AB23 (Cost of Living Reduction Act of 2025) creates a set of automatic, price‑triggered interventions aimed at lowering consumers’ out‑of‑pocket costs for gasoline, electricity, and natural gas. It requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to maintain monthly public dashboards that compare California and national average prices and attribute the price gap to California‑specific taxes, fees, regulations, and policies.
If any covered energy price exceeds the national average by more than 10% in the preceding quarter, the bill triggers six‑month suspensions of specified state taxes, fees, and cap‑and‑trade obligations for the relevant sectors.
The bill also establishes a Cost of Living Reduction Fund, directs transfers from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to pay rebates to eligible households (capped at $2,500 per household), and bars the PUC and local publicly owned electric utilities from adopting new or expanded residential fixed charges after January 1, 2026. Those provisions reallocate existing climate and utility fee revenue streams and create automatic policy rollbacks tied to a price metric — a design that raises immediate consumer relief at the expense of predictable funding for existing programs and regulatory incentives.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires monthly dashboards from the Energy Commission and the PUC that quantify California’s price gap with national averages and attribute that gap to specific state taxes, fees, regulations, and policies. If any covered energy price exceeds the national average by more than 10% in the prior quarter, AB23 mandates six‑month suspensions of listed gasoline taxes/fees, utility bill fees, and cap‑and‑trade obligations for affected refineries and utilities. It creates a Cost of Living Reduction Fund funded by transfers from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and directs rebates to eligible households up to $2,500, while prohibiting new or expanded residential fixed electricity charges.
Who It Affects
Directly affected entities include the Energy Commission, the PUC, the State Air Resources Board (CARB), electrical and gas corporations, oil refineries, local publicly owned utilities, and the Controller for rebate disbursements. Eligible households (income‑capped) and programs financed by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund would be second‑order stakeholders.
Why It Matters
AB23 ties regulatory and fiscal rollback triggers to an easily measurable price threshold, which could deliver rapid, automatic consumer relief but will also interrupt revenue streams that fund wildfire mitigation, energy programs, and greenhouse‑gas reduction. Compliance officers, utility finance teams, and budget staff need to plan for abrupt, six‑month revenue changes and a new rebate program funded from climate funds.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB23 sets up two public, monthly dashboards: the Energy Commission must post a gasoline dashboard showing California’s average pump price versus the national average and list every California‑specific tax, fee, regulation, or policy that contributes to the gap, with an attribution for each item; the PUC must post a similar dashboard for the total price per kilowatt‑hour of electricity and per therm of natural gas. Both agencies must deliver reports to the Legislature by July 1, 2026, explaining governmental and nongovernmental drivers of the price differentials and recommending policy changes.
The bill creates an automatic trigger tied to a simple threshold: if a covered price — gasoline, electricity, or natural gas — exceeds the national average by more than 10% over the preceding quarter, it forces six‑month suspensions. For gasoline this means suspending an enumerated list of state taxes and fees; for electricity and natural gas the PUC must suspend collection of specified fees that currently appear on consumer bills.
In parallel, the State Air Resources Board must suspend cap‑and‑trade obligations for covered entities in the affected sector (refineries for gasoline; electrical and gas corporations for power and gas) and stop collecting money from those entities under the program for the same six‑month window.To compensate households for persistent price gaps, AB23 directs the Energy Commission to craft a rebate methodology and establishes the Cost of Living Reduction Fund. When the 12‑month average for a covered energy source exceeds the national average by more than 10%, the Controller will issue household rebates consistent with the commission’s methodology, with individual rebates capped at $2,500 and eligibility limited by income thresholds ($120,000 for married households; $65,000 for single filers).
The bill requires the Controller to obtain the dollar amount needed for rebates from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund via a transfer into the new fund, and those moneys are continuously appropriated to permit payments without annual appropriation.Finally, AB23 removes the PUC’s authorization to adopt new or expanded residential fixed charges and orders repeal of a specific fixed charge adopted in a 2024 PUC decision; it also bars local publicly owned electric utilities from creating or expanding fixed charges after January 1, 2026. The Milton Marks Little Hoover Commission must study the bill’s approach and report to the Legislature by January 1, 2027, on the methodology’s effectiveness and its possible application to other cost‑of‑living elements such as housing or health care.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Energy Commission and the PUC must publish monthly dashboards that not only show California‑to‑national price differences but also attribute the gap to each California‑specific tax, fee, regulation, or policy and estimate each item’s relative contribution.
If California’s average gasoline price exceeds the national average by more than 10% in the preceding quarter, the bill suspends an enumerated list of state gasoline taxes and fees for six months and requires that savings realized upstream (by non‑end users) be passed through to consumers.
If California’s average electricity or natural gas price exceeds the national average by more than 10% in the preceding quarter, the PUC must suspend collection of all specified fees on electricity and gas bills (including the Wildfire Fund charge and the Electric Program Investment Charge) for six months.
The bill creates the Cost of Living Reduction Fund, requires the Controller to transfer the amount needed from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and limits household rebates to $2,500 with income eligibility caps ($120,000 married; $65,000 single).
AB23 repeals the PUC’s authorization to adopt new or expanded residential fixed charges, requires repeal of the fixed charge adopted in PUC Decision 24‑05‑028, and prohibits local publicly owned electric utilities from adopting or expanding fixed charges after January 1, 2026.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Gasoline dashboard, report, and tax/fee suspension
This section directs the Energy Commission to operate a monthly gasoline dashboard that reports California vs. national average pump prices and itemizes California‑specific drivers of the price gap. It requires a July 1, 2026 report to the Legislature on those drivers. The operative trigger is a quarterly test: if California’s average gasoline price exceeds the national average by more than 10% in the prior quarter, an enumerated list of state gasoline taxes and fees is suspended for six months. Practically, that list includes state fuel taxes, certain environmental fees, underground storage tank fees, and related charges the bill enumerates; the provision also requires upstream savings not retained by intermediaries to be passed to consumers.
