It’s been four years since California last approved major climate change legislation. But state lawmakers have stayed busy, proposing dozens of bills this year dealing with how to achieve the 100% clean energy mandate that they approved in 2018.

There’s too much legislation to summarize in one article. But as drought, extreme heat and other climate consequences worsen, here are 25 bills being debated in Sacramento that deal with clean energy, the electric grid and fossil-free transportation.

SB 833: As climate-fueled wildfires and heat waves raise the risk of power outages in California, many homes and businesses have turned to diesel generators to keep the lights on — exacerbating the climate crisis because diesel is a fossil fuel. This bill would seek to slow that trend by setting up an “energy resilience” grant program, in which local governments would get funding to figure out how they can use clean energy resources — such as solar panels, batteries and microgrids — to ride out blackouts.

SB 1075 /SB 1463: The first bill would set up a “clean hydrogen hub” fund within the state treasury and require regulators to study the fuel’s benefits as a substitute for oil and natural gas. The second would establish a “fueling hub” to help heavy-duty trucks fill up with hydrogen instead of diesel at either the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Long Beach, an idea supported by local officials.

SB 1376: California needs to dramatically pick up the pace of building clean power plants — including solar, wind and geothermal facilities — to have any hope of meeting its emissions goals. This bill would require the California Energy Commission to develop a plan for connecting six gigawatts of climate-friendly energy resources to the state’s power grid every year, beginning in 2025 — four times what California has averaged over the last decade and roughly in line with what is needed to reach 100% clean energy by 2045.

AB 2204: Helping fossil-fuel workers transition to new jobs is crucial to the clean energy transition — both because it’s the right thing to do and because workers who see a secure future for themselves are much more likely to provide political support for climate policies. This bill would establish the Office of Clean Energy Workforce, tasked with creating or coordinating programs “to retrain and upskill workers for clean energy jobs, and plan and support the physical relocation of the fossil-fuel-based workforce.”

AB 2587: California won’t eliminate fossil fuels with solar and wind power alone. The state will also need some amount of “firm” clean energy resources — such as geothermal, long-duration storage or hydrogen — that can keep the lights on during the rare but inevitable multiday periods when there’s not enough wind and sunshine to go around. But state agencies have been slow to require utility companies to invest in those (relatively expensive) resources. This bill would prod the agencies to get a move on.

SB 884: Power lines have caused some of California’s deadliest wildfires, and the worst utility offender — Pacific Gas & Electric — wants to prevent further ignitions by spending tens of billions of dollars burying thousands of miles of wires. This bill would help PG&E and other utilities speed up that “undergrounding” process by requiring local governments to approve or deny construction permits within 150 days, and by pushing courts to resolve lawsuits within 270 days. It would also stop utility companies from profiting on undergrounding projects if the buried wires continue to spark wildfires or require fire-related electricity shutoffs.

SB 887: To achieve 100% clean electricity by 2045 — or perhaps sooner — the Golden State will need a massive buildout of power lines to bring climate-friendly energy from large solar and wind farms to major cities. This bill would try to jump-start the slow process of building new transmission lines by pushing regulatory agencies — including the Public Utilities Commission and the California Independent System Operator — to identify the highest-priority power-line projects and begin approving them.

SB 1032: Maybe a new state agency could get transmission lines built more quickly and at a lower cost? This bill would create the Clean Energy Infrastructure Authority, modeled after a New Mexico agency that clean energy advocates say has had real success at opening up new electricity corridors. The authority would have the power to acquire land through eminent domain, conduct environmental reviews and borrow money at a lower rate than private utilities, in theory leading to lower costs for consumers.

SB 1174: Another effort to speed up construction of electric wires. This one would require state officials to approve all power-line projects that support the buildout of clean energy projects that help keep the lights on. It would also waive penalties for electricity providers that fail to line up reliable supplies because of a third party’s inability to get a transmission project completed on time.

SB 1274: This bill would allow streamlined environmental reviews for transmission lines meant to serve offshore wind farms within or adjacent to Humboldt County, on the state’s North Coast. Local officials hope offshore wind will bring economic revitalization.

