AB 1026 directs the California Public Utilities Commission to open or use an existing proceeding to require large electrical corporations to standardize what they ask for when customers apply for energization and to make those requirements publicly available. The bill also creates a procedural framework for timely completeness determinations, a formal cure process when applications lack required items, and an appeal pathway for applicants who disagree with an incompleteness finding.
The change matters because energization delays are a frequent bottleneck for housing projects, developers, contractors, and individual customers. By forcing utilities to publish checklists and example applications and by tying notice and cure procedures to CPUC-adopted time periods, the bill aims to reduce arbitrary requests, shorten uncertainty, and make it easier to hold utilities accountable for processing delays—while preserving limited flexibility for mutually agreed extensions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the CPUC to direct each large electrical corporation to compile and publish detailed lists of required energization application items, post example completed applications (including for housing developments), and make those materials available online by a CPUC‑specified date. It requires utilities to notify applicants within CPUC‑adopted target time periods whether applications are complete, provide cure notices listing missing items, prohibit adding new requirements during a cure, and transmit approvals immediately by email and website posting.
Who It Affects
Investor‑owned utilities that meet the definition of "large electrical corporation" under Section 3280, developers and builders (including projects defined under Gov. Code §65905.5), contractors and electricians who prepare energization submissions, permitting authorities that coordinate inspections, and customers awaiting new service connections.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the energization process from discretionary case‑by‑case practice toward predictable, documented workflows—reducing uncertainty for construction timelines, reducing administrative friction for applicants, and creating clearer grounds for disputing unreasonable utility demands or processing delays.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1026 tasks the California Public Utilities Commission with using either a new or an existing rulemaking or proceeding to impose specific process and transparency requirements on large electrical corporations. At the core is a requirement that each utility produce one or more detailed lists that spell out exactly what information and documentation applicants must submit to request energization.
The CPUC may set the deadline by which utilities must publish those lists and must allow utilities to revise them going forward.
Beyond the lists, the bill requires utilities to post on their websites example forms: a fully completed, approved energization application and a completed example tailored to housing development projects as defined in state law. Making those examples public is intended to give applicants a concrete template so they can avoid routine omissions that cause processing delays.On timing and communication, AB 1026 ties utility behavior to time periods adopted by the CPUC (it references the CPUC's Decision 24‑09‑020 or any later decision that adjusts those windows).
Utilities must notify applicants in writing within those target timeframes whether an application is complete. If the utility finds the submission incomplete, it must issue a cure notice listing every incomplete item and explaining how to fix each one.
Importantly, during the applicant's cure attempt the utility cannot require an item that was not listed in that cure notice; the utility must then assess whether the applicant's response addressed all listed deficiencies within the same CPUC‑defined timing rules.If the application becomes complete, the utility must immediately transmit that approval to the applicant by email and, where applicable, post the decision on its website. The statute also requires utilities to create an appeal process for applicants who dispute an incompleteness finding.
The bill preserves parties' ability to mutually agree to extensions of any time limit, but it bars utilities from conditioning acceptance or processing of an application on an unrelated agreement—except when the agreement is needed to allow concurrent processing of related approvals. Finally, the CPUC may not curb the amount of feedback or the number of revisions a utility can request; AB 1026 leaves that operational discretion with the utilities while mandating transparency and procedural guardrails.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The CPUC must require each large electrical corporation to compile and publish detailed lists of required energization application items and may authorize future revisions to those lists.
Utilities must post example completed energization applications on their websites, including a model application for housing development projects (Gov. Code §65905.5), by a date the CPUC specifies.
Utilities must notify applicants in writing within the CPUC‑adopted target time periods (as set in Decision 24‑09‑020 or a successor decision) whether an application is complete.
If an application is incomplete, the utility must issue a cure notice listing every missing item and explaining how to make the application complete, and during cure review the utility cannot ask for items not listed in that notice.
Upon determining an application is complete the utility must immediately transmit approval by email and, if applicable, post it online; the utility must also provide an appeal process for applicants contesting an incompleteness determination.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Require utilities to publish detailed application checklists
This subsection requires the CPUC to force each large electrical corporation to compile one or more detailed lists specifying exactly what information an applicant must provide for energization. Practically, utilities will need to audit their existing intake requirements, standardize internal checklists, and prepare public versions. The CPUC’s authority to authorize revisions means the lists are living documents rather than one‑time disclosures, which lets utilities adapt to new technologies or permitting changes without reopening the whole rulemaking.
