Marketing, Regulatory and Legislative Subcommittee
Meeting
Friday, June 12, 2026
10:00 am
In Person:
Altamont Conference Room
Ava Community Energy
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2300
Oakland, CA 94612
Zoom:
https://avaenergy-org.zoom.us/j/88008124818
Or join by phone:
+Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 444 9171 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 309 205 3325
Webinar ID: 880 0812 4818
Meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals who need special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the meeting materials, should contact the Clerk of the Board at least 2 working days before the meeting at (510) 707-1764 or [email protected].
If you have anything that you wish to be distributed to the Marketing, Regulatory and Legislative Subcommittee, please email it to the clerk by 5:00 pm the day prior to the meeting.
1. Welcome & Roll Call
2. Public Comment
This item is reserved for persons wishing to address the MRL Subcommittee on any Ava-related matters that are not otherwise on this meeting agenda. Public comments on matters listed on the agenda shall be heard at the time the matter is called. As with all public comment, members of the public who wish to address the Board are customarily limited to three minutes per speaker. The MRL Chair may increase or decrease the time allotted to each speaker.
Ava Community Energy
Board of Directors Page | 2
3. Approval of Minutes from April 10, 2026 (Action Item)
4. Power Content Label Overview (Informational Item)
Review of changes to the 2025 Power Content Label template.
5. Legislative Update (Informational Item)
Mid-session California legislative update.
6. Health-e Communities Update (Informational Item)
Update on the results of the Health-e Communities Pilot.
7. Committee Member and Staff Announcements including requests to place items on future Board Agendas
8. Adjourn
The next Marketing, Regulatory and Legislative Subcommittee meeting will be held on Friday, September 18, 2026 at 10am.
Altamont Conference Room
Ava Community Energy
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2300
Oakland, CA 94612
Draft Minutes
Marketing, Regulatory and Legislative Subcommittee
Meeting
Friday, April 10, 2026
3:00 pm
In Person:
Altamont Conference Room
Ava Community Energy
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2300
Oakland, CA 94612
Or from the following locations:
• 1249 Marin Avenue, Albany, CA 94706
Zoom:
https://avaenergy-org.zoom.us/j/88008124818
Or join by phone:
+Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 444 9171 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 309 205 3325
Webinar ID: 880 0812 4818
Meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals who need special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the meeting materials, should contact the Clerk of the Board at least 2 working days before the meeting at (510) 707-1764 or [email protected].
If you have anything that you wish to be distributed to the Marketing, Regulatory and Legislative Subcommittee, please email it to the clerk by 5:00 pm the day prior to the meeting.
1. (0:00) Welcome & Roll Call
Present: Directors: Lopez (Albany), Nygard (Tracy), and Chair Tregub (Berkeley).
Absent: Directors: Diallo (Lathrop) and Barrientos (Livermore).
2. (0:42) Public Comment
This item is reserved for persons wishing to address the MRL Subcommittee on any Ava-related matters that are not otherwise on this meeting agenda. Public comments on Ava Community Energy
Board of Directors Page | 2
matters listed on the agenda shall be heard at the time the matter is called. As with all public comment, members of the public who wish to address the Board are customarily limited to three minutes per speaker. The MRL Chair may increase or decrease the time allotted to each speaker.
There were no speakers for public comment.
3. (1:15) Approval of Minutes from March 6, 2026 (Action Item) Director Nygard (Tracy) motioned to approve the minutes. Director Lopez (Albany) seconded the motion, which passed 3/0/0/0/2.
Yes: Lopez (Albany), Nygard (Tracy), and Chair Tregub (Berkeley).
No: None.
Abstain: None.
Recuse: None.
Not Present: Diallo (Lathrop) and Barrientos (Livermore).
There were no speakers for public comment.
4. (2:14) 2026 Policy Platform Update (Informational Item) Reup of policy platform for 2026.
Sam Sadle reviewed annual updates to the legislative platform, including clarifying language, elevating autonomy to a standalone objective, and renaming the legislative program to better align with industry standards.
There were no speakers for public comment.
There was no discussion by the subcommittee members.
5. (4:12) 2026 Legislative Positions (Informational Item) Consideration of 2026 proposed legislative positions.
Sam Sadle, Kendall Downie, and Dominic Faria provided an update on Ava’s legislative advocacy efforts, outlining recommended positions on eight California energy bills. They reviewed Ava’s positions on specific bills and sought feedback before bringing the recommendations to the board for formal consideration.