SB 379: There’s a fierce debate over rooftop solar incentives — but most of the combatants seem to agree that it’s way too hard for Californians to get approval to add solar panels to their homes. This bill would require most cities and counties to adopt automated online permitting, most likely through a tool called SolarAPP+. “I’m sure when dishwashers were first invented, there were concerns about impacts on the plumbing system. But we don’t require permits for something like a dishwasher or washing machine now,” said the bill’s author, Sen. Scott Wiener. “I think simple solar and storage systems are moving in that direction.”

SB 1385: It’s also pretty well established that going solar is easier for single-family homeowners with cash to spare than it is for lower-income families living in apartments. This bill would require the Public Utilities Commission to create a program offering financial incentives for solar-plus-storage systems that serve residents of multifamily housing units. The incentives would be available for multifamily housing that serves low-income families or is located in an underserved community — or a high-fire-threat zone where the combination of solar and batteries could help keep the lights on during a public safety power shutoff.

SB 1430: Most new homes built in California are now required to include solar panels, under a regulation approved by the Energy Commission in 2018. This bill would suspend that regulation until 2030 in an effort to reduce the state’s soaring housing costs.

AB 2316: Another solution that many clean energy advocates agree on is community solar — small facilities that serve renters and apartment dwellers who can’t install solar panels and homeowners who can’t afford to. California hasn’t offered much support for community solar, but this bill would change that, requiring the Public Utilities Commission to set up an incentive program.

SB 1010 / SB 1305: The first bill would require 100% of vehicles purchased by state agencies to be zero-emission by 2027. The second would rewrite an existing regulation to make it easier for those agencies to buy all-electric light-duty cars in particular.

SB 1482/AB 1738: If California wants to end the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035 — the goal adopted by Gov. Gavin Newsom — people will need easier access to electric vehicle charging stations. The first of these bills would begin to tackle that challenge by requiring all newly built multifamily homes to offer at least one electric vehicle charger for each unit with access to a parking spot. The second would require many home developers to add charging stations during retrofits of existing multifamily buildings.

AB 1814: A quarter of Californians now get their electricity from community choice aggregators, or CCAs — local governments that have banded together to buy power for their residents. But unlike monopoly utility companies, CCAs can’t apply for certain state funds to help clean up the transportation sector, such as money to build electric vehicle chargers. This bill would change that.

AB 2061: California has spent billions of dollars subsidizing electric cars, including charging stations — but it’s not clear how often those charging stations might be malfunctioning. This bill would address that, requiring utilities and other entities that receive public funding for EV chargers to report “uptime,” aka how often those stations are actually functioning. It would also task state officials with determining whether certain areas — particularly low-income neighborhoods — face more downtime than others.

AB 2075: This bill would require the Energy Commission to develop electric vehicle charging standards for all new building construction and retrofits — much as it already does with energy efficiency, water efficiency and rooftop solar standards.

SB 922: Two years ago, lawmakers passed a bill exempting climate-friendly transportation projects — including bike lines, safe walking paths, public transit stations and electric bus infrastructure — from the strict reviews typically required under the California Environmental Quality Act. But the CEQA exemptions run only through Jan. 1, 2023. This bill would extend them by seven years, removing an ironic obstacle to projects designed to slow the climate crisis and limit asthma-inducing local air pollution.

SB 932: Many urban planners have called for safe streets that not only protect walkers and bikers from vehicle traffic but also help the climate, by making it easier for people to get out of their cars. This bill would promote that type of urban design by requiring city and county governments to plan for new bike paths and walkways, including in areas with high numbers of traffic injuries.

AB 2097: In Los Angeles and other car-centric cities, parking lots gobble up vast amounts of land that could be used for apartment buildings, green space or outdoor dining. This bill would take a crack at that dynamic by prohibiting local governments from requiring developers to include a minimum number of off-street parking spots in residential or commercial projects — as long as those projects are within half a mile of a major public transit stop or a “high-quality transit corridor” with frequent bus service.