SB 613 adds methane‑focused language to California’s climate statute and directs state actors to favor natural gas supplies certified under a measuring, monitoring, reporting, and verification (MMRV) framework that demonstrate low methane emissions. The bill is primarily an ordering and procurement policy: it updates Section 38592 of the Health and Safety Code to define MMRV, require agencies to prioritize methane reductions, and empower the State Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to apply MMRV protocols to existing methane‑reduction programs.
Why it matters: California imports most of its natural gas, so the bill targets emissions upstream of state borders by using procurement preferences and verification standards rather than imposing direct production limits. The approach aims to create market incentives for lower‑leakage production practices while preserving agency discretion to weigh feasibility, cost‑effectiveness, and ratepayer impacts.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 613 defines an MMRV framework for methane and instructs state agencies and regulators to incorporate that framework into programs and procurement decisions where feasible and cost‑effective. It does not mandate new gas purchases or force expanded fossil gas use.
Who It Affects
State agencies that procure natural gas or set procurement rules, the CPUC and CARB as implementing bodies, utilities and large gas purchasers, and natural gas suppliers seeking access to California markets.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a market mechanism to reward suppliers that reduce fugitive methane emissions, potentially shifting investment toward leak detection and mitigation practices outside California. For compliance officers and utility planners, it adds a new verification requirement and an extra layer to procurement decision‑making.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 613 starts with a set of findings that emphasize methane’s outsized short‑term warming impact and notes that a large share of California’s natural gas comes from out of state. The factual preamble establishes the policy rationale for targeting emissions in production areas outside California’s borders by using procurement levers rather than direct production limits.
The operative change modifies Section 38592 of the Health and Safety Code. The bill inserts a definition of “measure, monitor, report, and verify” (MMRV) as a systematic emissions‑measurement and verification framework and then layers several obligations and permissions on state agencies.
Agencies must consider and implement greenhouse gas reduction strategies and explicitly prioritize methane reductions where feasible and cost‑effective. CARB, the CPUC, and other relevant agencies gain explicit authority to apply approved MMRV protocols to existing methane‑reduction programs and to use relevant data sources, models, or standards when doing so.Crucially for procurement, the bill directs the state board to encourage gas procurement on behalf of the state to shift toward natural gas certified as producing low methane emissions, but only when that shift is feasible, cost‑effective, and determined to be in the best interests of ratepayers under the CPUC’s standards (citations to Sections 740.8 and 451 of the Public Utilities Code).
The statute also contains limiting language: it says the amendment should not be read to require new or additional gas procurement, to promote expanded fossil gas use, or to interfere with California’s goals to reduce fossil fuel reliance. Lastly, the bill preserves existing federal, state, and local obligations for air and water quality and public health.Taken together, SB 613 is a policy layering exercise: it creates a definitional and programmatic pathway for verified methane reductions to be recognized and preferred in state procurement without imposing direct production controls or mandatory purchase requirements.
That design leaves much of the implementation detail—what counts as an approved MMRV protocol, how certifications are verified, and how costs are allocated—to agencies and regulators to decide.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a statutory definition of “measure, monitor, report, and verify” (MMRV) and authorizes agencies to use MMRV protocols to document methane emissions accuracy.
State agencies are required to prioritize methane‑reduction strategies, explicitly including emissions from imported petroleum and natural gas, when those strategies are feasible and cost‑effective.
CARB, the CPUC, and other relevant agencies are authorized to apply approved MMRV protocols to existing programs and to rely on diverse data, models, and standards when doing so.
The state board is directed to encourage procurement of natural gas certified as low‑methane, but only where feasible, cost‑effective, and determined to be in the best interests of ratepayers under CPUC authority (Public Utilities Code §§ 740.8, 451).
The bill explicitly states it does not require new or additional fossil gas procurement, does not promote expanded fossil gas use, and does not override other environmental or public health laws.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings on methane's climate impact and out‑of‑state emissions
This subsection compiles scientific and programmatic findings to justify the bill’s focus. It points to EPA and CARB studies that show methane’s high global warming potential and cites CARB’s report estimating sizable fugitive emissions associated with imported natural gas. Practically, these findings function as the policy rationale that permits the state to use procurement preferences to influence out‑of‑state production practices.
Legislative intent and a gas 'loading order' that ranks low‑methane gas after demand reduction and renewables
Subdivision (b) states the Legislature’s intent to reduce imported methane in ways that also support the transition away from fossil fuels. Subdivision (c) establishes a prioritized ordering for natural gas use by state agencies: first efficiency and demand reduction, then renewable resources, and only afterward ‘clean fossil resources’ certified under MMRV. That ordering constrains how procurement preferences should be applied in practice and signals the Legislature’s intent to avoid using certification as a rationale to bypass energy‑efficiency or renewable options.
