AB 365 adds a new chapter to the Public Utilities Code that forces electrical utilities and their contractors to make automated external defibrillators (AEDs) available at specified high‑risk worksites and to adopt written policies governing AED placement, maintenance, testing, inspection, and recordkeeping. The measure ties those duties into existing statutory rules governing AEDs and extends limited civil‑liability protection for emergency AED use to utilities and their contractors when they make reasonable efforts to comply.
The bill matters because it converts an employer safety choice into a codified utility obligation with regulatory and criminal enforcement dimensions, pulls contractors and public power agencies into the compliance frame, and creates practical implementation questions — from mobile worksites to training and maintenance logistics — that utilities and compliance officers must resolve before enforcement begins.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates Chapter 1.5 in Division 4.1 of the Public Utilities Code to require utilities and their contractors to provide AEDs at qualifying worksites, adopt written AED policies, and follow statutory placement, notification, maintenance, testing, inspection, and recordkeeping rules for AEDs. It also extends the existing Good Samaritan civil immunity to utilities and covered contractors that acquire AEDs and make reasonable efforts to comply, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
Who It Affects
Investor‑owned electrical corporations, electrical cooperatives, local publicly owned electric utilities, and independent contractors or subcontractors working for those entities. Safety managers, fleet and field supervisors, procurement and compliance teams, and emergency medical services that receive AED notifications will see operational impact.
Why It Matters
The bill converts on‑site AED availability into an enforceable statutory duty for a regulated industry rather than optional workplace best practice, broadening liability contours and creating recurring maintenance and recordkeeping obligations. It also imposes a state‑mandated program on local public utilities without an appropriation for reimbursement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 365 inserts a focused set of AED obligations into California’s utility law rather than into workplace safety law. The statute places the practical duty on utilities and their contractors to ensure AEDs are available where electrical line crews face elevated cardiac‑arrest risk.
It does not create a new training mandate; instead, it references and imports the operational maintenance, notification, testing, inspection, and recordkeeping rules that already apply to entities that acquire AEDs.
Enforcement sits inside the utilities regulatory structure: investor‑owned utilities fall under the purview of the California Public Utilities Commission, while local publicly owned electric utilities remain under their governing boards — but the statute treats both classes as subject to new duties. The bill also folds independent contractors and subcontractors into the compliance chain, making contractors’ procurement and field operations relevant to the utility’s legal exposure.On liability, the statute extends the preexisting Good Samaritan protection to utilities and covered contractors that acquire AEDs for emergency use and comply with the covered obligations or make reasonable efforts to do so; gross negligence or willful misconduct still defeats the immunity.
That creates a conditional organizational immunity that depends on the company’s compliance posture and documented maintenance and notification steps.Operationally, utilities will need to connect procurement, fleet, and field supervision with compliance: deciding where to station AEDs, which crew vehicles carry them, how to document quarterly or periodic inspections, how to notify local EMS of AED locations, and how to demonstrate “reasonable efforts” to regulators after an incident. The statute’s placement inside the Public Utilities Act also means violations could trigger criminal exposure where a commission order or rule implements these requirements.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute applies to electrical corporations, electrical cooperatives, local publicly owned electric utilities, and their independent contractors and subcontractors.
An AED must be available at any worksite where two or more utility workers are performing work on transmission or distribution lines rated 601 volts or more.
The statute requires notification to the local emergency medical services agency, adherence to manufacturer operation and maintenance guidelines, AED testing at least twice a year, and inspections at least every 90 days with records kept.
The bill extends the existing Good Samaritan civil immunity to utilities and covered contractors that acquire AEDs and make reasonable efforts to comply with the statute’s AED and policy requirements, but excludes gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
Because the obligations are added to the Public Utilities Act, a regulatory violation implementing these requirements can carry criminal liability, and the bill declares it imposes a state‑mandated local program without an appropriation for reimbursement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Who and what the chapter covers
This opening provision defines the covered parties (electrical corporations, electrical cooperatives, local publicly owned electric utilities, and independent contractors/subcontractors) and sets the substantive scope: worksites where 2 or more workers are performing work on transmission or distribution lines of 601 volts or higher. The definitions matter because they determine when the duty kicks in — including the dual coverage of investor‑owned and publicly owned utilities and the inclusion of contractors in the legal chain of responsibility.
