SB 330 authorizes the Governor to establish one or more pilot projects that develop, finance, operate, and maintain electrical transmission infrastructure intended to lower costs to ratepayers and accelerate delivery of transmission needed for California’s clean-energy goals. The bill limits eligible projects to transmission lines identified by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) as subject to competitive solicitation and requires demonstrable cost savings, experienced contractors, and compliance with existing technical standards.
The bill also makes pilot project owners subject to the state Wildfire Fund, requires wildfire mitigation planning and oversight by the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety (OEIS), and directs designees to seek a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) revenue requirement that reflects their actual capital structure. Those features create new financing, liability, and regulatory interfaces that public agencies, utilities, and investors will have to manage carefully.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Governor may designate state agencies, local public agencies, tribal organizations, or joint powers authorities to run pilot transmission projects that the CAISO has identified as competitively bid and necessary for clean energy. Pilot projects may be financed, leased, sold, and operated by their designee but must be controlled by a California balancing authority and demonstrate lower costs to ratepayers.
Who It Affects
Local governments, joint powers authorities, tribal entities, investor-owned and publicly owned utilities, transmission contractors, clean-energy developers, and ratepayers. The bill also pulls in OEIS, the Wildfire Fund Administrator, CAISO, and FERC processes.
Why It Matters
SB 330 creates an alternative institutional path — public or quasi-public ownership and alternative financing — for transmission that could reduce ratepayer costs and change who earns returns on transmission investments. It also embeds wildfire-liability and safety obligations into that new model, making implementation both a finance and a risk-management exercise.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 330 gives the Governor authority to set up one or more pilots that can design, finance, build, operate, and maintain new transmission lines. To qualify, a prospective project must be on CAISO’s list of transmission needs that are subject to competitive solicitation and necessary to support the state’s clean-energy goals.
The bill requires the project to deliver a “significant reduction” in ratepayer costs compared with conventional alternatives and to be constructed and maintained by contractors with recent, relevant California experience. Projects must meet PUC General Order 95 technical standards.
The statute allows a designee — which can be an existing state agency, a local public agency, a tribal organization, or a joint powers authority — to hold title to assets, to lease lines for operation, or to sell usage rights to public or private electricity entities. Regardless of ownership transfers, the transmission infrastructure must remain under a California balancing authority’s operational control.
The designee must commit to asking FERC for a revenue requirement that reflects its actual capital structure and cost of capital, a provision aimed at limiting what is collected through the transmission access charge.The Governor is authorized to issue application and certification guidelines for pilots, and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee reviews eligibility determinations on a 30-day clock; absent a written concurrence or nonconcurrence within 30 days, the project is deemed eligible. For wildfire risk, SB 330 requires any designated pilot owner to participate in California’s Wildfire Fund.
The Wildfire Fund Administrator will set the timing and amount of a pilot owner’s contributions, using the pilot’s proportion of transmission miles in high fire-threat districts as a key input. Pilot owners must carry reasonable insurance, submit wildfire mitigation plans to OEIS, and comply with OEIS risk-reduction directives.
Costs tied to Wildfire Fund participation and mitigation compliance are recoverable through the transmission revenue requirement filed at FERC.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Only transmission lines CAISO identifies as competitively biddable and necessary for clean energy are eligible for a pilot designation.
The bill requires a prime contractor to have served as prime on at least two California transmission projects in the prior 10 years; maintenance contractors must have frequent prior transmission maintenance experience.
A pilot project’s transmission assets must remain under a California balancing authority’s operational control, regardless of whether the designee sells or leases rights to operate them.
The designee must commit to requesting a FERC transmission revenue requirement that reflects the designee’s actual capital structure and cost of capital to limit collections through the transmission access charge.
Pilot project owners must participate in the Wildfire Fund; the Fund Administrator will set contribution timing and amounts using the pilot’s share of miles in high fire-threat districts, and OEIS must review and approve wildfire mitigation plans.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings and intent
The Legislature frames the bill around high California electricity rates and a CAISO estimate of $46–$63 billion in transmission needs through 2045. The findings justify exploring alternative financing and ownership structures — competitive procurement, public financing, and title held by public entities — with the explicit goal of lowering ratepayer costs and accelerating clean-energy projects.
Eligibility criteria for pilot projects
This subdivision sets the gate: candidates must be CAISO-identified projects subject to competitive bidding, demonstrate significant ratepayer cost reductions, be built and maintained by contractors with specified California transmission experience, and comply with PUC General Order 95. These criteria prioritize technically competent teams and demonstrable savings rather than novel ownership alone, which narrows but focuses the pilot pool.
