Complex and conflicting laws: State laws change quickly and often without clear language. Local planners must interpret vague mandates, creating uncertainty. Even “pro-housing” cities find themselves unsure how to comply, lacking time, resources, and state-provided tools to implement laws.

Litigation and “wrist slaps” from the state: Cities report constant fear of lawsuits — either from local communities opposed to development, or from the state (HCD and others) penalizing them for non-compliance. Municipalities sometimes experiment with state programs (like density bonuses) to “see if they get slapped” before others follow.

NIMBY Opposition: Often framed as preserving neighborhood “green space,” but also rooted in protecting single-family character and resisting multifamily density. Infill is criticized as removing trees/backyards and contributing to the urban heat island effect.

Misaligned planning timelines: Housing elements (driven by RHNA cycles) must be updated first, often without time to integrate greenhouse gas reduction, wildfire risk, or sea-level rise into land-use planning. General plans are “piecemealed” instead of comprehensive.

Local fiscal disincentives: Especially acute in disadvantaged cities with very low property tax returns (e.g., in SE Los Angeles). Housing is viewed as financially burdensome since service costs exceed revenue; commercial uses are often favored

Stakeholder balancing: Conflicts among developers, labor, environmentalists, and local governments lead to delays; suggested need for joint panels to audit rules

Mission creep: Layering of numerous small requirements (“weight of 1,000 pennies”) overwhelms staff and slows projects

Inconsistent streamlining priorities: A football stadium may get streamlined, but city rezonings to accommodate the arena have to go through full CEQA.

Time delays affecting compliance: “It takes a lot of time, and now cities are behind on their own zoning, and they’re going to start getting dinged by HCD”

Unfunded mandates: For jurisdictions without resources or in debt, well intended state laws that aren’t paired with funding become unmanageable 

Green space loss & heat island effect: There is a general lack of park and green space access in the region. ADUs and infill remove private lawns/backyards — the only green space available in many dense neighborhoods. Regulations requiring “amenities” often result in token measures (e.g., paved plazas with cacti and ping pong tables) that do not replace parks

Insufficient family amenities: Many new developments target young professionals with studios or one-bedrooms, lacking daycares, schools, and parks. Families are pushed out to other areas, limiting long-term neighborhood stability

Disconnected planning: Housing is often treated separately from parks, transit, and open space. Example: Glendale added large amounts of housing but did not connect it adequately to Metro or train systems — a “missed opportunity”

Transit mismatches: While housing density is encouraged, regional transit investment lags, leaving residents car-dependent and undermining climate benefits

Disconnect from livable environments: Housing planning often treats parks, trees, and healthy public spaces as “extras” rather than integrated needs. Residents note lack of nearby parks and open space, even in rapidly growing areas

Complex funding structures: Projects must braid together tax credits, subsidies, and multiple grants. Each has different timelines, reviews, and requirements, adding months/years to development

Overly competitive funding: Scarce funds force developers into cutthroat competition. Strong projects often fail simply because funding pools are too small

Heavy compliance burdens: Grants and tax credits require extensive reporting and “box checking.” Example: “Buy American” requirements can complicate material procurement, while each funder adds new conditions

Market infeasibility: In some sub-regions, multifamily housing is financially infeasible, making it difficult to deliver affordability at scale. By contrast, townhomes or condos (“missing middle” housing) often “pencil out” and align better with consumer demand

Housing as a commodity: Participants described capitalism “inserted between people and services,” with housing increasingly treated as a financial asset rather than a human right

Displacement through retrofits: Energy or seismic retrofits often become grounds for landlords to displace tenants or raise rents. In LA, rent control protects affordability but landlords use “climate upgrades” as a displacement tool

Renters overburdened. Example: In Long Beach, 60% of residents are renters, disproportionately BIPOC and low-income. Energy upgrades are often passed on as rent hikes, burdening already gentrifying neighborhoods

Family housing shortage: New units often lack 2–3 bedrooms. Parents report difficulty finding livable space for children; family-oriented housing types are scarce

