AB 1373 rewrites how the State Water Resources Control Board handles state water-quality certifications tied to licenses to operate hydroelectric facilities. The bill creates an applicant-triggered right to a public hearing on an initial draft certification, removes delegation authority for certifications when a hearing is requested, and authorizes the board to recover reasonable costs from hydro applicants for holding hearings or issuing non-delegable certifications.
The measure also gives the board a limited pathway to issue a certificate before CEQA review finishes if waiting would risk losing state certification authority under federal law, while preserving authority to reopen and revise that certificate later after public notice. The changes reshape the timing, staffing, and fee expectations for applicants, the board, and interested stakeholders — and they directly intersect with federal licensing schedules (notably FERC) and CEQA-driven environmental review.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the state board to hold a public hearing on a draft state water-quality certification for a hydroelectric license when the applicant requests one shortly after an initial draft is released, and it prevents delegation of the authority to issue that certification if a hearing is requested. It also allows the board to add to its fee schedule amounts equal to the reasonable costs of holding the hearing or issuing a non-delegable certification, and it permits issuing a certification before CEQA is finished if delaying risks a federal waiver.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include applicants seeking federal hydroelectric licenses (typically FERC applicants), the State Water Resources Control Board and its staff, environmental and tribal stakeholders that participate in water-quality proceedings, and counsel and consultants who advise on CEQA and federal licensing coordination. Local jurisdictions and project opponents will also feel the procedural shifts during certification.
Why It Matters
AB 1373 changes the practical calculus for coordination between state certification, federal licensing timelines, and CEQA review: applicants may need to trigger hearings quickly or face non-delegated board action; the board can recoup some administrative costs; and the bill creates a formal mechanism to avoid automatic federal waiver by allowing early certification with a reserved ability to revise later.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
When the board issues an initial draft water-quality certification for a hydroelectric license, AB 1373 gives the applicant a narrow window to demand a public hearing. If the applicant asks within that window, the board must schedule a hearing with time for public comment before it takes final action.
The hearing can be folded into a regular board meeting, but it must be specially noticed, and the board cannot delegate the final decision to staff or another authority when a hearing has been requested.
That non-delegation rule matters in practice: decisions that otherwise could be handled by staff or regional boards must go to the full State Water Board when the procedural trigger is pulled. That creates scheduling constraints for the board and predictable dates for opponents and local stakeholders to marshal public testimony; it also concentrates political and legal risk at the board level rather than in delegated offices.To avoid forcing applicants to absorb the full administrative burden, the bill lets the board set fees for hydro applicants to cover reasonable costs associated with hearings or with non-delegable certification work. "Reasonable costs" is not defined in the statute, so the board will need to translate that standard into a fee schedule and administrative practice — and applicants should expect separate, itemized charges tied to actual hearing logistics and staff time.Finally, AB 1373 creates a limited exception to the usual sequencing with CEQA: the board may issue a certification before the project's environmental review is complete if the board finds that waiting would risk losing certification authority under federal law.
When the board acts early for that reason, it must retain the ability to reopen the certification after public notice and opportunity for comment, and — where appropriate — hold a hearing and revise the certification to incorporate measures identified in the later environmental document. That approach reduces the risk of an automatic federal waiver but also raises questions about certifying on an incomplete environmental record and the practical work needed to revise certificates later.
The Five Things You Need to Know
An applicant must request a public hearing within 14 days of issuance of an initial draft certification to trigger the hearing requirement.
If a hearing is requested, the State Water Board must hold it at least 21 days before taking final action on the certification.
When a public hearing is requested on a draft certification for a hydroelectric license, the bill bars delegating the authority to issue that certification — the decision must be taken by the board.
The board may include in its hydroelectric fee schedule amounts not to exceed the reasonable costs the board incurs in holding the hearing or issuing the non-delegable certification.
The board may issue a certification before CEQA review finishes if waiting risks a federal waiver, but it must reserve the right to reopen and, after notice and comment (and where appropriate a hearing), revise the certificate to address impacts identified in the later environmental document.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Designation of state authority for federal water-quality certification
This subsection reconfirms the State Water Board as California’s agent for purposes of federal water-quality law. Practically, it keeps the board squarely responsible for providing the Section 401-style statements and certificates that federal agencies require. The provision is housekeeping in tone, but it matters because the rest of the bill builds off the board’s existing federal certification role.
