SB 732 amends California’s Health and Safety Code to require air districts that, as of January 1, 2026, did not already have rules limiting runtime or testing for permitted emergency backup generators to include a specific exception in any future rulemaking. The exception lets specified critical facilities exceed runtime and testing limits when the generator runs because of a deenergization event (for example, a public safety power shutoff) or when testing and maintenance follow National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 110.
The bill also requires facilities that use the exemption to attest and provide evidence that they’re taking demonstrable steps toward acquiring backup power technologies that meet or exceed emissions standards set by the State Air Resources Board.
This is a targeted, conditional carve‑out: it does not require districts to adopt new rules, and it only applies to districts that lacked runtime/testing limits as of the statutory cutoff. The measure is aimed at balancing operational resilience for hospitals, water and wastewater systems, emergency services, and similar critical facilities during wildfire‑related or other widespread outages with California’s air quality objectives by tying temporary exceedances to a transition plan toward cleaner backup power.
At a Glance
What It Does
If an air district that lacked runtime or testing limits as of Jan 1, 2026, later adopts such limits for permitted emergency backup generators, the district must include provisions that allow critical facilities to exceed those limits during a deenergization event or when testing/maintenance conforms to NFPA 110. Facilities using the exception must attest to the district that they are taking demonstrable steps to acquire lower‑emission backup technologies that meet State Air Resources Board standards.
Who It Affects
Operators of defined critical facilities (hospitals, police and fire stations, water and wastewater plants, emergency operations centers, communications infrastructure) and the air districts that regulate their permitted backup generators. It also affects manufacturers and vendors of backup power systems and grant programs tied to procurement of low‑emission technologies.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a conditional, administrable path for extended generator use during public safety power shutoffs, while attempting to accelerate deployment of lower‑emission alternatives. That combination shifts some enforcement and decisionmaking to local air districts and places procurement and planning burdens on critical facility operators.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 732 inserts a narrowly focused Article 9.5 into the Health and Safety Code to address a tension that emerged during recent wildfire seasons: critical facilities need reliable power during deenergization events, but extended generator operation increases local pollution. The statute starts by defining the scope: which facilities count as “critical,” what a “deenergization event” and “loss of power” mean, and what qualifies as an “emergency backup generator.” The generator definition is deliberately limited to larger units — internal combustion engines above 50 brake horsepower and certain gas turbines — and includes the statutory concept that such generators are intended not to operate more than 200 hours per year and otherwise only for emergencies or routine testing and maintenance.
The operative rule is conditional. It applies only in air districts that, as of January 1, 2026, did not already have rules imposing runtime or testing limits for permitted emergency backup generators and that later adopt such rules.
When those districts adopt limits, the statute requires them to include an allowance that lets operators of critical facilities exceed runtime or testing limits if the operation occurs because of a deenergization or loss of power, or if the testing and maintenance follow NFPA 110. The statute includes the caveat “except as otherwise prohibited by federal law,” which preserves potential federal preemption issues.To prevent the carve‑out from becoming an open invitation for prolonged high‑emitting operations, the bill ties the exemption to forward progress: any critical facility that uses the exemption must attest and provide evidence to the district that it has taken demonstrable steps toward implementing backup power technologies that meet or exceed emission standards the State Air Resources Board sets.
The statute lists examples—contracting to purchase technology, issuing an RFI/RFP, or applying for dedicated funding—but leaves the agency and the district to interpret what constitutes adequate proof of progress.Finally, the bill addresses cost implications: it imposes duties on air districts (a state‑mandated local program) but states no state reimbursement is required because districts can levy fees or assessments to pay for the program. Practically, the law nudges critical facilities toward lower‑emission solutions while making temporary, rule‑based exceptions available during PSPS events, and it pushes air districts to design administrative procedures for attestation, verification, and enforcement.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute limits its coverage to generators defined as internal combustion engines >50 brake horsepower and gas turbines >2,975,000 BTU/hour.
The generator definition incorporates an operational ceiling: those emergency generators are described as not operating more than 200 hours per year and only for emergencies or routine testing and maintenance.
The exemption only applies in air districts that, as of January 1, 2026, did not have runtime or testing limits and that later adopt such limits—SB 732 requires those new rules to include the exemption.
Testing and maintenance that would otherwise exceed district limits are permitted under the exemption if conducted in accordance with NFPA 110 (Emergency and Standby Power Systems).
A critical facility using the exemption must attest to the district and provide evidence of demonstrable steps toward acquiring backup power technologies that meet or exceed emission standards set by the State Air Resources Board (examples: contracting to purchase, issuing an RFI/RFP, or applying for funding).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings on wildfire risk and critical infrastructure
This introductory section frames the policy problem: increasing wildfire frequency and precautionary public safety power shutoffs threaten reliable electricity for critical services, notably water and wastewater systems. Practically, the findings justify the bill’s focus—making case law‑style arguments about resilience that the rest of the statute operationalizes—they do not create obligations but signal legislative intent that courts and agencies may consult when construing the new provisions.
