Former California State Assembly member Henry T Perea (D) wanted to bring affordable energy to disadvantaged communities in his district in California’s San Joaquin Valley. The State Legislature passed Perea’s bill in 2014 with a budget of $56.4 million. But work had not yet been completed in mid-2023.

Acknowledged to be one of the poorest areas in the state, the San Joaquin Valley is considered to be one of the major food producing centers of the country. The population, which works in the valley’s agricultural fields, is largely Hispanic.

The bill required the California Public Utilities Commission to identify and analyze economically feasible options to increase access to cost-effective and affordable energy in 11 San Joaquin Valley communities.  It approved a pilot program in December 2018 (D18-12-015). Work was finally launched in January 2020.

The CPUC designed pilot project offered free electrical appliances to 1,914 households in the chosen communities who were currently burning wood or propane. The state’s investor-owned utilities ran the pilots along with an independent firm, Richard Heath and Associates, and offered the free electrical appliances such as stoves and water heaters to replace those which burned natural gas, propane or wood. Alternatively, new gas hookups were offered to those residences to allow new gas appliances to replace wood or propane burning appliances.

The eventual goal is to determine if the program could be extended to all disadvantaged residents in the central valley. A full analysis will be conducted in 2024, a full 10 years after the law was passed.

In a rare dissent of the 2018 decision, then CPUC President Michael Vickers wrote, “In a well-meaning desire to help people, the commission … has created an overly complicated program that is likely to disappoint both its sponsors and intended beneficiaries.” More on his criticism later.

Results of the Pilot

By May 2023, out of the 1,914 participants chosen for the pilot, 34% or 612 homes received new energy efficient appliances or natural gas service. Program administrators foresee more homes will receive new appliances by the time the pilot ends on December 31, 2023. However, another one-third – a full 36% of households contacted (636), did not move forward to submit applications.

Many problems led to the low success rate, the least of which was the pandemic which slowed down or postponed resident interviews and evaluations of homes where the new appliances would be installed. Reasons why residents chose not to participate in the pilot ranged from the conviction that in the end the appliances would not be free to fears of increased electric bills. Also, many of those contacted were in the process of moving or had already moved. Many were not interested and gave no reason.  A few preferred their propane appliances.

Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric ran their programs through designated program managers.  Richard Heath and Associates (RHA) was hired to conduct an independent pilot in five communities located in PG&E territory.

Another pilot operated by Southern California Gas offered new gas equipment to replace wood and propane-burning appliances and, when needed, to extend connections to gas lines. Further, two community solar projects are in the process of being designed with about 90 residents already signed up.

The Work Force Struggled

Synergy, which had already been operating related energy savings programs in the disadvantaged communities, was tasked with hiring experienced electrical, HVAC, plumbing and efficiency workers.  Most of the 20 employees came from Synergy’s programs and six were new hires. Richard Heath reported that 70% of its staff lived in disadvantaged communities, but not necessarily those included in the pilot projects. Problems over the three years of the pilot ranged from staff and participant exposure to COVID-19, to staffing inefficiencies, and to shortages of new appliances.

Furthermore, some of the experienced electricians and other tradespeople were lured away by higher salaries in the competitive construction industry which was not impacted by COVID-19 work stoppages according to Richard Heath’s reporting in its annual review. It reported this led to difficulty maintaining a full workforce.

Challenges that led to Diminished Results

Soon after staff began contacting the selected households in January 2020, COID-19 hit not only households but the crews contacting homes and managed the installations. The result led to cancelled appointments and a six-month slowdown in the work schedule.

Other delays occurred due to the management system which often led to participants receiving calls from staffers who did not make the initial contact to schedule home visits or installations. Participants often did not respond because they did not recognize phone numbers

Homeowners also held back submitting an application requesting an assessment for new appliances until they could see work completed in their community. Richard Heath found this to be a real challenge given the “scatter-shot” nature of the program design.  They were required to work in all communities at one time instead of serving each of the five communities they were assigned before moving on to the next.  This “created significant inefficiencies and delayed implementation of the pilot,” the company said in its 2022 Annual Report.

