SB 1138 directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), working with the Independent System Operator (CAISO), to establish and enforce resource adequacy (RA) requirements that apply to all load‑serving entities (LSEs) subject to the bill. The statute requires those RA rules to ensure deliverable physical capacity and demand response sufficient for peak demand and reserve margins, to meet recognized Western planning criteria, and to advance state clean‑energy and emissions reduction goals where possible.
The bill layers several program design requirements on the CPUC: prioritize development and retention of economical generation, demand response, and hybrid resources; create or maintain demand‑response products and tariffs; allocate capacity costs equitably across customer classes; permit short‑term transactions between LSEs to meet a portion of obligations; require specific reporting and annual publication on how much RA comes from renewables, zero‑carbon resources, or storage; and authorize nonbypassable cost recovery for electrical corporations under defined conditions. It also mandates the CPUC, Energy Commission, and CAISO coordinate on valuing load‑modifying demand response and reflects those changes in planning and operations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the CPUC, in consultation with the CAISO, to create a nondiscriminatory RA program that applies to electrical corporations, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators, setting minimum deliverability, reserve, and planning standards. It adds reporting obligations, a mechanism to value load‑modifying demand response, and authorizes recovery of reasonable RA costs for electrical corporations on a nonbypassable basis.
Who It Affects
Investor‑owned utilities (electrical corporations), community choice aggregators (CCAs), and electric service providers (ESPs) are directly covered; local publicly owned utilities and several narrow customer‑generation arrangements are excluded. Developers of capacity, demand‑response providers, CAISO, and state agencies will also be affected by procurement, valuation, and coordination requirements.
Why It Matters
SB 1138 creates a single, statewide framework for RA that alters procurement incentives and transparency: it defines what counts toward RA (including renewables, large hydro, nuclear, and storage in the CPUC’s accounting), limits short‑term reliance on other LSEs, and changes how costs are allocated and recovered — shifting commercial and regulatory risk among LSEs, developers, and customers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1138 puts the CPUC in charge of a uniform resource adequacy program that applies to most entities that buy or serve electricity in California — specifically electrical corporations, CCAs, and ESPs — while excluding local publicly owned utilities and a few narrow customer‑generation cases. The CPUC must balance two aims: keep the lights on with deliverable, flexible capacity and, where possible, advance the state’s clean‑energy and greenhouse‑gas reduction objectives.
That balance governs procurement priorities, the treatment of demand‑response, and the types of resources that can count toward RA.
Each covered LSE must hold physical generating capacity or demand response that is deliverable when and where it’s needed for system and local reliability, and must meet the latest Western planning reserve criteria adopted by WSCC/WECC. The bill allows an LSE to meet a limited share of its RA obligations through short‑term transactions with other LSEs, but otherwise requires LSEs to demonstrate they control adequate capacity or dispatchable demand‑reduction.
Deliverability and timing are treated as material compliance elements — not just nameplate capacity counts.The CPUC must collect detailed operational data (anticipated and actual loads, measures taken for RA), and it must publish annually how much of each LSE’s local and system RA requirement was met using eligible RPS resources, other zero‑carbon resources (explicitly including large hydro and nuclear), or energy storage. That accounting covers owned and contracted resources and allocations from any central procurement mechanism, but excludes any capacity an LSE assigned away to another LSE.
The bill also directs the CPUC to create valuation methods for load‑modifying demand response and to coordinate with the Energy Commission and CAISO so reduced load is reflected promptly in forecasts and planning.On cost, the statute lets electrical corporations recover reasonable RA costs — including investments needed for system, local, or flexible capacity — from the customers who benefit, and it requires those charges be collected on a fully nonbypassable basis when the commitment to incur the cost is made. The CPUC must exclude amounts recoverable under Section 366.2 when setting charges for CCA or direct‑transaction customers, which creates a specific carve‑out in allocation.
