SB 292 directs investor‑owned electrical corporations to develop and publish plans to support people with access and functional needs during Public Safety Power Shutoffs (deenergization events), and to produce a post‑deenergization event report after each event. The bill also requires local publicly owned electric utilities to prepare annual reliability reports and tasks the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) with determining whether to enhance existing reliability reporting and to decide, by January 1, 2027, whether post‑event reports should include geospatial or census‑tract‑level data.
The statute combines new transparency and planning requirements with explicit confidentiality protections for electrical system security, and it channels reports to regulators and local elected officials so communities and emergency managers can act on outage impacts. The bill leaves several implementation choices to the CPUC, the Safety and Enforcement Division, and the Energy Commission — particularly about data resolution, reporting thresholds, and how to balance public use of the data with system security concerns.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires electrical corporations to create plans, with community and state agency input, to support people with access and functional needs during deenergization events, and to file post‑event reports that meet CPUC and Safety and Enforcement Division requirements. It also requires local publicly owned electric utilities to publish annual reliability reports and submit them to the Energy Commission.
Who It Affects
Investor‑owned electrical corporations and local publicly owned electric utilities operating in California; community‑based organizations that serve access and functional needs populations; the CPUC and its Safety and Enforcement Division; local elected bodies and emergency managers who receive post‑event reports.
Why It Matters
This bill forces utilities to formalize outreach and mitigation for vulnerable populations and makes deenergization impacts more visible to local decisionmakers, while prompting regulators to clarify reporting standards and where finer‑grained, census‑level or geospatial data should be used — all under confidentiality constraints aimed at protecting the grid.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 292 builds on existing deenergization and reliability reporting rules by creating two parallel reporting and planning streams. For investor‑owned utilities, the central new obligation is to work with state agencies and community‑based organizations that represent access and functional needs populations to design and publish a plan specifically aimed at reducing harms from power shutoffs for those groups.
The bill requires the electrical corporation to submit that plan to the CPUC; it does not micro‑specify contents, leaving detail to CPUC orders and to the practical input from community partners.
After any deenergization event, an electrical corporation must prepare a post‑deenergization event report that conforms to the CPUC’s de‑energization rulemaking (Rulemaking 18‑12‑005) and any additional requirements the Safety and Enforcement Division imposes. The bill expressly directs that these reports be filed, served, distributed, and published; they must also be provided to local elected bodies and city or county administrators affected by the shutoff.
The reports are to be updated annually and kept on the utility’s website so local governments, emergency managers, and community organizations can assess who was affected and where.The statute instructs the CPUC to decide, by January 1, 2027, whether post‑event reports should include higher‑resolution data — either geospatial circuit maps overlaid on service territory and census‑tract impact statistics, or census‑tract‑level disaggregation with disadvantaged community flags. That determination is procedural, not mandatory: it directs the CPUC to consider whether including those data elements is appropriate, balancing usefulness against confidentiality and security concerns.Separately, SB 292 creates a new, statewide obligation for local publicly owned electric utilities to prepare and post an annual reliability report and to submit it to the Energy Commission.
The statute lists optional items the POU can include (system/division‑level metrics, census‑tract or smaller resolution, and metrics focused on customers receiving financial assistance) and requires the reports to identify worst‑performing circuits and major event days. Throughout, the bill emphasizes that publicly available information must be aggregated to the degree necessary to protect electrical system security.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Electrical corporations must develop and publicly post a plan, created with state agencies and community‑based organizations, to support access and functional needs populations during deenergization events and submit that plan to the CPUC.
After each deenergization event, electrical corporations must produce a post‑deenergization event report that meets Rulemaking 18‑12‑005 requirements and any additional Safety and Enforcement Division directives, and they must publish and annually update that report.
By January 1, 2027 the CPUC must decide whether post‑deenergization reports should include geospatial mapping of circuits with census‑tract impact statistics or census‑tract‑level disaggregation flagged for disadvantaged communities.
Local publicly owned electric utilities must prepare and conspicuously publish an annual reliability report (including worst‑performing circuits and major event days) and submit it to the California Energy Commission, while maintaining confidentiality for system security.
The CPUC can use recurring deficiencies identified in annual reliability reports to require cost‑effective remediation from electrical corporations, but the CPUC may suspend that requirement if expenditures are not justified or measures aren’t effective.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
CPU C annual reliability reporting authority and remediation power
This amended section keeps the CPUC’s existing mandate that investor‑owned utilities include frequency and duration of outages in annual reliability reports and adds a specific instruction for the CPUC to determine, through an open rulemaking, whether to revise its policies by January 1, 2027. It reiterates that the CPUC can require remediation where reports show repeated deficiencies and allows the CPUC to suspend such remediation obligations if not cost‑justified. Practically, this preserves CPUC discretion to set geographic reporting units, require trend analyses, and balance transparency against system security.