Aging, vulnerable stock: Much of California’s urban housing is old, lacks air conditioning, and is ill-prepared for extreme heat, earthquakes, or wildfire. Tenants face increasing health and safety risks

Misplaced investments: Funding flows to wealthy areas with resources to advocate for protection. Example: flood-risk coastal neighborhoods receive seawall investment while inland disadvantaged communities lack basic resilience upgrades

Building code gaps: Codes ensure efficiency but don’t mandate broader resilience (e.g., open space for shade, stormwater capture, permeable landscapes). This limits adaptation capacity

Insurance limitations: Few insurers operate in wildfire/flood zones, raising costs and limiting affordability. Calls were made to diversify carriers to spread risk

High costs of resilience upgrades limit accessibility, particularly for low-income and underinsured households: Current state incentives often only cover 10–30% of costs, leaving most resilience upgrades accessible mainly to wealthier households. Calls for direct-install programs and 70–80% cost coverage so upgrades are truly affordable in low-income and disadvantaged communities.

Insurance disparities: under- and uninsured households, and heirs inheriting properties, face unique barriers to rebuilding and resilience improvements

Workforce gaps: lack of trained professionals in water-wise landscaping, stormwater systems, and fire-safe retrofits raises both costs and inequities

Difficulty rebuilding after disasters: Survivors of fires, floods, or earthquakes face extremely lengthy approval and financing processes before homes can be rebuilt. Local governments lack streamlined permitting, and insurance/funding timelines are misaligned, compounding trauma and displacement

Disparities in permitting recovery efforts: FEMA application success, and response times across racial and socioeconomic groups: 90% of Latino applicants in one community reported receiving “errors” on FEMA applications, while white residents had more success securing assistance.

Regional planning and public works bottlenecks delay rebuilding, particularly for communities that already face capacity constraints.

Recovery rules (e.g., debris clearance required before permitting) disproportionately slow low-income communities that may not have capacity to meet requirements quickly

Mis- and disinformation complicate community recovery efforts and public understanding of resilience strategies: After the January fires, significant misinformation and disinformation spread about fire causes and recovery responsibilities. Even highly engaged residents experienced confusion about FEMA and recovery deadlines, risking exclusion from aid. Lack of clear, trusted communication channels between state, counties, NGOs, and communities hinders recovery coordination. Calls for state and NGO collaboration to “get around the noise” and establish a shared understanding before funding flows.

Pressure to rebuild “like-for-like” may hinder opportunities for resilience upgrades and long-term adaptation. The “like-for-like” rule applies to size and location of the rebuilt structure, not necessarily to construction quality. For example, a home must be rebuilt in the same footprint and scale, but the construction itself will be updated to meet current fire, water, and energy codes. This creates some improvements (efficiency, fire safety), but limits opportunities to rethink broader neighborhood or community resilience. Participants noted that this can prevent larger adaptation strategies from being implemented, keeping communities vulnerable to future disasters.

Fragmented jurisdictional responsibilities creating confusion and inequities in disaster recovery. Example: After LA fire a single federal emergency declaration covered five different counties. Each county had distinct needs, geographies, and service structures (e.g., Malibu vs. Sierra Madre vs. Altadena vs. Sunny Mesa), making coordination extremely challenging. Federal, state, and local agencies often struggled to align timelines, priorities, and deployment of resources. Additionally, because of utility service fragmentation residents across the multiple jurisdictions experienced very different levels of protection and reconstruction support depending on their utility territory (Example: Palisades had already undergrounded electrical lines pre-fire, while Altadena had not. Different service areas and responsibilities meant uneven resilience measures and recovery timelines). Fragmentation exacerbates inequities: some jurisdictions (e.g., Pasadena) were able to loan planners to neighboring areas like Sierra Madre, but not all jurisdictions had that capacity.

Built hydrology systems (pipes, reservoirs, storm drains) were never designed for the intensity of today’s fires and extreme climate events

Wildfire risks are magnified at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and ember zones, where traditional infrastructure cannot fully mitigate spread

Reliance solely on “hard” infrastructure misses opportunities—communities need living infrastructure (integrated natural, social, and built systems) to supplement resilience

Pilot Climate Resilience Districts (long-term local financing models).

