219 of 237
Agenda Date: 8/18/2026
applicable government code (Attachment C).
▪ The Public Financing Authority holds the second required public hearing, currently scheduled for August 12, 2026, to adopt the IFP and Resolution of Formation of the West Sonoma County Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District.
▪ Before December 1, 2026, the County files the jurisdictional boundary change for the WSC-EIFD with the California State Board of Equalization to capture FY 2025-2026 as the base year and allocation of tax increment beginning in FY 2027-2028.
▪ County tax increment distributions are expected to begin July 1, 2027. Please see Fiscal Summary below for details on the full fiscal impact to the County during the term of the EIFD and the estimated potential positive impact.
Information about the WSC-EIFD has been posted on a dedicated website <https://sonomacounty.gov/administrative-support-and-fiscal-services/county-executives-office/strategicinitiatives/west-sonoma-county-enhanced-infrastructure-financing-district>.
OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING OPTIONS
At the Board's request, staff prepared an overview of financing mechanisms that may be available to support public infrastructure investment outside of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). Attachment D provides a general overview of financing mechanisms authorized under California law that may be used to support transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, flood control facilities, parks, libraries, public facilities, climate resilience projects, and other public improvements.
Financing Category Primary Revenue Source Typical Use Key Consideration Financing Districts Assessments, special
taxes, fees, charges
Infrastructure and
services within a defined
area
Formation process required
and may require voter
approval or an Engineer’s
Report
Debt Financing Bonds, Lease payments,
repayment source for
bonds, dedicated taxes
Major capital projects Creates long-term
repayment obligations;
generally, require either
voter approval or pledged
assets
Short-Term Financing Anticipated revenues or
grants
Cash flow and project
timing needs
Temporary financing, not
permanent funding
Grants State and federal funding
programs
Broad range of
infrastructure projects
Competitive and not
guaranteed
Generally, four categories of financing mechanisms are available to local governments that can be summarized as: district-based financing tools, debt financing, short-term financing, and grants. The following is a high-level overview of each financing mechanism. Whether a particular financing mechanism is appropriate for a certain project will need to be evaluated on a case-by case-basis.
District-based financing tools include Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts (CFDs or Mello-Roos Districts), Community Services Districts (CSDs), County Service Areas (CSAs), and Special Road Maintenance Districts. These mechanisms generally generate revenue through assessments, special taxes, service charges,
220 of 237
Agenda Date: 8/18/2026
or other locally authorized funding sources and may be used to finance infrastructure improvements or ongoing services within defined geographic areas.
Debt financing mechanisms that may be available to support capital projects include General Obligation (GO) bond financing, Certificates of Participation (COPs), lease-revenue bonds, California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) financing, and financing supported by dedicated revenue sources. These tools may provide access to capital for infrastructure investments but generally require an identified repayment source and may create long-term financial obligations.
Short-term financing mechanisms may be used to address timing differences between project expenditures and anticipated revenues, including Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANs), Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs), and revolving credit facilities.
State and federal grants remain an important component of infrastructure financing because they can reduce reliance on local revenues and debt financing. Sonoma County Public Infrastructure has successfully secured grant funding for a variety of projects, including transportation infrastructure, emergency resiliency facilities, library improvements, and public building upgrades. Current and recent examples include the Asti Bridge Project, Community Emergency Resiliency Centers, Guerneville Library Improvements, Cloverdale Veterans Building Improvements, Petaluma Hill Road Bike Lane Project, and the Moorland-Bellevue Safe Routes to School Project.
No single financing mechanism is appropriate for all infrastructure projects. The suitability of a financing tool depends on project characteristics, available revenues, geographic considerations, voter approval requirements, legal constraints, and long-term fiscal impacts. In many cases, infrastructure projects rely on a combination of local financing tools, debt financing, and grant funding.
Financing mechanisms that rely on borrowing or the pledge of future revenues may affect the County's future borrowing capacity and financial flexibility. Any future consideration of a financing mechanism would require project-specific evaluation of revenue sources, affordability, debt service obligations, legal requirements, and policy objectives. Attachment D provides additional information on these and other infrastructure financing mechanisms.
