CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 30-Z 
result in the elimination of existing businesses or create 
or expand businesses in the State of California. 
The proposed amendments to the regulations will in -
crease the ef ficiency of the state of California in deliver-
ing services to stakeholders. Thus, the law enforcement 
standards are maintained and effective in preserving peace, and the protection of public health, safety, and the welfare of California residents. There would be no 
impact that would affect worker safety or the State’s en-
vironment. 
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES 
To take this action, the Commission must determine 
that no reasonable alternative considered by the Com-
mission, or otherwise identified and brought to the at-tention of the Commission, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is pro-
posed, or would be as effective as and less burdensome 
to affected private persons than the proposed action, or 
would be more cost−effective to affected private per-
sons and equally effective in implementing the statuto-
ry policy or other provision of law than the proposed 
action. 
CONTACT PERSONS 
Questions regarding this proposed regulatory action 
may be directed to Brad NewMyer, Commission on POST, 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100, W est Sacramen-
to, CA 95605−1630 at (916) 227−3893. General ques-tions regarding the regulatory process may be directed 
to Katie Strickland at (916) 227−2802. 
TEXT OF PROPOSAL 
Individuals may request copies of the exact language 
of the proposed regulations and of the initial statement of reasons, and the information the proposal is based 
upon, from the Commission on POST at 860 Stillwater 
Road, Suite 100, West Sacramento, CA 95605−1630. These documents are also located on https://post.ca. 
gov/Regulatory−Actions. 
A V AILABILITY AND LOCATION OF THE 
RULEMAKING FILE AND THE FINAL 
STATEMENT OF REASONS 
The rulemaking file contains all information upon 
which POST is basing this proposal and is available for 
public inspection by contacting the person(s) named above. To request a copy of the Final Statement of Reasons 
once it has been approved, submit a written request to the contact person(s) named above. 
TITLE 17. AIR RESOURCES BOARD 
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 
REGULATION FOR REDUCING SULFUR 
HEXAFLUORIDE EMISSIONS FROM GAS 
INSULATED SWITCHGEAR 
The California Air Resources Board (CARB or 
Board) will conduct a public hearing at the date and 
time noted below to consider the proposed amendments 
to the Regulation for Reducing Sulfur Hexafluoride 
Emissions from Gas Insulated Switchgear (SF6 Regu-lation or Regulation). 
DATE: September 24, 2020 
TIME: 12:00 p.m. 
Please see the Public Agenda which will be posted ten 
days before the September 24, 2020, Board Meeting for 
any appropriate direction regarding a possible remote− 
only Board Meeting. If the meeting is to be held in per-
son, it will be held at the California Air Resources Board, Byron Sher Auditorium, 1001 I Street, Sacra-mento, California 95814. 
This item will be considered at a meeting of the 
Board, which will commence at 12:00 p.m., September 
24, 2020, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., on September 25, 2020. Please consult the agenda for the hearing, 
which will be available at least ten days before Septem-
ber 24, 2020, to determine the day on which this item 
will be considered. 
WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD AND 
SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS 
Interested members of the public may present com-
ments orally or in writing at the hearing and may pro-vide comments by postal mail or by electronic submittal 
before the hearing. The public comment period for this 
regulatory action will begin on July 24, 2020. Written comments not physically submitted at the hearing must be submitted on or after July 24, 2020 and received no 
later than September 22, 2020. CARB requests that 
when possible, written and email statements be filed at least 10 days before the hearing to give CARB staff and 
Board members additional time to consider each com-
ment. The Boa rd also encourages members of the pub-
lic to bring to the attention of staff in advance of the 
hearing any suggestions for modification of the pro-posed regulatory action. Comments submitted in ad-
1056        
  
 
 
 
 
  
       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 30-Z 
vance of the hearing must be addressed to one of the 
following: 
Postal mail: 
Clerk’s Office, California Air Resources Board 
1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 
Electronic submittal: 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bclist.php 
Please note that under the California Public Records 
Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.), your written and oral 
comments, attachments, and associated contact infor-
mation (e.g., your address, phone, email, etc.) become 
part of the public record and can be released to the pub-
lic upon request. 
Additionally, the Board requests but does not require 
that persons who submit written comments to the Board 
reference the title of the proposal in their comments to 
facilitate review. 
AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE 
This regulatory action is proposed under the authority 
granted in California Health and Safety Code, sections 
38510, 38560, 38580, 39600, 39601, 41510, 41511 and 
41513. This action is proposed to implement, interpret, 
and make specific sections 38560, 38580, 39600, 
39601, 41510, 41511 and 41513. 
INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION 
AND POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW 
(GOV . CODE, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(3)) 
Sections Affected : Proposed amendments to Cali-
fornia Code of Regulations, title 17, sections 95350, 
95351, 95352, 95353, 95354, 95355, 95356, 95357, 
95358, and 95359. Proposed adoption of California 
Code of Regulation, title 17, sections 95354.1, 95357.1 
and 95359.1. 
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED 
BY REFERENCE 
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 20, subd. (c)(3)) 
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 
2014. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Fi-
nal Rule. Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 98, 
Subpart A, Table A−1. December 11, 2014. https:// 
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR−2014−12−1 1/pdf/ 
2014−28444.pdf, Section 95351(a). BACKGROUND AND EFFECT OF THE 
PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION 
CARB staff is proposing amendments to the Regula -
tion for Reducing Sulfur Hexafluoride Emissions from Gas Insulated Switchgear (Regulation, title 17, Califor-nia Code of Regulations, sections 95350 et seq.). The 
Regulation was originally enacted as an early action 
measure pursuant to the California Global W arming So-
lutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32 or AB 32; Chap-
ter 488, Statutes of 2006) to reduce SF
6 emissions from 
the electricity sector’s transmission and distribution system. AB 32 established an initial goal for California 
to reduce statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 
1990 levels by 2020 and to maintain and continue GHG 
emissions reductions beyond 2020. The current Regu-
lation requires owners of gas−insulated switchgear 
(GIS) to report the following annually: SF
6 emissions, 
an inventory of their GIS that use SF 6 as an insulating 
gas, information related to containers that store SF 6 gas, 
and transfers of SF 6 into or out of GIS. The proposed 
amendments would also change the term “GIS” to “gas−insulated equipment” (GIE) to clarify that more 
devices beyond switchgear are covered by the Regula-tion. This terminology change would not affect the 
types of devices cov ered under the Regulation, and the 
term GIE will be used throughout this document. 