Defines ‘critical facility,’ ‘deenergization event,’ and generator thresholds
Section 42010 sets the statute’s boundaries. It lists the types of facilities covered (hospitals, police, fire stations, water/wastewater plants, emergency operations centers, communications used for essential services). It also defines operational terms—’deenergization event’ and ‘loss of power’—and specifies which backup generators fall within the statute (internal combustion engines >50 bhp; gas turbines >2,975,000 BTU/hr). The section’s inclusion of the 200‑hour conceptual limit for emergency generators signals that the law targets large, episodically used units rather than continuous industrial generators.
Conditional exemption requirement for district rulemaking
This is the statute’s operative mandate to air districts: if a district that lacked runtime or testing limits as of Jan 1, 2026, later adopts such rules, the district must include provisions allowing critical facilities to exceed those limits during deenergization events or when tests conform to NFPA 110. The language compels a specific clause in future rules but does not require districts to adopt new runtime/testing rules; it instead constrains how they must write any such rules they later promulgate. The phrase “except as otherwise prohibited by federal law” preserves potential conflicts with EPA or other federal requirements.
Attestation and transition‑planning requirement for facilities
Subsection (b) links temporary exceedances to forward progress toward cleaner backup power. A facility that uses the exemption must attest and provide evidence to the district showing demonstrable steps toward acquiring backup technologies that meet or exceed state board emission standards. The statute enumerates permissible examples—contracts, RFI/RFPs, funding applications—while leaving districts discretion to assess sufficiency. That administrative check is the bill’s main device to prevent permanent reliance on high‑emitting generators.
Fiscal provision—no state reimbursement required
The bill declares no state reimbursement is required under Article XIII B, Section 6, because local agencies can levy fees, assessments, or service charges pursuant to Government Code Section 17556. Functionally, that means districts will absorb implementation costs or fund them locally rather than expect state payments, which could affect how quickly smaller districts implement the statute’s procedural elements.
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
- Water and wastewater agencies: They gain a clearer legal path to run permitted generators beyond local runtime limits during PSPS or outages, reducing the risk of service interruption and preserving firefighting water pressure and public health protections.
- Hospitals and emergency medical facilities: The exemption reduces the chance that local runtime caps prevent emergency backup power during prolonged outages, supporting patient safety and continuity of care.
- Local emergency responders and public safety communications: Police, fire stations, and emergency operations centers benefit from reduced operational risk during deenergization events because the statute explicitly includes them as critical facilities.
- Manufacturers and sellers of low‑emission backup systems and microgrid solutions: The attestation and transition requirement creates procurement demand and may accelerate sales, contracts, and grant applications for cleaner technologies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Air districts that adopt runtime or testing limits after Jan 1, 2026: They must insert the mandated exemption language, develop attestation and verification procedures, and carry out enforcement, creating administrative and compliance costs.
- Critical facility operators: To preserve access to the exemption, operators must take demonstrable steps toward low‑emission technologies (RFPs, contracting, funding applications), which can require staff time, planning, and capital outlays.
- Local governments and ratepayers: Because the bill disclaims state reimbursement and relies on local fee authority, smaller districts or agencies may shift costs to local budgets or fees, potentially affecting taxpayers or utility customers.
- Operators of older, higher‑emitting generator fleets: As procurement demand shifts toward cleaner alternatives, owners of legacy high‑emitting units may face replacement costs or reduced long‑term utility for those assets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is tradeoffs between immediate resilience and long‑term air quality: the bill must enable critical services to run generators during dangerous outages, yet every hour of additional generator operation increases local pollution and health risk; SB 732 attempts a middle path by permitting temporary exceedances while demanding transition planning, but it does not fully resolve how to ensure plans lead to real, timely emission reductions without jeopardizing emergency preparedness.
The statute threads a narrow needle—allowing temporary exceedances for resilience while insisting on transition planning—but it leaves several important implementation questions open. First, “demonstrable steps” is deliberately flexible: the statute lists examples but does not set objective milestones, timelines, or minimum standards.
That ambiguity places heavy discretion with districts to decide what proof suffices, creating potential for uneven enforcement between jurisdictions and legal challenges from facilities or community groups.
Second, the bill’s conditional scope limits its reach to districts that lacked runtime/testing rules as of a specific date, which produces patchwork coverage across the state. Districts that already have limits are unaffected; some districts may avoid adopting new limits to sidestep the administrative burden of the attestation regime, undermining statewide uniformity.
Third, the provision “except as otherwise prohibited by federal law” signals possible conflicts with EPA or other federal standards governing stationary sources; resolving those conflicts could constrain the exemption in practice. Finally, while the attestation requirement nudges facilities toward cleaner tech, it may also create perverse short‑term incentives: facilities might mount minimal or cosmetic procurement steps to preserve generator use rather than commit to substantial investments in microgrids, storage, or true low‑emission engines.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.