San Diego Community Power, a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) focused on providing more renewable energy at lower costs. It manages procurement of locally-sourced energy and energy efficiency programs, including SD Regional Energy Network, and implements programs like Solar Battery Savings, which placed batteries in 1,600 homes.

Reform IOU incentive structures – Require utilities to support distributed resources and community-scale projects, not just centralized assets

Increase transparency in utility decision-making – Mandate open and public review processes for utility planning and investment decisions

Fund distributed energy pilots outside IOU control – State can directly fund non-IOU projects (tribal, local government, or CCA-led) to demonstrate alternatives

The state should pass legislation that would remove items from utility purview

Reduce legal hurdles for municipalization – Streamline statutes and procedures so cities and regions can more easily establish public power entities

Support CCA expansion – State should provide technical and financial assistance to CCAs, recognizing them as key actors in democratizing energy

Regional governance advocacy – Establish regional coordination tables to push collectively for fairer utility processes and accountability

Align CAPs with community power goals – Local climate plans should include explicit pathways for public or community-led energy solutions, helping frame municipalization as part of climate action

Stakeholders voiced mistrust that utilities and energy markets are manipulating rates and slowing reforms to protect profits, increasing skepticism about decarbonization policies

Local governments and tribes often learn of CPUC decisions affecting utility operations only after they are made, leaving them without meaningful input on structural decisions that shape energy access and costs

Utility resistance and misaligned incentives: Investor-owned utilities (IOUs) prioritize shareholder profits and large-scale transmission projects that generate returns, while resisting or delaying distributed solutions such as rooftop solar, community solar, microgrids, and battery storage. They have little incentive to value or compensate distributed energy resources, undervalue battery reserves, and often oppose regulatory changes that would enable local or community-driven resilience. As a result, local governments, tribes, and communities face persistent legal, procedural, and financial hurdles in advancing decentralized clean energy solutions.

Efforts to create public power utilities or municipalize existing systems face extensive legal battles, long timelines, and high costs, discouraging communities from pursuing alternatives

Streamline building electrification and transportation electrification on locally produced (community) electricity and locally distributed energy projects.

Long-term monitoring and evaluation – Fund multi-year demonstration projects to assess the effectiveness of microgrids and DER coordination over time

Prioritize vulnerable communities – Local resilience planning recommended siting microgrids in tribal, rural, and unincorporated communities that are most exposed to outages

Stakeholders emphasized that utilities face no penalties or accountability mechanisms for slow interconnection reviews. Applications can stall indefinitely unless regulations establish clear deadlines. This creates backlogs for community-scale solar, batteries, and microgrids, leaving resilience projects stranded.

Communities vulnerable to Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) see microgrids as a solution, but deployment lags far behind need, leaving communities exposed to outages

Slow interconnection and permitting: Lengthy utility review and interconnection processes delay the approval of microgrids and distributed storage projects. Permitting challenges and overlapping regulatory requirements add additional costs and delays for local governments

Despite high potential in San Diego, community solar remains rare and difficult to implement due to state policy and utility resistance. Battery storage deployment is also slowed by utility interconnection delays

Clarify state authority vs. local authority – State should provide clearer statutory guidance on the extent of local authority to adopt codes under moratorium conditions, to reduce risk of lawsuits

The state should not remove local control over various codes in order to build quicker, especially without discussing with local jurisdictions first.

Provide templates and model codes – State agencies could issue pre-approved reach code templates that align with state goals and reduce local legal vulnerability

Regional coordination – Collaborative planning at the regional governance level was recommended to help align standards across jurisdictions and minimize conflicts

Streamline review and compliance processes – Local governments called for clearer guidance and support to reduce duplicative or inconsistent requirements across jurisdictions when adopting or implementing codes

Politicization of reach codes: Local adoption of reach codes is often highly political, facing pushback from developers, utilities, or community members who frame them as costly or anti-choice

Harmonize agency requirements – State should align data requirements across regulatory agencies, reducing duplication and delays for local governments trying to update CAPs

Mandate utility data transparency – Require utilities to provide timely, standardized, and accessible data on consumption, grid capacity, and supply infrastructure for public planning purposes

Capacity support for small jurisdictions – Offer technical assistance and training so under-resourced jurisdictions can access and use state and utility data effectively

Provide accessible state datasets – Agencies should centralize and release standardized datasets on energy use, utility infrastructure, and climate impacts for local governments to apply in CAPs

Integrate equity data into CAPs – Local governments recommended including equity indicators (e.g., affordability, resilience gaps) into climate action plans to fill gaps left by state or utility datasets