CUMULATIVE GENERAL FUND IMPACT OF EIFDS
The Board requested an analysis of the cumulative impacts of EIFDs on the County General Fund to understand the level of General Fund commitment relative to projected property-tax growth. Staff’s analysis does not evaluate whether any single EIFD is worthwhile; it evaluates the implications of dedicating a share of future County General Fund property-tax growth through a portfolio of EIFD scenarios. A key fiscal question is how much future flexibility the County would trade for a dedicated infrastructure funding source.
Model Assumptions
Staff developed a simple model to estimate the portion of future General Fund property-tax growth that would be dedicated to infrastructure in active, proposed, and potential EIFD areas. For purposes of interpreting the summary results, key assumptions are as follows:
221 of 237
Agenda Date: 8/18/2026
1. Base Year: FY 2025-26 as the base year
2. County Contribution: 25% of County General Fund property-tax increment from within the boundaries of the EIFD, net of the County’s mandatory contribution to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF), in each scenario.
3. Time Period and Discount Rate: General Fund commitment measured over a 50-year period, with present-value amounts calculated using a 3% discount rate.
4. % of Total County Assessed Value of Current and Contemplated EIFD Scenarios: Total EIFD areas represent approximately 13.7% of countywide total assessed value, with breakdown for each scenario as follows: Santa Rosa EIFD (1.0%), West County EIFD (6.0%), Unincorporated Sonoma Valley (1.4%), City of Sonoma (3.8%), Cotati/Rohnert Park (0.9%), City of Sebastopol (0.6%).
5. Property Tax Revenue Growth: 3% annual growth in assessed value and property-tax revenue
6. General Fund Expenditure Growth: 3.2% annual growth
Analysis
This analysis serves as a cumulative exposure screen, not an approval analysis for every EIFD, since some areas have adopted or defined boundaries while others are preliminary or whole-city assumptions. In that context, the modeled results show the scale of the long-term commitment, how that commitment grows as additional EIFDs are added, and the trade-off between dedicating future growth for infrastructure and preserving flexible General Fund dollars for baseline services, reserves, emergencies, and future policy choices.
Under the full combined scenario for all current and contemplated EIFD scenarios, EIFD areas represent 13.7% of countywide assessed value. The combined commitment of future County General Fund revenue dedicated to EIFDs is estimated at $639.4 million over 50 years, or $233.9 million in present-value terms. The 50-year total reflects the nominal amount of future revenue that would be set aside over the life of the commitments.
The table below shows the percentage of assessed value (AV) for each EIFD scenario, the status of each scenario, and the cumulative increment to the EIFD scenarios.
Cumulative Increment to EIFDs at end of Years 10 and 50 EIFD Scenario Status Share of
Countywide
Assessed Value
of EIFD Area
Cumulative
Increment at
Year 10
Cumulative
Increment at
Year 50
Present Value
@ 3% Year 50
% of Total
County
Increment
Santa Rosa Fully formed 1.0% $0.5 M $39.2 M $13.8 M 0.19% West County Formation
pending
6.0% $8.4 M $307.3 M $112.7 M 1.50%
Unincorporated
Sonoma Valley
In discussion 1.4% $2.0 M $71.7 M $26.30 M 0.35%
City of Sonoma In discussion 3.8% $4.1 M $151.8 M $55.66 M 0.74% City of Cotati Council
approved
Resolution of
Intent
0.2% $0.2M $9.1M $3.35M 0.04%
City of Rohnert Park Initial
conversations
0.7% $1.1 M $41.1 M $15.09 M 0.16%
Sebastopol Previous
discussion, but
on hold
0.6% $0.8 M $28.2 M $10.34 M 0.14%
TOTAL 13.7% $16.9 M $639.4 M $233.9 M 3.12%
222 of 237
Agenda Date: 8/18/2026
City of Sonoma In discussion 3.8% $4.1 M $151.8 M $55.66 M 0.74% City of Cotati Council
approved
Resolution of
Intent
0.2% $0.2M $9.1M $3.35M 0.04%
City of Rohnert Park Initial
conversations
0.7% $1.1 M $41.1 M $15.09 M 0.16%
Sebastopol Previous
discussion, but
on hold
0.6% $0.8 M $28.2 M $10.34 M 0.14%
TOTAL 13.7% $16.9 M $639.4 M $233.9 M 3.12%
The most useful affordability signal is the share of future growth being committed. Relative to projected growth, the full scenario would commit approximately 3.12% of future County property-tax increment. By Year 50, the annual set-aside reaches 2.17% of projected County General Fund property-tax revenue estimated at $1.508 billion, and 0.77% of modeled General Fund expenditures in that year, estimated at $4.34 billion.
