AB 986 revises the statutory definitions of emergency in Government Code section 8558. It explicitly adds "landslide" to the list of conditions that can support a state or local emergency declaration and adds "deenergization event" to the local emergency definition.
The bill also clarifies that a local emergency declared because of a deenergization event does not trigger obligations created by California Public Utilities Commission Decision 19-07-015 and does not change PUC‑approved cost‑recovery for utilities.
The changes are narrowly framed as definitional clarifications rather than new funding authorities or operational mandates. Practically, the bill signals recognition of climate‑driven landslide risk in the emergency framework and preserves existing PUC regulatory and cost‑recovery structures when local governments declare emergencies linked to deenergization events (for example, PSPS incidents).
That combination affects how local officials, utilities, and state agencies coordinate response and who ultimately bears certain operational and financial responsibilities during those incidents.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 986 amends Government Code section 8558 to add "landslide" to the enumerated conditions supporting state and local emergency declarations and to add "deenergization event" to the list for local emergencies. It adds a specific carveout stating that a local emergency declared for a deenergization event does not trigger obligations under PUC Decision 19‑07‑015 and does not alter PUC‑approved cost‑recovery mechanisms for utilities.
Who It Affects
County and city emergency managers, state emergency responders, and communities at risk of climate‑driven landslides gain a clearer statutory basis for emergency declarations. Regulated electric utilities and the California Public Utilities Commission are affected by the carveout preserving the PUC’s existing regulatory and cost‑recovery framework.
Why It Matters
By naming landslides and deenergization events explicitly, the bill reduces legal ambiguity about when local and state officials can declare emergencies for those risks. The PUC carveout reduces the chance that a local declaration will automatically alter utility regulatory duties or cost recovery, shifting the practical burden for response and immediate costs toward local response systems while preserving utility reimbursement paths.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites the list of conditions that can support emergency proclamations in Government Code section 8558. At the state level it inserts "landslide" among the existing list (which already includes fire, flood, earthquake, and energy shortages).
At the local level it likewise lists landslide and expressly adds "deenergization event" (language commonly used to describe public safety power shutoffs or other intentional outages). Those insertions are definitional: they make clear that a landslide or a deenergization event can meet the statutory threshold of "conditions of disaster or extreme peril" that may be beyond a single locality’s ability to respond.
The bill also contains two specific limitations tied to deenergization‑related local emergencies. First, a local emergency proclaimed because of a deenergization event does not trigger the electric utility obligations set out in California Public Utilities Commission Decision 19‑07‑015 (the decision that, among other things, established some utility requirements around deenergization/PSPS practices).
Second, such a proclamation does not alter the utilities’ PUC‑approved mechanisms for recovering their costs related to deenergization events. In short: cities and counties can declare emergencies for PSPS‑like outages, but those declarations, by themselves, do not expand PUC duties or change cost recovery rules for utilities.Functionally, the bill is not an appropriation and does not create new grant or reimbursement authorities.
It affects thresholds and legal clarity for declarations and therefore affects how mutual aid, state response, and utility coordination are triggered in practice. Emergency managers should read the text as a tool that makes certain events easier to characterize as "emergencies," while utilities and regulators should see the carveouts as a legislative decision to isolate local emergency status from immediate regulatory consequences under D.19‑07‑015.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Government Code section 8558 to add "landslide" to the list of conditions that can support a state emergency declaration.
It adds "deenergization event" to the statutory list of conditions that can support a local emergency declaration.
A local emergency proclaimed because of a deenergization event does not trigger the electric utility obligations in California PUC Decision 19‑07‑015.
The bill states that such a local emergency does not alter PUC‑approved cost‑recovery mechanisms for utilities’ costs associated with deenergization events.
The changes are definitional clarifications and do not create new funding authorities, change mutual aid requirements, or expand state regulatory powers beyond the existing statutory framework.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
State of war emergency — unchanged definition
Subdivision (a) repeats the existing definition of a "state of war emergency" (attack on the state or nation or receipt of a federal warning). The text preserves the separate category for wartime conditions and does not alter the triggers or the Governor’s authority in that scenario. Practically, this confirms the bill is focused on non‑wartime disaster definitions rather than national security emergencies.
