Electricity and natural gas: legislation imposing mandated programs and requirements: third-party review.

The cost impact analysis requirement (Section 3261(b)(1)(A)) was expanded from a single item about rate increases into seven detailed sub-items: whether costs increase or decrease for ratepayers, impact on total service cost, cost shifting to other ratepayers (public and private), effect on access to currently available service, whether the required activity is generally used by a significant portion of the population, whether it is already generally available, and the level of public demand.

A new requirement was added that legislation must be provided to the council at the time the request for analysis is made, rather than being a separate procedural detail.

The provision on who may request an analysis was restructured into an explicit list limited to: the chairperson or staff of the appropriate policy committee, the chairperson or staff of the appropriate fiscal committee, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the President pro Tempore of the Senate. The word 'only' was added to make this an exclusive list.

The term 'electrical or gas ratepayers' in the operative text was changed to 'electrical or natural gas ratepayers,' adding the word 'natural' for precision.

The deadline for CCST to establish the program was clarified from 'January March 1, 2027' (a prior correction artifact) to simply 'March 1, 2027.'

The deadline for the Council to establish the ratepayer analysis program was extended from January 1, 2027 to March 1, 2027, giving the agency two additional months.

Subsection (F) was changed from asking whether the legislation is 'the most cost-effective and appropriate means to achieve the desired outcomes' to simply requiring 'analysis of the costs and benefits of the legislation in relation to its intended outcomes.' This removes a prescriptive evaluative standard in favor of a more neutral analytical requirement.

Subsection (G) was changed from asking 'whether funding sources other than the ratepayers... could be more appropriately used' to requiring 'analysis of available funding sources for the mandated program or requirement.' This removes language implying ratepayers may not be the appropriate funding source and replaces it with a neutral listing of options.

Senate coauthors (Dahle, Hurtado, Ochoa Bogh, Strickland) and additional Assembly coauthors (Alvarez, Avila Farias, Michelle Rodriguez) were added, indicating broader legislative support for the bill.

The program must now be established 'upon appropriation by the Legislature,' meaning CCST is not obligated to build the analysis program unless the Legislature actually allocates budget funds for it. This adds a significant funding gate that was absent in the introduced version.

Subsection (F) was changed from asking 'whether the legislation is the most cost-effective and appropriate means' (a judgment question implying ratepayer programs may be inappropriate) to requiring 'the analysis of the costs and benefits of the legislation in relation to its intended outcomes.' The amended language is more neutral and does not presuppose that ratepayer funding is the wrong choice.

Subsection (G) was changed from asking 'whether funding sources other than ratepayers...could be more appropriately used' (implying ratepayers should not bear the cost) to requiring 'the analysis of available funding sources for the mandated program or requirement.' The amended version simply requires listing and analyzing options without suggesting ratepayer funding is inappropriate. A specific statutory citation for CalFresh was also added.

Section 1(c) contains a drafting error where 'assist' was changed to 'assist inform' (double verb). This appears to be an unintentional typo in the amendment.