SB 978: Data centers: labor: electricity rates.

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law authorizes the PUC to fix the rates and charges for every public utility and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable.

This bill would require the PUC to establish a special rate structure for data centers, as defined, taking transmission level electrical service with an estimated peak demand of at least 75 megawatts of electricity to, among other things, protect other customers of electrical corporations, prohibit cost shifts to those other customers, and require data centers to pay for the electrical corporations’ upfront costs of transmission or distribution infrastructure upgrades necessary for the provision of electrical service to the data centers. The bill would require the construction of data centers subject to the special rate structure to comply with certain labor requirements.

Existing law establishes the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 90% of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2035, 95% by December 31, 2040, and 100% by December 31, 2045. Existing law requires the PUC, the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, and the State Air Resources Board, in consultation with all California balancing authorities, to annually issue a joint report related to meeting that state policy.

This bill would require that the joint report also includes the impacts of data centers subject to the special rate structure on the state’s ability to achieve the above-described state policy.

Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime.

Because the provisions of the bill would be part of the act and a violation of a PUC action implementing the bill’s requirements would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 8

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

1. May 14, 2026May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
2. May 8, 2026Set for hearing May 14.
3. April 20, 2026April 20 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
4. April 10, 2026Set for hearing April 20.
5. April 8, 2026From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 1. Page 3794.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
6. March 26, 2026Set for hearing April 8.
7. March 23, 2026Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.
8. March 19, 2026From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on L., P.E. & R. (Ayes 12. Noes 4. Page 3588.) (March 17).
9. March 9, 2026From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on E., U & C.
10. March 9, 2026Set for hearing March 17.
11. February 11, 2026Referred to Coms. on E., U & C. and L., P.E. & R.
12. February 5, 2026From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 7.