While this suggests that the portfolio is manageable in broad percentage terms, the commitment is not costfree. The percentage does not define the General Fund outlook by itself; however, it is large enough to affect budget capacity in future years, particularly when ongoing revenues are needed to maintain current services, add staffing, rebuild reserves, respond to emergencies, or absorb cost increases.
The fiscal effect increases over time. The table below shows annual tax increment to EIFDs in Years 10 and 50 for each area. The annual set-aside for all areas is estimated at $3.35 million in Year 10 and $32.7 million in Year 50. Because property-tax increment compounds over time, the budgetary impact may be limited in the early years but becomes more visible as assessed value growth accumulates.
Annual Tax Increment to EIFDs in Years 10 and 50
EIFD Area Share of Countywide Assessed
Value in EIFD Areas
Year 10 Year 50
Santa Rosa 1.0% $0.23 M $2.00 M
West County 6.0% $1.60 M $15.71 M
Unincorporated Sonoma Valley 1.4% $0.37 M $3.67 M
City of Sonoma 3.8% $0.79 M $7.76 M
City of Cotati 0.2% $0.05M $0.47M
City of Rohnert Park 0.9% $0.17 M $1.64 M
City of Sebastopol 0.6% $0.15 M $1.44 M
TOTAL 13.7% $3.35 M $32.7 M
The cumulative General Fund impact analysis offers an opportunity for the Board to consider revisions to the County’s EIFD Policy (Attachment E). Options for revision could include:
· Require proposed EIFDs be evaluated against a portfolio-level limit, such as share of future County increment, Year 50 annual exposure, and share of projected General Fund expenditures.
223 of 237
Agenda Date: 8/18/2026
· Establish a contribution limit or maximum participation percentage. · Require cumulative exposure to be updated before adding new EIFDs or changing County participation terms.
· Require staff to identify whether the commitment could conflict with reserve policy, structural balance, or known baseline service pressures.
The possible policy revisions could give the Board a consistent way to test cumulative exposure before additional future General Fund growth is pledged.
Other EIFD Exploration
City of Cotati
On April 1, 2026, Councilmembers and staff from the City of Cotati (Cotati) and the City of Rohnert Park (Rohnert Park) met with the County to share their interest in seeking the County’s participation in a multijurisdiction EIFD. Cotati and Rohnert Park staff shared a preliminary feasibility analysis including potential EIFD boundaries and projects.
On June 23, 2026, the Cotati City Council adopted a resolution declaring its intention to establish the Cotati EIFD and the Cotati EIFD Public Financing Authority (PFA). On July 13, 2026, Cotati and Rohnert Park staff met with County Executive’s Office staff to provide an update, specifically that the Cities are not pursuing a joint EIFD but will seek the County’s participation in separate EIFDs. Cotati has submitted the fiscal impact analysis required by the County’s EIFD policy. If the Board approves County participation, the Cotati’s interests are to capture FY 26-27 as the base year and to formally establish the Cotati EIFD by March 2027.
Staff seeks the Board’s input and direction on next steps, specifically to engage a consultant to independently assess Cotati’s EIFD fiscal impact analysis and to provide resource capacity for other anticipated EIFD consulting needs. If approved, staff recommends the Board adopt a budget resolution (Attachment E) to appropriate $75,000 from District Formation Funds for these EIFD consulting services.
Should the Board choose to move forward with Cotati EIFD exploration, staff also recommends the Board appoint a Supervisor to the Cotati EIFD Public Financing Authority (PFA) and direct staff to proceed with the process to appoint the County’s public member to the Cotati EIFD PFA. If the Board approves moving forward, staff will work with Cotati City staff to develop a timeline and next steps.