State emergency: adds landslide to triggering conditions
Subdivision (b) expands the catalog of conditions that may justify a state emergency to include "landslide." The rest of the subdivision retains the threshold language—an event must be of sufficient magnitude to be beyond the resources of a single county or city and require combined mutual‑aid forces or, for regulated energy utilities, extraordinary measures beyond PUC authority. By naming landslide, the statute reduces ambiguity for state‑level proclamation when climate or extreme weather precipitates slope failures that overwhelm local capacity.
Local emergency: adds landslide and deenergization event
Subdivision (c)(1) inserts "landslide" and "deenergization event" into the list of conditions that can support a local emergency proclamation. The provision keeps the existing limitation that emergencies caused by labor controversies are excluded and that the condition must be beyond the local jurisdiction’s own services, personnel, equipment, and facilities. The practical effect is to make it explicit that local governments can base emergency declarations on PSPS‑style outages or slope failures without needing to stretch to analogies to other listed events.
PUC carveout and cost‑recovery preservation for deenergization events
Subdivision (c)(2) creates two specific clarifications for local emergencies tied to deenergization events. First, a local emergency declared for a deenergization event does not trigger the electric utility obligations set by PUC Decision 19‑07‑015 (or successor decisions). Second, the declaration does not alter utilities’ existing, PUC‑approved cost‑recovery mechanisms for the utilities’ own deenergization‑related costs. This is a targeted statutory instruction that separates a local government’s emergency status from immediate regulatory consequences on utilities and their reimbursement treatment.
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
- County and city emergency managers — Gain clearer statutory authority to declare local emergencies for landslides and deenergization events, reducing legal uncertainty when activating local response and requesting mutual aid.
- Residents in landslide‑prone and deenergization‑affected communities — Stand to see faster formal recognition of disaster conditions, which can speed mobilization of local response, evacuation orders, and search‑and‑rescue activities.
- Regulated electric utilities — Benefit from the carveout: a local emergency declaration tied to a deenergization event will not automatically impose additional PUC obligations or change cost‑recovery rules, limiting sudden regulatory exposure.
- State emergency coordinators and mutual aid regions — Receive clearer statutory cues about when to mobilize region‑level or state resources for landslide incidents, improving planning and interjurisdictional coordination.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local governments and counties — May face increased operational and fiscal burdens responding to deenergization events or landslides now clearly within the local emergency rubric, including sheltering, debris removal, and continuity operations.
- Local taxpayers and public budgets — Because the bill does not create new state funding, municipalities may shoulder immediate response costs while pursuing reimbursement under existing channels.
- California Public Utilities Commission — Faces a narrower statutory hook to impose additional deenergization obligations tied to local emergency proclamations, which could constrain the PUC's leverage over utilities during incidents.
- Emergency mutual‑aid resources and frontline responders — Could be stretched by an increase in declared local emergencies (especially for climate‑amplified landslides), creating operational trade‑offs across regions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing local flexibility to recognize and respond to climate‑driven threats (landslides and deenergization events) against preserving the regulatory framework and cost‑recovery structure for utilities: the bill makes it easier to say "this is an emergency" at the local level while deliberately preventing that local determination from immediately expanding regulatory duties or changing how utilities recoup costs.
Two implementation tensions stand out. First, adding "landslide" and "deenergization event" is primarily definitional; the statute does not allocate new funding or create new operational authorities.
That leaves local governments to respond under existing financial and logistical constraints, potentially increasing fiscal pressure on counties and cities that must act immediately. Second, the PUC carveout is double‑edged: it protects utilities from having a local emergency declaration automatically alter their regulatory obligations or cost‑recovery rules, but it also narrows a lever regulators might use to demand operational improvements during or after deenergization incidents.
Several practical questions remain unresolved by the text. The statute does not define "deenergization event," so jurisdictions and courts may need to litigate or regulators may need to issue guidance on whether certain outages (intentional PSPS, forced outages, equipment failures during storms) qualify.
The interplay between a state emergency (which still contemplates extraordinary measures beyond PUC authority for sudden and severe energy shortages) and a local emergency for deenergization could create coordination gaps: a local declaration avoids triggering D.19‑07‑015 consequences, but a later state proclamation for a larger energy shortage could reintroduce regulatory obligations and different reimbursement rules. Finally, because the bill does not alter mutual‑aid triggers, jurisdictions should plan for the operational reality that a clearer statutory label does not in itself create personnel, equipment, or immediate funding.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.