Regional data-sharing frameworks – Create regional governance structures that facilitate sharing of energy and climate data across jurisdictions, utilities, and agencies

Community-driven data collection – Empower local residents and CBOs to gather and validate data (e.g., air quality, outage impacts, energy burden) that reflects lived experiences and can complement official datasets

Tribal representatives flagged that engagement often ignores tribal data sovereignty, with agencies expecting tribes to share sensitive cultural or ecological knowledge without guarantees of control over how it’s used

Data collection methods often exclude undocumented or digitally invisible populations, creating blind spots in CAPs and resilience planning

Utilities’ data request processes are legalistic and slow, often requiring attorneys and creating delays for local governments

Public mistrust: Lack of transparency in transportation and utility data reporting (e.g., toll revenues, modeling) undermines confidence in CAP monitoring

Technical expertise gaps: Local staff often lack the ability to analyze raw utility/VMT data, requiring costly outsourcing to consultants

Legal/regulatory hurdles: Local staff struggle to navigate utility data requests, often involving lawyers and CPUC bureaucracy, delaying access

Fragmentation: different departments and agencies collect similar but incomplete datasets, requiring duplicative local work (e.g., Air Pollution Control District covers some gases but not others)

CPUC requires utilities to provide energy consumption data for local GHG inventories but prohibits making that data public, limiting transparency and usefulness for planning

Fund large-scale retrofit programs – State should finance community- and region-scale retrofits to drive down costs through economies of scale

Develop a coordinated affordability strategy – Establish a statewide framework linking decarbonization with affordability protections, so households are not penalized by rising rates during the transition

There needs to be more enforcement of existing legislation that won’t allow data centers to have other ratepayers subsidize their rates.

The state should require utility audits and enact penalties for IOUs that overestimate costs that are passed to rate payers

Address system cost drivers – State policy should examine utility wildfire liability, transmission expansion costs, and rate structures that drive up bills, and create reforms to stabilize rates

Support equitable building decarbonization through programs like the Regional Energy Network

Protect energy efficiency programs – Ensure continued investment in efficiency measures that reduce consumption and lower bills, rather than focusing only on electrification

Expand affordability-focused programs – State should scale programs that subsidize bills, provide rebates, or cover up-front retrofit costs for low-income and tribal households

Integrate affordability into CAPs – Local governments recommended explicitly including energy affordability metrics and protections in climate action plans to prevent inequities during electrification

Someone should create a regional table to network groups to work together on solutions for energy affordability.

Work through trusted CBOs – Ensure that CBOs and local navigators deliver outreach for decarbonization programs, particularly in low-income and rural communities

Target affordability gaps during heat events – Community voices noted that high bills force families to choose between cooling and safety. Local programs should pair resilience hubs, cooling access, and bill assistance during extreme heat

Invest in neighborhood-scale retrofits – Promote programs that provide deep retrofit packages (electrification + efficiency) at the community scale to reduce household bills

As more households add solar, EVs, and electric appliances, expensive panel and grid upgrades are triggered, which many residents cannot afford. Current planning fails to coordinate distributed demand, driving unnecessary upgrades and higher rates

Renters and residents often face confusing and inconsistent electric rate designs, with little clarity about whether they are on the best rate, complicating electrification adoption

San Diego has over 800,000 buildings, most built before 1978, which are not equipped for electrification or resilience upgrades. Retrofitting this existing stock is a massive challenge in addressing heat and energy vulnerability

Families facing high bills choose between running AC during extreme heat or paying rent/food, creating health risks such as heat illness and displacement

Customers and even policymakers struggle to understand what is driving utility rate increases (wildfire liability, transmission, efficiency programs, shareholder profits), undermining trust in the system

Policymakers and stakeholders often pit affordability against clean energy measures, leading to cuts or resistance to programs that support electrification and decarbonization

High and Rising Energy Costs: Utility rates, especially in SDG&E territory, are rising faster than inflation. Costs from wildfire liability are a growing contributor to energy rates, creating affordability crises and forcing some residents to leave the region and creating a major barrier to household electrification.

Scale installation programs – Expand funding for qualified contractor networks to implement coordinated retrofit programs, especially in disadvantaged communities

Technical and outreach support – State agencies could develop guidance and resources for local governments and CBOs, including language access and engagement tools, to improve program participation

Address consumer mistrust – Provide oversight and consumer protections at the state level to strengthen confidence in home retrofit programs

Integrate incentive programs – State policy should support stacking and aggregation of incentives behind the scenes, so residents receive a single, streamlined rebate or check

Community-led program funding – State should provide resources that empower CBOs and tribes to lead retrofit assistance programs, ensuring equity and cultural relevance

Locals/regions should provide well rounded, continuous education for residents/developers

Regional coordination frameworks – Local governments recommended regional collaboration tables to align retrofit funding, permitting, and outreach across jurisdictions

Locals should create a toolkit with accessible information for how to go through development processes easier. This would guide these groups through what processes apply to certain projects or not.

