SB 1354 supplies detailed definitions that determine which electricity-generating facilities and waste-conversion technologies count as renewable under a new chapter. It lists eligible technologies, ties location and interconnection rules to California balancing authority and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, and links fuel sourcing and accounting requirements to existing Public Utilities Code provisions.
The bill also imposes strict environmental tests for a class of waste-to-energy technology labeled “municipal solid waste conversion,” including a no-emissions standard, no water discharges, no hazardous wastes, and a requirement that supplying local agencies divert at least 30 percent of collected solid waste. These definitions shape who can participate in procurement programs and what projects qualify for program funding or RPS accounting.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates precise eligibility rules for renewable electrical generation facilities and defines a narrowly drawn, noncombustion municipal solid waste conversion technology that may qualify as renewable. It requires fuel-source verification for facilities using landfill or digester gas and references the Public Utilities Code accounting systems for compliance.
Who It Affects
Project developers of solar, wind, small hydro, biomass, landfill- and digester-gas plants, waste-conversion technology vendors, retail sellers and publicly owned utilities that procure renewables, and the California utilities regulator responsible for verification and accounting.
Why It Matters
Eligibility and environmental definitions determine which projects can be counted for procurement targets and program dollars; the bill raises the bar for waste-conversion facilities and creates verification obligations that will affect contracts, permitting, and financing.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1354 is a definitional bill: it does not create a new procurement mandate itself but draws the lines that will decide which facilities qualify as “renewable” for the chapter it serves. The bill enumerates eligible technologies — including solar (both photovoltaic and solar thermal), wind, geothermal, fuel cells and linear generators using approved fuels, small hydro (capped at 30 megawatts), biomass, digester and landfill gas, municipal solid waste conversion, ocean-based technologies, and incremental expansions or repowering of older facilities under certain conditions.
Location and interconnection matter. A facility qualifies if it is in California or “near the border” with its first point of connection to a transmission network located primarily within California’s balancing authority area.
Facilities outside California may qualify only if they are inside the WECC footprint and meet additional tests: initial commercial operation after January 1, 2005, compliance with California environmental standards, and participation in the RPS accounting system. The bill creates a narrowly tailored exception for pre-2005 facilities that either produce incremental generation from expansion/repowering or were procured by a retail seller as of January 1, 2010.When renewable generation depends on pipeline-delivered fuels such as landfill or digester gas, SB 1354 requires the procurement transaction — including source and delivery method — to satisfy Section 399.12.6 of the Public Utilities Code and to be verified through the CPUC’s accounting system under Section 399.25 or a comparable system that the commission accepts.
For facilities located outside the United States, the bill insists they be developed and operated in a manner at least as protective of the environment as a similar in-state facility.The bill also defines “municipal solid waste conversion” very tightly. It must be a noncombustion thermal process that does not use air or oxygen in conversion (other than ambient air for temperature control), and it must produce no air emissions (including greenhouse gases), no surface or groundwater discharges, and no hazardous wastes.
Operators must remove recyclables and marketable compostables to the greatest extent feasible and certify compliance with applicable laws; additionally, any local agency sending waste to the facility must have diverted at least 30 percent of collected waste through reduction, recycling, and composting. Finally, the bill ties the term “renewable energy public goods charge” to the portion of the nonbypassable system benefits charge collected under the Reliable Electric Service Investments Act.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Small hydroelectric generation is eligible only if it is 30 megawatts or less.
Out-of-state facilities must be within the WECC and: have commercial operation after Jan. 1, 2005; not cause violations of California environmental standards; and participate in the CPUC RPS accounting system to qualify.
Pre-2005 facilities can qualify only if the electricity is from incremental generation from expansion/repowering or the facility was procured by a retail seller as of Jan. 1, 2010.
Municipal solid waste conversion is limited to noncombustion thermal processes that produce no air emissions (including GHGs), no water discharges, and no hazardous wastes, and that remove recyclables and compostables where feasible.
Use of landfill or digester gas requires procurement transactions and source/delivery verification consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 399.12.6 and the CPUC’s Section 399.25 accounting system (or a comparable system the commission approves).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition and eligibility tests for 'renewable electrical generation facility'
This subsection lists eligible technologies and sets three alternative location/interconnection paths that determine eligibility. Practically, it ties project qualification to where the facility first connects to the transmission network and whether it participates in California’s RPS accounting. The language creates a bright-line for small hydro (≤30 MW) and makes an explicit accommodation for WECC-area projects, but only if they meet the post‑2005 operation, environmental, and accounting requirements — which means many older out-of-state projects will fail the test unless they meet narrow exceptions.