SF
6 is an extremely powerful and long−lived GHG. 
The 100−year global warming potential (GWP) of SF 6, 
which indicates its heat−absorbing ability relative to 
that of carbon dioxide (CO 2) over a 100−year period, is 
22,800, making it the most potent of the six main GHGs. Because of its extremely high GWP, small re-
ductions in SF
6 emissions can have a large impact on re-
ducing GHG emissions, which are the main drivers of 
climate change. The current Regulation requires reduc-
tions of SF 6 emissions from GIS over time, setting an 
annual emission rate limit that each GIE owner may not 
exceed. The maximum allowable emission rate started 
at ten percent in 2011, and has decreased one percent 
per year since then. In the absence of proposed changes 
to the Regulation, in 2020, the limit would reach one percent and would remain at that level going forward. Data reported under the Regulation show that statewide 
SF
6 capacity is growing by one to five percent per year, 
and projections provided by GIE owners indicate that this trend will continue into the future. Because, under 
the current Regulation, the emissions limit would re-
main equivalent to one percent of annual capacity, as capacity grows, so too would expected emissions. 
The Legislature reaf firmed California’s commitment 
to take further action against climate change by adopt-ing Senate Bill (SB) 32 (Chapter 250, Statutes of 2016), which further directs the State to reduce its GHG emis-
sions to at least 40 percent below the 1990 level by 
1057        
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 30-Z 
2030. In 2019, CARB initiated a process to explore 
achievable paths toward carbon neutrality and is work-
ing to implement direction provided in Board Resolu-
tion 17−46 to evaluate and explore opportunities to 
achieve additional significant cuts in GHG emissions 
from all sources. 
Considerable progress has been made in the past 
decade to develop non−SF 6 GIE; across the voltage 
spectrum, manufacturers now either offer market− ready non−SF
6 GIE or have development plans in the 
foreseeable future. Despite this progress, inventory da-ta reported under the Regulation show that SF
6 capacity 
in the State has been growing, meaning that non−SF 6 
technologies have not yet been widely adopted; staff projects that SF
6 capacity will continue growing well 
into the future. This indicates that a regulatory change is 
necessary to drive the transition away from the use of 
SF6 in GIE. 
In response to California’s aggressive climate goals 
and the increasing availability of technology that does not use SF
6, CARB staff is proposing to amend the Reg-
ulation to clarify regulatory coverage, expand the scope 
to include other GHGs beyond SF 6, drive GHG emis-
sions reductions, accelerate the transition to technolo-gies that do not use SF
6, improve the ability of equip-
ment owners with relatively small amounts of SF 6 to 
comply with the Regulation, specify reporting and ac-
counting procedures to increase reporting accuracy and 
facilitate tracking of GHGs covered under the proposed 
Regulation, and improve CARB staff’s ability to verify 
reported data. 
Due to the expansion in the Regulation’s scope to in-
clude other GHGs beyond SF 6, and the terminology 
change from GIS to GIE, CARB staff is proposing to 
change the name of the Regulation to the “Regulation 
for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Gas In-sulated Equipment.” If enacted, the amendments will go into effect following the schedule described in the 
Proposed Regulation Order. Some changes will become 
effective the day the Regulation is finalized and will im -
pact each GIE owner’s data year
1 2020 annual report 
(due June 1, 2021). Other changes that require new data 
to be collected will become effective January 1, 2021, 
or after. 
CARB may also consider other changes to the sec-
tions affected, as listed on page two of this notice, dur-
ing the course of this rulemaking process. 
1 “Data year” means the calendar year for which a GIE owner 
must submit an annual GHG emissions data report. OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS OF THE 
PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION 
The proposed Regulation would establish a timeline 
for phasing out acquisition of SF 6 GIE in California that 
would take effect in stages between 2025 and 2033. The 
proposed amendments would reduce total GHG emis-sions from GIE, improve the ability of small GIE own-
ers to comply, improve accuracy in reported emissions, 
and improve CARB staff’s ability to verify reported da-
ta. The proposed Regulation has been developed with the help of a robust informal public process, which in-
cluded three publicly noticed workshops and one pub-
licly noticed working group meeting from November 2017 through August 2019. The proposed amendments 
would: 
 Expand the scope of the Regulation to cover 
emissions of all insulating gases with a global 
warming potential (GWP) greater than one, and 
clarify terminology related to which GIE are 
covered by the Regulation; 
 Establish a timeline for phasing out acquisition of 
SF6 GIE in California and create an incentive to 
encourage GIE owners to acquire non−SF 6 GIE 
prior to the phase−out; 
 Establish a process through which GIE owners could be granted a phase−out exemption to allow them to acquire SF
6 GIE after the phase−out, but 
only when certain conditions are met; 
 Establish alternative emissions limits for small−capacity GIE owners to improve their 
ability to comply with the Regulation, assign each 
GIE owner an emissions limit in metric tons of 
CO
2 equivalent (MTCO 2e) (as opposed to the 
current SF 6−specific emission rate limit), and 
establish methods to minimize the growth of the 
emissions limit over time; and 
 Revise reporting requirements to improve 
reporting accuracy, clarify requirements, close gaps in accounting for SF
6 and other covered 
insulated gases, and improve CARB staff’s ability 
to verify reported data. 
Staff analyzed the impacts of the amendments, in par-
ticular the installation of non−SF 6 GIE due to the 
phase−out, through 2036, the year after which all re-
quirements in the proposed Regulation would come in-
to effect. Absent the proposed amendments, staff esti-
mates that SF 6 emissions in 2036 would be 364,000 
MTCO 2e, a significant increase relative to estimated 
emissions of 286,000 MTCO 2e in 2024, the year before 
the phase−out begins. By contrast, the proposed Regu-lation will reduce the 2036 emissions level to be ap-
proximately 283,000 MTCO
2e. Cumulative emissions 
reductions for the period 2020 to 2036 will be approxi-mately 391,000 MTCO
2e. Because GIE lasts approxi-
1058        
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 30-Z 
mately 40 years, though, emissions reductions from 
non−SF 6 GIE acquired between 2025 and 2036 will 
continue through 2075, resulting in cumulative emis-
sions reductions of approximately 3,143,000 MTCO 2e. 