City of Rohnert Park
Rohnert Park staff anticipates its Council will consider adopting a resolution to establish the Rohnert Park EIFD and the Rohnert Park EIFD Public Financing Authority (PFA) by the end of October and expects to submit the associated fiscal impact analysis shortly thereafter for Board consideration. When received, CEO staff will bring an item to the Board with recommended actions similar to today’s actions related to the Cotati EIFD: direction and funding to independently assess the City’s EIFD fiscal impact analysis, Board Supervisor and public member PFA appointment, and defining next steps.
Sonoma Valley
EIFD exploration in Sonoma Valley began early in 2024 by then District 1 Supervisor Gorin. CEO staff presented a brief overview of EIFDs to the Sonoma City Council on August 7, 2024. In late August 2024, staff conducted
224 of 237
Agenda Date: 8/18/2026
an informal solicitation process to procure the services of an EIFD consultant, funded with District 1 funds previously allocated by the Board from District Formation funds. The current contract expires December 31, 2026.
The County’s EIFD consultant presented a more detailed overview to the City Council on August 20, 2025.
County and City staff have since had multiple discussions to inform the consultant’s preliminary feasibility analysis and potential EIFD boundaries. Discussions are ongoing and the analysis has not yet been presented to the City Council.
City of Sebastopol
Exploration of a Sebastopol/County EIFD began on January 23, 2024. The Board received an update on this exploration on February 11, 2025. At the June 3, 2025 update to the Board, staff shared that Sebastopol/County discussions pivoted to two separate EIFDs, one focused only on unincorporated areas in West Sonoma County. After this update, County staff were informed that Sebastopol was pausing its exploration to address other City priorities, though the Council approved a resolution of intention to establish the Sebastopol EIFD on December 2, 2025.
On August 4, 2026, the Council approved a consulting agreement for financing district advisory services to restart its EIFD exploration process. The City is considering a change to the Sebastopol EIFD boundaries that includes County unincorporated areas. If an updated fiscal impact analysis is submitted, CEO staff will coordinate with the City Manager on next steps.
City of Cloverdale
At the time of writing Supervisor Gore and CEO staff are scheduled to meet with Cloverdale Mayor Brian Wheeler and City Manager Kevin Thompson to discuss EIFD possibilities for Cloverdale and the County. At the Supervisor’s request, staff initiated an RFI process to identify an EIFD consultant to support further exploration. The consulting services contract will be funded by District 4 funds previously approved by the Board.
Strategic Plan:
N/A
Racial Equity:
Was this item identified as an opportunity to apply the Racial Equity Toolkit? No
Prior Board Actions:
April 14, 2026 - Board received a preview of the Draft Infrastructure Financing Plan for the proposed West Sonoma County EIFD; provided direction to staff on the Draft Infrastructure Financing Plan; adopted the Resolution approving the Conflict of Interest Code for the Public Financing Authority of the West Sonoma County EIFD; authorized $75,000 from District Formation Funds for the required notifications to property owners and residents within the West Sonoma County EIFD and state Board of Equalization filing package, if the EIFD is fully formed; and adopted a budget resolution authorizing a budgetary adjustment to the FY 25-26
225 of 237
Agenda Date: 8/18/2026
in the amount of $50,000.
October 14, 2025 - Board received the final fiscal impact analysis for the proposed West Sonoma County EIFD (WSC-EIFD), adopted a Resolution of Intention to establish the WSC-EIFD and the Public Financing Authority, and funding to support establishing the WSC-EIFD.
June 3, 2025 - Board received a preliminary West Sonoma County EIFD feasibility analysis and directed staff to return with a final analysis.
February 11, 2025 - Board received an update on City/County EIFD discussions and approved funding for the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis for the proposed West Sonoma County EIFD.
January 23, 2024 - Board approved a $50,000 grant agreement with the City of Sebastopol for consulting services to evaluate the feasibility of an EIFD encompassing the City and unincorporated West County.