Former President Picker Predicted Diminished Success

Former CPUC president, Michael Picker foresaw many of the difficulties the program experienced, particularly with its design.  In his dissenting opinion at the time it was approved in 2014. He wrote, “It raises community expectations for outcomes that the Commission is poorly situated to measure or achieve.” He alleged that the Commission has allowed individual, financially interested organizations to shape program designs.    

For example, Picker pointed out that one of the options the Legislature asked the CPUC to analyze it failed to seriously evaluate ”increasing subsidies such as direct payments or bill credits for electricity for residential customers in disadvantaged communities. [It] would seem to be the most straightforward, rapid, and transparent approach to increase access to affordable energy,” wrote Picker. He suggested that “the approved program funding could be used to equalize the cost of propane and natural gas for customers without access to gas for over thirty years.”

This story is based on CPUC’s decision, “D.18-12-015 plus a series of quarterly progress reports released through May 2023 by the utilities who were tasked to carry out the program plus an October 2022 report by Evergreen Economics. A final report is expected to be released after the program ends in December 2023. Former Commission President Michael Picker’s dissenting opinion can be found accompanying the same decision in Rulemaking 15-03-010.

Former California State Assembly member Henry T Perea (D) wanted to bring affordable energy to disadvantaged communities in his district in California’s San Joaquin Valley. The State Legislature passed Perea’s bill in 2014 with a budget of $56.4 million. But work had not yet been completed in mid-2023.

Acknowledged to be one of the poorest areas in the state, the San Joaquin Valley is considered to be one of the major food producing centers of the country. The population, which works in the valley’s agricultural fields, is largely Hispanic.

The bill required the California Public Utilities Commission to identify and analyze economically feasible options to increase access to cost-effective and affordable energy in 11 San Joaquin Valley communities.  It approved a pilot program in December 2018 (D18-12-015). Work was finally launched in January 2020.

The CPUC designed pilot project offered free electrical appliances to 1,914 households in the chosen communities who were currently burning wood or propane. The state’s investor-owned utilities ran the pilots along with an independent firm, Richard Heath and Associates, and offered the free electrical appliances such as stoves and water heaters to replace those which burned natural gas, propane or wood. Alternatively, new gas hookups were offered to those residences to allow new gas appliances to replace wood or propane burning appliances.

The eventual goal is to determine if the program could be extended to all disadvantaged residents in the central valley. A full analysis will be conducted in 2024, a full 10 years after the law was passed.

In a rare dissent of the 2018 decision, then CPUC President Michael Vickers wrote, “In a well-meaning desire to help people, the commission … has created an overly complicated program that is likely to disappoint both its sponsors and intended beneficiaries.” More on his criticism later.

Results of the Pilot

By May 2023, out of the 1,914 participants chosen for the pilot, 34% or 612 homes received new energy efficient appliances or natural gas service. Program administrators foresee more homes will receive new appliances by the time the pilot ends on December 31, 2023. However, another one-third – a full 36% of households contacted (636), did not move forward to submit applications.

Many problems led to the low success rate, the least of which was the pandemic which slowed down or postponed resident interviews and evaluations of homes where the new appliances would be installed. Reasons why residents chose not to participate in the pilot ranged from the conviction that in the end the appliances would not be free to fears of increased electric bills. Also, many of those contacted were in the process of moving or had already moved. Many were not interested and gave no reason.  A few preferred their propane appliances.

Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric ran their programs through designated program managers.  Richard Heath and Associates (RHA) was hired to conduct an independent pilot in five communities located in PG&E territory.

Another pilot operated by Southern California Gas offered new gas equipment to replace wood and propane-burning appliances and, when needed, to extend connections to gas lines. Further, two community solar projects are in the process of being designed with about 90 residents already signed up.

