AB 1622 adds a statutory definition for an “electrified security fence” and permits owners of qualifying nonresidential property to install and operate such fences if they meet specified technical, signage, siting, and safety conditions. The bill excludes agricultural electric fences governed elsewhere, requires low-voltage solar energizers and IEC certification, and places limits on fence height and placement behind a nonelectrified perimeter wall.
The measure constrains local regulation in two directions: it allows cities and counties to prohibit electrified security fences for properties not meeting the bill’s eligibility rules, but it bars local governments from banning or imposing additional permit requirements for qualifying fences except in limited circumstances (e.g., near residences or certain public facilities). The authorization sunsets January 1, 2028, leaving a short window for adoption and evaluation.
At a Glance
What It Does
Defines an "electrified security fence" with specific electrical and siting characteristics and permits its installation on qualifying nonresidential lots that store or service vehicles, equipment, freight, or utility infrastructure. It requires IEC-standard energizers, prominent multi-hazard signage, a first-responder disable device (where local agencies use one), and limits on height and placement.
Who It Affects
Owners and operators of manufacturing, industrial, and certain commercially used nonresidential outdoor yards (vehicle fleets, equipment storage, utility yards), security contractors and alarm/monitoring vendors, and local permitting and public-safety agencies responsible for response and oversight.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a limited statewide regime that preempts some local controls for compliant installations while imposing technical and signage obligations aimed at public-safety protection — a model that shifts decision-making from purely local land-use control toward uniform technical standards for commercial perimeter security.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1622 draws a tight definition for what counts as an electrified security fence and then authorizes property owners to use them on a narrow class of nonresidential parcels. To qualify, the fence must be powered by a solar-charged battery system capped at 12 volts DC and must deliver short, infrequent pulses (no more than one per second and no longer than 10 milliseconds).
The definition explicitly excludes the electrified fences regulated under California’s agricultural code.
Owners may install these fences only on properties used for commercial functions like storage, parking, servicing, sale, or rental of vehicles, vessels, equipment, materials, freight, or utility infrastructure, and only where the secured area contains no residential or hospitality uses. The bill requires the energizer to meet the International Electrotechnical Commission standard IEC 60335-2-76:2018, pushes for prominent warning signs (including pacemaker and wet-condition warnings), and requires the electrified fence be sited behind a nonelectrified perimeter fence or wall at least five feet high.Local governments retain some control: jurisdictions can forbid electrified security fences on properties that do not meet the bill’s criteria or on noncompliant installations.
For compliant properties that meet all statutory requirements, cities and counties generally may not ban the fences or demand permits beyond existing alarm-system permits; however, they may require a simple administrative confirmation if the fence abuts residential property or sits within 300 feet of parks, schools, child-care facilities, community centers, or similar sites. Finally, the authorization is temporary: the new section automatically repeals on January 1, 2028, so deployment, enforcement, and any data collection will occur within a limited timeframe.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill caps the energizer power source at solar-charged batteries of no more than 12 volts DC and limits pulse characteristics to ≤1 hertz repetition and ≤10 milliseconds duration.
Energizers must meet IEC 60335, Part 2-76:2018 performance and safety specifications for electric-security-fence energizers.
Electrified security fences may not exceed 10 feet in height or be more than 2 feet taller than an existing nonelectrified perimeter fence, and they must be sited behind a nonelectrified perimeter fence or wall at least five feet tall.
Warning signs legible from both sides must appear at gates and at intervals no greater than 30 feet, must include shock and pacemaker warnings, and must be adjacent to other chemical or hazard signage where present.
The authorization is temporary and repeals on January 1, 2028, limiting the statute’s lifespan to under three years from introduction.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition and eligible properties
This subsection defines "electrified security fence" narrowly and excludes agricultural electrified fences governed by Food and Agricultural Code Section 17151. It ties eligibility to both electrical characteristics (low-voltage, solar-charged batteries, specific pulse parameters) and to property use: the fence must secure commercial outdoor lots that store, park, service, sell, or rent vehicles, equipment, freight, or utility infrastructure, and it cannot be used where residential or hospitality uses exist in the secured area. Practically, this confines the statute to industrial and commercial yards rather than mixed-use or residential settings.
Technical, signage, siting, and first-responder requirements
Subdivision (b) lists the installation conditions a property owner must meet. The energizer must conform to IEC 60335-2-76:2018, which sets performance and safety criteria for electric fence energizers. The fence must carry conspicuous warning signs at gates and at intervals no greater than 30 feet, include standardized symbols and pacemaker/wet-condition warnings, and be located behind a nonelectrified perimeter fence or wall at least five feet high. It also caps fence height at 10 feet or 2 feet above an existing perimeter wall, whichever yields the greater allowance, and mandates a device to let first responders deactivate the fence if a local agency uses such a system—leaving specifics of that interface to implementing practice.