Each of these proposed changes to the Regulation are 
explained here in further detail. 
Expanding Scope and Clarifying Coverage of the 
Regulation 
The purpose of the proposed Regulation is to further 
reduce emissions by phasing out SF 6 use so that GIE 
owners will transition to use of non−SF 6 GIE, some of 
which may utilize GHGs other than SF 6 that have sub-
stantially lower GWPs than SF 6. The introduction of in -
sulating gases that contain a GHG other than SF 6 neces-
sitates expanding the scope of the Regulation to include 
GHGs with a GWP greater than one. Staff proposes on-
ly to require the reporting and regulatory coverage of 
insulating gases with a GWP greater than one because 
the amount of GHGs with GWPs less than or equal to 
one that would be used in GIE would have a relatively small potential impact to global warming (in MTCO
2e). 
This is because the volume of insulating gas with a 
GWP less than or equal to one contained in GIE through 
the State is anticipated to be very low. If all SF 6 in ac-
tive, non−hermetically sealed GIE in California at present were converted to CO
2, the amount of CO 2 in 
GIE statewide would be about 1,000 MTCO 2e. Annual 
CO2 emissions in this case would be roughly ten metric 
tons (assuming a one−percent leak rate as required by 
the Regulation), which is roughly equivalent to the 
emissions from driving two passenger vehicles for a 
year.2 
Throughout the proposed Regulation and this docu-
ment, the term “SF 6” was in many places replaced with 
“insulating gas with a GWP greater than one” or “cov-
ered insulating gas,” except in cases where specific ref-
erences to SF6 are still needed. Coverage of these alter-
native gases in the Regulation ensures continued track-ing of GHGs from the operation of GIE in the state. It al-so facilitates recognition of the transition from SF
6 GIE 
to non−SF 6 GIE. 
SF6 Phase−Out and Early Action Credit 
In Table 1 and Table 2 of the proposed Regulation, 
CARB staff proposes a schedule for the phase−out of the acquisition of new SF
6 GIE. The phase−out dates 
differ according to voltage capacity, short−circuit cur-
rent rating, and configuration (i.e., above or below 
ground). Non−SF 6 GIE either do not contain a GHG or 
use insulating gas with a significantly lower GWP than 
SF6, so the transition from SF 6 GIE to non−SF 6 GIE 
will have the benefit of reducing GHG emissions. In de-
U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator: 
https://www.epa.gov/ener gy/greenhouse−gas−equivalencies− 
calculator. Last accessed November 20, 2019. veloping the phase−out schedule, CARB staff consult-
ed with more than ten manufacturers currently develop-
ing non−SF 6 GIE to learn when their products are ex-
pected be commercially available. Additionally, based 
on stakeholder comments about the amount of time 
their organizations generally require to ensure that new 
products are safe, reliable, and deployable, CARB staff included a three−year period between expected com-
mercial availability and proposed phase−out dates. 
Because the phase−out dates would not begin until 
2024, and certain types of non−SF
6 GIE are available 
now, the proposed regulatory amendments also include an early action credit. The early action credit would en-
courage GIE owners to place 72.5 kV or greater non− SF
6 circuit breakers into active service prior to the ap-
plicable ph ase−out date for those devices, which should 
lead to additional reductions in GHG emissions. The proposed credit is roughly equivalent to the amount of SF
6 in a comparable SF 6 circuit breaker. 
SF6 Phase−Out Exemption Process 
As described above, CARB staff developed the 
phase−out schedule after discussing non−SF 6 GIE 
availability dates with over ten manufacturers for over a 
year. CARB staff, however, recognizes that, in some specific cases, GIE owners may need to install SF
6 GIE 
after the corresponding phase−out date. 
Therefore, the proposed Regulation adds a new ex-
emption process that allows GIE owners to acquire SF 6 
GIE after the applicable phase−out date under the fol-
lowing conditions: when the GIE owner submits, and 
CARB approves, an SF 6 phase−out exemption request; 
when the SF 6 GIE device was present in the State for a 
prior data year; when the SF 6 GIE device was pur-
chased prior to the applicable phase−out date (provided 
the SF 6 GIE device enters California no later than 24 
months after the purchase date); or when the SF 6 GIE 
device is a replacement provided by the manufacturer 
under the terms of the manufacturer ’s warranty. 
To obtain a phase−out exemption, the GIE owner 
must submit a phase−out exemption request to CARB that would explain and justify the need for the exemp-
tion. If the request is approved, the GIE owner could ac-
quire the SF
6 GIE described in the request and install 
the SF 6 GIE in the location(s) described in the exemp-
tion request. 
Revisions to the Emission Rate Limit 
The proposed Regulation contains revisions that 
would change the allowed emissions levels for GIE owners with smaller capacities of SF
6 and other cov-
ered insulating gases. As explained below, this change 
will enable small−capacity GIE owners to comply with 
the Regulation. Further, the proposed Regulation tran-sitions the basis for evaluating emissions compliance from an emission rate limit to an emissions limit mea-
1059 2        
  
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 30-Z 
sured in MTCO 2e. The emissions limit will be struc-
tured to support the phase−out of SF 6, incentivize adop-
tion of non−SF 6 GIE, and ensure continued emissions 
reductions despite the anticipated growth of GIE capac-
ity in this sector. 
a. Transition to an Annual Emissions Limit 
The proposed Regulation includes a new method for 
GIE owners to calculate their emissions limit in terms of 
MTCO 2e rather than percent of average system capaci-
ty. From 20203 through 2024, GIE owners with average 
system capacities of 10,000 MTCO 2e or greater will 
have an emissions limit equivalent to one percent of av-
erage system capacity (considering all insulating gases 
with a GWP greater than one), maintaining equivalency 
with the current Regulation. 
