AB 2338 makes an editorial amendment to Section 9508.5 of the California Public Utilities Code to remove redundant wording in the statute that governs information requests from the California Energy Commission. The bill does not add new duties, thresholds, or timelines; it edits statutory text to reduce a drafting error that duplicated the phrase "upon request."
Why this matters: the change is procedural, not policy. For compliance officers and counsel it reduces a potential source of confusion in the statute’s language and lowers the chance that the duplicate wording could be read to create conflicting obligations.
It does not alter the utilities’ substantive obligation to provide information the Energy Commission needs to evaluate progress under Section 9620.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill fixes a drafting error in Public Utilities Code §9508.5 by removing duplicated language about requests from the Energy Commission. It preserves the existing requirement that local publicly owned electric utilities provide the Commission with information necessary to evaluate progress under Section 9620.
Who It Affects
The statutory change implicates local publicly owned electric utilities (municipal utilities, irrigation and water district utilities, and joint powers agencies) and staff at the California Energy Commission who request and process data. Utility counsel and compliance teams will update internal citations and compliance checklists to reflect the cleaned-up language.
Why It Matters
Although the fix is editorial, clean statutory text reduces interpretive risk in audits, enforcement, and litigation. It also signals attention to statutory clarity that administrative staff and counsel can rely on when drafting and responding to Commission information requests.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current law, local publicly owned electric utilities must plan and procure resources to meet planning reserve margins and reliability criteria, and the California Energy Commission may request information necessary to evaluate utilities’ progress. AB 2338 narrows its focus to a single textual fix: it removes a duplicated instance of the phrase "upon request" and related stray characters that made the statutory sentence clumsy and potentially ambiguous.
In practice the amendment does not change what the Energy Commission may request, the scope of data tied to Section 9620, or the utilities’ underlying obligations. Utilities still must provide whatever information the Energy Commission determines is necessary to evaluate progress on planning reserves and reliability; the bill simply edits the statute so that the sentence reads cleanly and without repetition.For compliance teams, the operational implication is limited to housekeeping: internal policies, request templates, and statutory citations should be updated to reflect the corrected text.
There is no new reporting cadence, no added penalties, and no change to confidentiality or public disclosure rules tied to the underlying information requests.Where the change matters is in preventing avoidable interpretive disputes. A duplication in statutory language can become fodder in enforcement or litigation over whether a phrase creates a separate condition or a different timing requirement.
By making the text consistent with its apparent original intent, AB 2338 reduces that risk while leaving substantive law intact.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Public Utilities Code Section 9508.5 to remove duplicated wording and stray characters that introduced textual clutter into the statute.
AB 2338 does not create any new reporting duties or alter the Energy Commission’s authority to request information tied to Section 9620’s planning and reliability measures.
The amendment is explicitly nonsubstantive in the bill digest and contains no appropriation, fiscal committee referral, or new funding mechanism.
Affected entities are local publicly owned electric utilities — municipal utilities, irrigation/water district utilities and joint power agencies that serve end‑use customers.
The statutory fix reduces the potential for interpretation disputes but does not change confidentiality, timelines, or enforcement mechanics associated with Commission requests.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Clean up wording for Energy Commission information requests
This single provision rewrites the sentence in §9508.5 to remove a duplicated "upon request" and a stray capital letter that made the sentence awkward. Mechanically, the revised sentence will state that, upon request, a local publicly owned electric utility shall provide the Energy Commission with any information the Commission determines necessary to evaluate progress under Section 9620. Practically, the amendment eliminates an editorial defect without changing the scope or timing of the Commission’s information‑gathering authority.
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
- Local publicly owned electric utilities — gain reduced interpretive risk and lower litigation exposure because the statute no longer contains duplicated language that could be parsed as creating separate obligations.
- California Energy Commission staff — benefit from clearer statutory text when issuing data requests and defending the scope of those requests in administrative or judicial proceedings.
- Utility compliance and legal teams — get a cleaner statutory citation and avoid confusion when drafting policies, responses, and internal guidance tied to §9508.5 and Section 9620.
Who Bears the Cost
- Utility legal/compliance departments — bear minor administrative costs to update internal manuals, templates, and citations to reflect the corrected statute.
- Legislative drafting and administrative staff — expend modest time to process and publish the technical amendment and to update published code databases.
- No regulated party bears substantive regulatory costs — the amendment does not create new compliance obligations or reporting requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between clarity and the lost opportunity for substantive reform: an editorial correction reduces ambiguity and legal risk, but it also forecloses the chance to revisit whether the statute’s underlying standard (what information the Commission may deem "necessary") needs procedural guardrails, definitions, or limits.
Although AB 2338 is editorial, drafting cleanups can have outsized practical effects. Courts and agencies sometimes scrutinize statutory phrasing; removing duplication reduces the chance that an adversary will argue the statute imposes two different conditions or timing requirements.
That is a benefit, but it also means the Legislature is effectively ratifying one reading of the original statute — the editorial fix could foreclose alternative interpretations that some stakeholders preferred.
Implementation questions remain limited but worth noting. The statute continues to tie Energy Commission requests to the Commission’s determination of what information is "necessary" under Section 9620; the bill does not define "necessary" or set procedural protections (timelines, format, or confidentiality treatment) around requests.
Those operational matters remain governed by existing administrative practice, related statutes, and agency rulemaking; this cleanup neither advances nor constrains them.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.