AB 710 directs California utilities to prepare the ground for widespread time‑varying electricity pricing and to evaluate (and plan for) full deployment of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). The bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to make investor‑owned electrical corporations offer optional dynamic pricing tariffs aligned with the Energy Commission’s load‑management standards and the CPUC’s CalFUSE hourly pricing framework, and it requires both investor‑owned utilities and local publicly owned electric utilities (POUs) to complete feasibility analyses by January 1, 2028 and deployment plans by January 1, 2029 where deployment is feasible.
Separately, AB 710 adds a Penal Code section that creates theft and forgery offenses specific to gift cards and gift‑card redemption information, including a grand theft threshold at $950 and definitions for cardholder, issuer, and gift‑card value. The combination of energy regulation measures and targeted criminal provisions means the bill touches utility procurement, customer billing and data practices, local utility governance, retailer operations, and law‑enforcement resources.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires investor‑owned utilities to offer optional dynamic (hourly) pricing tariffs consistent with state load‑management standards and CalFUSE, and directs both investor‑owned and local publicly owned utilities to analyze AMI feasibility by Jan 1, 2028 and to produce full deployment plans by Jan 1, 2029 where feasible. It also creates new theft and forgery offenses targeting acquisition, use, or tampering of gift cards and gift‑card data.
Who It Affects
Electrical corporations regulated by the CPUC, local publicly owned electric utilities and their governing boards, meter and AMI vendors, billing and IT vendors, large energy consumers (EV owners, smart‑appliance users), retailers and merchants that sell gift cards, and local prosecutors and courts that will enforce the new Penal Code section.
Why It Matters
If implemented, the bill accelerates utilities’ preparatory work for time‑of‑use and real‑time pricing and for utilitywide AMI deployment—both crucial to integrating renewables and flexible demand. The gift‑card provisions close a gap in property‑crime law but also shift enforcement burdens to local agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 710 ties three discrete policy moves into a single act: (1) require investor‑owned utilities to offer optional dynamic pricing tariffs; (2) force both investor‑owned utilities and local POUs to study the feasibility of deploying advanced metering to all customers and to prepare full deployment plans where feasible; and (3) create new criminal offenses for theft and forgery involving gift cards and gift‑card redemption data.
On pricing, the bill does not mandate that customers move onto dynamic tariffs; it requires utilities to offer them and to align those offers with existing California Energy Commission standards and the CPUC’s CalFUSE hourly framework. Practically, that obliges utilities to design tariff options, upgrade billing systems to handle hourly signals, and integrate customer enrollment and opt‑in processes—even if final enrollment remains voluntary.On metering, the bill imposes a two‑step schedule on both investor‑owned utilities and local POUs: complete a feasibility analysis by January 1, 2028, and based on that analysis produce a plan for full AMI deployment by January 1, 2029 where deployment is feasible.
Those analyses and plans will have to reckon with capital costs, cybersecurity and data‑privacy safeguards, interoperability with existing distribution systems and demand‑response programs, and how to recover costs through rates or service charges.The new Penal Code section narrows in on gift‑card schemes by defining gift cards and gift‑card redemption information, making possession or use of unlawfully obtained cards or redemption data theft, treating alteration or tampering as forgery, and setting the typical grand‑theft threshold at $950. Prosecutors gain a statutory hook tailored to modern digital and physical gift‑card fraud, while merchants and issuers gain clearer remedies and deterrence backed by criminal penalties.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The CPUC must require investor‑owned electrical corporations to offer optional dynamic hourly pricing tariffs consistent with the Energy Commission’s load‑management rules and the CPUC’s CalFUSE framework.
Both investor‑owned utilities and local publicly owned electric utilities must complete feasibility analyses of deploying AMI to all customers by Jan 1, 2028, and develop plans for full deployment, where feasible, by Jan 1, 2029.
The bill leaves enrollment voluntary: utilities must offer dynamic tariffs but cannot force customers onto them; implementation will therefore depend on customer uptake and supporting automation.
Section 490.45 of the Penal Code makes acquiring, possessing, using, or scheming to obtain gift cards or gift‑card redemption information with intent to defraud a theft offense, and treating alteration or tampering with a gift card as forgery (punishable under Section 473).
If the value of property obtained via gift‑card fraud exceeds $950, the offense qualifies as grand theft; the bill defines ‘value’ to include full face value or potential variable load amounts for gift cards.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Requires investor‑owned utilities to offer optional dynamic pricing tariffs
This section directs the CPUC to adopt a rule requiring each electrical corporation to offer optional dynamic pricing tariffs by January 1, 2028. The tariffs must be consistent with the Energy Commission’s electric load management standards and the CPUC’s CalFUSE hourly dynamic pricing framework, which governs how hourly price signals should be structured and communicated. The practical effect is a regulatory obligation to design, file, and make available tariffs that can run on hourly signals and to ensure billing and customer‑information processes can support those tariffs.
