AB 2464 directs the California Public Utilities Commission, working with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission), to deliver a statewide assessment on the role and necessity of “clean, firm” resources by June 30, 2027. The statute lists the assessment’s elements — technologies and integration strategies, procurement and planning recommendations (if needed), and analysis of capacity, reliability under different system conditions, cost, and emissions impacts.
This is a focused, evidence‑gathering statute rather than a procurement mandate. The report is designed to inform lawmakers and regulators about whether and how to support clean, firm resources — resources that can reliably supply low‑ or zero‑carbon energy when variable renewables cannot — and to address gaps the bill identifies in fragmented procurement and statewide planning.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the PUC, in partnership with the Energy Commission, to prepare and submit a single, statewide assessment by June 30, 2027 that evaluates the necessity, technologies, costs, emissions, and reliability implications of clean, firm resources and recommends procurement, policy, or planning actions if appropriate.
Who It Affects
Primary actors include the PUC and Energy Commission (as report authors), load‑serving entities (electrical corporations, community choice aggregators, direct access providers) because the report targets procurement and resource adequacy issues, and project developers and grid planners who would be affected by any later policy changes informed by the assessment.
Why It Matters
The assessment creates a legislatively mandated, cross‑agency evidence base that could reshape procurement and planning decisions. It explicitly responds to concerns that fragmented LSE procurement raises costs and complicates building difficult but necessary clean, firm projects, and thus may be the precursor to centralized or coordinated policy action.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2464 adds Section 913.7 to the Public Utilities Code and begins with a set of legislative findings that frame the problem: rising electricity demand, heavy reliance on variable renewables and storage, and competition among dozens of load‑serving entities that may drive up costs and frustrate construction of large, hard‑to‑site projects. The bill does not itself change procurement rules or resource adequacy obligations; it orders a targeted, time‑bound assessment to inform whether further action is necessary.
The PUC is the named lead and must work with the Energy Commission to produce the assessment by June 30, 2027. The statute lists the deliverables: an evaluation of whether clean, firm resources are necessary to meet California’s clean energy and reliability goals; an inventory of potential technologies and integration strategies; recommendations on procurement, policy, and planning if the agencies judge them necessary; and comparative analysis of current and projected generation capacity, reliability under different system conditions, and the cost and emission implications of adding clean, firm resources.Because the bill is an assessment mandate rather than an instruction to procure, its immediate effect is procedural and informational: it centralizes analysis that currently occurs in a patchwork across agencies and LSEs.
That centralization may reduce informational gaps that impede long‑lead projects (for example, long‑duration storage, firm zero‑carbon generation, or fuel‑switching projects), but the statute leaves follow‑on decisions — including whether to change procurement rules or create centralized solicitations — to the Legislature and regulators.Notably, AB 2464 invokes a reporting exception (it is “notwithstanding Section 10231.5” of the Government Code), making this an explicitly required legislative report even if other reporting restrictions would apply. The bill also narrows the named interagency partnership to the PUC and Energy Commission; it does not mandate consultation with other agencies the Legislature mentioned in earlier 2023 work (for example, CAISO or CARB), though the assessing agencies could consult them in practice.
Finally, the bill directs analysis under varying system conditions, which signals an expectation of scenario modeling and sensitivity testing rather than a single snapshot projection.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Due date and lead: The PUC, working with the Energy Commission, must submit the statewide assessment to the Legislature by June 30, 2027.
Scope: The report must evaluate the role and necessity of clean, firm resources, and identify potential technologies and integration strategies relevant to California’s clean energy and reliability objectives.
Recommendations: The agencies must include procurement, policy, and planning recommendations only if they determine such actions are necessary — the bill does not itself require procurement.
Analytical requirements: The assessment must consider current and projected renewable and clean, firm capacity, reliability requirements under varying system conditions, and cost and emissions implications.
Legislative findings: The bill explicitly cites fragmented procurement among dozens of load‑serving entities and the resulting competition for projects as a driver for the assessment, framing economies of scale and coordinated planning as central concerns.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings on demand, procurement fragmentation, and the need for assessment
This section collects factual assertions that justify the new report: accelerating electrification and load growth, the scale of new infrastructure likely to be necessary, heavy reliance on renewables and storage, and the possible need for additional clean, firm resources to ensure reliability. It also singles out the proliferation of load‑serving entities and fragmented procurement as a specific problem that may raise costs and impede large, difficult projects. These findings do not create legal obligations but set the policy frame the PUC and Energy Commission should use when designing the assessment.