Community impact of PSPS: Stakeholders described multi-day blackouts (e.g., a week-long outage in the Inland Empire). These events illustrate the urgency of integrating resilience into energy systems, but also expose gaps in readiness .

Mismatch between local needs and utility action: Despite repeated hazards, local agencies lack streamlined pathways to fund and install microgrids at critical facilities (schools, water treatment, transit depots). These long lead times compound the reliability risk for communities most affected by PSPS events .

Technology gaps for resilience: Some emerging products—like appliances with built-in batteries (e.g., GE’s 120V-to-240V upgradeable water heaters, battery-powered stoves)—could provide low-cost resilience in outages, but are not yet widely deployed or supported by policy .

Limited funding and resources for projects critical during emergencies: Community stakeholders emphasized the difficulty of funding projects like resiliency hubs, water treatment plants, or school-based shelters that may not be in daily use but are essential during wildfires or PSPS events. These projects often have long lead times and complex permitting, which makes them harder to fund through conventional short-cycle grant programs

Limited funding and support for long-term community resiliency centers. Community organizations stressed that Prop 4 and other climate funds are insufficient to sustain long-term resiliency hubs. While some funding exists for infrastructure, resources to maintain and operate community centers as ongoing resilience assets are lacking. Counties like Orange expressed challenges in securing state or CEC grants for resiliency hub development, highlighting regional inequities in access

Jurisdictional fragmentation—different utilities and counties have varying capacities (e.g., Palisades undergrounding power lines while Altadena has not)—leads to uneven infrastructure resilience

Landscape recovery after wildfire is complex and requires patience, creating tension between immediate action and long term resilience. Historically, the Los Angeles region adapted to fire, but the current intensity and frequency are unprecedented, so even land managers “don’t always know how the landscape is going to respond”

Resilience undervalued in cost-benefit analysis: Stakeholders noted that traditional program assessments only weigh direct dollars spent and saved, ignoring the broader benefits of resilience (e.g., access to emergency shelters during wildfires, reduced fear and anxiety during disasters).

Social cost of carbon not applied in California decisions: Despite robust research on the health and economic damages per ton of emissions (lost workdays, health impacts, productivity losses), participants pointed out that California has not consistently integrated this metric into regulatory or program cost-benefit analyses, unlike a few other states

Ecosystem services models ignored: Economic modeling frameworks that account for people and ecosystems as part of the cost-benefit equation exist but are rarely used, or are even actively downplayed by policymakers

Funding instability—programs often run out or change midstream: Participants described frequent lapses in state retrofit incentives: programs “run out of funding” unpredictably, leaving homeowners and contractors uncertain about whether projects will be supported. Local groups noted lag times in federal funding and shifting state priorities, which destabilize project pipelines and discourage investment

Need for more flexible, simplified, and customer-facing incentives and grant administration: Participants called for simplifying incentives and program design, so more customers qualify and funding can move quickly to projects rather than being bogged down in admin. Flexibility was a recurring theme: community members emphasized that rules must evolve mid-grant as conditions (like costs or disasters) change. Participants also flagged the need for advance pay options to ease upfront burdens, especially for smaller entities.

Complexity of incentives and funding cycles—fragmented, siloed, hard for homeowners to navigate: Homeowners find incentive stacking extremely complex, often requiring them to navigate multiple disconnected applications. Even experienced professionals said they struggle to access all available rebates. Programs are often developed in isolation, creating conflicting rules, eligibility requirements, and short funding cycles that leave customers confused.

Funding and access gaps, especially for small contractors and community-based businesses: Small contractors face barriers because retrofits are treated as bespoke, high-cost projects rather than benefiting from economies of scale, making it hard for them to compete. Contractors and CBOs reported that qualifying for grant opportunities is difficult, especially when requirements favor larger agencies. Subgranting and capacity-building for smaller, local players was identified as essential

Community mistrust due to past bad actors in solar and renewable energy programs: Stakeholders repeatedly raised bad faith actors in early solar markets, who misled residents with false promises. This has left a lasting “trust deficit” in neighborhoods like Pacoima, where rebuilding credibility takes years. Communities report receiving scam flyers, robocalls, and door-to-door pitches, which get conflated with legitimate programs and undermine adoption. Solar associations and local advocates are frustrated that a few bad contractors damage trust across the whole industry, making engagement harder.