Who can be a designee and what powers they have
The Governor may designate state agencies, local public agencies, tribal organizations, or joint powers authorities to implement pilots. Designated entities may develop, finance, operate, maintain, lease, or sell rights to use the transmission lines; however, operational control must sit with a California balancing authority. Practically, this enables public or quasi-public entities to use public financing tools, while preserving system reliability through balancing authority oversight.
Applications, FERC revenue requirement commitment, and guidelines
Local public agencies may apply to be designees, and designees must commit to seeking a FERC revenue requirement that reflects their actual capital structure and cost of capital — a targeted step to prevent higher collections through the transmission access charge. The Governor may issue application and certification guidelines, which will shape required documentation, procurement expectations, and how the bill’s cost-reduction standard is assessed.
Joint Legislative Budget Committee review
When the Governor declares a pilot eligible, the determination goes to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, which has 30 days to concur or nonconcur; silence within 30 days results in deemed eligibility. That mechanism introduces a short legislative check but effectively allows the Governor to move forward unless legislators act quickly.
Wildfire Fund participation, OEIS oversight, and cost recovery
Pilot owners must join California’s Wildfire Fund and may seek payment for eligible wildfire claims consistent with rules for electrical corporations, subject to: (1) the Wildfire Fund Administrator setting contribution timing and amounts using the pilot’s proportion of miles in high fire-threat districts; (2) required insurance; and (3) OEIS review and approval of wildfire mitigation plans and oversight of performance. The statute permits recovery of these costs in the transmission revenue requirement filed at FERC, tying state wildfire obligations into federal ratemaking.
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
- Residential and commercial ratepayers — if the pilot projects achieve the bill’s goal, transmission built and financed under alternative models could lower the portion of rates attributed to transmission costs.
- Local public agencies, tribal organizations, and joint powers authorities — the bill creates a pathway for these entities to own, finance, and capture economic development benefits from transmission assets and related job creation in disadvantaged regions.
- Clean-energy developers and project proponents — faster or lower-cost transmission can unlock projects (offshore wind, geothermal, utility-scale solar) that are otherwise constrained by interconnection timelines.
- Experienced transmission contractors and maintenance firms — the eligibility and maintenance experience requirements steer work toward contractors with proven California track records, creating near-term contracting opportunities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Pilot project owners (public designees or their successors) — the bill requires Wildfire Fund participation, insurance, and mitigation investments and exposes them to contribution obligations the Fund Administrator sets.
- Investor-owned utilities and their shareholders — competition from publicly backed or alternative-financed transmission could reduce future utility transmission build opportunities and regulated return streams.
- State oversight bodies (OEIS and the Wildfire Fund Administrator) — the law adds programmatic review, plan approval, and ongoing oversight responsibilities that will require staff time and technical resources.
- FERC and balancing authorities — designees’ novel capital structures and sales/lease arrangements will require new FERC filings and operational coordination, increasing regulatory and administrative workload.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize speed and lower near-term costs for ratepayers by using alternative ownership and financing — potentially at the expense of shifting liability, fiscal risk, and oversight burdens onto public entities — or to preserve the traditional regulated utility model that keeps risks (and returns) within established regulatory frameworks but may be slower and costlier.
The bill creates an experimental pathway that sits at the intersection of state infrastructure policy, federal ratemaking, and wildfire liability management. One implementation challenge is operationalizing the “significant reduction in cost to ratepayers” standard: the statute leaves the metric and comparative baseline undefined, so guideline-setting will carry heavy weight and political scrutiny.
Similarly, the requirement that FERC revenue requirements reflect a designee’s actual capital structure is aimed at limiting transmission access charge impacts, but it does not remove the need for complex FERC proceedings where investors, utilities, and transmission customers will litigate cost of capital and allocation issues.
Wildfire Fund participation raises allocation and fairness questions. Tying contributions to the proportion of miles in high fire-threat districts is a simple rule on its face but may not reflect exposure differences due to line design, voltage, terrain, or vegetation management history.
Smaller public designees could face disproportionately large contribution requirements relative to their revenue base. Finally, allowing sale or lease of user rights to private entities after public financing creates a path for privatization: the state or local entity could underwrite construction but then transfer operating rights, concentrating political opposition and legal challenges around transfer terms, long-term oversight, and whether public benefits are preserved.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.