SB 1350 provides a detailed statutory definition of “renewable electrical generation facility” for California law. The bill lists eligible technologies (biomass, solar thermal and photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells and certain linear generators or turbines, small hydro up to 30 MW, digester and landfill gas, municipal solid-waste conversion, ocean and tidal technologies, and related upgrades) and attaches location, vintage, and verification conditions that a facility must meet to qualify.
Beyond the technology list, the bill sets geographic rules (in-state or first interconnection to a California-centric balancing authority area, or out-of-state within the WECC under specified conditions), adds rigorous environmental and accounting tests for municipal solid-waste conversion, and ties fuel-sourced eligibility to existing Public Utilities Code verification sections. The definition will determine which projects count toward procurement obligations and creates new compliance and documentation duties for developers, retail sellers, and the commission administering renewables accounting.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 1350 enumerates eligible generation technologies and creates three pathways for geographic eligibility: in-state (or first point of connection in a California-centric balancing authority area), WECC-area out-of-state facilities that meet vintage and accounting tests, and limited exceptions for older facilities that repower or had prior procurement. It also creates a strict statutory definition of “municipal solid waste conversion” with noncombustion and zero-emissions requirements.
Who It Affects
Project developers and owners (including repowering projects), investor-owned and publicly owned electric utilities and retail sellers procuring renewable energy, the California Public Utilities Commission (for accounting and verification), and local agencies that send waste to conversion facilities.
Why It Matters
The definition controls which resources count for California’s renewables obligations, so it affects project finance, procurement strategies, and compliance workflows; it also establishes environmental and verification thresholds that could exclude contested technologies or require new documentation systems.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1350 turns a high-level policy question—what counts as a renewable electrical generation facility—into a technical gatekeeper for California’s renewables system. The bill does that by listing qualifying technologies and then layering geographic, vintage, and verification tests on top of that list.
The listed technologies range from familiar options (solar PV, wind, geothermal) to less common categories the statute treats specially (small hydro capped at 30 megawatts, municipal solid-waste conversion under a noncombustion standard, ocean and tidal sources). The statute also explicitly includes additions and improvements that use an eligible technology.
Geography and interconnection matter under this definition. A facility qualifies if it’s located in California or if its first point of connection is to the transmission network of a balancing authority area primarily located in California.
The bill also allows out-of-state facilities within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) to qualify, but only if they began commercial operation after January 1, 2005, do not cause violations of California environmental standards, and participate in the commission’s renewables accounting system. Facilities that began operating before 2005 can qualify only if the electricity is incremental from expansion/repowering or if a retail seller or local publicly owned utility had procured the electricity as of January 1, 2010.SB 1350 places distinctive requirements on municipal solid-waste conversion: the process must be a noncombustion thermal conversion that does not use air or oxygen (other than ambient air for temperature control), must produce no air emissions (expressly including greenhouse gases), no discharges to waters, and no hazardous wastes.
The facility must remove recyclable and compostable materials to the maximum extent feasible and certify recycling/composting. A local agency that sends waste to the facility must have diverted at least 30 percent of its collected solid waste through reduction, recycling, and composting.
The bill makes compliance with applicable laws a statutory condition of eligibility and gives the commission authority to add conditions.Finally, the definition links fuel-delivered eligibility (for landfill or digester gas and similar fuels) to Public Utilities Code verification rules. Transactions using common carrier pipelines must meet the sourcing and delivery requirements in Section 399.12.6 and be verified through the accounting system established under Section 399.25, or a comparable system the commission accepts.
For facilities outside the United States, the bill requires operation and development “as protective of the environment” as similar in-state facilities—language that imports an environmental equivalency test but leaves enforcement details to regulators.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Small hydroelectric generation is eligible only if the facility is 30 megawatts or less.
A facility qualifies as in-state if its first point of connection is to the transmission network of a balancing authority area primarily located within California.
Out-of-state WECC facilities qualify only if they began commercial operation after January 1, 2005, do not cause California environmental standard violations, and participate in the commission’s RPS accounting system.
The bill defines municipal solid-waste conversion as a noncombustion thermal process that must produce no air emissions (including greenhouse gases), no water discharges, no hazardous wastes, and require sending local agencies to have at least a 30% diversion rate.
Fuel sourced through a common carrier pipeline (e.g.
landfill or digester gas) must meet Section 399.12.6 sourcing and delivery criteria and be verified through the accounting system established under Section 399.25 (or a commission-approved comparable system).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Core definition and eligibility framework
Subdivision (a) sets the statute’s organizing principle: list the technologies that can qualify and then require each qualifying facility to satisfy one of the geographic/interconnection pathways in subsection (2). That structure makes the definition both technology-specific and contingent on interconnection or historical procurement facts, so a project’s classification will depend on both engineering and contract/accounting records.
Enumerated eligible technologies
This clause lists the technologies the statute recognizes—biomass, various solar technologies, wind, geothermal, fuel cells/linear generators and certain turbines, small hydro (≤30 MW), digester/landfill gas, municipal solid-waste conversion, ocean wave/thermal/tidal, and related additions or enhancements. Practically, this gives investors and developers a defined menu but also raises questions about borderline technologies (hybrids, novel thermal processes) that will need regulatory interpretation.