WECC and pre-2005 exceptions
These clauses impose a three-part test for WECC-based facilities: post-2005 commercial operation, no contribution to California environmental standard violations, and participation in the CPUC’s renewables accounting system. The bill then carves out limited grandfathering for pre-2005 facilities, but only for incremental output from repowering/expansion or for facilities already under contract to a retail seller as of Jan. 1, 2010. For procurement officers and counsel, that creates a narrow window for older assets to remain eligible and will require contract-date documentation and clear metering of incremental generation.
Environmental parity for foreign facilities and fuel verification for gas-fired renewables
The bill requires non‑U.S. facilities to be developed and operated with environmental protections at least equal to California standards — a qualitative requirement that delegates assessment to regulators. It also conditions eligibility for facilities that use landfill or digester gas on compliance with Section 399.12.6 and verification through the CPUC’s RPS accounting system, effectively bringing fuel tracking, chain-of-custody, and contractual disclosure into the eligibility calculus.
What qualifies as 'municipal solid waste conversion'
This subsection narrowly defines a specific waste-to-energy pathway as a noncombustion thermal conversion that must produce no air emissions (including greenhouse gases), no surface or groundwater discharges, and no hazardous wastes. It also requires removal and recycling/composting of recyclable materials to the fullest extent feasible, compliance with all laws, any additional conditions the commission sets, and a 30% diversion benchmark for any local agency that supplies waste to the facility. That combination of technical, environmental, and local-waste-diversion conditions will exclude many common waste‑to‑energy designs and impose certification and documentation duties on operators.
Definitions tying program finance and actors to existing law
These short clauses link the chapter’s financial term — 'renewable energy public goods charge' — to the portion of the nonbypassable system benefits charge used for renewables under the Reliable Electric Service Investments Act, and they adopt existing statutory definitions (e.g., 'retail seller') and a report reference. The practical effect is to anchor program funding and actor definitions to preexisting Public Utilities Code constructs rather than creating separate financing or actor categories.
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
- Developers of modern renewable projects (post‑2005, repowered, or new builds) — the bill favors newer projects by explicitly making post‑2005 operation a clean eligibility path for WECC projects.
- Retail sellers and publicly owned utilities with documented pre‑2010 contracts — they can preserve eligibility for certain long‑standing procurement arrangements under the pre‑2005 exception.
- Environmental regulators and advocacy groups — the bill embeds high environmental standards (especially for municipal solid waste conversion and foreign facilities) that strengthen regulatory leverage over project design and permitting.
Who Bears the Cost
- Waste‑conversion technology vendors and project developers that use combustion or produce emissions — they will likely be ineligible or face expensive redesign to meet the zero‑emissions and no‑discharge requirements.
- Retail sellers and project off‑takers that source landfill or digester gas — they must ensure chain‑of‑custody, contractual language, and CPUC‑compatible verification, increasing transaction and compliance costs.
- The California Public Utilities Commission and other regulators — the bill expects the commission to assess environmental parity for foreign facilities and approve comparable accounting systems, imposing administrative and technical workload without specifying enforcement resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims — preventing environmentally harmful projects from qualifying as 'renewable' and expanding the pool of eligible renewable generation — but solving one often tightens the other: stricter environmental and verification standards reduce the risk of greenwashing, yet they raise costs, narrow the set of qualifying projects, and shift compliance burdens onto developers, utilities, and regulators without providing implementation resources.
SB 1354 raises multiple implementation questions that matter in practice. First, the requirement that out‑of‑state facilities 'will not cause or contribute to any violation of a California environmental quality standard' is conceptually clear but practically difficult to test and enforce for remote projects: the bill leaves the CPUC or implementing agency to interpret what kinds of cross‑boundary impacts count and what evidence suffices.
Second, the mandate that non‑U.S. facilities be 'as protective of the environment' as in‑state facilities is subjective; without specified metrics or approved standards, applicants and regulators will likely disagree over acceptable testing, permitting regimes, and monitoring frequency.
The municipal solid waste conversion definition creates a high legal bar — no air emissions (including GHGs), no water discharges, and no hazardous wastes — effectively excluding any technology that relies on combustion or produces trace pollutants. That strictness advances environmental protection but risks eliminating technologies that proponents argue are low‑emission in practice; it also creates a verification burden (continuous emissions monitoring and third‑party validation) the bill does not fund or detail.
Finally, tying eligibility to participation in the CPUC’s accounting system (or a comparable commission‑approved system) improves traceability but shifts the burden of creating and approving comparable systems to the commission, potentially slowing time‑to‑market for novel projects and requiring significant coordination with WECC entities and interstate fuel suppliers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.