Language access and equity supports – Local programs should ensure translation, interpretation, childcare, and food access so that retrofit assistance is accessible across communities

Consumer protection and trust-building – Local entities stressed the importance of guarding against scams and misinformation, since past bad actors in solar and retrofit programs have created mistrust

Trusted local navigators – Partner with community-based organizations, CCAs, and local staff who already have credibility with residents to guide participation in retrofit programs.

Local incentive integration – Some jurisdictions called for bundling water, energy, and resilience incentives at the local level to simplify access for homeowners

Local governments noted that state agencies and utilities rarely coordinate program delivery with city departments, leaving households to navigate a patchwork system

Incentives for energy efficiency, electrification, water, and resilience are offered through siloed programs, making it confusing for households to access the full stack of available benefits

Prior bad actors in solar and retrofit markets created skepticism and mistrust among residents, discouraging participation in new decarbonization efforts

Program information is often not available in multiple languages, and outreach doesn’t always reach underrepresented communities, reducing equitable access

Residents have low understanding of retrofit benefits and available incentives, limiting uptake even when programs exist

Invest in resilient infrastructure – State-led procurement of long-duration storage, grid equipment, and components should include requirements for domestic sourcing where possible

Diversify supply chains – State policy should encourage multiple sourcing strategies and diversification away from single-country dependencies for critical clean energy technologies

Regional collaboration on procurement – Establish regional purchasing consortia so smaller jurisdictions can pool demand and secure better access to scarce clean energy equipment

Communities and local governments noted that the cost of clean energy technologies fluctuates with international trade policies and commodity markets, making local deployment unpredictable

Expand in-state manufacturing and assembly – State programs should incentivize local production of batteries, solar panels, and electrification equipment to reduce exposure to global disruptions

Promote local procurement – Jurisdictions emphasized prioritizing local and regional suppliers where possible to reduce reliance on vulnerable global supply chains

Clean energy deployment (e.g., solar, batteries, EVs) is slowed by reliance on global supply chains for critical components. This creates vulnerability to delays and cost escalations

The Tribal Energy and Climate Collaborative (TECC) partners with 25 member tribes of the Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Association. It focuses on developing tribal capacity for green energy projects and views green energy as both climate adaptation and economic development for tribes. It recently began helping tribes participate in CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) rulemakings and regulatory processes.

Grants to tribes like Viejas and San Pasqual to develop tribal energy utilities empowers helping tribes to own and operate their own energy systems. Projects include outreach and engagement with the CPUC to help tribes understand regulatory barriers.

Harden infrastructure in rural/tribal lands – State investment in safer, more resilient siting of storage and grid infrastructure to reduce fire risks and ecological harms raised by communities

Hold utilities accountable – Shift utility incentives so investment priorities include distributed solutions, not just profitable transmission-scale projects

Require Indigenous leadership in reviews – Embed tribal representatives and TEK into siting and permitting structures to improve transparency and legitimacy

Support tribal consultation capacity – Offer funding and technical support for tribes to participate fully in siting and permitting reviews

The state should subsidize the cost of permitting fees and processing for siting clean energy projects.

Create ubiquitous battery energy storage siting guidelines

Provide resources for equitable engagement – Fund translation, childcare, and participation support so marginalized communities can meaningfully engage in siting processes

Align siting with community priorities – Explicitly require alignment of siting decisions with resilience and equity needs, not just utility or market drivers

Locals should conduct thoughtful and intentional efforts to streamline regulations in order to not harm the communities they are trying to help.

Educate communities about energy options and management to improve awareness

Create collaborative structures that allow residents, organizations, and public entities to participate

Develop robust community engagement plans for all major energy projects

Build trust through local navigators – Work with trusted CBOs and tribal organizations to facilitate dialogue and reduce opposition rooted in exclusion

Increase transparency in energy planning and decision-making

Community engagement beyond check-box – Ensure permitting and siting decisions involve early, authentic engagement of local and tribal communities, not procedural consultation

Localized infrastructure investment – Upgrade local water and energy systems to relieve pressure on remote lands where large-scale projects are often sited

Focus on local energy generation (15% of renewable targets from locally-sourced energy)