FISCAL SUMMARY
Expenditures FY26-27
Adopted
FY27-28
Projected
FY28-29
Projected
Budgeted Expenses
Additional Appropriation Requested $75,000
Total Expenditures $75,000
Funding Sources
General Fund/WA GF
State/Federal
Fees/Other
Use of Fund Balance/District Formation $75,000
General Fund Contingencies
Total Sources $75,000
Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts:
The current unallocated fund balance of the District Formation Fund is approximately $645,000.
If the West Sonoma County EIFD IFP is approved by the Board and the IFP subsequently adopted by the PFA and the EIFD created, the total number of tax dollars that may be allocated to the District (by the County, as the only affected taxing entity) shall not exceed $400,000,000 (nominal dollars) over the District lifetime. This cap is intended to provide capacity for future financings in a scenario where actual revenues exceed projections. This includes the County’s incremental standard “AB8” property tax (general fund apportionment), but not the County’s incremental property tax in lieu of motor vehicle license fees (MVLF).
The West Sonoma County EIFD fiscal impact analysis to the County General Fund is described in detail in the Final IFP (Attachment A). Over 50 years, District activity will generate a positive net fiscal impact of approximately $26.3 million for the County on a present value basis. The analysis is based on assumed new development, including limited new hospitality and commercial development, which would be expected to generate hotel transient occupancy tax (TOT), sales tax, and other new fiscal revenues.
226 of 237
Agenda Date: 8/18/2026
Ongoing administration costs are estimated in the range of $25,000 to $40,000, with expectations that such costs would increase with inflation during the EIFD lifetime. Administration costs refer to the actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of the West Sonoma County EIFD, including, but not limited to, the following: the costs of computing annual tax increment revenues and preparing the required annual reporting; the costs of allocation tax increment revenues; the costs to the West Sonoma County EIFD, or any designee thereof in complying with disclosure requirements; and the costs associated with preparing required disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries regarding the West Sonoma County EIFD. Administration costs shall also include amounts estimated or advanced by the County for any other administrative purposes, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees or any other expenses incidental to the implementation of the West Sonoma County EIFD.
Staffing Impacts:
Position Title (Payroll Classification) Monthly Salary Range (A-I Step)
Additions
(Number)
Deletions
(Number)
Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):
None
Attachments:
A. West Sonoma County EIFD Final Infrastructure Financing Plan B. Resolution to Approve the West Sonoma County EIFD Infrastructure Financing Plan and the Allocation of the County Incremental Tax Revenue to the West Sonoma County EIFD C. Government Code Section 53398.54 Certification Letter by the County of Sonoma D. Alternative Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms
E. Budget Resolution
F. County EIFD Policy
G. Presentation
Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:
227 of 237
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: CONSIDER SUPPORTING AB 1761 (RODGERS) - IMPROVING
PCIA TRANSPARENCY
Date: August 25, 2026
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, authorize the Mayor to sign and send a final version of the attached letter to Governor Newsom, in support of Assembly Bill 1761.
Background
On August 19, 2026, the Chief Executive Officer (Geof Syphers) of Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) sent a request to SCP Board members, asking for their cities and the County of Sonoma to consider supporting AB 1761. The Sonoma County Mayors & Councilmembers Association legislative committee, as well as Cal Cities, have previously taken a position of support on AB 1761.
AB 1761 is authored by local assembly member and former City of Santa Rosa City Councilmember, Chris Rodgers.
Analysis/Discussion
According to the request by Geof Syphers, the following is the summary of the need for AB 1761, what it would do, and related timing considerations.
The statewide association of Community Choice Aggregators (CalCCA), of which SCP is a member, is sponsoring AB 1761 to shed more light on how the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) is calculated. This is a fee that all residents – not just SCP customers – pay to investor-owned utilities (such as PG&E) on their electric bills. PCIA charges can fluctuate wildly year-over-year with significant affordability impacts. Currently, this fee is calculated in 228 of 237
secret, and advocates for the public interest have essentially no way of knowing how the final amount was determined or whether it is accurate.
AB 1761 is intended to increase transparency around how the PCIA fee is set. (For more information, please see attached fact sheet.) Unfortunately, the investor-owned utilities are strongly opposing the bill, and there is significant concern that Governor Newsom could veto it.
