AB 1228 directs the California Public Utilities Commission (via its Office) to establish an expedited program that lets only “large electrical corporations” propose and implement 10-year distribution undergrounding plans targeted at tier 2 and 3 high fire-threat districts and rebuild areas. Plans must prioritize projects by wildfire risk reduction, contain annual mileage and unit-cost targets, compare undergrounding to alternative mitigation measures, and include workforce and cost-containment strategies.
The bill matters because it packages technical planning, an accelerated administrative timetable, and payment mechanisms (including continuation of balancing accounts and rate recovery processes) to push major utilities toward large-scale undergrounding. It combines expedited approvals, independent monitoring and potential penalties with requirements to pursue non-ratepayer funding — creating a fast lane for high-cost resilience work while raising questions about near-term rate impacts, oversight trade-offs, and implementation sequencing (including environmental review).
At a Glance
What It Does
It creates an expedited program that allows only large electrical corporations to submit 10-year undergrounding plans focused on tier 2/3 high fire-threat districts and rebuild areas; the office and the commission each have fixed review windows and may approve, require modifications, or deny plans. Approved plans trigger semiannual progress reporting, an independent monitor, and potential commission penalties for noncompliance.
Who It Affects
Large investor-owned utilities operating in California’s high fire-threat districts, their contractors and workforce planners, ratepayers (through potential cost recovery), and state regulators who will handle faster reviews, public workshops, and monitoring responsibilities.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a formal, expedited path for large-scale undergrounding—an expensive resilience strategy that can reduce public safety power shutoffs (PSPS) but shifts emphasis onto planning, cost-targeting, and recovery mechanisms that will determine who ultimately pays and how quickly projects move.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1228 establishes a targeted program limited to California’s large electrical corporations to plan and carry out extensive undergrounding of distribution lines over a 10-year horizon. Each utility that chooses to participate must submit a detailed plan that lists the projects it will build, explains how projects are prioritized (with wildfire risk as a key factor), and sets yearly mileage and unit-cost targets.
The bill limits eligible projects to those located in tier 2 or 3 high fire-threat districts or in rebuild areas, keeping the program narrowly focused on the highest-risk locations.
The plan must include a structured comparison of undergrounding versus other mitigation strategies—aboveground hardening, covered conductors, and device-based approaches—showing relative costs and how much wildfire risk each option reduces over the plan’s life. Utilities must also propose workforce-development approaches and lay out assumptions and strategies for cost containment, including how economies of scale will drive unit-cost declines over time.
Those cost targets are central: when a plan is approved, the utility must demonstrate feasible cost reductions compared with its historical undergrounding costs and explain how declines will be achieved.The Office (of the CPUC) and the Commission each have defined roles and timelines. After a utility files its plan with the office, the office publishes it for public comment and must act within nine months to approve, deny, or require changes.
If the office approves, the utility has 60 days to file an application with the Commission asking for conditional approval of costs; the Commission then convenes a public workshop, accepts at least 30 days of comments, and must act within nine months. The statute lets the assigned commissioner waive certain procedural requirements for the application and directs the Commission to consider preserving any existing balancing-account ratemaking mechanism for system hardening while authorizing recovery of recorded costs the Commission finds just and reasonable.Once a plan receives both office and commission approval, the utility must file semiannual progress reports published online, incorporate work into annual wildfire mitigation plans, and retain an independent monitor (selected by the office) to assess compliance.
The monitor files annual December 1 reports describing progress, delays, or deficiencies; utilities get 180 days to cure identified deficiencies. The office may recommend penalties to the Commission, and the Commission may assess penalties for failure to substantially comply.
Finally, utilities must apply for federal, state, and other non-ratepayer funds to offset ratepayer costs, and the bill preserves the need for environmental review before any project-level approval authorizing physical changes to the environment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Plans must be 10 years long and include annual mileage completion targets and unit cost targets for each year.
Only projects located in tier 2 or 3 high fire-threat districts or rebuild areas are eligible for construction under the program.
The office has nine months to review a submitted plan; if approved, the utility has 60 days to apply to the Commission, which also must act within nine months after a public workshop and at least 30 days of comment.
The office selects an independent monitor whose December 1 annual reports will identify deficiencies; the utility then has 180 days to remedy any cited shortfalls or face possible Commission penalties.
Utilities must apply for federal, state, and non-ratepayer funds throughout the plan and use any funds obtained to reduce ratepayer costs; Commission may continue balancing-account ratemaking mechanisms for the plan’s duration.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Establishes the expedited undergrounding program
Directs the commission to set up an expedited program under the terms of this section. This creates the statutory authority and program framework that ties the other provisions together; it’s the hook that lets the office and Commission use the abbreviated procedures and monitoring regimen later in the statute.
Limits participation to large electrical corporations
Permits only investor-owned utilities classified as large electrical corporations to participate. That exclusionary design channels program benefits, obligations, and cost-recovery mechanisms to a small set of utilities and excludes municipal utilities, electric cooperatives, and smaller providers.
Detailed plan requirements
Specifies six mandatory plan components: a 10-year undergrounding schedule; a prioritized project list limited to tier 2/3 HFTDs and rebuild areas; yearly timelines plus unit-cost and mileage targets; a required comparison of undergrounding versus alternative mitigation strategies focusing on cost per unit of risk reduction; workforce development; and an evaluation of costs, projected economic benefits, and cost-containment assumptions. These granularity requirements force utilities to present not just projects but an economic and operational case for undergrounding at scale.