Language access and outreach challenges: Cities like Alhambra emphasized the importance of safe, accessible venues (e.g., libraries) where residents can learn about programs in their language, but they lack resources to scale this outreach. Participants noted that government jargon and technical language alienate residents, making programs feel inaccessible or untrustworthy. In-person events with interpretation and culturally tailored engagement are critical, but capacity and funding shortfalls limit consistency.

Consumer awareness gap—low understanding of retrofit benefits and available incentives: Many residents do not know incentives exist at all; awareness often only arises at “intervention points” like home resale, appliance failure, or limited-time rebates. Residents also struggle to understand stacked incentives, with siloed program designs that make it nearly impossible for a homeowner to navigate without expert support

Multifamily building retrofitting is especially difficult due to the split incentive problem—landlords bear retrofit costs, while tenants capture the utility savings which discourages upgrades even when technically feasible.

When retrofiting existing building stock, each building has unique conditions, making upgrades “bespoke solutions.” Costs include high upfront fees (e.g., just sending a contractor out may cost $1,000–$1,500) and lack of economies of scale compared to new builds.

Retrofitting existing buildings is not just financially costly but time-intensive, which deters property owners who see little direct benefit, especially landlords who don’t pay utility bills.

Older housing stock often requires major pre-work—such as roofing repairs, panel upgrades, insulation fixes, and appliance replacement—before efficiency retrofits can be installed, creating a stacked barrier for low- and moderate-income homeowners.

Many home owners only act when appliances fail (e.g., a broken water heater), leading them to choose the cheapest replacement available rather than an efficient option, missing retrofit opportunities.

Many contractors and HVAC installers are unfamiliar with new technologies like heat pumps. Some actively discourage customers, telling them it’s “stupid to think about this,” reflecting entrenched skepticism. Even educated consumers rely heavily on installers’ advice. If the installer doesn’t know about or believe in newer technologies, they will push conventional systems instead.

Contractors prefer sticking with one manufacturer’s equipment (e.g., a specific inverter brand) to reduce training and complexity, reinforcing a one-size-fits-all practice rather than customizing to building needs

Incentives tied to manufacturers and volume: Plumbers and installers receive retroactive discounts or lump-sum checks when they hit installation volume thresholds with specific manufacturers. This creates strong financial incentives to repeatedly install the same product, even when better options exist. These arrangements not only bias product choice but also lock contractors into entrenched vendor relationships, making it harder to introduce innovative equipment.

IOUs have kept overall electricity demand flat for 20+ years while quadrupling rates, creating a structural affordability challenge

Many programs emphasize piecemeal solutions (e.g., LEDs, HVAC upgrades) but fail to scale up to whole-building decarbonization

Projects face cumbersome permitting and compliance pathways, especially for historic or complex buildings, slowing implementation

Fragmentation between energy efficiency, electrification, and DER programs limiting holistic solutions: Stakeholders described “siloization”: water efficiency, energy efficiency, and resiliency retrofits are often pursued separately, even though they could be bundled for greater impact. Program cycles and funding are often isolated and inconsistent, forcing contractors and cities to chase one-off opportunities rather than align strategies. IOU representatives acknowledged the need for radical efficiency plus electrification, but said existing programs still compete with each other instead of integrating

Local governments and contractors struggle to keep up with frequent state policy shifts (e.g., reach codes, new CPUC proceedings, AB 360 restrictions on local codes)

Renters vs. owners: renters lack authority to make upgrades, owners hesitant to invest when renters hold utility bills.

There is a severe shortage of trained contractors and skilled workers to meet growing demand for electrification, retrofits, and renewables. Many existing workers lack familiarity with new technologies and requirements—such as heat pumps and IRA compliance—slowing project delivery and limiting local capacity.

