California Shelves a Monthly Wage Report and a Medi-Cal Employer List; Texas Drafts Paid Curtailment for Big Power Users

The bottom line today

On August 7, the Texas Workforce Commission proposed adding occupation, full-time or part-time status, county and remote work status to every employer’s quarterly wage report, as this release noted on August 10. Yesterday California went the other way. The Assembly Appropriations Committee held SB 1054, which would have required much the same data from California employers, monthly [1, 2]. The committee also held SB 1284, a bill to publish the names of large employers whose workers are on Medi-Cal [1, 3]. Both bills had cleared the Senate, and both holds are good news for employers. Texas, meanwhile, put out its plan to pay data centers and other big loads to shut off in a grid emergency [4], and Arizona gave its rural co-ops a standard way to sign them up [6].

CA California SB 1054: monthly hours and occupation reports, held

What it does. Sen. Christopher Cabaldon’s bill would have required, starting July 1, 2027, every employer with 10 or more employees to add each worker’s total monthly wage, industry, occupation, worker type and hours worked to its wage report to the Employment Development Department, and to file that report electronically at least monthly unless it qualified for a waiver [2]. EDD would share the data with the departments that run CalFresh and Medi-Cal, with workforce boards and with the state’s education data office [2]. The bill told EDD to “minimize employer reporting burdens” through streamlined filing and user-friendly programming interfaces [2].

Where it stands. It passed the Senate 38-0 on May 18 and cleared the Assembly insurance and labor committees without a no vote [2]. On August 13 the Appropriations Committee held it in committee and under submission [1, 2].

Pratt’s read. The case for it is real. Under H.R. 1, Medi-Cal and CalFresh recipients must show work or other activity of up to 80 hours a month, and the state’s wage file today carries only quarterly earnings and employer identifiers, not hours [2]. Without hours data, the state may have to buy verification from private vendors; the Department of Social Services put one of those contracts at more than $16 million in its first year [2]. The sponsors, California Competes, California EDGE Coalition and UNITE-LA, say “many states have already begun collecting these data elements” [2]. The Bay Area Council supported the bill; the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce registered a position other than support or opposition [2].

The cost is where it breaks down. EDD put its own price at about $92 million one-time and $52 million a year, said the July 2027 start was “operationally infeasible,” and committee staff judged the true cost “likely” in the high tens of millions [2]. For employers the problem is frequency. A business that files quarterly today would file twelve times a year, with fields its payroll system may not track, such as occupation codes. The only registered opponent, the City of La Verne, called it “an overreach that shifts responsibility away from the State and onto employers” [2]. If the state needs hours to protect benefits, it should pay for the collection and start with quarterly filings, not ask 10-person shops to become monthly data suppliers.

CA California SB 1284: a public list of Medi-Cal employers, held

What it does. Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas’s bill would have required the Department of Health Care Services to publish an annual report on every employer that files a state pay data report (private employers with 100 or more employees) and had any employee on Medi-Cal during the year [3]. For each one: name, address, parent company, federal employer number, industry code, total employees, employees and dependents enrolled, and the estimated annual cost of their Medi-Cal care, plus top-100 lists by number and by share of workers enrolled [3]. The first report was due September 1, 2027 [3]. The bill also barred employers from firing, retaliating against or refusing to hire someone because of Medi-Cal enrollment [3].

Where it stands. The Senate approved it 30-9 on May 27, and the Assembly Health (12-2) and Labor and Employment (5-2) committees followed in June [3]. It was held on August 13 [1, 3].

Pratt’s read. SEIU California, a co-sponsor, argues that “employers that pay low wages and offer no or unaffordable benefits shift the costs of doing business onto taxpayers” and put competitors at a disadvantage [3]. The author cites UC Berkeley Labor Center research that one in five California workers is on Medi-Cal [3].

