SB 943 is a findings-and-intent bill that diagnoses a barrier to industrial electrification: California’s nonbypassable and transmission access charges are flat across time, which weakens price signals needed for shifting industrial energy use to off‑peak hours. The bill argues that time-varying allocation of transmission costs—an approach used in other U.S. grid regions—would lower effective off‑peak electricity costs and make zero‑emission industrial technologies more economically viable.
The text ties that rate-design issue to two policy objectives: reducing air pollution in communities that miss federal air quality standards, and meeting the state’s long‑term greenhouse gas targets while avoiding emissions “leakage.” SB 943 frames legislative intent to retain and expand industrial activity in California by supporting cost‑effective electrification pathways where feasible, but it does not itself specify new tariff language or detailed regulatory directives in Section 1.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill sets out findings that flat transmission and nonbypassable charges blunt time‑of‑use incentives and identifies time‑differentiated transmission allocation as a potential remedy. It documents other ISOs’ practice of assigning more transmission cost to peak usage to promote off‑peak pricing.
Who It Affects
Industrial electricity consumers with potentially flexible loads, utilities and load‑serving entities that collect transmission access charges, and regulators (CPUC and CAISO) who currently oversee rate design and tariff allocation. Providers of electrification technologies would also be affected indirectly.
Why It Matters
If acted on, the concept could materially change the economics of electrifying industrial boilers, heat pumps, and thermal storage by reducing off‑peak bills, influence utility revenue recovery, and shift how transmission costs are allocated across customer classes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 943 compiles findings that link industrial emissions to local air quality problems and the state’s broader greenhouse gas targets. It highlights that industrial sources made up 18.6 percent of California’s 2023 GHG inventory and notes the state’s legal objective to both reduce emissions and minimize leakage—reductions in‑state that simply shift emissions elsewhere.
The bill then turns to electricity price design. It identifies two components of industrial bills—nonbypassable charges and transmission access charges—that are currently time‑invariant, weakening incentives for industrial customers to shift consumption to off‑peak hours.
SB 943 points to an alternative used in several regional transmission organizations (PJM, ERCOT, MISO, SPP, ISO‑NE, and NYISO) that allocates a larger share of transmission costs to peak usage and thereby supports lower off‑peak prices.Finally, the Legislature states its intent: to retain and grow industrial firms and jobs while encouraging shifts to zero‑emission industrial energy use where economically feasible. The text focuses on setting a policy direction for regulators and market operators rather than prescribing specific tariff mechanisms, leaving open how agencies might translate these findings into rulemaking or rate proceedings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill records that industrial sources accounted for 18.6% of California’s 2023 greenhouse gas inventory.
It identifies two bill components—nonbypassable charges and transmission access charges—as not varying by time of use, which the bill says weakens incentives for demand shifting.
SB 943 cites practice in PJM, ERCOT, MISO, SPP, ISO‑NE, and NYISO where transmission costs are allocated to peak usage rather than spread uniformly across all usage.
The text invokes the state’s legal requirement to minimize emissions “leakage,” flagging a trade‑off between deep decarbonization and preserving in‑state industrial activity.
Section 1 is declaratory: it states legislative findings and intent to support cost‑effective industrial electrification but does not itself change tariffs or impose procedural mandates on regulators.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings on air quality, industrial emissions, and leakage
These clauses establish the problem frame: industrial emissions significantly contribute to regions failing federal air quality standards and make up a sizable portion of statewide GHGs. The bill explicitly raises the leakage concern—California must reduce emissions without simply shifting production (and emissions) out of state—so any policy that raises industrial costs risks moving activity elsewhere. For regulators and analysts, these findings signal the Legislature wants emissions reductions pursued in ways that preserve industrial jobs.
Rate design as a barrier and alternative allocation models
This subsection links the feasibility of electrification technologies—electric boilers, industrial heat pumps, thermal storage—to electricity price structure. It identifies nonbypassable and transmission access charges as flat components that dampen time‑of‑use signals, and contrasts California’s approach (equal spreading of transmission costs) with other ISOs that load more transmission cost onto peak usage. Practically, this points regulators toward examining whether time‑differentiated transmission allocation could create viable off‑peak rates for flexible industrial loads.
Economic rationale and legislative intent
The bill notes that new industrial electrified load can help pay fixed grid costs and potentially lower rates if the new load covers more than its marginal cost of service. The Legislature’s stated intent is to retain and expand industrial firms while encouraging economically feasible electrification. That intent gives regulators a policy directive to weigh in rate and procurement proceedings, but the section stops short of prescribing specific regulatory tools or tariff changes.
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
- Flexible industrial electricity users (e.g., manufacturers with shiftable thermal processes): Lower off‑peak transmission allocation could reduce effective costs for electrification investments, improving project economics for electric boilers, heat pumps, and storage.
- Electrification technology vendors and engineering firms: Improved price signals make larger industrial projects more bankable, expanding market demand for equipment and integration services.
- Communities with poor air quality: Reduced onsite combustion from industrial electrification would lower local criteria pollutant emissions if adoption occurs at scale.
- Potentially all ratepayers: If new electrified industrial load is additive and pays more than marginal cost, the bill argues it could help amortize fixed grid costs and reduce average rates over time.
Who Bears the Cost
- Utilities and load‑serving entities: They would need to redesign tariffs, develop billing systems for time‑differentiated transmission allocation, and possibly manage revenue‑stability mechanisms.
- Non‑industrial customers and less flexible industrials: Depending on the allocation design, some customers could face higher shares of transmission costs if revenue recovery shifts.
- Regulators and CAISO: The CPUC and CAISO may face complex modeling, stakeholder processes, and coordination with FERC to implement any change, creating administrative and legal workload.
- Smaller industrial operators: Firms without flexibility or capital to electrify could face competitive pressure or new cross‑subsidy dynamics if tariffs change in favor of larger, flexible loads.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: drive cheaper off‑peak electricity to make industrial electrification economically feasible and reduce local pollution, versus ensuring transmission cost recovery remains equitable and doesn’t shift burdens to customers who can’t or won’t change their consumption. Achieving both requires precise definitions, jurisdictional coordination, and safeguards against gaming—trade‑offs the bill identifies but does not resolve.
SB 943 is primarily declaratory: it lays out policy aims and identifies a rate‑design lever (time‑varying allocation of transmission costs) without prescribing the legal or technical steps to implement that lever. That leaves many key questions open.
First, transmission cost allocation often implicates CAISO tariff design and federal oversight—changes likely require FERC approval and complex cost‑causation analysis. Second, defining which usage qualifies as “industrial transition” or “flexible” is nontrivial: regulators would need metrics, measurement windows, and anti‑gaming rules to avoid load shifting that simply reclassifies peak demand as off‑peak without reducing system stress.
Third, the bill highlights potential rate savings if new electrified load pays more than marginal cost, but it skirts how to protect customers who cannot shift load. Any reallocation that lowers off‑peak rates for flexible users could raise transmission unit charges for others, creating equity and competitiveness issues.
Lastly, the leakage constraint the bill cites creates a policy trade‑off: policies that reduce in‑state emissions but raise industrial costs can push production—and emissions—out of state. Translating intent into durable, equitable tariffs will require careful modeling of system costs, regional competitiveness, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure claimed emissions reductions are real and retained in California.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.