California Senate Bill 100

California Senate Bill 100 is a 2018 statute enacted by the California State Legislature that established ambitious renewable energy procurement targets and codified a timeline for renewable portfolio standard expansion in California. The measure was introduced by Kevin de León and signed into law by Jerry Brown, aligning state policy with broader climate initiatives promoted by actors such as Gavin Newsom and organizations including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club. The bill set legally binding goals, influenced regulatory bodies like the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission, and intersected with federal statutes administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Background and Legislative History

SB 100 originated amid growing legislative activity in the 2010s around climate policy following actions by Assembly Bill 32 proponents and litigation influenced by Juliana v. United States plaintiffs and advocacy from groups like the Environmental Defense Fund. The bill referenced prior targets from statutes such as Senate Bill 1078 and Senate Bill 350, and emerged from policy debates involving stakeholders including Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and municipal utilities like the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Hearings were held before committees chaired by legislators from districts represented by members such as Toni Atkins and Anthony Rendon, with testimony from researchers affiliated with Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Negotiations included labor interests represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and industry groups like the California Chamber of Commerce.

Provisions and Targets

SB 100 codified a mandate that increases the renewable portfolio standard target year milestones culminating in a 100 percent zero-carbon retail electricity goal by 2045 for California. The law specified interim targets reflecting prior statutes and directed regulatory action by the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission, referencing emissions accounting influenced by protocols from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments and modeling approaches used by National Renewable Energy Laboratory. It addressed procurement obligations for investor-owned utilities including Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison as well as community choice aggregators such as Marin Clean Energy and Sonoma Clean Power. Provisions included criteria for qualifying resources covering solar power projects like those developed by Sunrun and First Solar, wind power installations operated by developers affiliated with AES Corporation, geothermal energy from fields near The Geysers, and energy storage projects including batteries provided by firms like Tesla, Inc. and LG Chem.

Implementation and Enforcement

Implementation responsibilities fell primarily to the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission, with enforcement mechanisms involving compliance filings, procurement plans, and integrated resource planning processes. Utilities submitted procurement plans subject to review by commissioners such as Michael Picker and staff including analysts formerly of California Independent System Operator. The bill required coordination with grid operators like the California Independent System Operator and engagement with regional entities including the Western Electricity Coordinating Council and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. Funding and incentive programs intersected with programs run by agencies such as the California Air Resources Board and ratepayer-funded mechanisms overseen by the California Public Utilities Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates. Implementation drew on modeling tools developed by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. and academic teams at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of California, Davis.

Impact and Outcomes

SB 100 accelerated deployment of utility-scale projects such as solar arrays in Antelope Valley and wind farms in Altamont Pass, increased procurement by utilities including Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and supported growth of community choice aggregators like CleanPowerSF. The statute influenced investment flows from entities including BlackRock and project developers such as NextEra Energy Resources, stimulated job creation tracked by California Employment Development Department, and affected emissions trajectories reported by the California Air Resources Board. Grid integration challenges prompted increased deployment of energy storage projects and transmission upgrades overseen by the California Independent System Operator and regional planners including the California Independent System Operator Corporation's stakeholders. Academic studies from Stanford University and University of California, Berkeley analyzed cost impacts and reliability outcomes, while market responses involved rate decisions by the California Public Utilities Commission and procurement filings by Southern California Edison.

Controversies and Legal Challenges

SB 100 generated disputes involving labor groups like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers over workforce transition, energy companies such as Chevron Corporation and ExxonMobil questioning economic impacts, and municipalities including Bakersfield raising concerns about local reliability. Legal challenges and administrative appeals invoked forums such as the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California in matters relating to statutory interpretation and environmental review, with amici including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pacific Legal Foundation. Conflicts with federal policy under administrations represented by Donald Trump led to debates involving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and federal agencies such as the Department of Energy. Litigation considered issues like procurement authority for community choice aggregators exemplified by cases involving Sonoma Clean Power and disputes over procurement contracts with developers like AES Corporation. Regulatory proceedings before the California Public Utilities Commission and oversight by the California Energy Commission continued to shape enforcement responses and remedial measures.

Category:California legislation