PUC leads a one‑time statewide assessment; reporting override
This is the operative instruction: the PUC, working with the Energy Commission, must prepare and submit the assessment by June 30, 2027. The clause “notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the Government Code” makes clear that this is an explicit legislative report requirement even if other statutory reporting limits would ordinarily apply. Practically, the PUC is accountable for delivery, and the Energy Commission is an explicit partner, which has implications for staffing, interagency coordination, and the study’s analytic methods.
Role, necessity, and technology/strategy evaluation
Subsections (a) and (b) require the assessment to answer foundational questions about whether clean, firm resources are necessary to meet the state’s clean energy and reliability objectives and which technologies or operational strategies could provide those services. This compels the agencies to establish definitions, performance metrics, and integration pathways — for example, considering long‑duration storage, firm zero‑carbon fossil alternatives with carbon capture, advanced nuclear, hydrogen‑based generation, and operational changes such as seasonal balancing or expanded transmission.
Recommendations plus scenario analysis on capacity, reliability, costs, and emissions
Subsections (c) and (d) direct the agencies to propose procurement, policy, and planning actions if they find them necessary and to analyze current and projected capacity, reliability across varying system conditions, and cost and emission implications. This requires scenario modeling (hourly or sub‑hourly dispatch simulations across multiple futures), the selection of reliability metrics, and transparent assumptions about costs and emissions accounting — all of which will determine how persuasive the report is to legislators and regulators.
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
- State policymakers and regulators (Legislature, PUC, Energy Commission): the report supplies a centralized, evidence‑driven basis for deciding whether to change procurement rules or fund large‑scale firm projects.
- Developers of large, hard‑to‑site clean firm projects (long‑duration storage, advanced nuclear, hydrogen, etc.): a positive finding could unlock coordinated procurement mechanisms or incentives that reduce financial and permitting risks.
- Ratepayers and system planners: better coordinated analysis can identify options that improve reliability and potentially lower system costs over time by reducing duplicated procurement and enabling economies of scale.
- Large load‑serving entities and state agencies: these actors may benefit from clearer statewide planning that reduces competition for the same projects and supports more predictable contract opportunities.
Who Bears the Cost
- PUC and Energy Commission: the agencies must allocate staff time, modeling capacity, and possibly procure external analytic support to meet the June 30, 2027 deadline, creating near‑term budget and resource demands.
- Smaller LSEs and CCAs (if recommendations adopted): coordinated or centralized procurement options that the report might recommend could reduce procurement flexibility and impose new compliance or participation obligations on smaller entities.
- Existing renewable and storage project developers: if policymakers favor dedicated clean, firm resources, some projects (especially shorter‑duration storage or certain fossil resources) could face reduced market value or displacement.
- Legislators and regulators: adopting the report’s recommendations could require new funding, statutory changes, or expanded regulatory authority, creating political and fiscal costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between achieving reliable, large‑scale clean power quickly by creating targeted policy and procurement for clean, firm resources (which favors central planning and may lock in specific technologies) versus preserving decentralized, competitive procurement by dozens of LSEs (which protects marketplace flexibility but may raise costs and delay difficult projects). The bill requires analysis to inform that choice, but it cannot resolve the political and distributional tradeoffs that follow.
Key implementation questions and tradeoffs are baked into the bill. First, the statute never defines “clean, firm,” leaving the agencies to specify technical and emissions thresholds for inclusion.
That definitional choice will shape which technologies appear viable and which do not — a consequential decision with distributive effects across developers and regions. Second, the report’s analytic value depends entirely on the modeling approach: what scenarios are chosen, how imports and transmission constraints are handled, what reliability metrics are used (e.g., loss of load expectation versus deliverability under extreme weather), and how emissions are accounted for on an hourly basis.
Without explicit methodological guardrails the assessment risks producing contested conclusions.
The bill assigns the PUC the lead role and pairs it with the Energy Commission but does not mandate consultation with other agencies the Legislature previously used in similar work (such as CAISO or CARB). That could speed authorship but risks leaving out operational system modeling expertise or emissions accounting perspectives.
Finally, AB 2464 is advisory: it creates a path to policy change but not the change itself. The Legislature and regulators will still need to decide whether to act on recommendations, and those future choices will surface the classic tradeoffs between system reliability, cost, technology neutrality, and equitable siting and permitting.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.