SB 540 creates a detailed checklist that an independent regional organization and its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-approved tariff must meet before California’s Independent System Operator (ISO) and transmission-owning electrical corporations can participate in voluntary regional energy markets. The statute preserves state authority over procurement, resource adequacy, environmental and reliability rules, requires transparency and public participation mechanisms, and forbids centralized capacity markets or mandatory out-of-state resource procurement.
The bill matters because it ties California’s participation in larger regional markets to explicit protections for state policy, consumer interests, and withdrawal mechanics. That combination shifts many implementation decisions from market designers and FERC filings to a state-created oversight council and the ISO’s governing board, creating new compliance obligations and potential flashpoints between state and federal jurisdiction, market efficiency advocates, and incumbent California stakeholders.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 540 permits the ISO and participating transmission owners to use an independent regional organization only if that organization is a nonprofit whose governance and FERC tariff explicitly respect state procurement and environmental authority, maintain transparency and public participation, provide market data access at least to the Dec. 31, 2024 baseline, and prohibit centralized capacity markets and mandatory resource adequacy requirements.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include the California ISO, investor-owned utilities that are participating transmission owners or load-serving entities, a potential independent regional organization and its board, state agencies (CPUC and Energy Commission), consumer advocate offices, and out-of-state generators whose costs the bill forbids California to subsidize.
Why It Matters
The bill conditions regional market participation on enforceable state protections and creates a new Regional Energy Market Oversight Council with authority to approve, deny, or order withdrawal—shifting some gatekeeping from FERC and market operators to California regulators and increasing the compliance and governance burden on any regional market designer.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 540 does not ban regional energy markets; instead it lays out the checklist an independent regional organization and its FERC-approved tariff must meet before California’s ISO and participating electrical corporations can shift market operation to that organization. The statute requires the regional entity be a nonprofit and that both its governing documents and tariff explicitly respect each participating state’s authority to set procurement, resource adequacy, environmental, reliability, and other public interest policies.
The bill also requires market rules to emphasize efficient use of resources, minimize costs to consumers, and provide greenhouse gas information to allow compliance with state agencies.
The bill prescribes governance and public-engagement structures: a public policy committee of the regional board to consult with states and federal power marketers before tariff changes, a stakeholder process offering nonbinding advice, an office of public participation, access to independent market analyses for the regional board, and funding for consumer advocate organizations so state-level advocates can engage. It also freezes a transparency baseline by requiring market data availability to the CPUC and Public Advocate’s Office and to other states’ regulators to the same or greater extent as existed on December 31, 2024.On procedure, SB 540 requires the ISO governing board to adopt a public resolution, following at least 90 days’ public notice, written comment and response, and an offer to testify to legislative committees before the ISO may implement tariff changes to shift market rules to the regional organization; the earliest statutorily contemplated implementation date is January 1, 2028.
The Legislature creates a Regional Energy Market Oversight Council, chaired by the Attorney General and composed of the CPUC President, the Energy Commission Chair, and legislative committee chairs, which must approve initial participation and can order withdrawal if the council finds the regional market would undermine California’s RPS, require procurement of out-of-state fossil resources, impose uncompensated costs on ratepayers, or otherwise conflict with state public-interest policies.SB 540 protects California’s operational sovereignty in other ways: the ISO must retain technical capability to serve California-only market needs and provide separate market services if participants withdraw; the tariff must permit unilateral withdrawal without penalties or unreasonable costs; and the regional market is prohibited from creating a centralized capacity market or mandatory resource adequacy rules. The bill also requires the ISO to complete a jobs-impact study by December 31, 2026, include its results in any ISO board findings, and report on compliance and development of these provisions every two years after implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The independent regional organization must be a nonprofit whose governance documents and FERC tariff explicitly recognize each participating state’s authority over procurement, resource adequacy, environmental, reliability, and other public-interest policies.
The regional organization is barred from establishing or relying on a centralized capacity market or imposing mandatory resource adequacy or reserve-margin requirements.
California creates a Regional Energy Market Oversight Council—chaired by the Attorney General and including CPUC and Energy Commission leadership and legislative committee chairs—that can approve or disapprove initial participation and order withdrawal if state policy protections are not met.
Tariff rules must allow any state or participant to unilaterally withdraw with reasonable prior notice and without penalties or unreasonable costs, and the ISO must preserve technical capability to run separate market services for entities that withdraw.
The ISO must complete a study on job impacts (including in-state power-plant construction and maintenance) by Dec. 31, 2026, and include those results in the ISO board’s findings before approving market-rule adoption.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Conditions for participation: governance, transparency, and market principles
Subdivision (a) lists 15 specific conditions an independent regional organization and its FERC tariff must satisfy before the ISO and participating transmission owners may use voluntary regional markets. Those conditions cover organizational form (nonprofit), explicit respect for state policy authority, market objectives (efficiency, cost minimization, GHG compliance information), public engagement (office of public participation, stakeholder process), access to independent market analysis, and preservation of market data access at least to the Dec. 31, 2024 baseline. Practically, this requires a regional market designer to bake state-preservation language into both corporate governance and the tariff, not merely into voluntary guidelines.
Limits on market design and cost allocation
Two critical substantive limits are in (a)(12) and (a)(13): the regional organization cannot set up a centralized capacity market or separate markets that segregate firm and intermittent resources, and the tariff cannot impose costs on California ratepayers for fossil generation not dispatched to serve California loads. These clauses force market architects to avoid common regional constructs that allocate capacity obligations centrally or spread costs for out-of-state fossil units onto California customers.
