type
bill
Last updated
—

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Pérezauthor
  • Arreguíncoauthor
  • Hurtadocoauthor
  • McNerneycoauthor
  • Connollycoauthor
  • Harabediancoauthor
  • Rogerscoauthor
  • Schiavocoauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

Newest first

  1. 2026-05-14

    May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  2. 2026-05-08

    Set for hearing May 14.

  3. 2026-04-20

    April 20 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  4. 2026-04-10

    Set for hearing April 20.

  5. 2026-04-08

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 1. Page 3794.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  6. 2026-03-26

    Set for hearing April 8.

  7. 2026-03-23

    Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.

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

  8. 2026-03-19

    From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on L., P.E. & R. (Ayes 12. Noes 4. Page 3588.) (March 17).

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

  9. 2026-03-09

    From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on E., U & C.

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

  10. 2026-03-09

    Set for hearing March 17.

  11. 2026-02-11

    Referred to Coms. on E., U & C. and L., P.E. & R.

    referral-committee

  12. 2026-02-05

    From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 7.

  13. 2026-02-04

    Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

    introduction,reading-1,referral-committee

Versions

  • 02/04/26 - Introduced — 2026-02-04Compare
  • 03/09/26 - Amended Senate — 2026-03-09Compare
  • 03/23/26 - Amended Senate — 2026-03-23Compare
  • SB978Compare
  • (document, no version)Compare

Documents

Votes

  • Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Labor, Public Employment and Retirement ]

    2026-03-17 · pass · 12-4

    Member-level votes (17)
    • Gonzalez: yes
    • Reyes: yes
    • Stern: yes
    • Hurtado: yes
    • Allen: yes
    • Becker: yes
    • Richardson: yes
    • Rubio: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Arreguín: yes
    • McNerney: yes
    • Archuleta: yes
    • Grove: no
    • Strickland: no
    • Ochoa Bogh: no
    • Dahle: no
    • Caballero: other

  • Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

    2026-04-08 · pass · 3-1

    Member-level votes (5)
    • Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
    • Durazo: yes
    • Cortese: yes
    • Strickland: no
    • Laird: other

  • Placed on suspense file

    2026-04-20 · pass · 7-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Cervantes: yes
    • Dahle: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Richardson: yes
    • Seyarto: yes

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB978

Attribution

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

Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:

Source and document changesStatus and relationship changes

Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:

Bulk imports for this sessionSession dates and activity

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=SB 978. 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.