The Work Force Struggled

Synergy, which had already been operating related energy savings programs in the disadvantaged communities, was tasked with hiring experienced electrical, HVAC, plumbing and efficiency workers.  Most of the 20 employees came from Synergy’s programs and six were new hires. Richard Heath reported that 70% of its staff lived in disadvantaged communities, but not necessarily those included in the pilot projects. Problems over the three years of the pilot ranged from staff and participant exposure to COVID-19, to staffing inefficiencies, and to shortages of new appliances.

Furthermore, some of the experienced electricians and other tradespeople were lured away by higher salaries in the competitive construction industry which was not impacted by COVID-19 work stoppages according to Richard Heath’s reporting in its annual review. It reported this led to difficulty maintaining a full workforce.

Challenges that led to Diminished Results

Soon after staff began contacting the selected households in January 2020, COID-19 hit not only households but the crews contacting homes and managed the installations. The result led to cancelled appointments and a six-month slowdown in the work schedule.

Other delays occurred due to the management system which often led to participants receiving calls from staffers who did not make the initial contact to schedule home visits or installations. Participants often did not respond because they did not recognize phone numbers

Homeowners also held back submitting an application requesting an assessment for new appliances until they could see work completed in their community. Richard Heath found this to be a real challenge given the “scatter-shot” nature of the program design.  They were required to work in all communities at one time instead of serving each of the five communities they were assigned before moving on to the next.  This “created significant inefficiencies and delayed implementation of the pilot,” the company said in its 2022 Annual Report.

Former President Picker Predicted Diminished Success

Former CPUC president, Michael Picker foresaw many of the difficulties the program experienced, particularly with its design.  In his dissenting opinion at the time it was approved in 2014. He wrote, “It raises community expectations for outcomes that the Commission is poorly situated to measure or achieve.” He alleged that the Commission has allowed individual, financially interested organizations to shape program designs.    

For example, Picker pointed out that one of the options the Legislature asked the CPUC to analyze it failed to seriously evaluate ”increasing subsidies such as direct payments or bill credits for electricity for residential customers in disadvantaged communities. [It] would seem to be the most straightforward, rapid, and transparent approach to increase access to affordable energy,” wrote Picker. He suggested that “the approved program funding could be used to equalize the cost of propane and natural gas for customers without access to gas for over thirty years.”

This story is based on CPUC’s decision, “D.18-12-015 plus a series of quarterly progress reports released through May 2023 by the utilities who were tasked to carry out the program plus an October 2022 report by Evergreen Economics. A final report is expected to be released after the program ends in December 2023. Former Commission President Michael Picker’s dissenting opinion can be found accompanying the same decision in Rulemaking 15-03-010.

Former California State Assembly member Henry T Perea (D) wanted to bring affordable energy to disadvantaged communities in his district in California’s San Joaquin Valley. The State Legislature passed Perea’s bill in 2014 with a budget of $56.4 million. But work had not yet been completed in mid-2023.

Acknowledged to be one of the poorest areas in the state, the San Joaquin Valley is considered to be one of the major food producing centers of the country. The population, which works in the valley’s agricultural fields, is largely Hispanic.

The bill required the California Public Utilities Commission to identify and analyze economically feasible options to increase access to cost-effective and affordable energy in 11 San Joaquin Valley communities.  It approved a pilot program in December 2018 (D18-12-015). Work was finally launched in January 2020.

The CPUC designed pilot project offered free electrical appliances to 1,914 households in the chosen communities who were currently burning wood or propane. The state’s investor-owned utilities ran the pilots along with an independent firm, Richard Heath and Associates, and offered the free electrical appliances such as stoves and water heaters to replace those which burned natural gas, propane or wood. Alternatively, new gas hookups were offered to those residences to allow new gas appliances to replace wood or propane burning appliances.

The eventual goal is to determine if the program could be extended to all disadvantaged residents in the central valley. A full analysis will be conducted in 2024, a full 10 years after the law was passed.