There were no speakers for public comment.
Selection of topics discussed by subcommittee members:
• Proposed amendments to SB 868, including requiring battery storage to be paired with plug-in (balcony) solar systems
• CalCCA’s opposition to AB 2383 and concerns regarding CPUC oversight of CCA contracts and local autonomy
• Data center legislation and the need for greater transparency and oversight of large energy loads
Ava Community Energy
Board of Directors Page | 3
• Potential impacts of declining solar incentives and the importance of maintaining support for distributed energy resources
• Equity and accessibility considerations for renters participating in balcony solar and battery storage programs
• Ava’s Smart Home Battery Program and its role in encouraging solar-plus-storage adoption • Tradeoffs between streamlining heat pump permitting (SB 222) and preserving local control over permitting processes
• Perspectives from member cities on permitting challenges, electrification efforts, and the benefits of statewide standardization for smaller jurisdictions
6. (52:47) Committee Member and Staff Announcements including requests to place items on future Board Agendas
There were no committee member or staff announcements.
7. Adjourned at 4:08pm.
The next Marketing, Regulatory and Legislative Subcommittee meeting will be held on Friday, June 12, 2026 at 10am.
Altamont Conference Room
Ava Community Energy
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2300
Oakland, CA 94612
Minutes written by Raïssa Ngoma.
1 6/12/2026 MLR Meeting
Board*
Energy Commission
2 Power Source
Disclosure
Power Content
Label
Published on website.
Final numbers.
Energy Generation
Energy Settlements
*CCR 20.2.5.5, §1394 –
Public agencies may either engage an auditor or submit an attestation. → Board voted to engage auditor starting in 2023, so no attestation needed.
Jun. 2026 Jul. 2026 Oct. 2026
3 rd-Party Audit*
Submission
Jan. 2025 Jan. 2026
Reviews
Dec. 2026
Power Content
Label
Emailed or mailed.
What is the Power Content Label Reporting Process?
Joint Rate Mailer
Emailed or mailed.
Draft numbers, PG&E comparison.
What is the Power Content Label?
→ A “nutrition label” for electricity.
• Published annually, based on the
Power Source Disclosure Report for
the prior calendar year’s electricity
generation from owned or contracted-for resources.
• Provides a detailed breakdown of the
sources of energy used to provide
electricity.
Submission is reviewed and approved by
the California Energy Commission.
Line Losses
2025 Changes to Power Source Disclosure Report
→ Account for energy dissipating over transmission and distribution lines. • California Code of Regulations, 20.2.5.5 (July 2025)
§1392 (a.8.A) – “A retail supplier’s transmission and distribution losses shall be determined by applying a loss factor to each specified resource and to unspecified power.” §1393 (b.2.B) – “retail suppliers shall report transmission and distribution losses associated with each procurement.”
• This change will capture the emissions associated with the fraction of electrons that escapes as heat into the environment as they travel across power lines, from a power plant to the customer.
Effective for 2026 submission for Calendar Year 2025 power content.
Line losses will impact Power Content Label.
Line Losses
2025 Changes to Power Source Disclosure Report
-6.6%
-4.4%
Out-of-State
In-State
• Losses are assigned to each specified resource by
location (in-state or out-of-state.)
• Additional specified procurement can cover some
losses…
• …but said procurement is also subject to line
losses.
→ Varies by resource location.