Access and functional needs planning requirement for electrical corporations
This new provision requires investor‑owned electrical corporations to actively engage with state agencies and community‑based organizations that serve access and functional needs populations to create a deenergization support plan. The bill does not spell out required plan elements; instead it mandates collaboration and a submission to the CPUC, leaving the regulator and stakeholders to define operational measures (e.g., registries, backup power programs, targeted communication protocols) during implementation.
Post‑deenergization event reporting, distribution, and possible data enhancements
Utilities must prepare a post‑event report after each deenergization that complies with the CPUC’s de‑energization rulemaking and any Safety and Enforcement Division additions. The statute requires filing, serving, distributing, and publishing these reports and specifically directs utilities to provide them to affected local elected bodies and city/county executives. The CPUC must decide whether to require geospatial circuit maps with census‑tract impact statistics or census‑tract‑level disaggregation tied to disadvantaged community status, creating a clear decision point about higher‑resolution reporting.
Annual reliability reports for local publicly owned electric utilities
This newly added part obligates local publicly owned electric utilities (POUs) to produce and publicly post annual reliability reports that identify outage frequency and duration and, at minimum, list worst‑performing circuits and major event days. The statute authorizes POUs to include system/division‑level metrics, census‑tract or smaller resolution data, and reliability metrics for customers receiving financial assistance, and requires submission of the report to the Energy Commission. It repeats the confidentiality constraint for security reasons, which will shape data resolution and public release practices.
Confidentiality findings and reimbursement declaration
The Legislature includes express findings that limiting public disclosure of certain electrical system information is necessary to protect system security, satisfying the state constitutional requirement for findings when limiting access to public records. The bill also declares no state reimbursement is required under Article XIII B, citing local authority to fund the obligations or other legal reasons; that affects how costs are treated by local agencies and POUs.
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
- Access and functional needs populations (e.g., medically dependent, mobility‑impaired, communication‑limited): they get formalized planning attention and an explicit utility obligation to coordinate with agencies and community organizations to reduce harms from shutoffs.
- Local elected officials and emergency managers: post‑deenergization reports must be provided directly to city and county leaders, giving them timely, localized information to target resources and recovery decisions.
- Disadvantaged and low‑income communities: the CPUC’s directed review of census‑tract reporting and the POUs’ option to include metrics for customers receiving financial assistance create pathways to identify and monitor disproportionate outage impacts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Investor‑owned electrical corporations: must staff and fund community engagement for AFN plans, produce and maintain post‑event reports (including potential geospatial mapping), and handle publication and distribution obligations.
- Local publicly owned electric utilities (POUs): must compile, post, and submit annual reliability reports to the Energy Commission — work that can be data‑intensive for smaller utilities without added staffing or budget.
- Regulators (CPUC and Safety and Enforcement Division, Energy Commission): must devote time and resources to rulemakings, to set data standards and confidentiality rules, and to evaluate remediation actions — administrative costs that are not detailed in the statute.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is weighing transparency and local accountability against electrical system security and operational burden: policymakers want detailed, localized outage data and formal plans for vulnerable populations, but releasing granular information risks revealing system vulnerabilities and imposes significant data, administrative, and fiscal costs on utilities and regulators.
SB 292 mixes transparency with explicit confidentiality requirements, but it leaves critical technical choices unresolved and delegates them to CPUC, SED, and the Energy Commission rulemakings. The statute points to higher‑resolution data (geospatial circuit maps and census‑tract disaggregation) as potentially useful for assessing equity and local impacts, yet it does not define thresholds for what constitutes acceptable public disclosure versus protected information.
That vagueness will drive contested rulemaking on data formats, redaction standards, and who gets access to sensitive datasets.
The bill also creates administrative burdens that will fall unevenly across utilities. Large investor‑owned utilities already run registries and reporting teams, but smaller POUs and community utilities may need resources to meet the new annual report and submission requirements.
The statutory demand that utilities work with community‑based organizations is practice‑driven; without minimum content requirements, engagement could be uneven — ranging from substantive co‑design of programs to a box‑checking exercise. Finally, the confidentiality carve‑outs raise governance questions: how will regulators validate that published, aggregated metrics are still useful for accountability while preventing adversarial actors from inferring system vulnerabilities from released data?
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.