WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 541

An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, in school safety and security, providing for panic alerts.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Rosemary Brown and 10 co-sponsors

Requires California to analyze and publish cost-effective load shifting, estimate each retailer's potential, and report supplier achievements to cut peak costs and rates.

Referred to Education
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 541

SB 541 (Becker) — Electricity: Load Shifting

Status: Action postponed indefinitely
Introduced: February 20, 2025
Subject area: Public peace, health, safety & welfare / Energy

Main purpose

SB 541 would direct the California Energy Commission (CEC), working with the CPUC, CAISO and other balancing authorities, to improve the state’s analysis, transparency, and planning around “load shifting” — the practice of changing when electricity is consumed (for example via smart thermostats, managed EV charging, water heaters, customer storage, and pumping loads) to reduce net peak demand. The bill aims to identify cost‑effective load‑flexibility programs, estimate supplier‑level potential, and publish supplier achievements so load flexibility can be better leveraged to reduce peak-driven infrastructure costs and lower consumer rates.

Key provisions

  • Adds requirements to Public Resources Code §25302.7 for the CEC to:
    • In the next update to the biennial Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) after January 1, 2027, analyze the cost‑effectiveness of specific load‑flexibility programs and other load‑shifting interventions, and identify:
    • the approximate amount of load shifting contributed by each intervention toward the statewide 2030 load‑shift goal, and
    • the cost‑effectiveness of each intervention and evaluated program.
    • As part of each IEPR, estimate each retail supplier’s load‑shifting potential, taking into account factors such as: share of statewide load, service‑territory limitations, cost‑effectiveness, and other relevant considerations.
    • On or before July 1, 2028, and biennially thereafter, analyze and publish the amount of load shifting each retail supplier achieved in the prior calendar year.
  • Legislative findings (included in the bill) underscore: grid peak sizing drives capital investment; significant unused capacity exists off peak; studies estimate substantial MW potential (CAISO could support ~5,900 MW outside the top 1% of hours; CEC estimated ~7,000 MW achievable by 2030); load flexibility could save consumers ~$550 million/year by 2035 per The Brattle Group study.

Who would be affected

  • State agencies: California Energy Commission (primary implementer), in consultation with the Public Utilities Commission and CAISO and other balancing authorities.
  • Retail suppliers and load‑serving entities: investor‑owned utilities, community choice aggregators, and publicly owned utilities (subject to any reporting/analysis obligations and public comparison of achieved load shifting).
  • Program administrators, aggregators, and technology providers of demand response, managed charging, and distributed resources.
  • Ratepayers and participating consumers: potential benefits from lower system costs and incentives for flexibility; transparency could influence program targeting and funding.

Timeline & procedural notes

  • Introduced Feb 20, 2025.
  • Required analytic deliverables tied to calendar/IEPR milestones:
    • Next IEPR after Jan 1, 2027: cost‑effectiveness analysis and contributions toward 2030 load‑shift goal.
    • By July 1, 2028, and biennially thereafter: public reports on supplier‑level achieved load shifting for the prior year.
  • Fiscal/committee flags: no appropriation; referred to fiscal committee review.
  • Current legislative status: action postponed indefinitely (bill did not advance).

Potential impact and considerations

  • Positive effects: would improve evidence base and transparency for cost‑effective load‑shifting strategies, inform utility planning and distribution needs, guide targeted incentives, and help capture distribution‑level benefits (e.g., faster energization of new connections).
  • Implementation challenges: attributing how much load shift is due to specific programs or to particular retail suppliers; data collection and standardization across entities; methodological choices (baseline definitions, exclusion of emergency programs); potential confidentiality/competitive issues.
  • No funding provided in the bill; CEC and partners would need resources and data access to carry out detailed supplier‑level analyses.

Bottom line: SB 541 sought to make California’s energy planning more granular and program‑oriented for load flexibility by requiring the Energy Commission to quantify cost‑effective interventions and to score retail suppliers’ potential and performance — but the measure was stalled (action postponed indefinitely).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.