In a rare dissent of the 2018 decision, then CPUC President Michael Vickers wrote, “In a well-meaning desire to help people, the commission … has created an overly complicated program that is likely to disappoint both its sponsors and intended beneficiaries.” More on his criticism later.

Results of the Pilot

By May 2023, out of the 1,914 participants chosen for the pilot, 34% or 612 homes received new energy efficient appliances or natural gas service. Program administrators foresee more homes will receive new appliances by the time the pilot ends on December 31, 2023. However, another one-third – a full 36% of households contacted (636), did not move forward to submit applications.

Many problems led to the low success rate, the least of which was the pandemic which slowed down or postponed resident interviews and evaluations of homes where the new appliances would be installed. Reasons why residents chose not to participate in the pilot ranged from the conviction that in the end the appliances would not be free to fears of increased electric bills. Also, many of those contacted were in the process of moving or had already moved. Many were not interested and gave no reason.  A few preferred their propane appliances.

Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric ran their programs through designated program managers.  Richard Heath and Associates (RHA) was hired to conduct an independent pilot in five communities located in PG&E territory.

Another pilot operated by Southern California Gas offered new gas equipment to replace wood and propane-burning appliances and, when needed, to extend connections to gas lines. Further, two community solar projects are in the process of being designed with about 90 residents already signed up.

The Work Force Struggled

Synergy, which had already been operating related energy savings programs in the disadvantaged communities, was tasked with hiring experienced electrical, HVAC, plumbing and efficiency workers.  Most of the 20 employees came from Synergy’s programs and six were new hires. Richard Heath reported that 70% of its staff lived in disadvantaged communities, but not necessarily those included in the pilot projects. Problems over the three years of the pilot ranged from staff and participant exposure to COVID-19, to staffing inefficiencies, and to shortages of new appliances.

Furthermore, some of the experienced electricians and other tradespeople were lured away by higher salaries in the competitive construction industry which was not impacted by COVID-19 work stoppages according to Richard Heath’s reporting in its annual review. It reported this led to difficulty maintaining a full workforce.

Challenges that led to Diminished Results

Soon after staff began contacting the selected households in January 2020, COID-19 hit not only households but the crews contacting homes and managed the installations. The result led to cancelled appointments and a six-month slowdown in the work schedule.

Other delays occurred due to the management system which often led to participants receiving calls from staffers who did not make the initial contact to schedule home visits or installations. Participants often did not respond because they did not recognize phone numbers

Homeowners also held back submitting an application requesting an assessment for new appliances until they could see work completed in their community. Richard Heath found this to be a real challenge given the “scatter-shot” nature of the program design.  They were required to work in all communities at one time instead of serving each of the five communities they were assigned before moving on to the next.  This “created significant inefficiencies and delayed implementation of the pilot,” the company said in its 2022 Annual Report.

Former President Picker Predicted Diminished Success

Former CPUC president, Michael Picker foresaw many of the difficulties the program experienced, particularly with its design.  In his dissenting opinion at the time it was approved in 2014. He wrote, “It raises community expectations for outcomes that the Commission is poorly situated to measure or achieve.” He alleged that the Commission has allowed individual, financially interested organizations to shape program designs.    

For example, Picker pointed out that one of the options the Legislature asked the CPUC to analyze it failed to seriously evaluate ”increasing subsidies such as direct payments or bill credits for electricity for residential customers in disadvantaged communities. [It] would seem to be the most straightforward, rapid, and transparent approach to increase access to affordable energy,” wrote Picker. He suggested that “the approved program funding could be used to equalize the cost of propane and natural gas for customers without access to gas for over thirty years.”

This story is based on CPUC’s decision, “D.18-12-015 plus a series of quarterly progress reports released through May 2023 by the utilities who were tasked to carry out the program plus an October 2022 report by Evergreen Economics. A final report is expected to be released after the program ends in December 2023. Former Commission President Michael Picker’s dissenting opinion can be found accompanying the same decision in Rulemaking 15-03-010.