Alarm and monitoring interface
This brief provision authorizes the electrified security fence to integrate with monitored alarm systems so that intrusion triggers can alert the business, a monitoring service, or both. The provision is operational rather than prescriptive: it allows connectivity with alarm platforms but does not mandate particular signal formats, monitoring response times, or chain-of-custody for alarm data, leaving those details to vendors and local alarm-permit regimes.
Local regulation, preemption limits, and administrative permits
Subdivision (d) draws the line between state-authorized installations and local land-use control. Local ordinances may prohibit electrified security fences on properties that fall outside the statute’s eligible class or on installations that fail to meet the statutory standards. Conversely, for properties that do meet the statute, cities and counties generally may not ban the fences or require permits beyond an existing alarm-system permit. However, jurisdictions retain the ability to require an administrative permit confirming compliance when the fence abuts residential property or is within 300 feet of sensitive public facilities, which preserves a limited local oversight mechanism.
No change to authority over nonelectrified perimeter fences
This subsection clarifies that the bill does not alter local authority to regulate nonelectrified perimeter fences or walls. In other words, ordinary land-use rules governing nonpowered fences remain fully in effect; the statute creates a parallel, tightly constrained regime only for the specified electrified systems.
Sunset provision
The statute is expressly temporary: it terminates on January 1, 2028. That sunset requires any long-term policy decisions or larger-scale rollouts to occur, and be evaluated, within the statute’s short life, and it leaves open whether the Legislature will revisit the authorization after the repeal date.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- Owners/operators of commercial vehicle yards and equipment storage lots — gain a state-authorized, uniform pathway to use electrified perimeter systems for theft and vandalism deterrence, reducing reliance on purely mechanical or guard-based security.
- Logistics, rental, and fleet businesses that store high-value assets outdoors — benefit from an additional, standardized security layer that vendors can design to meet the statute’s technical thresholds.
- Security and alarm vendors and manufacturers — acquire a new market for IEC-compliant energizers, signage, alarm integration, and first-responder interface devices.
- Utility and infrastructure operators with outdoor yards — can deploy electrified fences for asset protection under a defined technical and legal framework, potentially lowering loss and service-disruption risk.
Who Bears the Cost
- Commercial property owners — must invest in IEC-certified energizers, solar-charged battery systems, compliant signage, and potentially a nonelectrified perimeter fence if one does not already exist, increasing upfront capital and maintenance expenses.
- Local governments and permitting agencies — face administrative burdens to review compliance (particularly where an administrative confirmation is required), to manage first-responder integration requests, and to respond to public complaints near sensitive uses.
- First responders and public-safety agencies — must adopt procedures, training, and equipment to use the mandated deactivation device safely and reliably, which may require budget and protocol adjustments.
- Insurers and risk managers — will need to reassess coverage terms and premiums for properties using electrified fences, accounting for new safety features but also potential liability exposures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the commercial need for stronger perimeter security against public-safety and local land-use concerns: the bill standardizes technical requirements to enable asset protection statewide while preserving limited local control near sensitive uses, but that standardization risks overruling community preferences and imposes safety and administrative burdens that are difficult to resolve without clear implementation rules.
AB 1622 sets technical boundaries but leaves several implementation questions open. The bill mandates compliance with IEC 60335-2-76:2018 but does not specify who certifies compliance, how documentation must be retained, or what penalties apply for false claims of compliance.
The first-responder "deactivate" device requirement is conditional on local agencies using such a device, yet the statute does not define protocols, signal standards, or liability protections for responders who deactivate an energized fence during an incident.
The interaction with local land-use authority is intentionally mixed: the statute precludes additional permitting for qualifying fences while preserving local power to require administrative confirmation near sensitive sites. That creates a potential patchwork in practice—jurisdictions may interpret "abutting residential use" or the 300-foot buffer differently, leading to uneven enforcement.
The statute also sunsets in under three years, which creates near-term uncertainty for owners contemplating multi-year capital investments and for jurisdictions setting up oversight processes.
Finally, safety trade-offs remain. IEC standards aim to limit lethality, but the low-voltage, pulsed shocks allowed can still cause harm to vulnerable people or animals and complicate rescue operations.
The bill’s focus on signage and siting mitigates some risk but does not eliminate the possibility of unintended contact, electrical malfunction, or tampering—issues that will surface in real-world deployments and shape any future legislative choices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.