Availability obligation at qualifying worksites
This section obligates covered entities to ensure an AED is available at qualifying worksites. Practically, that means deciding whether AEDs travel with crews (in vehicles or buckets), are staged at nearby yards, or are stationed at fixed sites. The provision is operational, not prescriptive about method: it requires availability but leaves logistics to the utility and its contractors, which creates a compliance design challenge for mobile or intermittent operations.
Mandated written AED policies
Covered entities must adopt written policies and procedures governing AED placement, access, maintenance, testing, inspection, and recordkeeping. The statute imports existing statutory and regulatory performance and documentation standards for AED programs, forcing utilities to formalize chain‑of‑custody, inspection checklists, and responsibilities between utility and contractor personnel — and to demonstrate those procedures when asserting immunity or responding to regulator inquiries.
Operational maintenance and notification rules
This provision ties covered AEDs to existing legal requirements: notification to the local emergency medical services agency of AED existence and location, adherence to manufacturer maintenance guidelines, testing at least biannually, inspections at least every 90 days, and retention of maintenance/testing records. For utilities, this creates recurring operational tasks: inventory management across crews, scheduling biannual tests and quarterly inspections, and integrating notification and records into safety management systems.
Limited civil immunity and enforcement consequences
The bill extends the civil immunity that protects private individuals who use AEDs in good faith to utilities and covered contractors that acquire AEDs for emergency use and comply with the statute or make reasonable efforts to do so; gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct still defeats immunity. Because the obligations sit in the Public Utilities Act, a failure to comply with an implementing commission order or rule can constitute a crime under existing law. The section therefore creates a hybrid compliance landscape where civil immunity depends on procedural compliance, and noncompliance can have criminal as well as regulatory consequences.
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
- Line workers and crew members — Faster on‑site AED access increases the chance of survival in sudden cardiac arrest and reduces downtime from medical emergencies. The statute specifically targets higher‑voltage line crews whose work environment carries elevated injury risks.
- Crew supervisors and safety managers — A statutory AED program gives safety teams a clear legal framework to standardize equipment, inspections, and incident documentation across contractors and in‑house crews.
- Local emergency medical services and first responders — Required notification of AED locations improves 911 dispatch awareness and can speed bystander defibrillation when EMS is delayed, especially in rural service territories.
Who Bears the Cost
- Investor‑owned utilities — Procurement, stocking, testing, inspection, recordkeeping, and integrating AEDs into fleet and worksite logistics produce equipment and recurring operational costs and may require new compliance headcount or systems.
- Independent contractors and subcontractors — Contractors will need to supply, maintain, or coordinate AEDs for crew jobs; smaller contractors may face disproportionate compliance and capital costs and will need contractual clarity with hiring utilities.
- Local publicly owned electric utilities — The bill explicitly imposes duties on public power agencies, creating a state‑mandated local program cost burden; municipal utilities must absorb procurement and ongoing maintenance expenses absent a state reimbursement.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits an uncontroversial safety goal — faster defibrillation at dangerous utility worksites — against the practical and legal burdens of turning that safety choice into an enforceable statutory duty: utilities must balance real benefits in lifesaving capacity with recurring procurement, maintenance, and compliance costs, while facing criminal and regulatory exposure for lapses and ambiguity over what counts as “reasonable efforts.”
The statute adopts existing AED maintenance and notification rules but remains silent on several high‑impact implementation details. It does not require AED training for employees, nor does it specify whether AEDs must be carried in vehicles, mounted at fixed sites, or otherwise staged.
For mobile line crews that change locations frequently or work from aerial devices, utilities will have to translate “availability” into operational protocols that regulators can audit. Those practical design choices will affect cost, access speed, and legal exposure.
The bill’s extension of immunity to utilities that make “reasonable efforts” introduces vagueness. Regulators, courts, or juries will be asked to interpret what constitutes reasonable efforts in contexts ranging from a missed inspection record to an AED that failed after improper storage.
Coupled with the fact that failure to comply with implementing PUC orders can be a crime, the statute creates a risk environment where minor administrative lapses could have outsized legal consequences. Finally, the statute imposes costs on local public utilities without authorizing reimbursement, raising predictable questions about budgetary prioritization and potential shifts in contracting practices or staffing to absorb the mandate.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.