Office review, public comment, and approval standard
Requires the office to publish submitted plans for comment and to approve or deny within nine months. The office may require plan modifications and may approve only if the plan demonstrably increases reliability (reducing PSPS and deenergization events) and substantially reduces wildfire risk. This provision sets a dual test—reliability and wildfire-risk reduction—that the office must apply in a compressed timeline.
Commission application, waivers, workshops, and ratemaking considerations
After office approval, the utility has 60 days to file with the Commission for conditional cost approval. The assigned commissioner can waive specified Section 1701.3 procedures for the application, the Commission must host a public workshop and take at least 30 days of comments, and must approve or deny within nine months. The Commission is instructed to consider continuing existing balancing-account ratemaking mechanisms for system hardening and to authorize recovery of recorded costs found just and reasonable, which affects how project costs can be recovered from ratepayers.
Reporting, independent monitoring, cure periods, and penalties
Requires semiannual progress reports (posted online), integration with annual wildfire mitigation filings, and retention of an independent monitor selected by the office. The monitor must assess consistency with plan objectives and deliver a report every December 1 describing failures and recommendations; utilities have 180 days to cure deficiencies. The office may recommend penalties and the Commission may impose penalties for failures to substantially comply with approved plans. This creates a compliance loop with public visibility but relies on the monitor and Commission enforcement for teeth.
Funding and environmental review caveat
Obligates utilities to seek federal, state, and other non-ratepayer funds during the plan term and requires any funds obtained be used to reduce ratepayer costs. It also clarifies that plan approval is not itself a CEQA project, but that required environmental review must occur before any project-level approval that authorizes physical changes—preserving environmental review sequencing while allowing program approvals to move forward administratively.
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
- Residents and businesses located in tier 2 and 3 high fire-threat districts — they stand to gain reduced wildfire ignition risk and fewer PSPS events where undergrounding is implemented, improving reliability and safety in the highest-risk locations.
- Utilities that successfully implement efficient undergrounding plans — they can reduce exposure to catastrophic wildfire liability and PSPS-related service interruptions, and may obtain Commission-approved cost recovery and continued balancing-account mechanisms that smooth cost impacts.
- Contractors and workforce-development programs that expand capacity — the bill creates predictable, multi-year project pipelines tied to specific mileage and cost targets, which can support hiring, training, and local economic activity.
- Ratepayer advocates focused on long-term resilience — if cost targets and non-ratepayer funding materialize, ratepayers may see durable reliability gains and avoided long-term wildfire costs, particularly where undergrounding reduces deenergization frequency.
Who Bears the Cost
- Ratepayers in utility service territories — even with a requirement to pursue outside funding, the statute contemplates cost recovery mechanisms and balancing accounts that can result in rate impacts over the life of the plan.
- Large electrical corporations in the near term — designing, managing, and executing 10-year programs with aggressive mileage and unit-cost targets will require capital outlays, project management, and workforce investments before economies of scale lower unit costs.
- State regulators and the Office — the nine-month review windows, workshop obligations, independent monitor oversight, and public posting duties add staff workload and demand on agency resources, potentially requiring new capacity or prioritization.
- Local jurisdictions and environmental reviewers — sequencing approvals means local CEQA review still must occur before project-level authorization, which can delay construction and shift timing risks back to utilities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is speed versus accountability and affordability: the bill accelerates large-scale undergrounding to cut wildfire risk and PSPSs, but doing so at scale is costly and depends on optimistic cost declines, limited procedural review, and enforcement mechanisms that may be blunt—forcing a trade-off between rapidly reducing wildfire exposure and protecting ratepayers and public oversight from the financial and implementation risks of an ambitious, expensive program.
The bill marries speed and scale—expedited reviews, fixed timelines, and statutory encouragement of cost-containment—with mechanisms that leave hard choices unresolved. Cost-target requirements and comparisons with alternative mitigations force utilities to justify expensive undergrounding, but those comparisons depend heavily on assumptions about asset life, risk-reduction metrics, and future cost declines that are uncertain.
If utilities set optimistic economies-of-scale assumptions, the program may commit ratepayers to large up-front spending on the expectation of future cost declines that may not materialize.
Oversight and enforcement rest on an independent monitor chosen by the Office and on penalty authority exercised by the Commission. That structure gives the Office a pivotal gatekeeper role (including monitor selection), but the statute permits assigned commissioners to waive procedural protections under Section 1701.3 for the Commission application, raising transparency and stakeholder-participation concerns.
Likewise, the provision directing the Commission not to revisit already-approved cost or mileage targets in general rate cases could lock in assumptions that later prove inaccurate, limiting the Commission’s flexibility to adjust cost recovery when market or program realities change.
Finally, the environmental review carve-out preserves CEQA on a project-by-project basis but creates a sequencing risk: administrative approvals may proceed while project-level environmental analysis and local permits still pose potential showstoppers. Combined with the program’s geographic restriction to tier 2/3 areas and its exclusion of municipal utilities and co-ops, the statute may concentrate benefits and costs unevenly across the state while leaving uncertain how supply-chain bottlenecks, workforce scaling, and federal funding volatility will affect timelines and unit-cost targets.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.