Line Losses
2025 Changes to Power Content Label
2025 Summary
Power Content Label Bright Choice Renewable
100 Total Retail Sales Total Loss-Adjusted Load
GHG Emissions Intensity 194 0 134 168
Biomass & Biogas 12% 0% 9% 8%
Geothermal 1% 0% 1% 1%
Eligible Hydroelectric 1% 0% 1% 1%
Solar 25% 61% 36% 34%
Wind 15% 39% 21% 20%
Total Renewables 54% 100% 68% 64%
Large Hydroelectric 36% 0% 25% 24%
Nuclear 9% 0% 6% 7%
Unspecified Power 1% 0% 1% 5%
→ increased ‘Unspecified Power’ and reduced RE/CF in total loss-adjusted load. 2025 Power Procurement
2026 California Legislative
Session: Mid-Session Review
Sam Sadle, Kendall Downie, Dominic Faria – June 12, 2026 2026 California Legislative Timeline
2 January
5: Legislature reconvenes
10: Governor submits
budget
February
20: Bill introduction
deadline
March April
24: Policy cmtes move
fiscal bills to fiscal cmtes
(1st chamber)
May
1: Policy cmtes move
non-fiscal bills to floor
(1st chamber)
29: Last day for bills to be
passed by 1st house
June
15: Budget bill must be
passed
July
2: Policy cmtes move bills
to fiscal cmtes or
floor (2nd chamber)
August
14: Fiscal cmtes move
bills to floor (2nd
chamber)
31: Last day for each
chamber to pass bills
September
30: Last day for Governor
to sign/veto bills
October November December
3 Support:
CalCCA-Sponsored Bills
AB 1761 (Rogers)
Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) data and input transparency SB 1138 (Padilla)
Resource Adequacy (RA) transactability
AB 1761 Electricity: calculation methodology: data disclosures (Rogers):
• Official summary: This bill would require the commission [CPUC] to ensure that all data relied on in any decision or ruling, or in any proposal or analysis provided by an electrical corporation, the commission’s staff, or any other party, for the determination or application of a calculation methodology for any charge imposed on customers of a load-serving entity to recover the cost of contracts or resources owned by an electrical corporation or any value derived from that calculation is made available to load-serving entities and ratepayer advocates on behalf of customers. The bill would require that data to meet specified requirements, including that it is made through a public disclosure, except for market-sensitive data, as provided. (Emphasis added)
4 Support: Process:
• Passed Assembly 61-8-11
• Next step: Senate Energy Committee date
TBD
Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) Data Transparency CalCCA-Sponsored Bills
Oppose:
5 SB 1138 Load-serving entities: resource adequacy requirements (Padilla):
• Official summary: This bill would require the commission to permit a load-serving entity to demonstrate compliance with resource adequacy requirements by selling to, or otherwise making transactions with, another load-serving entity to meet not more than 25% of its compliance obligation, on a short-term basis, and to permit those transactions to be denominated in the same unit of time used to denominate resource adequacy compliance requirements.
(Emphasis added)
Support: Process:
• Passed Senate 31-0-9
• Passed Assembly Energy Committee
• Next Step: Assembly Appropriations
Committee
CalCCA-Sponsored Bills
Resource Adequacy (RA) Transactability
Oppose:
(None registered)
6 Support:
Ava positions
SB 222 (Wiener)
Streamlines permitting for residential heat
pump water heaters and HVAC systems
SB 1168 (McNerney)
Establishes new surcharges on natural gas use by
data centers
AB 2266 (Schultz)
Standardizes RA valuation across multiple
procurement programs
SB 913 (Becker)
Allows aggregated DERs to serve as RA
capacity
Support If Amended:
SB 868 (Wiener)
Sets rules for "plug in" solar system
SB 913 (Becker)
Allows aggregated DERs to serve as RA capacity
AB 1577 (Bauer-Kahan)
Requires monthly data center energy use reporting
AB 1975 (Schultz)
Establishes "grid utilization" metric and associated
incentives
AB 2389 (Irwin)
Extends property tax exemption for customer solar
California Large Load Legislative Update
7 Managing data center growth
Shifting sands in 2026: From "Should California encourage large load development?" to "Under what conditions should large load be served?" From CPUC-led to a core Legislative priority.