Post model completed applications and host them online
Utilities must post an example of a complete, approved energization application and a separate example for housing development projects on their internet sites by a CPUC‑specified date. The requirement narrows information asymmetry: applicants can model submissions on an approved example, reducing trivial omissions. It also creates a public baseline against which applicants and regulators can test whether utilities are asking for additional, possibly unnecessary, documents.
Timely completeness notices and structured cure process
This subsection binds utilities to timelines adopted by the CPUC (explicitly referencing Decision 24‑09‑020 or successors) to determine and notify applicants whether an application is complete. If incomplete, the utility must send a cure notice listing each deficiency and describing how to fix it. During the applicant’s cure attempt the utility may not introduce new, unlisted requirements; it must evaluate whether the cure addressed all listed items within the CPUC’s time windows. For operations teams this creates a two‑step workflow: issuance of an itemized deficiency notice and a focused re‑review step with explicit scope and timing.
Immediate approval transmissions and appeals for incompleteness decisions
Upon finding an application complete, utilities must immediately notify the applicant by email and, if applicable, post the determination online. The statute also demands an internal appeal mechanism for applicants who contest an incompleteness finding. That appeal requirement forces utilities to document their incompleteness rationales and craft a defensible review path; it also gives applicants a procedural remedy short of a formal complaint to the CPUC.
Operational latitude and limits on conditioning processing
The CPUC may not cap the amount of feedback or revisions a utility can request, preserving full operational discretion to seek further information. At the same time, the bill allows applicants and utilities to mutually extend deadlines and prohibits utilities from conditioning acceptance or processing on unrelated agreements—except where an agreement is required to permit concurrent processing of related approvals. This balances utility flexibility with protections against using procedural agreements to delay or block energization.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Housing developers and builders — receive model applications and clear checklists that reduce guesswork and likely shorten project schedules and inspection coordination.
- Contractors and electrical contractors — gain predictable submission requirements and concrete examples to follow, lowering rework and resubmission time.
- Individual customers and small businesses applying for new service — get faster, clearer responses about completeness and a defined cure and appeal route if a utility finds the application incomplete.
- Permitting and inspection authorities — benefit indirectly from fewer partial applications and better coordination when utilities publish what they need for energization, which can speed municipal workflows.
Who Bears the Cost
- Large electrical corporations (investor‑owned utilities) — must create, publish, maintain, and staff processes for checklists, website examples, timely notices, cure reviews, and appeal procedures.
- The CPUC — must open or use proceedings, set deadlines, and monitor compliance; that supervisory burden may require additional staff time and resources.
- Applicants who lack documentation — although the framework reduces arbitrary demands, some applicants will still face costs to gather prescribed documentation and to rework submissions during cure cycles.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the desirability of transparency and predictable timetables against the operational reality that utilities and applicants need flexibility; it tightens procedural guardrails to prevent arbitrary delays but stops short of defining enforcement tools, creating a situation where clearer rules exist on paper but effective, timely compliance depends on resource allocation and detailed CPUC implementation choices.
AB 1026 trades procedural clarity for operational obligations, and that trade produces implementation headaches. Requiring utilities to publish itemized lists and examples will reduce ambiguity, but it also obliges utilities to maintain current public materials and to defend those materials when applicants claim an item was not reasonably requested.
The bill’s reference to CPUC Decision 24‑09‑020 anchors timing expectations, but it does not itself create enforcement remedies or penalties for missed timeframes; absent strong compliance oversight, utilities may face reputational pressure more than substantive sanctions.
The cure‑notice mechanics limit a utility’s ability to add new demands midstream, which protects applicants from surprise paperwork. Yet the statute simultaneously says the CPUC cannot limit the amount of feedback a utility may provide, which could be used to overwhelm applicants with iterative requests outside the formal cure clock.
The draft also leaves ambiguous operational details: what constitutes "immediate" transmission, how web posting interfaces with other public records, the minimum content of an appeal process, and how concurrent local permits and franchise requirements interact with the CPUC’s timelines. These ambiguities create avenues for dispute and will require careful CPUC rules and utility procedures to prevent gamesmanship or procedural bottlenecks.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.