Utility price dashboard, report, and fee suspension
The PUC must publish a monthly dashboard showing total price per kWh and per therm (inclusive of all government fees and public‑purpose charges) and identify California‑specific items that increase those prices. A separate July 1, 2026 report must analyze drivers and recommend policy changes. If the quarterly threshold is crossed for electricity or natural gas, the PUC must suspend collection of specified fees on customer bills — the statute explicitly lists program and reimbursement accounts and levies that finance programs such as the Wildfire Fund and EPIC — halting those collections for six months and shifting near‑term cash flows away from program budgets.
Cost of Living Reduction Fund and funding mechanism
This article creates a new state fund and ties its capitalization to transfers from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). The controller must transfer an amount equal to the commission’s estimate of rebate needs from the GGRF into the new fund, and the moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated to permit rebate payments without further legislative appropriation. That design effectively earmarks climate auction revenues to pay cost‑of‑living rebates when the statute’s 12‑month price condition is met.
Rebate methodology, eligibility, and limits
The Energy Commission must develop a methodology for household rebates to offset higher energy costs; the bill caps rebates at $2,500 per household and sets income eligibility thresholds ($120,000 married, $65,000 single). The commission must report annually to the Controller the amount required to fund rebates under that methodology, which triggers the transfer from the GGRF. The mechanics leave room for administrative design choices by the commission and Controller (verification, delivery mechanism, reconciliation) but set firm caps and eligibility rules.
Little Hoover Commission study and legislative reporting
The Milton Marks Little Hoover Commission must study and report by January 1, 2027 on whether the bill’s methodology produces meaningful cost savings and on applying the approach to other cost‑of‑living elements (homeowners’ insurance, housing, health care, water utilities). The statute requires the report to conform to Government Code reporting rules, which may constrain format and timing; the study is intended to assess program effectiveness and scalability rather than implement immediate policy changes.
Repeal of fixed‑charge authorization and ban on new fixed charges
AB23 amends Section 739.9 to remove the PUC’s authorization to adopt new or expand fixed charges, orders repeal of the specific fixed charge adopted in Decision 24‑05‑028, and adds a new Chapter 10 prohibiting local publicly owned electric utilities from adopting or expanding fixed charges after January 1, 2026. The change constrains utility rate design tools that collect fixed costs through customer charges and directs utilities and regulators to rely on volumetric rates and other mechanisms instead.
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
- Income‑eligible households (≤$120,000 married, ≤$65,000 single): would receive direct cash rebates when the 12‑month price condition is met, capped at $2,500, providing immediate purchasing power relief.
- Retail energy consumers during trigger periods: motorists and utility customers pay lower billed amounts during the six‑month suspension windows because enumerated state taxes and specified utility fees are paused.
- Residential ratepayers opposed to fixed charges: residential customers, especially those with low or variable usage, avoid new or expanded fixed monthly electricity charges that would otherwise raise baseline bills regardless of consumption.
Who Bears the Cost
- Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund‑supported programs: the bill requires transfers from the GGRF to fund rebates, reducing funding available for existing climate, clean‑transportation, and community resilience programs.
- Covered industry and utilities: oil refineries, electrical corporations, and gas corporations lose cap‑and‑trade obligations (and may lose related compliance costs or allowances revenue) during suspension periods, while utilities also lose fee‑derived revenue streams that fund programs like wildfire mitigation and EPIC.
- State agencies and budget offices: the Controller, Energy Commission, PUC, and CARB face operational and administrative burdens — producing monthly dashboards, preparing legislative reports, designing and administering rebate distribution, and reconciling transfers — without a dedicated new appropriation for ongoing implementation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB23 trades durable, predictable funding and regulatory incentives for immediate, automatic consumer relief: the bill’s trigger‑based suspensions and transfers can lower household costs quickly, but they simultaneously weaken the financing and regulatory stick that support climate mitigation, grid resilience, and utility‑funded programs — forcing a choice between short‑term affordability and long‑term public investments with no clear reconciliation mechanism.
The bill builds consumer relief around a single, bright‑line price metric (more than 10% above national averages) and pairs that metric with sweeping fiscal and regulatory suspensions. That design simplifies political accountability and expedites temporary relief, but it creates sharp implementation challenges.
Attribution rules — asking commissions to estimate the “relative contribution” of each tax, fee, regulation, or policy to a price gap — require complex economic analysis, assumptions about pass‑through, and methodological choices (time horizons, counterfactual baselines, price composition) that can materially change results and thus the political signal the dashboard sends.
Redirecting monies from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to rebate payments and suspending cap‑and‑trade obligations for entire sectors present a direct trade‑off between near‑term household relief and long‑term climate and programmatic investments. Programs funded by GGRF and utility fees (wildfire mitigation, energy efficiency, electrification incentives) require predictable revenue streams; six‑month suspensions and ad hoc transfers complicate multi‑year contracts and capital planning.
The statute does not include explicit reconciliation or clawback mechanics if program shortfalls occur, nor does it specify whether suspended requirements or collections are recovered after the suspension ends, which raises governance and legal questions for CARB, the PUC, and program administrators.
Operationally, the bill leaves significant administrative design to the Energy Commission and Controller (rebate delivery, eligibility verification, pass‑through enforcement for upstream savings, and timing of transfers). That delegation speeds legislative passage but pushes contentious design choices — who qualifies, how to prevent fraud, how to measure and enforce pass‑through — into agency rulemaking and interagency coordination at tight statutory deadlines.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.