Lack of clear education and training pipelines for green jobs: Community members and experts called for better pipeline coordination, noting that current programs are fragmented start-up initiatives rather than sustained pathways tied to industry demand. While the state has a workforce master plan, participants stressed the need for local translation—high schools and community colleges often don’t show students the concrete pathways into green jobs like solar design or EV charging station installation.

Insufficient mentorship and career pathways, especially for BIPOC and underrepresented communities: Mentorship programs are scarce and uneven, leaving BIPOC youth especially underserved.

Training programs often fail to align with actual job availability or timing, creating gaps between the skills being taught and real market demand. Many programs launch before jobs are available, leaving participants trained but unable to find work immediately. Others focus too narrowly—such as on solar installation—without offering pathways to high-paying, long-term careers, resulting in short-term gains but limited stability.

Union entry barriers and limited participation in residential work compared to commercial: Union pathways remain a major roadblock, particularly in residential sectors. Stakeholders flagged that union jobs concentrate in commercial work, leaving residential retrofits under-supported. State-level oversight was suggested to ensure more equitable union participation in the residential market.

Inconsistent job descriptions and lack of industry codes for emerging green jobs: Workforce advocates reported inconsistent titles and unclear role definitions, making it difficult for workers, educators, and employers to align expectations. The state currently lacks standardized industry codes for many green jobs, hindering tracking, funding, and workforce planning.

Communities lack awareness that “green jobs are good jobs”: There is still a branding problem—many youth and workers don’t see green jobs as lucrative or stable career paths. Marketing lags behind private sector examples: Tesla, for instance, has dominated branding in EVs, but similar momentum hasn’t been achieved for careers like solar design or building retrofits.

Weak marketing and branding of green careers, making them less appealing to youth: Participants stressed the need to make green jobs “sexy, cool, and urgent” for young people, tapping into youth passion for climate action. Without compelling branding, youth are more drawn to careers in tech or engineering that are seen as prestigious or lucrative.

Long timelines for cities and institutions to adopt climate and workforce strategies: Workforce shifts are slowed by bureaucratic processes and long planning horizons. Cities can take years to adopt climate workforce strategies, making it hard to align training timelines. A disconnect between state-level goals and local planning capacity compounds delays, leaving smaller cities especially behind.

Codes and standards work well for new construction but are less effective for retrofits of existing or historic buildings, which face cumbersome permitting and compliance hurdles. This slows down energy efficiency and retrofit projects.

Some practitioners argued that “a lot is already in the code” and questioned the push to keep layering on new requirements. They noted that overlapping priorities and multiple code updates create confusion and regulatory fatigue.

Stakeholders highlighted the need for statewide standardization of codes for electrification so that small cities without capacity aren’t left behind. Currently, smaller jurisdictions often lack the resources to design or enforce performance standards, leaving uneven implementation

There is also concern that building codes and health codes, when used as triggers (e.g., at point of sale or equipment replacement), can increase costs without adequate subsidies, potentially burdening low-income households

IOU stranglehold on microgrid rules: Participants noted that investor-owned utilities (IOUs) have effectively “captured” the rules around microgrid development, restricting how many meters or parcels can be connected. This creates major barriers for community-scale microgrids

Complicated CPUC processes: The community microgrid program at the CPUC was described as “extremely complicated.” CCAs (community choice aggregators) said they prefer to focus on building-level projects rather than engaging in the protracted rulemaking needed to challenge IOU frameworks

Permitting and interconnection hurdles: Even large cities like Los Angeles struggle with permitting unilateral batteries, while cross-parcel energy exchange remains prohibited under state rules—both of which constrain community-scale microgrid development.

Financial viability issues: Developers aren’t able to capture cost savings on the “reserve” portion of behind-the-meter batteries, which undermines the business case for microgrids. Even with multiple projects, making them self-sustaining is difficult unless CCAs step in with grid access and procurement support .