The proposed Regulation increases the emissions 
limits for the smallest GIE owners. CARB staff’s goal for the proposed Regulation was to set emission limits such that GIE owners of all sizes would be held to strin-
gent but reasonable limits on emissions. Given the diffi -
culty in achieving a one−percent emission rate for GIE 
owners with average system capacities below 10,000 
MTCO
2e, and the fact that these owners make up less 
than two percent of statewide SF 6 capacity, staff pro-
poses a threshold of 10,000 MTCO 2e, below which the 
emissions limit would be set at the equivalent of two 
percent of average system capacity from 2020 to 2034, 
or 50 MTCO 2e, whichever is greater. 
While allowing these GIE owners to have higher 
GHG emissions limits than allowed under the current Regulation may seem to run contrary to the goal of re-
ducing GHG emissions, setting an emissions limit that 
is too low for these GIE owners to comply with is an in-
effective way to reduce GHG emissions. Setting a real-
istic target could help incentivize small−capacity GIE 
owners to reduce their emissions, where possible, to en-
sure compliance, which should be achievable under the 
revised limits. 
b. Establishing a Baseline to Incentivize Adoption of 
Non−SF
6 GIE and Emissions Limit Stepdown 
Because smaller capacities of SF6 and other covered 
insulating gases can make compliance with the emis-
sions limit more challenging, staff was concerned that establishing an emissions limit that is equivalent to one 
or two percent of active, non−hermetically sealed sys-
tem capacity could actually disincentivize the replace-ment of SF
6 GIE with non−SF 6 GIE. That is, GIE own-
ers may keep and operate their SF 6 GIE longer to main-
tain a higher capacity level. To address this issue, the proposed Regulation includes a baseline approach 
3 For data year 2020 only, the emissions limit considers SF 6 only. 
See the discussion in section III of this ISOR, Rationale for Sec-
tion 95353(b)(1). which would “fix” average system capacity (that is, the 
GIE owner’s capacity against which emissions compli-ance is assessed) at a point in time, after which any re-
duction in actual SF
6 capacity would not result in a 
commensurate reduction in average system capacity. 
An emissions limit with a fixed baseline would incen-
tivize a GIE owner to replace SF 6 GIE with non−SF 6 
GIE after the baseline is set because the implementation 
of non−SF 6 GIE would decrease the actual amount of 
SF6 in their system, which would reduce the risk of SF 6 
emissions, without any corresponding decrease in aver-
age system capacity used to evaluate regulatory compli-ance. This transition from SF
6 GIE to non−SF 6 GIE 
should result in additional reductions in GHG 
emissions. 
Because average system capacity will not decrease 
when SF 6 GIE are replaced with non−SF 6 GIE, the 
equivalent allowed emission rate will effectively grow over time, making it easier to comply with the Regula-tion. To ensure that the Regulation remains equally am-
bitious over time, CARB staff proposes that, in 2035, each GIE owner’s emissions limit will be reduced by 
five percent, and remain at that level going forward, to 
maintain an effective emission rate limit near one or two 
percent. 
Changes to Required Procedures and Reported 
Elements 
Finally, the proposed Regulation contains revisions 
that would change reporting requirements to improve reporting accuracy, clarify requirements, close gaps in 
accounting for SF
6 and other covered insulated gases, 
and improve CARB staff’s ability to verify reported 
data. 
Benefits of Proposed Amendments 
In total, the staff proposal achieves the following 
outcomes: 
 Establishes an SF 6 phase−out schedule with 
unique dates for nine GIE categories, based on 
GIE voltage capacity, short−circuit current rating, 
and whether the GIE would be used above or 
below ground. The schedule is consistent with expected non−SF
6 product availability from at 
least two manufacturers in each of those categories 
and the phase−out dates are set to be three years 
after this availability. These factors are responsive 
to stakeholder feedback that non−SF 6 GIE must be 
available from more than one manufacturer and that GIE owners need approximately three years to 
familiarize themselves with the new GIE in advance of the phase−out dates. For non−SF
6 GIE 
that are available today, CARB staff set the earliest 
phase−out date to be 2025 to accommodate the 
1060        
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 30-Z 
three− to five−year capital planning cycle that GIE 
owners indicated they undertake. 
 Includes an SF 6 phase−out exemption request 
process that offers GIE owners flexibility to 
acquire SF 6 GIE after the phase−out when 
non−SF 6 GIE are unavailable from at least two 
suppliers, and when available non−SF 6 GIE either 
cannot meet the size requirements, cannot be used due to incompatibility with existing infrastructure, or are not suitable based on safety or reliability requirements. In response to stakeholder 
feedback, the exemption request process allows 
for expedited approvals in the wake of a catastrophic failure affecting the GIE owner’s SF
6 
or non−SF 6 GIE, shortening the review period to 
14 days instead of the standard 75 days when a catastrophic failure has occurred. 
 In recognition of stakeholder feedback and the fact that non−SF
6 GIE are available for some 
applications today, GIE owners that install qualifying non−SF
6 GIE in advance of the 
applicable phase−out date will receive an early action credit that can be added to the GIE owner’s baseline starting in 2025. By being early adopters 
of non−SF
6 GIE, GIE owners will gain more 
experience with them, smoothing the transition to 
non−SF 6 GIE more broadly. 
 Establishes emissions limits that all GIE owners 
can meet, regardless of their average system capacity. The emissions limits for GIE owners with average system capacity of less than 10,000 
MTCO
2e will have an emissions limit equivalent 
to two percent of their average system capacity, 
rather than having to meet the one−percent limit 
specified in the current Regulation. GIE owners of 
this size have demonstrated the difficulties they 
face in achieving a one−percent emission rate on an annual basis, and this adjustment allows them to 
maintain their 2019 allowed emission rate. 
 Promotes accurate accounting of GHG emissions 
from GIE throughout the State by expanding the 
current Regulation to cover additional GHGs 
expected to be used as insulating gases in GIE in the coming years. The GWP of some emerging 
insulating gases is less than one. As a result of 
stakeholder feedback and the relatively small potential impact to global warming (in MTCO
2e) 
of GIE equipment using GHGs with GWPs less 
than or equal to one, staff proposes only to require 
the reporting and regulatory coverage of 
insulating gases with a GWP greater than one. Other revisions to the reporting requirements will improve CARB staff’s ability to verify the 
reported values. 