The bill will be on the Governor’s desk by the end of August, and then he has until the end of September to sign or veto it.
CalCCA is asking all member cities and counties to consider supporting this legislation as part of a broader push to get it signed into law. Specifically, the request is for support from as many individual cities and counties as possible over the next few weeks. A template support letter is attached. Support letters would ideally go in by the end of August or the first few days of September at the latest.
Financial Considerations
Supporting AB 1761 does not have any direct financial impact.
Environmental Issues
Where it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review.
This general rule can be applied to activities which could be subject to the CEQA process, but which logic dictates should not be subject to CEQA review. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the proposed action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 14.03.021 of the CEQA Guidelines in that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant impact on the environment.
229 of 237
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 13, 2026
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 19, 2026
california legislature—2025–26 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1761
Introduced by Assembly Member Rogers
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Bauer-Kahan, Boerner, Connolly, Petrie-Norris, and Ward)
(Coauthor: Senator Arreguín)
February 9, 2026
An act to add Section 365.4 to the Public Utilities Code, relating to electricity.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1761, as amended, Rogers. Electricity: calculation methodology:
nonbypassable charges: data disclosure.
Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law authorizes the commission 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 commission to ensure that all data serving as a basis for any decision or ruling issued by the commission, or in any proposal or analysis provided by commission staff, for the determination or application of a calculation methodology for any nonbypassable charge imposed on customers of a load-serving entity to recover costs associated with contracts, electrical corporation-owned generation, or any other resource or value included in that charge and any other charge derived from those costs, is made available to
97 230 of 237
load-serving entities and ratepayer advocates on behalf of customers.
The bill would require the commission to require an electrical corporation corporation, member association, load-serving entity, or other party, in submitting a proposal or analysis for the determination or application of a calculation methodology for any nonbypasssable charge imposed on customers of a load-serving entity to recover costs associated with contracts, electrical corporation-owned generation, or any other resource or value included in that charge and any other charge derived from those costs, to make all data serving as a basis for that proposal or analysis available to load-serving entities and ratepayer advocates on behalf of customers. The bill would require that the data exclude any information that can reasonably be used to identify an individual, family, household, residence, or nonresidential customer.
The bill would require that the data to meet specified requirements, including that it is made available through a public disclosure, except for market-sensitive data, as provided.
Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime.
Because the above prohibition provisions would be a part of the act, and because a violation of a commission action implementing the above prohibition provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 365.4 is added to the Public Utilities line 2 Code, to read:
line 3 365.4. (a) The commission shall ensure that all data serving line 4 as a basis for any decision or ruling issued by the commission, or line 5 in any proposal or analysis provided by commission staff, for the line 6 determination or application of a calculation methodology for any line 7 nonbypassable charge imposed on customers of a load-serving 97 AB 1761 — 2 —
231 of 237
line 1 entity to recover costs associated with contracts, electrical line 2 corporation-owned generation, or any other resource or value line 3 included in that charge and any other charge derived from those line 4 costs, is made available to load-serving entities and ratepayer line 5 advocates on behalf of customers.
line 6 (b) The commission shall require an electrical corporation line 7 corporation, member association, load-serving entity, or other line 8 party, in submitting a proposal or analysis for the determination line 9 or application of a calculation methodology for any nonbypassable line 10 charge imposed on customers of a load-serving entity to recover line 11 costs associated with contracts, electrical corporation-owned line 12 generation, or any other resource or value included in that charge line 13 and any other charge derived from those costs, to make all data line 14 serving as a basis for that proposal or analysis available to line 15 load-serving entities and ratepayer advocates on behalf of line 16 customers.
line 17 (c) For purposes of subdivisions (a) and (b), a the data shall line 18 exclude any information that can reasonably be used to identify line 19 an individual, family, household, residence, or nonresidential line 20 customer. A charge imposed on customers of a load-serving entity line 21 includes any charge determined or applied pursuant to subdivision line 22 (f), (g), or (h) of Section 366.2, and any other nonbypassable charge line 23 authorized by the commission to recover the costs of contracts or line 24 resources procured for the benefit of bundled customers, and line 25 collected from unbundled customers, regardless of whether the line 26 charge is expressly enumerated in those subdivisions. line 27 (d) Data provided pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b) shall meet line 28 all of the following requirements:
line 29 (1) It shall be made through a public disclosure, except for line 30 market-sensitive data, which shall be made through disclosure to line 31 a nonmarket participant reviewing representative pursuant to the line 32 terms of a reasonable, commission-approved nondisclosure line 33 agreement.