Market barriers: As one participant put it, if microgrids were lucrative or even breaking even, “the market would already be doing it.” This underscores the need for new incentives and simplified pathways to make large-scale implementation viable .

Utility incentives misaligned: IOUs prioritize electrification and EV load growth (new consumption they can monetize) over efficiency or distributed energy resources (DERs). This skews investment away from community-centered microgrid solutions

CCA role in enabling projects: Some CCAs are able to push microgrid projects forward because they can leverage procurement data and grid advocacy resources that private developers cannot access. Without this support, scalability remains out of reach .

Value of resilience overlooked: Standard cost-benefit analysis fails to account for intangible benefits (safety during wildfires, emergency shelter capacity). Tools like Clean Coalition’s Value of Resilience framework were highlighted as ways to justify investment .

Day-to-day operational complexity: Municipal fleets and other DERs require coordinated planning for battery use across multiple functions (mobility, backup, grid services). Without active management, projects stall because the complexity exceeds most agencies’ capacity.

Need for stationary backup for microgrids: Stakeholders stressed that solar + EV fleets are not enough; critical sites require stationary batteries to ensure reliability in emergencies.

Funding and administrative gaps for microgrid implementation: Even when technical solutions exist, cities often have only “one person” to manage a grant or technical application, creating bottlenecks in project development

Fleet battery management: While many municipal and school buses use only part of their daily range, leaving untapped storage capacity, coordinating fleet use for both mobility and grid support requires sophisticated day-to-day planning. Current policies, demand-response penalties, and lack of management tools make it risky and difficult to rely on EVs for critical backup power.

Need for sophisticated management: Programs that rely on EVs and stationary batteries must carefully “piece out” capacity for multiple uses (mobility, building demand, backup). Without strong operational systems, complexity discourages projects from moving forward .

Underrepresentation of communities: Two ethnicities in particular were flagged as “horribly underrepresented” in key meetings, reflecting systemic inequities in who gets invited. The same individuals are tapped repeatedly, creating fatigue and skewing representation

Gatekeeping of expertise: Community knowledge is often dismissed because it lacks academic or professional credentials. Agencies privilege voices with “letters behind their names,” leading to distrust and discouragement among grassroots experts

Cronyism and tokenism: Decision-making can be tightly controlled by entrenched interests (“cronyism”), allowing only symbolic or one-way participation. “Check-the-box” representation (e.g., one Indigenous participant framed as representing all tribes) was cited as harmful

Unintended exclusion: Well-meaning efforts (like aiming for “indigenous-led” processes) often fail if there are no authentic relationships, treating diverse groups as a monolith and reinforcing mistrust

Jargon and technical terms alienate the public: Residents often “don’t call it climate change” — they know the issues but not the terminology. Translation into Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin, and other languages is often literal, missing context. Visual tools (infographics, photos, murals) were emphasized as effective alternatives

Lack of public understanding: Community members don’t always understand why they’re being asked to participate because there’s no primer linking technical issues to everyday concerns (e.g., public health, housing, jobs)

Intergenerational gaps: Schools vary widely in whether they integrate climate or environmental concepts, leaving younger and older residents with uneven exposure. Some communities rely on kids to translate complex concepts for parents

Insufficient ongoing education: Awareness-building is underfunded; one example showed millions of dollars broken into micro-grants for CBOs, but when funds were redirected toward resident stipends, CBO staff capacity to carry education forward was lost

Few organizations in some regions are working on climate issues, requiring extensive education and ramp-up.

Unpaid participation: Community reps on steering committees or coalitions are often expected to contribute without stipends, covering costs from their general operating budgets

Grant restrictions: Many funding programs prohibit childcare, food, or resident stipends, which directly prevents working parents, single mothers, or low-income households from attending meetings. A striking example: meetings scheduled at 3pm (school pickup time) systematically excluded single mothers

Lack of local funding: Philanthropic foundations often fund outside organizations with no local roots, displacing long-term local partners (“philanthropic gentrification”)

Short grant timelines: Funding opportunities often give only weeks to prepare proposals, requiring professional grant writers. Smaller cities and CBOs without such staff cannot compete