Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cost Effectiveness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee presses CPUC, utilities on whether ratepayer-funded efficiency delivers its promised value
Summary
Lawmakers convened experts and community implementers to scrutinize how California measures the benefits of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency, debating whether current cost-effectiveness tests capture long-term system and equity benefits and noting active CPUC rulemakings on the issue.
Chair Petrie Norris convened the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy to examine whether the money California ratepayers contribute to energy efficiency programs continues to buy outcomes worth that investment. "The core question before us is how do we ensure that the money that ratepayers contribute to energy efficiency continues to buy outcomes that are worth that investment," the chair said.
Panelists led with figures and technical framing. Carrie Fleisher, director of distributed energy resources, natural gas and retail rates at the California Public Utilities Commission, told the committee that between 2021 and 2023 program administrators saved nearly 2,000 gigawatt hours and roughly $2,000,000,000 in system costs, and that administrators spent about $795,000,000 on energy efficiency in 2025. Fleisher said the CPUC measures long-term value using a "total system benefit" metric that values when and how long savings occur.
Much of the hearing centered on what cost-effectiveness test should govern ratepayer-funded programs. Several implementers and administrators defended portfolio-level application of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and the existing four-year budget cycle, while technical and consumer-advocacy witnesses argued TRC’s inclusion of program participant costs can undercount benefits and bias against high-efficiency or equity-focused measures. "Programs funded by ratepayers should produce greater ratepayer benefits than costs," said Shelley Leiser of the Public Advocates Office.
Committee members pressed for plain-language explanations and quicker timelines for reforms. CPUC staff said proceedings touching on the business application and broader policy issues were underway, with a proposed decision in the business application expected in Q2–Q3 of next year. Lawmakers asked the CPUC and program administrators to provide clearer, public-facing metrics so constituents can see what they get for ratepayer dollars.
The committee then heard a series of public comments from community choice aggregators, regional energy networks and implementers urging continued, stable funding for energy efficiency to preserve workforce and community benefits. The hearing closed with committee staff and panelists agreeing to continue the technical and policy conversations in pending rulemakings.
