California SB 1006: From Policy Signal to Action on Advanced Conductors

When California enacted SB 1006 in September 2024, it sent one of the clearest policy signals yet that the era of incremental transmission upgrades is no longer sufficient. Signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, SB 1006 directs transmission owners within the California Independent System Operator footprint – not all California utilities, but those participating in CAISO – to systematically evaluate whether reconductoring existing lines with Advanced Conductors and deploying Grid-Enhancing Technologies can deliver faster, lower-cost grid capacity than traditional new-build transmission.

The premise of the law is straightforward but powerful: California cannot wait decades for new corridors when substantial capacity is already locked inside existing rights-of-way.

Under SB 1006, CAISO transmission owners are required to file studies identifying reconductoring opportunities by January 1, 2026, and every four years thereafter. These evaluations must be submitted to CAISO and considered in formal transmission planning studies, with an emphasis on increasing capacity, reducing congestion and curtailment, improving reliability, enabling renewable and zero-carbon resource integration, and reducing wildfire risk. In effect, the law embeds Advanced Conductors into the planning discipline of the state’s transmission system.

What is already emerging from these studies is significant – and often overlooked. In direct response to SB 1006, utilities have identified more than 65 transmission projects that are ripe for reconductoring with Advanced Conductors. While inclusion of these projects in regional transmission plans and ultimate in-service dates remain years away, the magnitude of identified opportunities underscores how much latent capacity exists within California’s existing grid.

Southern California Edison’s (SCE) SB 1006 filing illustrates this clearly. SCE identified 56 candidate transmission lines – predominantly at 230 kV – as strong candidates for reconductoring with Advanced Conductors and has already submitted new reconductoring projects into the 2025–2026 transmission planning process. Importantly, SCE emphasized that Advanced Conductors are not experimental, noting that it has reconductored hundreds of miles of transmission lines over the past decade to enhance capacity, flexibility, and reliability. The timelines cited reinforce a critical advantage of reconductoring: projects measured in months of construction, not decades of permitting.

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) similarly identified reconductoring opportunities, including confirmed and proposed projects using Advanced Conductors on both 138 kV and 69 kV lines. Several of these projects explicitly involve ACCC® Conductor, underscoring its role as a proven solution when thermal overloads – not voltage limitations – are the binding constraint.

Even utilities whose studies have not yet been publicly published, such as Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), have acknowledged the central role of ACCC® Conductor. PG&E’s internal screening identified multiple 115 kV lines with high reconductoring potential and described ACCC Conductors as “among the most widely deployed Advanced Conductors globally,” capable of delivering capacity increases of 20% to 100% where thermal limits drive congestion.

At the center of this story is CTC Global. For more than two decades, CTC Global’s ACCC® Conductor has enabled utilities to unlock substantial capacity within existing corridors – without new rights-of-way, prolonged permitting battles, or wholesale system rebuilds. SB 1006 does not validate an emerging idea; it validates a solution with a long operating history.

The next challenge is not identification, but execution. While inclusion of reconductoring projects in regional plans may still be a year or more away, SB 1006 has already shifted the conversation from whether advanced conductors should be used to where and how fast they can be deployed. The law should be viewed as a floor, not a finish line – because California’s grid does not need more studies. It needs action at scale, using tools that have already proven they work.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
Please wait... generating PDF