The bill had two problems, one legal and one practical. California tried this in 2014 with AB 1792. The U.S. Department of Labor told EDD that federal rules bar publishing employer-identifying unemployment insurance data, and the report was never produced [3]. The department sent EDD a similar letter about this bill, and EDD told the committee it is “unlikely to be able to provide the data” [3]. The practical problem is fairness. A worker can qualify for Medi-Cal on household income, whatever the employer’s plan offers. The Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce, speaking for farm, hospitality and service employers, called the list “a misleading public record” and “the legislative predicate for future employer penalty legislation” [3]. Agriculture, food service and retail are among the industries the Labor Center says are most likely to employ Medi-Cal enrollees [3]. They had the most to lose from the list, and the hold spares them.

TX Texas 16 TAC §25.521: paying big loads to curtail in an emergency

What it does. The Public Utility Commission proposes the large load demand management service that S.B. 6 ordered in 2025 [4, 5]. A customer with at least 75 MW of peak demand at one site can pre-qualify each year, offering at least 1 MW of reduction and passing a price responsive test [4]. When monthly modeling, a weekly weather forecast or an emergency alert signals risk from extreme weather, ERCOT can request offers, in dollars per megawatt hour, through each customer’s qualified scheduling entity [4]. Offers above $5,000 per MWh are rejected [4]. A deployed customer is paid the single clearing price; one that stays available but is never called gets 25% of it [4]. Spending is capped at $54 million a year, and ERCOT charges deployment costs to each load serving entity by its load ratio share [4].

The rule also carries S.B. 6’s harder requirement: each utility, co-op and city utility serving a transmission-voltage load interconnected after December 31, 2025, must have a protocol, and any needed equipment installed before interconnection, so that load can be curtailed during firm load shed [4, 5]. Critical load industrial customers and critical natural gas facilities are exempt [4, 5].

Where it stands. Filed July 30 and published today. Comments and hearing requests are due September 4, and the earliest adoption date is September 13 [4]. The commission asks whether the 25% availability payment and the $54 million budget are right, and whether ERCOT should be able to use the service in transmission emergencies [4].

Pratt’s read. The design is market-based, which is to the commission’s credit. Big loads bid and get paid at a clearing price, the trigger is limited to weather emergencies, and the budget has a hard ceiling [4].

Two points deserve comment. First, the commission finds “no probable economic cost to persons required to comply” [4]. The curtailment protocol requires equipment before a new transmission-voltage load can connect, and somebody pays for it [4, 5]. Second, the bill goes to every load serving entity, so manufacturers and small businesses help pay the largest loads to turn off [4]. And the statute bars any load that already curtails on wholesale prices, which describes many industrial customers, from selling this service [5]. That choice was the Legislature’s, but commenters can still press the commission to keep the availability payment modest and the transmission-emergency trigger out.

AZ Arizona: a standard path for co-op data center contracts

What it does. The Arizona Corporation Commission on August 12 unanimously approved a joint application by Arizona Electric Power Cooperative and the Duncan Valley, Sulphur Springs Valley, Mohave, Graham County and Trico cooperatives [6]. It sets a common checklist for electric service agreements between the wholesale co-op, the local co-op and a large-load customer such as a data center [6]. Commission staff will review each agreement for whether it is in the public interest, whether rates are reasonable, and whether any other customer class subsidizes the large customer [6].

Where it stands. Approved in Docket No. E-01773A-26-0123 [6]. Each agreement still goes to the Commission to approve, deny or amend [6].

Pratt’s read. This is how to do it. Chairman Nick Myers called it “a clear standardized framework for bringing data centers and large load users online while protecting existing ratepayers” [6]. Commissioner Kevin Thompson said large load customers will “cover all costs associated with commercial services under this framework, including new infrastructure and transmission construction” [6]. The co-ops say they are already talking to several large-load prospects [6]. Farms and small businesses on rural co-op lines get protection, and developers get a known path.

On the calendar

SB 1054 and SB 1284 stay held in Assembly Appropriations [1]. Texas comments and hearing requests on the large load demand rule are due September 4, and the commission can adopt it from September 13 [4]. Arizona’s first co-op agreements under the new process will come to the Commission one at a time [6].