Definitions for the chapter
Section 8430 borrows existing statutory definitions: ‘electrical corporation’ (referencing Section 218) and ‘local publicly owned electric utility’ (referencing Section 224.3). That ties the chapter’s obligations to the universe of entities already covered under California utility law, ensuring clear scope: investor‑owned utilities under CPUC jurisdiction and municipal/other POUs under local boards.
AMI feasibility analysis and planning for electrical corporations
Subsection (a) compels investor‑owned electrical corporations to complete a feasibility analysis for deploying advanced metering infrastructure to all customers by January 1, 2028 and, if feasible, to prepare a complete deployment plan by January 1, 2029. The analysis and plan will need to cover costs, implementation sequencing, cybersecurity, data access, and how AMI integrates with dynamic tariffs and demand‑response programs; it also creates a record CPUC can later use to authorize rate recovery or direct implementation.
Parallel duties for local publicly owned electric utilities
Subsection (b) imposes the same two‑step requirements—feasibility analysis by Jan 1, 2028 and deployment plan by Jan 1, 2029—on the governing boards of local POUs. Because POUs are governed locally, the statute stops short of a state takeover and instead requires local boards to evaluate and plan, preserving local control while creating comparable planning expectations across jurisdictions.
New gift‑card theft and forgery offenses and definitions
Section 490.45 creates theft and forgery offenses tailored to gift cards and gift‑card redemption information. It defines key terms (cardholder, card issuer, gift card, gift‑card redemption information, gift‑card seller, and value), makes possession or use of unlawfully obtained gift cards or redemption data theft, treats alteration/tampering as forgery (subject to Section 473), and sets the grand‑theft threshold at $950. The section clarifies how to calculate ‘value’ for gift cards, including reloadable and variable‑load instruments.
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
- Time‑flexible consumers (e.g., EV owners, customers with smart appliances): They gain access to hourly pricing that can lower bills if they shift usage and leverage automation to capture price signals.
- Grid operators and planners (including CPUC and Energy Commission): They obtain standardized offerings and AMI deployment plans that improve visibility into load shape, aiding integration of renewables and reducing peak congestion.
- Merchants and gift‑card issuers/retailers: They gain a clearer criminal statute tailored to modern gift‑card fraud, which can improve deterrence and support prosecutions and insurance claims.
Who Bears the Cost
- Investor‑owned utilities: They must design dynamic tariffs, upgrade billing systems, and conduct AMI feasibility studies and planning—activities that require IT, meter procurement, and cybersecurity investment.
- Local publicly owned electric utilities: Governing boards must conduct analyses and create deployment plans; if deployment is pursued, POUs face capital and operational costs and local political scrutiny over funding and service changes.
- Ratepayers and/or municipal taxpayers: If utilities recover AMI and billing upgrade costs through rates, customers ultimately pay; if POUs fund deployment via local charges, municipal taxpayers or ratepayers absorb the cost. Additionally, low‑income customers who cannot participate in dynamic tariffs may not capture benefits while still facing cost shifts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core dilemma is accelerating modern, data‑enabled grid tools (dynamic pricing and AMI) to lower system costs and integrate clean energy versus imposing substantial costs, privacy risks, and potential distributional harms on utilities, ratepayers, and vulnerable customers—while the statute mandates planning but leaves funding, feasibility criteria, and protections largely unspecified.
The bill forces planning but leaves deployment conditional and funding ambiguous. ‘Where feasible’ is the trigger for moving from planning to action, but the statute does not define feasibility criteria or who decides the standard—the utility, the POU board, or the CPUC—and it does not specify cost recovery mechanics. That ambiguity raises immediate implementation questions: will AMI be treated as rate‑based infrastructure for investor‑owned utilities, recovered through rate cases, while POUs decide locally whether to use reserves, bonds, or service charges?
The patchwork could produce inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions.
AMI and dynamic pricing bring well‑documented benefits for renewables integration but also raise privacy, cybersecurity, and equity concerns. Interval data from smart meters is granular and useful for operations but could create new vulnerabilities if data access and retention are not tightly regulated; the bill references data needs implicitly but does not add privacy or cybersecurity standards beyond existing law.
Likewise, making dynamic tariffs optional avoids forced displacement but risks uneven adoption: customers without smart devices, renters, or lower‑income households may not be able to participate, potentially concentrating benefits among tech‑enabled customers while costs for system upgrades are socialized.
The gift‑card criminal provisions close a legal gap but may complicate enforcement. Proving ‘intent to defraud’ or tracing digital redemption information can be resource intensive for local prosecutors.
The statute’s definition of ‘value’—including potential variable load amounts—could complicate charging decisions and restitution calculations. Finally, the bill’s mix of CPUC mandates for investor‑owned utilities and directive language for local POUs creates an administrative tension: the CPUC can order tariffs for investor‑owned utilities but has no direct authority over POUs, which could lead to divergent program integrity and customer protections across the state.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.