California lawmakers are negotiating a sweeping package aimed at boosting solar and wind energy development.

California lawmakers are preparing a package of proposed bills that would streamline construction of solar and offshore wind projects, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Democratic lawmakers, who have shared the bills with environmental groups, industry, lobbyists and other interested parties, are negotiating the details with Gov. Gavin Newsom. The talks between state Senate and Assembly staff and Newsome’s office are taking place behind closed doors, and the proposals are not yet public. California’s legislative session ends Aug. 31.

CalMatters obtained drafts of five energy measures that Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire helped develop. They aim to reform the way the state approves and supports solar, offshore wind, battery storage and other green energy projects.

McGuire declined to discuss the proposal, but said: “We look forward to sharing more details in the coming days.”

“We can all agree that California has serious energy needs,” he said in a statement to CalMatters, citing rolling blackouts, rising utility costs, rising electricity demand and climate change. “That’s why the Senate will undertake a two-year effort to modernize our grid, increase the number of large-scale renewable energy plants and storage facilities in California, and expedite a modernized permitting process.”

A spokesman for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Democrat from Salinas, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the proposal.

At the same time, Newsome’s administration is working on separate proposed legislation aimed at making electricity bills more affordable for Californians, two sources told CalMatters. No details were provided, and a spokesman for the governor declined to comment.

Electricity rates have nearly doubled in the past decade. The state Public Utilities Commission overhauled its rate structure this year, introducing a controversial new billing system.

The renewable energy proposals — internally called the “California Made” package — aim to offer incentives for construction projects and their components in California. They would create tax breaks, streamline local and state permitting and change the way environmental reviews are conducted for some projects.

California faces a dual challenge: meeting regulatory renewable energy targets while also paying some of the highest energy bills in the country.

Under state law, California must generate 60% of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2030, and 100% by 2045, a mandate central to the state’s efforts to combat climate change.

One of the measures in the renewable energy package will be to grant tax relief for certain renewable energy projects.

Another would grant a “right” of consent to developers building in areas already zoned for them, eliminating the need for local approvals. Such proposals, which limit local control, have proven controversial for city and county officials.

Under another proposal, state officials would conduct a “major” environmental assessment that would serve as a comprehensive, umbrella analysis that addresses large-scale issues such as air emissions and cumulative impacts. Developers would then be required to conduct more limited reviews of their specific projects.

Two additional proposals — one specifically for offshore wind projects and the other for other renewable energy projects — would consolidate the permitting process by creating a “one-stop shop” system that consolidates applications, hearings and decision-making.

Local opposition and environmental impact studies have held up large solar and transmission projects for years. Earlier this year, the state’s permitting reform commission took up a bill to overhaul the permitting system.

Steven R. Bohlen, an energy expert and senior director of government and external affairs at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, reviewed the proposed legislation obtained by CalMatters. He said the proposals address many concerns and “move in the right direction.” But he added that timelines would need to be added.

“While the legislative proposals open a path for streamlining, there is still no statutory requirement that every agency respond within a specific time frame or that the entire process be limited to a specific time period, provided the requester submits all appropriate information,” he wrote in an email to CalMatters.

“In its current form, the streamlined process may still be slow, even though it is implemented as part of a ‘more streamlined’ process.”

Permitting reform has become the mantra for California’s newest renewable energy industry—floating offshore wind. The complexities of creating a new industry are enormous: creating a vast port system and vastly expanding the infrastructure to transport energy.

Each of the five proposed projects off the California coast will have to navigate overlapping jurisdictions and duplicate reviews from a tangle of federal, state, tribal and local agencies. The process, especially for an industry that has never operated in the state before, is slow.

Policymakers are using the word “urgent need” to describe efforts to accelerate offshore wind development because they are key to achieving California’s goal of decarbonizing its electricity grid.

According to the California Energy Commission, “under current federal, state, and local project review processes, environmental and permitting reviews for offshore wind facilities could take more than 10 years.”

Lawmakers are already trying to deal with rising electricity costs this year.

Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris, an Irvine Democrat and chairman of the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Energy, introduced an amendment to a bill that would direct state officials to “develop an affordability index” for future electricity rate increases.

Petrie-Norris told Politico in June that the goal was to cut consumers’ bills by $10. The bill passed the Assembly and was amended in the Senate and is now up for further debate. A spokesman for Petrie-Norris’ office declined to comment.