If you are planning a California charging site around a 125-business-day utility hookup, check what that number actually is before you put it in a pro forma. It is not a statutory deadline. No California law guarantees that a utility will connect your project in 125 business days, and the one bill that tried to impose it on municipal utilities never became law.
Where the number came from
AB 1482 (2023-24 session) proposed an average energization target of 125 business days for publicly owned utilities. It missed the January 31, 2024 house-of-origin deadline and never became law. The same 125-business-day average had by then been used for the investor-owned utilities in the energization proceeding at the Public Utilities Commission, which is why the figure turns up in so many presentations and why it sounds like law.
An earlier version of our utility service application article described AB 1482 as enacted; it has been corrected, and this page gives the question a direct answer.
What does bind: CPUC targets for three utilities
The real rules come from a Public Utilities Commission decision, D.24-09-020, adopted in September 2024 to implement SB 410 and AB 50, the Powering Up Californians Act. It applies to the three largest investor-owned utilities: PG&E, SCE and SDG&E. Smaller investor-owned utilities are handled separately, so ask yours. It sets target energization periods, an average and a maximum, for projects handled under the line-extension and EV infrastructure rules (Rules 15, 16, 29 and 45), and it requires the utilities to report on projects that exceed them and to adopt remedial actions.
The figures vary by rule, and the sources we could reach report them in different units. SDG&E's customer timeline guide lists an average of 125 business days for Rules 15, 16, combined 15/16 and 45, with maximums of 245, 230, 210 and 230 business days depending on the rule. Other summaries of the decision give the same targets in calendar days, for example an average of 182 and a maximum of 335 for Rule 29 and 45 work. The units differ (business versus calendar days) and the sources do not line up exactly, so confirm the figure for your rule with your utility rather than converting between them yourself.
Three points matter for an owner:
- Targets, not a promised date. The maximums apply to the stretches of work that sit under the utility's control, and the utilities must report misses. We could not confirm from the decision text any automatic penalty or customer remedy for a missed date, so do not assume you could collect anything from a late energization.
- Averages describe a portfolio. A 125-business-day average means some projects take longer by design.
- Only the three big utilities. Municipal utilities and cooperatives, including LADWP and SMUD, are not covered by the decision. For them there is no statewide clock at all, so whatever schedule they quote is their own commitment.
A newer bill, with a caution
SB 1196 (2026) directs the Commission to set timelines, by September 30, 2027, for the large investor-owned utilities to process small requests that need no line extension or upgrade. Our utility service application article records it as signed on September 27, 2026 (Chapter 684); we could not independently re-confirm that from the legislature's site, so check the bill page before relying on it. Either way it creates no clock until the Commission acts.
Getting a commitment into your own paperwork
Because a statewide clock will not do it for you, the schedule you rely on has to live in documents you control.
- Ask for the date in writing at each stage. The will-serve or service-planning letter, the design completion date, and the construction start date each give you a dated commitment you can hold the utility to as a matter of record, even if it is not a legal guarantee.
- Ask which target applies. If you are served by PG&E, SCE or SDG&E, ask which rule your project falls under and what average and maximum the utility is tracking for it.
- Separate the utility's work from yours. The targets cover utility-controlled steps. Your permits, equipment delivery and trenching are outside them, so build your own schedule for those.
- Use the delay process. The CPUC publishes an Energization Delay Form listing the maximum targets, for customers whose projects run past them. Filing it creates a record; we found no refund or penalty attached to it.
- Hedge the financing. If a lender, grant or tenant lease depends on a go-live date, build in float that assumes the maximum, not the average.
For how long the rest of the project takes, see realistic timelines and delays, and for the order of operations on utility coordination, start from site selection fundamentals. California-specific programs and context are on the California state page.
Last factually verified: October 28, 2026. Sources: California AB 1482 (2023-24 session) bill history and Assembly committee analysis; CPUC Decision 24-09-020 (September 2024) as described in SDG&E's Energization Timeline Guide (February 2026), a San Mateo County Energization Proceeding update (October 2024), and CPUC energization workshop materials; the June 2026 Assembly committee analysis of SB 1196; the CPUC Energization Delay Form page (search listing). The CPUC, SDG&E and California legislature sites (www.cpuc.ca.gov, www.sdge.com, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) were unreachable from our research environment, so the target figures come from search excerpts of those documents and the decision text itself was not read. We did not retrieve SCE's or PG&E's own target tables, and we took SB 1196's enactment from our own utility service application article, not the legislature's site. This is general information, not legal advice. evcharginghelp.com is editorially independent and receives no compensation from any company mentioned.