AB 734 adds two sections to the Public Resources Code that make biological resources data submitted to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission part of the public docket for certification proceedings and certain eligible-facility applications. The bill defines biological resources data broadly (observations, surveys, studies, species needs, habitat conditions and maps at a specified scale) and requires public availability unless the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) issues a written determination that specific location data derived from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) would pose a significant risk to individuals of a species.
The measure shifts more ecological information into the public record for energy siting decisions, while preserving a narrowly framed route for CDFW to withhold or limit disclosure of CNDDB-derived location data. For developers, agencies, researchers, and local stakeholders, that means greater transparency in project-level biological analysis — but also new procedural steps and potential contention over what CDFW will classify as sensitive and how much detail can safely be released.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the commission to post biological resources data submitted with certification or eligible-facility applications to its public docket. CDFW may block disclosure only where the data contains CNDDB-derived location information that it determines would pose a significant risk, and must provide a written determination including the maximum amount of CNDDB data that can be safely released.
Who It Affects
Project applicants for CEC certification and small powerplant exemptions, developers of eligible facilities (including utility-scale solar and terrestrial wind projects), the California Energy Commission staff who manage dockets, and CDFW personnel tasked with reviewing and redacting location data. Conservation organizations, researchers, local governments, and the public will gain expanded access to the underlying biological records.
Why It Matters
By moving more species and habitat data into public view, AB 734 changes the information baseline for environmental review and public participation in energy siting. At the same time, it places on CDFW the operational task of balancing disclosure against species-protection concerns — a practical and legal choke point that will shape how much detailed location information actually reaches the public.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 734 directs the California Energy Commission (CEC) to add to its public docket any "biological resources data" submitted as part of a certification proceeding or an eligible-facility application. The bill spells out what counts as biological resources data — field observations, surveys, scientific studies, species needs and habitat conditions, and maps drawn at a fine resolution — and makes that material presumptively public when submitted to the commission.
The statute creates a single, specific exception: if the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) finds that the portion of the material that is derived from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) contains location information whose disclosure would pose a significant risk to individuals of the species, CDFW may withhold or limit disclosure. That decision must be written, delivered to the CEC, and must include an assessment of the maximum amount of CNDDB-derived data that can be released without creating that risk.
The commission then publishes the data on its docket consistent with CDFW's determination.Practically, the bill affects three procedural points: what applicants file with the CEC, what the CEC posts publicly, and how CDFW evaluates and redacts sensitive entries. Applicants should anticipate that most ecological records they submit will appear on the public docket unless CDFW explicitly identifies CNDDB-based location entries as sensitive and prescribes redaction limits.
The measure applies both to standard certification proceedings and to the eligible-facility process used for certain renewable projects, so it touches a wide array of powerplant and transmission siting filings.The text does not set a timeline for CDFW's written determination, nor does it define in statute how to operationalize the "maximum amount" of CNDDB data that can be released; those gaps leave the agencies to establish procedures for review, redaction, metadata handling, and disputes. Because maps at a granular scale are explicitly included, the bill increases the technical challenge of redaction and the stakes of accurate classification of data provenance (CNDDB-derived vs. other sources).
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds two statutory sections (25544 and 25545.17) requiring biological-resources data submitted to the CEC in certification or eligible-facility proceedings to be made public on the commission’s docket.
It defines "biological resources data" to include observations, surveys, studies, species needs and habitat conditions, and maps drawn at a scale of one inch equals 500 feet.
CDFW may prevent public disclosure only when the material contains CNDDB-derived location data whose release would pose a significant risk to individuals of the species, and CDFW must issue a written determination identifying that risk.
When CDFW blocks or limits disclosure, its written determination must include an assessment of the maximum amount of CNDDB data that can be released without creating a significant risk; the CEC is required to follow that assessment when posting to its docket.
The statute is prefaced by "notwithstanding any other law," signaling that it overrides other disclosure rules except where the CDFW exception applies, potentially altering how confidentiality regimes apply in energy-siting dockets.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Public posting for certification proceedings and small powerplant exemptions
This section establishes that biological-resources data submitted to the CEC in certification proceedings — including submissions tied to small powerplant exemptions under Section 25541 — must be made available on the commission’s public docket. It sets the core procedural rule (public posting) and embeds the CDFW exception for CNDDB-derived location data, creating a two-step workflow: applicant files; CDFW assesses CNDDB sensitivity; CEC posts per CDFW guidance. For practitioners, this section formalizes public access as the default and places the operational burden of protecting sensitive location information on CDFW and the commission’s docketing process.