COMPARABLE FEDERAL REGULATIONS 
I
n 2017, ten of the GIE owners subject to the Regula
-
tion also filed an emissions report to United States Envi
-
ronmental 
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) under 40 
CFR Part 98 (Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program or 
GHGRP) Subpart DD.4 U.S. EPA’s GHGRP requires 
reporting of GHG emissions data and other relevant in
-
formation 
from GIE owners whose aggregate name
-
plate 
capacity of non−hermetically sealed GIE exceed 
17,820 pounds of SF 6 
U.S.  EPA  states that these data can be used by business-
es and others to track and compare facilities’ GHG emissions   and identify opportunities to reduce pollu-
tion, minimize wasted energy, and save money.
6  U.S. 
EPA’s GHGRP does not require that emissions be re-
duced; it   only requires that they be reported. This stands 
in contrast to CARB’s Regulation, which was enacted 
as an early action measure under AB 32 for the purpose of achieving GHG emissions reductions. As such, more 
granular data are required to be reported under CARB’s 
Regulation, which requires that all GIE owners in Cali-
fornia  report emissions and ensure that they do not ex-
ceed the   applicable   emissions   limit. 
U.S.  EPA’s   GHGRP is not a comparable federal regu-
lation because it has a high reporting threshold and 
lacks any emissions limit. CARB’s Regulation is need-
ed to support mandated GHG emissions reductions, as set  by SB 32, and follow the direction provided in Board 
Resolution 17−46 to  evaluate and explore opportunities 
to achieve additional significant cuts in GHG emissions 
from all sources. or 
perfluorinated compounds.5 
AN EV ALUATION OF INCONSISTENCY 
OR 
INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING 
STATE REGULATIONS 
(Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(3)(D)) 
During the process of developing the proposed regu-
latory action, CARB conducted a search of any similar 
regulations on this topic and concluded the proposed 
regulation is neither inconsistent nor incompatible with 
existing State regulations. 
4 U.S. EP A Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program data, accessed 
through FLIGHT: https://go.usa.gov/xpX98.
5 Subpart DD, Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program — Electric 
Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use: https://www.epa. 
gov/sites/production/files/2018−02/documents/ 
dd_infosheet_2018.pdf.
6 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP): https://www. 
epa.gov/ghgreporting/learn−about−greenhouse−gas−reporting− 
program−ghgrp. 
1061        
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 30-Z 
DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE 
PROPOSED REGULATIONS 
Fiscal Impact/Local Mandate Determination 
Regarding the Proposed Action (Gov. Code, 
§ 11346.5, subds. (a)(5)&(6)): 
The determinations of the Board’s Executive Officer 
concerning the costs or savings incurred by public agencies and private persons and businesses in reason-
able compliance with the proposed regulatory action are presented below. 
Under Government Code sections 11346.5, subdivi-
sion (a)(5) and 11346.5, subdivision (a)(6), the Execu-tive Officer has determined that the proposed regulato-
ry action would not create costs or savings to any State 
agency, would not create costs or savings in federal funding to the State, would not create costs or mandates 
to any local agency or school district, whether or not re-
imbursable by the State under Government Code, title 
2, division 4, part 7 (commencing with section 17500), or other nondiscretionary cost or savings to State or lo-cal agencies. 
Cost to any Local Agency or School District Requiring 
Reimbursement under section 17500 et seq.: 
The proposed regulatory action would not impose a 
mandate on local agencies, and the costs to local agen-
cies would not be reimbursable by the State because the 
proposed Regulation does not mandate local agencies 
to provide a service to the public. Further, the require-
ments are of general applicability because they apply to 
all GIE owners regardless of whether the owners are lo-cal agencies or private businesses. 
Because some regulatory provisions begin in 2020, 
all mentions of cumulative cost will cover the entire analysis period (2020−2036). However, since there are 
no incremental costs or cost savings between 2020 and 
2024, all average costs and cost savings discussed be-low are averages over the 12−year period (2025−2036) with non−zero costs. 
Because the phase−out requirement will not be im-
plemented until 2025, there will be no costs to local government in the fiscal year that the proposed Regula-
tion will be effective (2020−2021) and the two subse-
quent fiscal years. However, there will be costs and cost 
savings to 49 local agencies that are mainly publicly 
owned utilities across California. Local government agencies would incur the higher capital cost for non− 
SF6 GIE upfront but would benefit from maintenance 
and reporting cost savings in subsequent years. Staff es-
timated the cumulative cost to local government to be 
$37 million over the period 2020−2036, or approxi-
mately $3.1 million per year on average over the 12 years with non−zero costs. There is also a cumulative cost savings of $17 million over the period of 2020−2036, or approximately $1.4 million per year on 
average over the 12 years with non−zero costs. The tax revenue to local governments from 2025 through 2036 
totals to $10.5 million with an average of $875,000 per 
year during the 12 years of non−zero costs. 
The proposed Regulation would not impose a man-
date on any school district. 
Cost or Savings for State Agencies: 
Because the phase−out requirement will not be im-
plemented until 2025, there will be no cost to State gov-
ernment in the fiscal year that the proposed Regulation 
will be effective (2020−2021) and the two subsequent fiscal years. However, there will be costs and cost sav-
ings to ten State government agencies across Califor-
nia. All ten State government agencies considered in this analysis are public universities. Staff estimates the 
cumulative cost to State government to be $2.1 million 
over the period 2020−2036, or approximately $176,000 
per year on average over the 12 years with non−zero costs. There is also a cumulative cost savings of $1.7 
million over the period 2020−2036, or approximately 
$138,000 per year on average over the 12 years with non−zero costs. The sales tax revenue to State govern-
ment from 2025 through 2036 totals to ~$8.8 million with an average of $737,000 per year during the 12 years of non−zero costs. 
The implementation and enforcement of the pro-
posed Regulation would not have an impact on staff re-
sources at CARB. The workload will be absorbed by current staff using similar processes. 
Other Non−Discr etionary Costs or Savings on Local 
Agencies: 
No additional costs or savings to local agencies be-
yond those addressed above under “Cost to any Local Agency or School District Requiring Reimbursement 
under section 17500 et seq.” are expected. 
Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State : 
No costs or savings in federal funding are anticipated. 
HOUSING COSTS 
(Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(12)) 
The Executive Officer has also made the initial deter-
mination that the proposed regulatory action will not 
have a significant effect on housing costs. 
SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE 
ECONOMIC IMPACT DIRECTLY AFFECTING 
BUSINESS, INCLUDING ABILITY TO COMPETE 
(Gov. Code, §§ 11346.3, subd. (a), 11346.5, subd. 
(a)(7), 11346.5, subd. (a)(8)) 
The Executive Of ficer has made an initial determina-
tion that the proposed regulatory action would not have 
1062        
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 30-Z 
a significant statewide adverse economic impact direct-
ly affecting businesses, including the ability of Califor-
nia businesses to compete with businesses in other 
states, or on representative private persons. 
RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT 
ANALYSIS/ASSESSMENT 
(Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(10)) 
NON−MAJOR REGULATION: Statement of the 
Results of the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) : 
(A) The creation or elimination of jobs within the State 
of California. 
The operation and maintenance requirements of 
alternative−gas GIE are designed to be similar to those 
for conventional SF 6 GIE. Technicians familiar with 
handling SF 6 GIE may need to receive additional train-
ing to operate and maintain non−SF 6 GIE, and they are 
expected to be able to perform the job as they have with 
SF6 GIE. Therefore, staff does not expect there to be a 
significant increase or decrease in jobs due to workers’ 
ability to perform the job. However, vacuum GIE are 
expected to require significantly less maintenance. 
Staff expects a decrease in jobs related to maintenance crews at sites that use vacuum technology, though it is anticipated that this decrease will be relatively small. 
(B) The creation of new business or the elimination of 
existing businesses within the State of California. 
Because all existing GIE manufacturers are located 
outside of California, the proposed Regulation is not ex-
pected to result in considerable business creation or 
elimination in California. 
Non−SF
6 GIE are generally more expensive upfront 
than SF 6 GIE; however, the cost savings from less 
maintenance and reporting are expected to compensate for the higher purchase cost and potentially lower the 
lifetime ownership cost. Most of the GIE owners in the 
State are electric power generation, transmission, and 
distribution and large industrial companies. CARB staff expects that these entities will be able to cover the 
higher upfront cost with little financial impact, espe-cially when they can anticipate cost savings over the long term. 
(C) The expansion of businesses currently doing 
business within the State of California. 
No significant impacts to the expansion of businesses 
due to the proposed Regulation are anticipated. While 
the proposed Regulation is intended to increase demand 
for non−SF
6 GIE, this will be in place of SF 6 GIE that 
would have been acquired in the absence of the pro-
posed Regulation. The proposed Regulation is there-
fore not expected to drive an overall increase in demand 
for GIE and expansion of businesses for GIE owners. There may be some expansion of business to manufac-turers of non−SF
6 GIE, but all currently known GIE 
manufacturers are located outside of California. 
(D) The benefits of the regulation to the health and 
welfare of California residents, worker safety, and 
the state’ s environment. 
Benefits such as reduced GHG emissions and re-
duced operating costs could result from implementa-
tion of non−SF 6 GIE. The proposed Regulation is ex-
pected to reduce approximately 38,000 pounds of SF 6, 
or 391,000 MTCO 2e of GHG emissions during the 
analysis years 2020−2 036. Because GIE lasts approxi-
mately 40 years, emissions reductions from non−SF 6 
GIE acquired between 2025 and 2036 will continue through 2075, resulting in cumulative emissions reduc-
tions of approximately 3,143,000 MTCO
2e. Because 
GHGs are global pollutants, both California’s residents 
and the world’s population would benefit from the re-duction in these emissions and the associated mitigation 
of global climate change. Therefore, these amendments 
may also directly improve the health and welfare of Cal-
ifornia residents, worker safety, and the State’s 
environment. 
Effect on Jobs/Businesses: 
The Executive Officer has determined that the pro-
posed regulatory action would have minimal impact on 
the creation or elimination of jobs within the State of California, the creation of new businesses or elimina-
tion of existing businesses within the State of Califor-
nia, or the expansion of businesses currently doing busi-
ness within the State of California. A detailed assess-
ment of the economic impacts of the proposed regulato-
ry action can be found in the Economic Impact Analysis in the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR). 
Benefits of the Pr oposed Regulation: 
The objective of the proposed regulatory action is to 
reduce GHG emissions, improve the ability of small 
GIE owners to comply, improve accuracy in reported emissions, and improve CARB staff’s ability to verify reported data. 
A summary of these benefits is provided; please refer 
to “Objectives and Benefits” under the Informative Di-gest of Proposed Action and Policy Statement Over-
view Pursuant to Government Code 11346.5(a)(3) dis-
cussion that starts on page three. 
BUSINESS REPORT 
(Gov. Code, §§ 11346.5, subd. (a)(11); 
11346.3, subd. (d)): 
In accordance with Government Code sections 
11346.5, subdivisions (a)(11) and 11346.3, subdivision 
(d), the Executive Officer finds the reporting require-
ments of the proposed regulatory action which apply to 
businesses are necessary for the health, safety, and wel-
fare of the people of the State of California. 
1063        
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 30-Z 
COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE 
PRIV ATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES 
(Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(9)) 
In developing this regulatory proposal, CARB staff 
evaluated the potential economic impacts on represen-
tative private persons or businesses. The proposed reg-ulatory action would impose additional costs to private 
businesses acquiring non−SF
6 GIE instead of SF 6 GIE 
or filing for an SF 6 phase−out exemption. Some of these 
costs are expected to be offset by savings in the long run 
due to lower maintenance costs and exemption from re-porting requirements for some non−SF
6 GIE. 
CARB is not aware of any cost impacts that a repre-
sentative private person would necessarily incur in rea-sonable compliance with the proposed action. 
EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS 
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 4, subds. (a) and (b)) 
The Executive Officer has also determined under 
California Code of Regulations, title 1, section 4, that 
the proposed regulatory action would affect small busi-
nesses. However, there are significant maintenance cost 
savings that will offset some of the costs to small 
businesses. 