line 34 (2) It shall be made available to load-serving entities and line 35 ratepayer advocates concurrent with any proposal or analyses from line 36 the electrical corporation, the commission’s staff, a member line 37 association, a load-serving entity, or any other party, or any line 38 commission-adopted decision or ruling. This requirement may be line 39 met through adoption of data sharing practices mutually agreed to line 40 by parties at the outset of a proceeding.
97 — 3 — AB 1761
232 of 237
line 1 (3) It shall be made available in native file format. line 2 (e) A failure to comply with this section, or the identification line 3 of good faith errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in data disclosed line 4 pursuant to this section, shall not, by itself, invalidate, impair, stay, line 5 or otherwise affect the validity of any calculation methodology, line 6 charge, decision, or ruling adopted by the commission, unless the line 7 failure, good faith error, omission, or inaccuracy constitutes one line 8 or more of the grounds specified in Section 1757 or 1757.1. line 9 (f) For purposes of this section, “load-serving entity” has the line 10 same meaning as defined in Section 380.
line 11 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 12 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 13 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school line 14 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or line 15 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty line 16 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of line 17 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within line 18 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California line 19 Constitution.
O
97 AB 1761 — 4 —
233 of 237
Assembly Bill 1761 – Improving Energy Bill Transparency Updated: February 18, 2026
Assemblymember Chris Rogers, 2
nd Assembly District
Bill Summary
AB 1761 improves transparency to how the Power Charge
Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), a charge on nearly all
energy bills, is calculated.
Background
Electricity bills in California are on the rise, in part due to challenging market conditions and outdated and
inefficient regulatory policies. Families and businesses are feeling the impact. Lawmakers and regulators need
practical, consumer-focused solutions that ensure
customers do not pay more than their fair share.
One tool to ensure customers receive energy bill that are fair and accurate is increased transparency in how PCIA charges are calculated. The PCIA is a fee designed to
ensure customers who leave utility generation service,
like customers of a Community Choice Aggregator
(CCA) or Energy Service Provider (ESP), pay their
portion of legacy power costs. But since the PCIA was
implemented, there has been no consistent standard for
what data must be made available in any California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) process or proceeding
where the PCIA, or a related charge, is set.
Problem
CCAs, ESPs, and their customers must pay the PCIA
charge but often lack access to the data, assumptions, and methods used to set it. This transparency problem leads to disputes, inefficiencies, and unexpected rate impacts for customers. More specifically:
• Disclosures vary by utility and by CPUC
proceeding, resulting in repeated fights between
CCAs and Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) over
data access and increased administrative
inefficiencies as the CPUC resolves disputes on a
case-by-case basis.
• Utilities sometimes make mistakes. In a 2019
PG&E proceeding, CalCCA identified $73
million in errors (including a $16 million increase
for CCA customers). In a recent proceeding,
PG&E identified an accounting error that would
have cost CCA customers $217 million.
• In an ongoing PCIA Rulemaking, the
Commission withheld information on the
evidence underlying their proposal and the rate
impacts of a proposed change. The CPUC did not
respond to a Public Records Act request for the
information.
Without adequate transparency, CCAs and ESPs are
unable to verify the accuracy of the PCIA charges that
their customers must pay and cannot confidently forecast rates – both of which are affordability tools needed to protect customers from unexpected rate increases.
Solution
AB 1761 proposes amending the Public Utilities Code to
require the CPUC and IOUs to disclose all data used to
calculate PCIA costs, including cost inputs, forecasting assumptions, and methodologies. The bill would also
ensure that when parties make proposals in a proceeding to change the PCIA they provide all the underlying data informing that proposal. Sensitive information would
remain protected through Commission-approved
nondisclosure agreements – a practice already used to
protect sensitive information in other compliance areas.