ISO board resolution and procedural steps before adoption
Subdivision (b) requires the ISO governing board to adopt a resolution finding all (a)(1)-(15) requirements will be met before implementing tariff modifications that defer market-rule governance to the regional organization. The ISO must give at least 90 days’ notice, publish proposed findings, accept written comments, publish responses at least 20 days before the meeting, record the meeting, and offer legislative testimony. This creates a public, document-heavy process and obligates the ISO to assemble the administrative record showing compliance with California’s statutory checklist.
Regional Energy Market Oversight Council: composition and powers
Subdivision (c) creates the Oversight Council—President of the CPUC, Chair of the Energy Commission, chairs of the legislative energy committees, and the Attorney General as chair—which must approve initial participation and can require withdrawal. The council reviews proposed tariffs and FERC-approved actions against explicit criteria (e.g., no weakening of RPS, no forced procurement of out-of-state fossil resources, no uncompensated costs). If it orders withdrawal, participating entities must unilaterally exit within 120 days, and the council must act within 30 days of certain legislative referrals.
ISO operational readiness, reporting, and jobs study
Subdivision (d) obligates the ISO to keep technical capability to run California-only market services if participants withdraw, and sets reporting and study duties. The ISO must conduct a public jobs-impact study (including effects on in-state powerplant construction and maintenance) to be completed by Dec. 31, 2026, host workshops on its methodology/results, include the findings in the ISO board’s resolution, and thereafter report biennially on implementation status starting two years after regional market implementation.
Balancing authority and continuity of nonmarket ISO functions
Subdivision (e) preserves the ISO’s balancing-authority functions and reliability obligations and restricts changes to the ISO’s balancing authority area to normal accretion, mutual combinations with other California balancing authorities, or use of a participating transmission owner tariff. The provision is designed to limit structural shifts in operational control while allowing market governance to change subject to the (a)-(c) conditions.
Protection of RPS and ISO as vendor of services
Subdivision (f) reiterates that the statute does not alter California Renewables Portfolio Standard targets or the CPUC’s authority over resource adequacy and integrated resource planning. Subdivision (g) explicitly permits the ISO to act as a vendor to the regional organization—providing market operations, dispatch, planning, and other services—so long as the contractual arrangement complies with the statutory protections and FERC-authorized tariff structure.
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
- California ratepayers — gain statutory protections against subsidizing out-of-state fossil resources, an explicit guarantee of data access at least to the Dec. 31, 2024 baseline, and a council mechanism designed to block tariff outcomes that impose uncompensated costs.
- State regulators (CPUC, Energy Commission) — receive formal roles and a statutory oversight council that centralizes review authority and enables the state to vet tariffs and order withdrawal when state policies are threatened.
- Consumer advocate offices and the Public Advocate’s Office — receive funded access and facilitated participation in regional-market processes, plus a statutory entitlement to market data and an office of public participation to support engagement.
- California-based generators and workers — benefit from the bill’s explicit requirement that the ISO study in-state job impacts and from protections preventing mandatory procurement policies that could favor out-of-state fossil capacity over in-state resources.
- Local publicly owned utilities and load-serving entities that prefer preserving state control — gain a clear statutory route to withdraw or remain outside regional market constructs without penalty.
Who Bears the Cost
- Independent regional organization designers and operators — must adopt nonprofit governance, specific tariff language, data practices, public-participation structures, market-monitoring funding, and indemnities, increasing development and governance costs.
- The ISO and participating transmission owners — carry implementation and administrative burdens to produce the public record, studies, technical segregation capability, and to negotiate vendor contracts that honor the state’s indemnity and lien requirements.
- Potential out-of-state generators and centralized-market providers — face exclusion from revenue constructs based on centralized capacity or risk being unable to collect costs from California ratepayers for non-California dispatch.
- FERC and market participants — may inherit more complex filings and unexpected state-level veto points, increasing litigation or negotiation costs to align federal tariff approvals with California’s statutory checklist.
- State agencies and the Oversight Council members — shoulder new review, meeting, and decision-making responsibilities that may require additional staffing and legal support to evaluate technical market filings and cost-benefit calculations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is state control versus regional market efficiency: SB 540 protects California’s policy priorities, consumer protections, and withdrawal rights by imposing detailed conditions and state oversight, but those same protections can limit the design choices and risk-sharing that make larger regional markets economically attractive—and the statutory requirements may collide with federal tariff authority or produce costly legal and technical disputes.
SB 540 tries to thread a narrow needle: it preserves California policy space while allowing participation in voluntary regional markets, but it delegates significant gatekeeping to a state council and the ISO board. That design creates two practical implementation challenges.
First, the baseline references (for example, market data access “to the same or greater extent as existed on December 31, 2024”) freeze a point in time that may be technically or legally hard to interpret or enforce, producing disputes over what constitutes equivalent access as markets evolve. Second, many of the protections depend on facts and forecasts—cost-benefit calculations over a two-year period, job-impact estimates, and indemnity arrangements—that are inherently judgmental and liable to technical disagreement or litigation, particularly once FERC-approved tariffs enter the picture.
A second tension lies at the federal–state interface. The bill conditions California’s participation on FERC-approved tariff language and asks the ISO to ensure implementation, yet some state-mandated withdrawal rights, indemnities, or lien arrangements could clash with federal tariff precedent or the Supremacy Clause if they improperly attempt to control federal tariff outcomes.
The council’s authority to order withdrawal and the statutory insistence on unilateral withdrawal without penalty could prompt legal challenges if the regional tariff or FERC-approved market structure contains contractual or rate constructs that attach costs to remaining participants. Finally, prohibiting a centralized capacity market or mandatory RA is a blunt instrument: market designers might replicate the economic effects of those constructs through alternative mechanisms, raising questions about whether the ban will accomplish its purpose or simply shift complexity into harder-to-detect rule design choices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.