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES 
(Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(13)) 
Before taking final action on the proposed regulatory 
action, the Board must determine that no reasonable al-
ternative considered by the Board, or that has otherwise 
been identified and brought to the attention of the Board, would be more ef fective in carrying out the pur-
pose for which the action is proposed, would be as ef-fective and less burdensome to affected private persons 
than the proposed action, or would be more cost− effective to affected private persons and equally effec-
tive in implementing the statutory policy or other provi-
sions of law. 
The Executive Officer analyzed three alternatives to 
the proposed amendments and determined that none were less burdensome and equally effective in achiev-
ing the purposes of the Regulation in a manner than en-sures full compliance with the authorizing law. 
Retain One−Percent Emission Rate Limit.  This alter-
native would maintain the Regulation’s one−percent emission rate limit rather than replacing it with an emis-
sions limit measured in MTCO
2e. The impact of this al-
ternative would be that SF 6 emissions from this source 
would continue to grow with system GIE capacity.  The 
data reported to CARB under the Regulation demon-strate that the amount of SF
6 in active GIE — that is, the GIE capacities used to determine emission rate limits 
— has grown in the last several years at an annual rate 
between one and five percent. In meetings with GIE owners during the public process to amend the Regula-tion, GIE owners have noted that the rate at which SF
6 
capacity is expected to grow statewide in the coming years may be greater than the historical rate and, for cer-
tain GIE owners, the rate of growth could be signifi-cantly greater than for the sector overall. Reasons for the expected increase include replacement of old oil cir-
cuit breakers with SF
6 breakers, growth in demand for 
electricity due to population growth and the State’s goal 
to increase electrification of vehicles and other infra-structure, and the changing nature of the electric grid to 
include the growth in renewables. 
Because SF
6 capacity is expected to grow after 2020, 
and the maximum emissions allowed are proportional to SF
6 capacity, under the Regulation, emissions from 
this source category would be expected to increase after 
2020. The one−percent rate limit also fails to encourage 
adoption of new GIE that do not contain SF 6, and would 
not capture GIE devices that use a GHG other than SF 6 
as an insulating gas. The non−SF 6 GIE alternatives 
present an opportunity to reduce GHG emissions from this source category, consistent with the State’s aggres-
sive GHG emissions reduction tar gets described earlier 
in this document. 
Under this alternative, the goal of accelerating the 
transition to non−SF
6 technologies and reducing GHG 
emissions would be more difficult to achieve. With an 
emission rate limit, any decrease in a GIE owner’s ca-pacity also decreases the amount of SF
6 the GIE owner 
is allowed to emit on an annual basis. This creates some-what of a disincentive to replace SF
6 GIE with non−SF 6 
GIE. Though this could mean delayed purchases of 
(currently more expensive) non−SF 6 GIE, or increased 
maintenance costs from operating older SF 6 GIE de-
vices, these are indirect rather than direct outcomes of this option. Therefore, this alternative could increase SF
6 emissions with neither a cost increase nor decrease. 
For these reasons, staff has rejected the “Retain One− Percent Emission Rate Limit” alternative. 
Do Not Phase out SF
6 GIE. This alternative would 
consist of removing the phase−out requirements and 
corresponding SF 6 phase−out exemption process. This 
alternative would not achieve the goals of accelerating the transition to non−SF
6 technologies and realizing the 
corresponding GHG emissions reductions. Through conversations with GIE owners and GIE manufacturers 
as part of the public process, it became clear that non− SF
6 GIE are being developed and these emerging tech-
nologies over time have the ability to replace SF 6 GIE in 
many, if not all, applications. Though some non−SF 6 al-
ternatives are in use today, their adoption is somewhat limited and supply varies by company. As with many 
1064        
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
       
 
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 30-Z 
emerging or alternative technologies, the cost of non− 
SF6 GIE is expected to be higher than SF 6 GIE in the 
near−term, though over the long−term costs are expect-
ed to come down as production volumes increase. GIE 
owners are also extremely comfortable with their long− 
standing practice of using SF 6 GIE. These factors could 
make it difficult for the non−SF 6 to get a foothold with-
out further incentives. 
By establishing a phase−out schedule, CARB is es-
tablishing a market and driving demand for these prod-ucts, p articularly for the higher−voltage options that are 
anticipated to be developed at a later point in time. CARB has been told by manufacturers and GIE owners 
that the proposed SF
6 phase−out would be a key factor 
driving near−term development work to commercialize 
additional non−SF 6 GIE. If these technologies are not 
adopted, it is conceivable that SF 6 use and emissions 
will continue to grow. Also, with no phase−out of SF 6 
GIE, these emerging technologies will likely become 
commercially available at a later point in time, if they are developed at all, due to lack of demand. This could have impacts both in California and globally, and fur-ther GHG emissions reductions from this source cate-gory beyond those mandated by the Regulation would be very difficult to achieve without use of these alterna-tive GIE. Implementing this alternative would yield significant cost savings relative to the proposed Regula-
tion, but it would also result in SF
6 emissions growth 
over time, an option that is untenable from a climate im-
pacts and a policy perspective given California’s GHG emissions reduction goals. For these reasons, staff has rejected the “Do Not Phase out SF
6 GIE” alternative. 
Do Not Implement Differing Emissions Limits for 
Small−Capacity GIE Owners. This alternative would 
keep the emissions limit for small−capacity GIE owners 
(that is, GIE owners with capacity of less than 10,000 MTCO
2e) at one percent. Small−capacity GIE owners 
have explained to CARB staff the challenge in comply-
ing with a one−percent emission rate limit on an annual basis. GIE owners of this size may have a small number 
of SF
6 GIE devices. Typically, a pressurized SF 6 GIE 
device will notify the owner of a drop in pressure (leak) 
only when the pressure drops below a certain threshold. 
Because that threshold may be several percent of the de-
vice’s capacity, by the time the GIE owner is made aware that a leak has occurred, more SF
6 may have been 
lost than allowable under the one−percent emission rate 
limit. While leaks are an issue for larger GIE owners as 
well, because these events occur relatively infrequently 
for individual GIE devices, larger GIE owners have suf-ficient capacity to allow for several of these events per 
year while maintaining an overall emission rate below one percent. 