Applicant-triggered public hearing and ban on delegation
This paragraph creates the procedural trigger: an applicant who requests a hearing within a short window after an initial draft certification forces the board to hold a public hearing at least three weeks before acting. The provision also forbids delegation of issuance authority in those cases, which converts decisions that could be made administratively into matters for the full board. That has two practical effects: it creates a discrete, predictable timeline for public engagement, and it concentrates deliberation and political accountability at the board level — meaning contested certifications will more likely prompt full-board debate and recorded votes.
Fee authority tied to reasonable costs
This subsection explicitly authorizes the State Water Board to add to its hydroelectric applicant fee schedule amounts not exceeding the "reasonable costs" the board incurs in holding hearings or issuing certifications that cannot be delegated. The authority points to Section 13160.1 for procedural fee-setting, but it leaves the board to define "reasonable costs" by regulation or internal policy. Expect fees to cover notice publishing, hearing logistics, additional staff review time, and possibly consultant support; the statutory cap language, however, will invite scrutiny if the board's fee schedule looks like a surcharge rather than cost recovery.
Conditional early certification and reserved reopening authority
This paragraph lets the board issue a certificate before CEQA review is complete when it finds that waiting risks a federal waiver of state certification authority (the federal one-year rule). It authorizes the board, to the extent federal law allows, to reserve the option to reopen and revise the certificate after public notice and comment — and, where appropriate, a hearing — to incorporate feasible mitigation or to make necessary findings based on the completed environmental document. That mechanism attempts to square two competing imperatives — acting quickly to avoid waiver and ensuring CEQA-based mitigation — but it also sets up a two-step administrative path where early action can be followed by later changes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment 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
- Hydroelectric license applicants who need to avoid federal waiver — they gain a clear procedural device to force a public hearing and a pathway to secure a state certification in time-sensitive federal licensing schedules, reducing the risk their federal application is deemed waived.
- Environmental, tribal, and local advocates — they receive an explicit right to a timely, noticed forum for public comment since hearings must allow public input and be held with enough advance notice to prepare testimony. That concentrates opportunities to challenge or influence certification terms before the board.
- The State Water Board — the bill gives the board a tool to preserve California’s certification authority under federal law and a statutory route to recover administrative costs, which can help fund quicker but more resource-intensive proceedings.
Who Bears the Cost
- Hydroelectric applicants — they may face new, itemized fees tied to hearings and non-delegable board work, and they must monitor draft certifications closely and act quickly to trigger hearings, adding compliance and legal costs.
- State Water Board staff and scheduling — the non-delegation rule will increase full-board workload, force reallocation of meeting slots, and require additional staff time for notice, hearing prep, and possible subsequent reopening processes. Those burdens may fall on general program budgets unless fees fully offset costs.
- Regional boards and delegated staff — when applicants trigger hearings, authorities that ordinarily handle certifications under delegation lose that discretion, potentially delaying cases and disrupting delegated workflows; this centralization may increase backlog at the state level.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against one another: protecting California’s right to supply timely state water-quality certifications (and thus avoid automatic federal waiver) versus ensuring that those certifications rest on a complete environmental review and robust public participation. Acting early protects state authority but risks decisions based on incomplete CEQA records; insisting on completed environmental review preserves analytical integrity but risks losing the certification altogether under federal timelines.
AB 1373 tries to thread a narrow needle: it lowers the risk that federal agencies will treat a state’s silence as a waiver, but it does so by shifting timing and procedural burdens. The most immediate implementation challenge is administrative: the board must define "reasonable costs" in ways that survive legal and stakeholder scrutiny, schedule hearings into already full board calendars, and build procedures for reopening and revising certificates that preserve due process while keeping projects from cycling through repeated revisions.
Substantively, the bill increases the likelihood the board will act on certifications with an incomplete CEQA record to avoid waiver — and then revise them later. That sequencing raises litigation risk (challenge to an early certification or to a later revision), practical uncertainty for project planning and financing, and potential friction with federal licensing agencies that expect a finalized state certification.
Finally, the statute does not define several operational terms — for example, what precisely constitutes the "initial draft certification being issued," how the board will demonstrate a "substantial risk of waiver," or the procedures for calculating recoverable costs — leaving significant rulemaking and policy work to the board.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.