Three-part geographic and vintage test for eligibility
Subparagraph (A) treats facilities as eligible if they’re located in California or their first point of connection is to a California-centric balancing authority area. Subparagraph (B) opens eligibility to WECC-area facilities outside California if they started commercial operation after January 1, 2005, don’t cause California environmental standard violations, and participate in the renewables accounting system. Subparagraph (C) provides narrow exceptions for pre-2005 facilities: they can qualify only for incremental generation from expansion/repowering or if a retail seller or local publicly owned utility had procured their electricity as of January 1, 2010. These are mechanical gates that will determine whether many legacy projects and new interregional builds can be counted for California procurement.
Out-of-country environmental parity and pipeline fuel sourcing
Clause (3) requires facilities located outside the United States to be developed and operated as protectively of the environment as comparable in-state facilities—an equivalency standard that places the burden on regulators to define and enforce. Clause (4) ties eligibility for facilities using landfill, digester, or other renewable fuels delivered by common carrier pipeline to compliance with Section 399.12.6’s sourcing/delivery rules and to verification through the commission’s accounting system under Section 399.25 or a comparable system. That forces chain-of-custody and accounting compliance for fuel-based facilities.
Statutory definition and environmental tests for municipal solid-waste conversion
Subdivision (b) narrowly defines municipal solid-waste conversion as a noncombustion thermal process and then lists eight specific criteria: no use of air/oxygen in conversion (except ambient for temperature), no air emissions including GHGs, no discharges to waters, no hazardous waste generation, removal and certified recycling/composting of recyclables to the maximum extent feasible, compliance with applicable laws, any additional conditions the commission imposes, and a requirement that sending local agencies have at least 30% diversion. This is a tight statutory cage around MSW conversion claims to renewable status and will likely exclude many conventional waste-to-energy technologies.
Cross-references to finance/administration terms
These short clauses define related terms used elsewhere: (c) connects to the nonbypassable renewable public goods charge used to fund renewables programs, (d) references a specific 2001 report by the commission, and (e) adopts the Public Utilities Code definition of “retail seller.” Including these cross-references keeps the definition connected to procurement and accounting frameworks already in California law.
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
- In-state renewable project developers and owners, because the in-state/interconnection pathway (first point of connection to a California-centric balancing authority) creates a clear route for qualification without having to rely on out-of-state accounting work.
- Developers who repower or expand pre-2005 facilities, since the bill allows incremental generation from repowering to qualify even when the original facility began operation before 2005.
- Vendors and developers of noncombustion municipal solid-waste conversion technologies that can meet the zero-emissions and no-hazardous-waste tests, because the statute provides an explicit eligibility route if they can satisfy the tight environmental criteria.
- Retail sellers and publicly owned utilities that already participate in the commission’s accounting system, as they can count verified out-of-state WECC resources that meet the bill’s conditions toward their procurement obligations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Project developers seeking qualification—especially those using fuels delivered by pipeline—who must produce documentation that their fuel sourcing meets Section 399.12.6 and be tracked in the commission’s accounting system, imposing legal, auditing, and administrative costs.
- Local agencies that send waste to conversion facilities: they must meet or maintain a 30% diversion rate or risk disqualifying the receiving facility, which could require additional recycling/composting investments or contracts.
- The California Public Utilities Commission (and possibly local publicly owned utilities) because the commission will need to interpret environmental equivalency for out-of-country projects, adjudicate borderline cases, and administer or accept comparable accounting systems—tasks that require staff time and possibly new rulemakings.
- Operators of conventional waste-to-energy plants and combustion-based MSW projects, which likely will not meet the noncombustion/zero-emission standard and therefore face exclusion from renewable status unless they retrofit or fundamentally change technology.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is this: SB 1350 seeks to expand and clarify what counts as a renewable facility to support procurement flexibility, but it pairs that expansion with strict environmental and verification rules that limit practical eligibility. Policymakers must choose between a broad, administrable definition that accelerates supply and a narrow, rigorous definition that protects environmental integrity and accounting clarity—there is no simple way to maximize both.
The bill ties eligibility to several qualitative and administrative standards that are easy to state and harder to enforce. The municipal solid-waste conversion rules, for example, demand no air emissions “including greenhouse gases” and no hazardous wastes—standards that will require rigorous lifecycle and process monitoring to verify.
Many current MSW conversion projects rely on some combustion or produce trace emissions; proving zero emissions in perpetuity is technically and economically demanding and could limit applicability to a narrow set of technologies or pilot projects.
The out-of-state and international equivalency tests create interpretation challenges. Requiring that an out-of-state facility not “cause or contribute to any violation of a California environmental quality standard” imports California’s environmental benchmarks into other jurisdictions; enforcing that standard, or proving parity for facilities outside the U.S., will depend on evidence the commission must define and accept.
The 2005 commercial-operation cutoff and the repowering/incremental generation exception also invite strategic behavior: owners could pursue repowering claims or structuring procurement contracts to preserve eligibility for older assets. Finally, reliance on the accounting and verification rules in Sections 399.12.6 and 399.25 centralizes administrative control but raises questions about scalability, third-party audits, and disputes over provenance of fuels transported through common carrier pipelines.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.