Under the proposed Regulation, CARB staff pro-
posed increasing the allowable emission rate for these small−capacity GIE owners. Under this alternative 
where the emission rate remains at one percent for all 
GIE owners, small−capacity GIE owners may be un-able to comply on a regular basis. This could result in 
additional costs to the small−capacity GIE owners due 
to possible enforcement penalties. This could also re-
sult in significant program and enforcement staff time to address emissions exceedances, many of which may 
be dismissed if deemed beyond the control of the GIE 
owner. Because of these physical limits, small−capacity 
GIE owners could incur these additional costs without any corresponding GHG emissions reductions. For 
these reasons, staff has rejected the “Do Not Implement 
Differing Emissions Limits for Small−Capacity GIE 
Owners” alternative. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 
When the Regulation for Reducing Sulfur Hexafluo-
ride Emissions from Gas Insulated Switchgear (“Regu-
lation”; Title 17, California Code of Regulations, sec-tions 95350 et seq.) was proposed in 2010, CARB 
adopted a no impact environmental analysis (NIEA), 
which is the equivalent of a negative declaration, under its certified regulatory program (California Code of Regulations, title 17, sections 60000 through 60008) to 
comply with the requirements of the California Envi-
ronmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code 
section 21080.5). The NIEA, included as Section V . of 
the ISOR for that 2010 item, dated January 7, 2010, de-
termined that, based upon available information, no sig-
nificant adverse environmental impacts should occur as 
a result of adopting the Regulation. Staff has deter-mined that no additional environmental review is re-
quired for the current proposed amendments to the Reg-
ulation because there are no changes proposed to the originally approved project that involve new significant 
environmental ef fects or a substantial increase in sever-
ity of previously identified significant effects than pre-viously identified in the prior 2010 NIEA. The basis for 
reaching this conclusion is provided in Section VI. of 
the ISOR report. 
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION REQUEST 
Consistent with California Government Code Sec-
tion 7296.2, special accommodation or language needs 
may be provided for any of the following: 
 An interpreter to be available at the hearing; 
 Documents made available in an alternate format or another language; and 
 A disability−related reasonable accommodation. 
To request these special accommodations or lan-
guage needs, please contact the Clerk of the Board at 
1065        
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
   
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 30-Z 
(916) 322−5594 or by facsimile at (916) 322−3928 as 
soon as possible, but no later than 10 business days be-
fore the scheduled Board hearing. TTY/TDD/Speech to 
Speech users may dial 711 for the California Relay 
Service. 
Consecuente con la sección 7296.2 del Código de 
Gobierno de California, una acomodación especial o 
necesidades lingüísticas pueden ser suministradas para 
cualquiera de los siguientes: 
 Un intérprete que esté disponible en la audiencia; 
 Documentos disponibles en un formato alterno u 
otro idioma; y 
 Una acomodación razonable relacionados con una 
incapacidad. 
Para solicitar estas comodidades especiales o necesi-
dades de otro idioma, por favor llame a la oficina del 
Consejo al (916) 322−5594 o envié un fax a (916) 
322−3928 lo más pronto posible, pero no menos de 10 
días de trabajo antes del día programado para la audien-
cia del Consejo. TTY/TDD/Personas que necesiten este 
servicio pueden marcar el 711 para el Servicio de Re-
transmisión de Mensajes de California. 
AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS 
Inquiries concerning the substance of the proposed 
regulatory action may be directed to the agency repre-sentative Carey Bylin, Manger, Energy Section, at 
(916) 445−1952 or (designated back−up contact) Mary 
Jane Coombs, Branch Chief, at (916) 322−7554. 
A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS 
CARB staff has prepared a Staff Report: Initial State-
ment of Reasons (ISOR) for the proposed regulatory ac-
tion, which includes a summary of the economic and 
environmental impacts of the proposal. The report is en-
titled: Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking — Proposed Amendments to the Regula-
tion for Reducing Sulfur Hexafluoride Emissions from 
Gas Insulated Switchgear. 
Copies of the ISOR and the full text of the proposed 
regulatory language, in underline and strikeout format to allow for comparison with the existing regulations, may be accessed on CARB’s website listed below, or may be obtained from the Public Information Office, 
California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors 
and Environmental Services Center, First Floor, Sacra-
mento, California, 95814, on July 21, 2020. Because of 
current travel, facility, and staf fing restrictions, the Cal-ifornia Air Resources Board’s offices may have limited 
public access. Please contact Bradley Bechtold, Regu-lations Coordinator, at bradley .bechtold@arb.ca.gov or 
(916) 322−6533 if you need physical copies of the 
documents. 
Further, the agency representative to whom nonsub-
stantive inquiries concerning the proposed administra-tive action may be directed is Bradley Bechtold, Regu-
lations Coordinator, (916) 322−6533. The Board staff has compiled a record for this rulemaking action, which includes all the information upon which the proposal is based. This material is available for inspection upon re-
quest to the contact persons. 
HEARING PROCEDURES 
The public hearing will be conducted in accordance 
with the California Administrative Procedure Act, 
Government Code, title 2, division 3, part 1, chapter 3.5 
(commencing with section 1 1340). 
Following the public hearing, the Board may take ac-
tion to approve for adoption the regulatory language as 
originally proposed, or with non−substantial or gram-
matical modifications. The Board may also approve for 
adoption the proposed regulatory language with other modifications if the text as modified is sufficiently re-
lated to the originally proposed text that the public was 
adequately placed on notice and that the regulatory lan-
guage as modified could result from the proposed regu-latory action. If this occurs, the full regulatory text, with 
the modifications clearly indicated, will be made avail-
able to the public, for written comment, at least 15 days 
before final adoption. 
The public may request a copy of the modified regu-
latory text from the contact information listed above. 
FINAL STATEMENT OF 
REASONS A V AILABILITY 
Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons 
(FSOR) will be available and copies may be requested from the agency contact persons in this notice, or may be accessed on CARB’s website listed below. 
INTERNET ACCESS 
This notice, the ISOR and all subsequent regulatory 
documents, including the FSOR, when completed, are available on CARB’s website for this rulemaking at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/sf6. 
1066