Finally, the commission may consider centralized RA procurement as an option, but it must weigh centralized procurement alongside other mechanisms to achieve the statutory objectives.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The CPUC must allow an LSE to meet up to 25% of its RA obligation by short‑term transactions with other LSEs, and those transactions must be denominated in the same time units as the RA obligations.
The commission must annually publish, for each LSE, the share of its prior‑year RA met with eligible RPS resources, other zero‑carbon resources (including large hydro and nuclear), or energy storage, counting owned, contracted, and centrally allocated resources.
Each covered LSE must meet the most recent minimum planning reserve and reliability criteria approved by the Western Systems Coordinating Council or the Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
Electrical corporations may fully recover from customers, on a fully nonbypassable basis, reasonable costs of meeting or reducing RA obligations or costs recoverable under a CPUC‑approved procurement plan, with amounts under Section 366.2 excluded from charges to CCA or direct‑transaction customers.
The CPUC must establish a valuation mechanism for load‑modifying demand response and coordinate with the Energy Commission and CAISO so demand reductions are reflected in planning forecasts and operational analyses.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
CPUC charged with creating RA rules
Subsection (a) gives the CPUC primary authority to create RA requirements and requires consultation with CAISO. Practically, this sets the regulator as the rule‑maker for what counts as capacity, how deliverability is measured, and the compliance framework; consultation with CAISO signals that operational and market realities must feed into those rules, but the statute leaves the final design choices to the CPUC.
Statutory objectives that guide program design
Subdivision (b) lists eight program objectives — from facilitating economical new and retained capacity to maximizing CCA flexibility and minimizing enforcement costs — that the CPUC must pursue when designing RA rules. These objectives function as constraints: when the CPUC selects procurement mechanisms, penalties, or valuation methods, it must explain how they serve these stated goals, which will shape cost allocation, demand‑response product design, and whether centralized procurement is adopted.
Obligations: deliverable capacity and Western planning criteria
Paragraphs (c) and (d) impose substantive obligations on each covered LSE: maintain physical generating capacity and/or demand response that is deliverable to meet peak load and reserve needs, and meet the most recent minimum planning reserve and reliability criteria from WSCC/WECC. This elevates deliverability and firm planning metrics above simple contract counts, which tightens the compliance standard and can change procurement preferences toward more flexible, locationally deliverable resources.
Enforcement parity and short‑term transactions
Subdivision (e) requires the CPUC to apply RA and related rules nondiscriminatorily across LSE types and to exercise enforcement powers to secure compliance. It also authorizes LSEs to buy up to a quarter of their compliance obligation from other LSEs on a short‑term basis, and requires those trades be measured in the same temporal units as the RA obligation. The short‑term trade cap is a market‑design choice that aims to preserve local accountability while allowing limited bilateral flexibility.
Reporting and annual publication on zero‑carbon and storage contributions
Paragraph (f) mandates detailed reporting to the CPUC (anticipated load, actual load, and RA measures) and directs annual public reporting of the percentage of RA met with eligible RPS, other zero‑carbon, or storage resources. The CPUC must include owned, contracted, and centrally allocated resources in the accounting, but exclude any resource shares that an LSE assigned to another LSE; that treatment creates a specific transparency regime tying procurement outcomes to decarbonization metrics.
Cost recovery for electrical corporations
Subdivision (g) allows electrical corporations to recover reasonable costs of meeting RA — including system, local, and flexible capacity costs — from the customers on whose behalf the costs were incurred, collected on a fully nonbypassable basis when the commitment is made. The CPUC must exclude amounts already authorized under Section 366.2 from charges to CCA or direct‑transaction customers, producing a defined exception in allocation that will require precise accounting and potential reconciliation mechanisms.
Mechanism selection and centralized procurement as an option
Subdivisions (h) and (i) direct the CPUC to choose efficient, equitable means to meet the statute’s objectives and explicitly allow the commission to consider centralized RA procurement among other options. This preserves market design flexibility but forces the CPUC to weigh centralized approaches (which can create scale and coordination benefits) against decentralized procurement and CCA autonomy.
