California Sends Newsom Data Center Energy and Water Reporting Bills and a Ratepayer Cost Check; Texas Solar Sellers Must Register Sept. 1

The bottom line today

“I am reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements about operational details on this sector without understanding the full impact on businesses and the consumers of their technology.” Gov. Newsom wrote that last year when he vetoed AB 93, a data center water reporting bill [2]. This week the Legislature sent him a substantially similar bill, AB 2619, plus a broader energy reporting bill, AB 1577, both over the opposition of the California Chamber of Commerce and the Data Center Coalition [1, 2, 4, 5]. Pratt’s read: the veto reasoning still applies, and the governor should use it again. The same week produced a bill that deserves his signature, AB 2124, which would finally let lawmakers see what an energy mandate costs before they vote on it. In Texas, residential solar sellers become a licensed trade on Tuesday.

CA California AB 1577: data centers report power, peak load and noise

What it does. AB 1577, by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, applies to data centers with an electrical load of 10 megawatts or more, excluding public, research, public safety, national security and telecommunications facilities [1]. At energization, the owner would file the site’s address, start date, floor area, anticipated peak load from its interconnection request and planned on-site generation with the Energy Commission [1]. After that, the owner reports electrical load, power usage effectiveness and demand response participation at least annually, broken out by month [1]. A developer seeking a discretionary permit would also give the city or county an estimate of annual energy use, on-site generation and peak sound levels at the property line [1]. The commission would publish the data in anonymized, aggregated form and fold load projections into its 2029 energy report [1].

Where it stands. Final passage came on August 27, when the Assembly concurred in Senate amendments 58-11, a day after a 29-10 Senate vote [4, 5].

Pratt’s read. The author argues that the state lacks accurate information on how many data centers exist, how much power they draw and how they affect the grid, and that this limits planning and the protection of ratepayers [1]. Fair enough as a goal. But the Senate’s own analysis notes the Energy Commission already collects energy data from data centers of 50,000 square feet or more through its benchmarking program [1]. The bill layers a second, monthly regime on top, for one industry. The Data Center Coalition calls it “a heavy-handed and burdensome reporting regime that ignores the complexity of data center operations” [1]. The Aug. 21 amendments helped, dropping waste heat and intake air temperature reporting [1]. The bill also gives owners a process to flag information protected from disclosure by law [1]. The commission estimates about $1.3 million in one-time costs to use the data [1].

CA California AB 2619: water use certified under penalty of perjury

What it does. AB 2619, by Assemblymember Papan, defines three types of data center [2]. Before and when applying for an initial city or county business license, the operator must give a good faith estimate of water use, its source, and projected volume for the maximum day, maximum month and average year, under penalty of perjury [2]. At every license renewal it must report the prior year’s total and direct water use and its cooling system type [2]. Senate amendments on August 21 removed a requirement that state agencies write water efficiency guidelines for the industry [2].

Where it stands. Senators approved it 30-9 on August 26, and Assembly members accepted the Senate’s changes 63-7 the next day [4, 5].

Pratt’s read. The author argues that local governments and water agencies lack consistent information about data center water demand, and that the bill is about “transparency, preparedness, and responsible growth” [2]. Water planning is a legitimate local job. The problem is the instrument. A business license is a routine renewal, and this bill turns it into an annual sworn water filing for one sector. The Senate’s analysis says it plainly: other businesses use a great deal of water too, and the bill will not give local agencies “a full and complete picture” [2]. Nothing in the bill explains why a bottler or a refinery escapes the same affidavit.

CA California AB 2124: an outside price tag on energy mandates

What it does. AB 2124, by Assemblymembers Pacheco and Bauer-Kahan, directs the California Council on Science and Technology to set up a program by March 1, 2027, subject to appropriation, to analyze bills that would create a mandate or otherwise affect electric or gas ratepayers [3]. On request from a policy or fiscal committee chair, the Speaker or the Senate President pro Tem, the council would estimate how far the bill raises costs recoverable from ratepayers, the effect on total cost of service, and how much cost shifts to other customers [3]. The model is the review program the Legislature set up in 2002 for health insurance mandates [3].

Where it stands. On the floor it drew a 32-6 Senate vote August 26 and a unanimous 72-0 Assembly concurrence August 27 [4, 5].

Pratt’s read. This is the best bill of the week for every employer with a utility bill. Its sponsor, San Diego Gas & Electric, says roughly 37 cents of each dollar an average electric customer pays covers “state mandates and public programs that are unrelated to the electric service they receive” [3]. Support runs from the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Large Energy Consumers Association to the Coalition of California Utility Employees, and no opposition is on file [3]. Manufacturers, cold storage operators and farms that pump water all carry these program costs in their rates. A cost estimate before the vote is the least a ratepayer should expect.

The catch is the money. A 2019 law authorized the same council to do this work, but funding was never appropriated [3]. Appropriations staff call the cost “unknown but significant” [3]. A signature without a budget line repeats 2019.

TX Texas SB 1036: solar sellers become a registered trade on Sept. 1

What it does. SB 1036, by Sen. Zaffirini, created the Residential Solar Retailer Regulatory Act in 2025 [7]. From September 1, 2026, no one may sell or lease a residential solar system for pay without a solar salesperson registration and a sponsoring registered retailer, and a company may not use salespeople unless it is registered [7]. Licensed electrical contractors and their employees are exempt from registration [7]. Contracts must allow cancellation within five business days, and an affiliated lender’s loan must be cancelled with them [7]. Civil penalties run up to $2,500 per violation and $50,000 in the aggregate, rising to $10,000 and $100,000 when someone over 65 is harmed [7].

Where it stands. The Licensing Commission’s rules set a $350 annual fee for retailers and $56 for salespeople, require retailers to carry general liability insurance, and require salespeople to hand over a state brochure at least 24 hours before a contract is signed [8, 9]. The department opened applications August 10 and has suspended enforcement of its contract disclosure and brochure rules until November 1 [10].

Pratt’s read. The case for the law is consumer protection: deceptive door-to-door sales, false claims of utility affiliation, and buyers over 65 [7]. A registry and a cooling-off period are reasonable responses. The fees are modest, and preemption of conflicting city ordinances spares sellers a patchwork [7]. The 24-hour brochure rule is the cost. The Texas Solar and Storage Association argued it is unnecessary when buyers already have five business days to cancel; the department kept it [9]. The department also found no adverse economic effect on small businesses while conceding that each retailer’s insurance and contract costs “cannot be estimated” [8]. Both statements appear in the same notice. The two-month enforcement pause is a sensible concession.

On the calendar

Lawmakers have until August 31 to finish the session [6]. Gov. Newsom has until September 30 to act on AB 1577, AB 2619 and AB 2124, the same deadline this release flagged on August 24 for the tax break review bill [6]. Texas solar registration takes effect September 1 [7]. TDLR resumes enforcing its disclosure and brochure rules November 1 [10].