Extension to eligible-facility applications (renewables and large projects)
This section repeats the public-access rule for the eligible-facility process, bringing projects eligible under the existing eligible-facility authority (commonly utility-scale solar and terrestrial wind projects of 50 MW or more) into the same disclosure regime. By doing so, AB 734 ensures that biological data supporting expedited or streamlined eligible-facility reviews are not treated differently from standard certification filings, meaning larger renewable projects will also trigger the CDFW review/redaction step.
What counts as biological data and how CDFW must limit disclosures
Both added sections define "biological resources data" with a purposely broad list that explicitly includes detailed maps (1" = 500'). The bill narrows CDFW's withholding authority to data derived from the California Natural Diversity Database, and requires CDFW to issue a written determination explaining (a) why disclosure would pose a significant risk to individuals of the species and (b) the maximum amount of CNDDB-derived data that can safely be released. That formulation forces CDFW to calibrate redactions rather than adopt a blanket secrecy posture, but it leaves key operational questions — how provenance is proved, what counts as "maximum amount," and the timeline for determinations — to implementing practice.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment 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
- Environmental researchers and conservation scientists — they gain broader access to field surveys, species observations, and habitat maps previously sequestered in permit files, improving independent analysis and oversight.
- Local governments and community groups engaged in energy siting — more of the underlying ecological data will be available for local review, public comment, and coordination with land-use planning.
- Advocacy organizations and journalists — the expanded docket material strengthens transparency and allows third parties to spot-check applicants’ biological analyses and raise issues early in the process.
- CEC decision-makers and technical staff — having fuller datasets on the public record can reduce information asymmetries and improve the evidentiary basis for hearings and conditions, provided redaction workflows are efficient.
Who Bears the Cost
- Project applicants and developers — they must expect wide public disclosure of field surveys and high-resolution maps, which raises competitive concerns and increases the need to coordinate with CDFW on redaction and confidentiality claims.
- California Department of Fish and Wildlife — CDFW must review submissions, make written risk determinations, and quantify how much CNDDB data may be released, adding staff time, analytic burden, and potential liability for errors.
- California Energy Commission — the commission must update docketing procedures, implement redaction protocols, and manage potentially contested determinations, which increases administrative workload and technical requirements for data hosting.
- Smaller consultants and third-party ecologists — their raw data and high-resolution maps may be publicly exposed, increasing risk of misuse and creating pressure to change data-collection or sharing practices.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB 734 forces a trade-off between two legitimate goals: public transparency that strengthens environmental review and public participation, and the need to keep precise species-location information confidential to prevent harm to vulnerable plants and animals. The bill delegates that balancing act to CDFW, but leaves the metrics, timing, and procedures undefined — producing a practical dilemma rather than a neat legal solution.
The bill’s operational effect hinges on agency practice rather than detailed statutory mechanics. It does not set deadlines for CDFW to issue its written determination or specify the legal standard for "significant risk," leaving room for variation and delay in how quickly data become public.
The requirement that CDFW identify the "maximum amount" of CNDDB data that can be released forces granular redaction decisions but provides no methodology, which could produce inconsistent outcomes and litigation over what qualifies as necessary versus harmful disclosure.
Another unresolved issue is data provenance. The statute conditions withholding on CNDDB-derived location data, but applicants often compile records from multiple sources and fieldwork; determining whether a given coordinate is "derived" from CNDDB or independently collected will require evidence and possibly interagency dispute.
The explicit inclusion of fine-scale maps (1" = 500') raises the technical stakes: redacting polygons or point locations at that resolution is nontrivial, and poor redaction can either leave species exposed or strip datasets of their analytic usefulness. Finally, the "notwithstanding any other law" language signals broad disclosure but may collide with existing confidentiality frameworks and agency policies, creating legal friction that agencies will need to resolve in guidance or rulemaking.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.