Defines MMRV
Subsection (a) inserts a compact definition of MMRV as a framework for systematic measurement and verification of emissions and the accuracy of reported data. That definition is intentionally broad, enabling agencies to adopt different technical protocols, but it also creates a statutory hook for later rulemaking or interagency guidance to specify what counts as an approved protocol.
Agency duties and authority to apply MMRV
Subsections (b) and (c) require state agencies to consider greenhouse gas reduction strategies generally and to prioritize methane where feasible and cost‑effective. Subsection (d) gives CARB, the CPUC, and ‘other relevant agencies’ explicit authority to apply approved MMRV protocols to existing methane‑reduction programs and to use multiple sources of data or standards. Operationally, this is where program designers will determine which supply chains are subject to verification and how protocols integrate with existing reporting regimes such as EPA Subpart W and federal Methane Emissions Reduction Program data.
Encourages procurement of MMRV‑certified low‑methane gas subject to feasibility and ratepayer tests
Subsection (e) directs the state board to encourage that state procurement shift toward certified low‑methane gas where feasible, cost‑effective, and in the best interests of ratepayers as determined by the CPUC under cited Public Utilities Code sections. This ties procurement preferences to CPUC findings on ratepayer impact and preserves the CPUC’s economic oversight role over utility procurement decisions.
Limiting language and preservation of other legal obligations
Subsection (f) clarifies that the amendment is not a mandate to purchase more fossil gas, and it does not intend to interfere with California’s broader decarbonization goals. Subsection (g) preserves compliance with other federal, state, and local air, water, and health laws. These clauses function as guardrails limiting the statute’s reach and signaling that MMRV‑based procurement should not undercut other environmental or policy priorities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment 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
- Natural gas producers that adopt MMRV protocols and reduce fugitive emissions — they would gain preferential access to California procurement and potentially a market premium for certified low‑methane supply.
- State procurement officers and agencies seeking verifiable emissions reductions — the bill gives them a statutory tool to prefer lower‑leakage supplies without crafting novel regulatory limits.
- Vendors and consultancies offering leak detection, measurement, and verification services — demand for third‑party MMRV audits, continuous monitoring hardware, and data platforms would likely grow.
- Climate and public‑health stakeholders in California — reduced upstream methane releases translate into near‑term climate benefits and localized air quality improvements tied to production practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- Out‑of‑state producers and midstream operators that do not already track and reduce methane — they may face lost market share in California or costs to implement MMRV systems to remain competitive.
- Utilities and large gas purchasers that must incorporate certification criteria into procurement decisions — they will incur administrative burdens and potentially higher supply costs if certified gas is pricier.
- State agencies and regulators (CARB, CPUC) — they must develop or approve protocols, integrate MMRV into existing programs, and exercise judgment about feasibility and ratepayer impacts, which consumes staff time and resources.
- Ratepayers — if certified low‑methane gas carries a price premium and the CPUC determines procurement is in the ratepayer interest, costs could be passed through to utility customers.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill attempts to reconcile two legitimate objectives that point in different directions: accelerate verifiable near‑term methane reductions in the gas supply chain, while also advancing California’s long‑term transition away from fossil fuels; creating market rewards for low‑methane gas helps one goal but risks delaying the other.
SB 613 provides policy direction without spelling out the technical and enforcement architecture that makes MMRV meaningful. The statute’s broad MMRV definition and the delegation to CARB/CPUC to adopt or apply protocols leave key choices open: which measurement methods qualify, who performs verification, what frequency of monitoring is required, and how to handle complex supply chains with multiple producers.
These are not minor implementation details; they determine whether certification yields credible, additional emissions reductions or ends up as a paperwork exercise.
Another practical tension lies in the interaction between procurement preferences and the state’s longer‑term objective to reduce fossil fuel reliance. The bill requires agencies to follow a loading order that puts efficiency and renewables ahead of certified fossil gas, but it simultaneously creates a potential market advantage for certified gas.
That advantage can incentivize investments in leak reduction while also risking lock‑in of fossil infrastructure if certification makes gas procurement politically or economically easier than accelerating electrification or renewables deployment. Finally, the bill’s focus on imported gas raises cross‑jurisdictional challenges: California can prefer certified supplies but cannot unilaterally regulate out‑of‑state operators, and interstate commerce and federal reporting regimes (e.g., EPA Subpart W) will influence the available data and legal pathways for enforcement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.