Valuation of demand response and definitions/exclusions
Subdivision (j) requires the CPUC to establish a valuation method for load‑modifying demand response and to coordinate with the Energy Commission and CAISO so demand changes are reflected in planning and operations; subdivision (k) defines covered LSEs and lists exclusions (local POUs, the State Water Project, and certain customer‑sited generation arrangements). These provisions signal that non‑generator capacity will receive explicit economic recognition, but they also create administrative work streams for verification, measurement, and interagency data sharing.
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
- Community choice aggregators — the statute requires the CPUC to 'maximize the ability' of CCAs to determine the generation serving their customers, strengthening local procurement control and protecting programmatic resource choices when the CPUC designs allocation and procurement rules.
- Demand‑response providers and aggregators — the bill mandates valuation of load‑modifying demand response and calls for new or maintained demand‑response products and tariffs, improving commercial viability for providers who can demonstrate deliverable, verifiable load reductions.
- Renewable and storage developers — annual CPUC reporting that credits eligible RPS resources and storage toward RA creates an explicit market signal and transparency that can improve financing prospects for projects that can demonstrate deliverability and contractual availability.
- Ratepayers seeking transparency — the required public reporting on the share of RA coming from renewables, zero‑carbon resources, and storage gives customers and regulators clearer insight into how procurement aligns with decarbonization goals.
- CAISO and state planners — standardized reporting and mandated coordination with the Energy Commission should improve the visibility of load‑reducing resources in operational forecasts and system planning.
Who Bears the Cost
- Electrical corporations — must procure deliverable capacity, implement compliance reporting, and may face new procurement obligations; although they can seek nonbypassable recovery, they carry the near‑term procurement and administrative burden.
- Customers of LSEs — the bill permits nonbypassable recovery of RA costs from customers, so households and businesses ultimately fund procurement and capacity retention choices through rates.
- Smaller LSEs and new ESPs — compliance, reporting, and deliverability requirements create administrative and potential procurement burdens that scale poorly for smaller entities with limited staff or contracting leverage.
- CPUC, Energy Commission, and CAISO — the statute requires new valuation methods, interagency coordination, and public reporting, adding implementation workload and likely new technical systems and data responsibilities.
- Market participants relying on bilateral market liquidity — the 25% cap on short‑term transactions tightens bilateral options, meaning entities that previously relied on market purchases may face higher hedging or local procurement costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is balancing two legitimate objectives that pull in opposite directions: preserve a robust, deliverable capacity margin to guarantee near‑term reliability, while steering procurement and accounting toward zero‑carbon resources that may not provide the same firm, locationally deliverable capacity — and doing so without undercutting local procurement choice or creating inequitable cost shifts among customers.
SB 1138 forces a set of hard implementation choices. The CPUC must operationalize high‑level objectives — reliability, equitable cost allocation, and decarbonization — into rulebook details: how to measure deliverability, how to apportion centrally procured capacity, and how to price or value demand‑side resources.
Each choice has distributional consequences: counting large hydro or existing nuclear as zero‑carbon for RA accounting helps meet clean‑energy percentages but may slow investment in new renewables and storage that provide different operational flexibility.
The bill’s cost provisions and exclusions create predictable disputes. Nonbypassable recovery of RA costs for electrical corporations increases rate stability for utility procurement but also raises fairness questions about who ultimately bears costs when multiple procuring entities (IOUs, CCAs, CAISO backstop) interact.
Excluding amounts covered by Section 366.2 from charges to CCA and direct‑transaction customers requires precise bookkeeping and could produce contentious reconciliations. Similarly, establishing a robust, auditable valuation for load‑modifying demand response is complex: measurement, verification, and the choice of locational versus system value will materially affect which resources get built and who gets paid.
Operationally, coordination requirements among CPUC, Energy Commission, and CAISO are sensible but resource‑intensive. The agencies will need common data formats, timelines, and reconcilable methods to reflect load reductions in planning forecasts; without investment in IT and staffing, publication requirements and deliverability accounting risk becoming check‑the‑box exercises rather than operationally meaningful constraints.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.