Greater transparency allows CCAs and ESPs to better
advocate for their customers and assess proposals to
change the PCIA. It also can inform cost forecasts and
shield customers from sudden rate swings. It reduces
repeated fights over information, improves regulatory
efficiency, and encourages utilities to verify calculations since the underlying data would be open to review. Costs to implement the proposal are miniscule, as most of this information already exists, while the benefits for rate, accuracy, stability, and consumer protection are
substantial. This proposal strengthens confidence that
customers pay their fair share — and not more.
For More Information:
Logan Pitts, Legislative Director
[email protected]
(916) 319-2002
Support
California Community Choice AssociationCalCCA(sponsor) 234 of 237
DATE
Governor Gavin Newsom
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 1761 (Rogers) - Support
Dear Governor Newsom:
On behalf of [Name], a member agency of [CCA], I write to support AB 1761 by Assemblymember Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa), a measure that supports energy affordability by improving transparency and certainty in how the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), a charge on nearly all energy bills, is calculated. [Information about your organization and its interest in the bill/issue area.] Electricity bills in California are on the rise, in part due to challenging market conditions and outdated and inefficient regulatory policies. Families and businesses in our community are feeling the impact.
Affordability is a key priority for [Name], and lawmakers and regulators need practical, consumerfocused solutions that ensure customers do not pay more than their fair share.
One tool to ensure customers receive energy bills that are fair and accurate is increased transparency in how PCIA charges are calculated. The PCIA is a fee designed to ensure customers who leave utility generation service, like customers of a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) or Energy Service Provider (ESP), pay their portion of legacy power costs. But since the PCIA was implemented, there has been no consistent standard for what data must be made available in any California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) process or proceeding where the PCIA or a related charge is set. Without adequate transparency, CCAs and ESPs are unable to verify the accuracy of the PCIA charges that their customers must pay and cannot confidently forecast rates – both of which are affordability tools needed to protect customers from unexpected rate increases. Additionally, the lack of consistent data creates costly disputes and inefficiencies in CPUC proceedings.
To address these problems, AB 1761 proposes amending the Public Utilities Code to require the CPUC and investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to disclose all data used to calculate PCIA costs, including cost inputs, forecasting assumptions, and methodologies. The bill would also ensure that when parties or the CPUC make proposals in a proceeding to change the PCIA, they provide all the underlying data informing that proposal. Sensitive information would remain protected through Commission-approved nondisclosure agreements, a practice already used to protect sensitive information in other compliance areas.
Greater transparency allows CCAs and ESPs to better advocate for their customers and assess proposals to change the PCIA. It reduces repeated fights over information, improves regulatory efficiency, and encourages utilities to verify calculations since the underlying data would be open to review. It can also inform cost forecasts and shield customers from sudden rate swings, an important issue for the residents and local businesses we serve.
235 of 237
For these reasons, [Name] strongly supports AB 1761, an important energy affordability tool which will strengthen confidence that customers pay their fair share – and not more. If you have any questions, please contact [POINT OF CONTACT].
Sincerely,
[SIGNATURE BLOCK]
236 of 237
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED To: City Council
Subject: INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED Date: August 25, 2026
Written by: Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
Recommendation
Information or written comments pertaining to this meeting, and which was received after the agenda was posted, is attached below.
Pursuant to City Council Policy 2025-03: City Council Rules section IV A., written Communications, interested persons or their authorized representative may address the Council by written communication on any matters concerning the City’s business, or any matters over which the Council has control.
1. To be considered for inclusion in the agenda packet, such written communication shall be delivered to the City Clerk no later than 11:00 a.m. of the Wednesday the week preceding the regular Council meeting for which such written communication is intended.
2. If received after the above date and time, but no later than noon the day before the meeting, written communications received by the City Clerk shall be posted on the website by the end of that day and notification provided to the electronic Agenda mailing list by the end of the day. All written communications received by the City Clerk by 5 pm on the City Council meeting day shall be made available to the City Council and public at the City Council meeting.
City Council Policy 2025-03 is available at the online meeting portal at www.cotaticity.gov or by request from the City Clerk at 707-665-3622 or [email protected]. 237 of 237