CDCR seeks pilot funding to cool prison housing units; LAO urges reporting and statewide strategy

CDCR asked the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 to approve one‑time funds for a pilot project to install and evaluate air‑cooling alternatives at four prisons; Legislative Analyst’s Office staff recommended the Legislature require an evaluation and a statewide scaling strategy and requested near‑term reporting to inform oversight.

CDCR’s Division of Facility Planning, Construction and Management Director Dave Lewis described the problem as a combination of rising extreme heat events and facility construction that retains heat. Lewis told the subcommittee the department’s current indoor standard for housing units is 89 degrees and that many housing units do not have effective mechanical cooling. He said roughly 52 percent of housing units use evaporative cooling, 24 percent have some mechanical cooling, about 19 percent have no cooling option but have an air handler, and about 5 percent rely solely on fans. Lewis emphasized that non‑insulated concrete construction causes heat gain that can keep housing units in the upper 80s or 90s overnight.

CDCR requested $23.6 million one‑time in 2025–26 and $45.4 million one‑time in 2026–27 for a pilot at Central California Women’s Facility, California Medical Facility, Kern Valley State Prison and California State Prison Los Angeles. Lewis said the pilot is intentionally small to identify engineering, installation and operational issues before any large‑scale rollout.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended approving the pilot because of heat‑related health risks and potential litigation exposure, but warned the pilot covers a negligible share of CDCR’s portfolio and scaling statewide could be costly and time‑consuming. The LAO recommended two reports: (1) a near‑term report due Jan. 10, 2026 providing an inventory of housing unit design types, recent temperature data if available, short‑term mitigation measures and a plan for units not covered by the pilot; and (2) a final evaluation and statewide scaling strategy following the pilot due Jan. 10, 2031. The LAO suggested the Legislature use budget committee hearings to clarify evaluation criteria (for example, continuous sensors vs. manual readings and choice of comparison groups).

Department of Finance staff said they supported the pilot but questioned whether formal reporting language was necessary and noted reporting can be resource intensive. Subcommittee members pressed CDCR for more detail on how success would be measured, how the department would deliver cooling without unduly disrupting housing operations, and whether the pilot sites were chosen for high heat exposure and different housing types. CDCR said the pilot intentionally includes different housing types and desert sites where evaporative cooling is common; the department acknowledged the pilot will affect fewer than 20 housing units out of about 1,500 statewide.

Committee members also asked about temperature monitoring; Lewis said temperature is typically measured manually when outside temperatures exceed 90 degrees and that the Coleman litigation requires certain monitoring thresholds for class members. LAO staff and legislators suggested CDCR report on short‑term measures (for example, portable air conditioners, roof coatings, uniform changes or access to air‑conditioned program spaces) while longer‑term capital work proceeds.

Why it matters: Heat exposure in correctional housing has health and litigation implications. The pilot is a near‑term engineering test but will not, by itself, solve systemwide cooling deficiencies; the LAO urged reporting to help the Legislature evaluate costs, scalability and short‑term mitigations.