Large Load Legislative Questions
Legislative Vehicles: Now Down to Three "Classifications" Cost Responsibility &
Ratepayer Protection
Reliability & Clean
Energy Requirements
Environmental &
Community Impacts
Transparency & Data
Collection
Cost Causation
Ratepayer Protections
SB 886 and AB 2383
Reliability Protections:
Reflected in all proposed
large-load tariffs
Transparency
AB 1577
California Budget
8 • Schedule: State Legislature has until June 15 to adopt a budget. The Governor then has 12 days to sign it. • Next steps in negotiations: Three party negotiations ongoing. Governor's office released its "May revise" and the Senate and Assembly budget committees have released their respective plans. • Notable line items:
o Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) spending plan
o EV incentive program for first-time buyers — $200 million point-of-sale rebates for light-duty ZEVs o Climate Bond (Proposition 4) 2026-2027 spending plan — $322 million for the California Transmission Accelerator Revolving Fund created by SB 254
o Demand Side Grid Support Program (DSGS)
▪ Trailer Bill 1: Shift remaining funding (~$22 million) from the Distributed Electricity Backup Assets (DEBA) program to DSGS
▪ Trailer Bill 2: Return unspent California School Healthy Air, Plumbing, and Efficiency (CalSHAPE) program funding to the IOUs and transition DSGS participants to the Emergency Load Reduction Program (ELRP), or a similar IOU-run program, for 2027 and 2028 What comes next? Legislative session
9 First house
• July 2: Second house policy committee
deadline
• August 14: Second house Appropriations
suspense deadline
• Aug 31: Second house floor passage
deadline
• September 30: Veto/signature deadline
Second house
• May 14: Governor's budget revise
• June 15: Budget deadline
• May to August: Budget trailer and cleanup hearings
Budget
Appendix
10 Support
11 SB 222 Residential heat pump systems: water heaters and HVAC: installations (Wiener - Coauthors: Allen, Becker, and Stern):
• Standardizes and streamlines local permitting for residential heat pump water heaters and heat pump HVAC systems, including by requiring an option for asynchronous inspections and online automated permitting. The bill would support the State’s target of installing six million heat pump systems by 2030, an objective the State is currently set to miss by roughly two million units.
• In 2025, Ava supported SB 282 (Wiener) which was largely the same language.
Support: Oppose:
Heat Pump Water Heater and HVAC Streamlining
• Passed Senate
• Next step: 6/24 Assembly Housing
Committee
Process:
Support (no longer "if Amended")
12 SB 913 Resource adequacy: aggregated distributed capacity resources (Becker):
• Requires the PUC to enhance pathways for aggregated distributed energy resources to qualify as resource adequacy capacity and to allow load-serving entities to include those resources in resource adequacy compliance and procurement. Also requires coordination with state agencies and the ISO to update market participation frameworks to support aggregated distributed capacity resources.
Amendments implemented: Bill now allows aggregated DERs as RA capacity while preserving CCA procurement flexibility and avoiding any implicit DER procurement mandate.
Support:
Distributed Energy Resources for Resource Adequacy
Process:
• Passed Senate
• Next Step: 6/24 Assembly Energy
Committee
Oppose:
Support
13 SB 1168 Data centers: natural gas and electricity: surcharges (McNerney - Coauthor Pérez):
• Originally, the bill imposed an annually set surcharges on electricity and natural gas consumed by data centers, including energy used to generate power for them.
• It originally required those funds to be used to offset CARE/FERA costs. It was later amended to offset wildfire-related costs currently embedded in customer rates. • It was eventually amended down to a study bill requiring the PUC to do a study to assess opportunities for rate structures to ensure data centers pay their fair share of infrastructure costs and identify ways to increase data center usage of non-polluting resources.
Support
SB 1168
(McNerney)
Support:
Data Center Rate Structure Study
Process:
• Passed Senate
• Next step: 6/24 Assembly Energy
Committee
Oppose:
Support
14 AB 2266 Electricity: load-serving entities (Schultz):
• Requires the use of a consistent method across regulatory proceedings for calculating how much reliability value different energy resources provide, so that short-term, mid-term, and long-term procurement programs all count resources the same way.
• Requires the PUC to consolidate specified compliance reporting requirements and to provide additional reporting on the use of backstop procurement authority.
• CalCCA is requesting amendments regarding timing and considerations required of the PUC when creating the new methodology.
Support:
Consistent Methodology for RA Valuation
Process:
• Passed Assembly
• Next step: 6/16 Senate Energy
Committee
Oppose:
(None registered)
Support if Amended:
Support if Amended
15 SB 868 Electricity: portable solar generation devices (Wiener - Coauthors: Arreguín, Becker, McNerney, Connolly, and Ward):
• Exempts portable solar generation devices from interconnection requirements and prohibits IOUs and POUs from imposing fees or other related requirements. Authorizes utilities to require basic notification of device installation through a simple registration process, as specified.
Proposed amendments: Require storage pairing and modern inverter standards for plug-in solar while maintaining basic oversight to protect grid reliability and mitigate cost impacts.
Support: Support if Amended:
Portable (or "Plug In") Solar Streamlining
Oppose: Process:
• Passed Senate
• Passed Assembly Energy
Committee
• Next Step: Assembly
Appropriations Committee
Support if Amended
16 AB 1577 Data Centers: reporting (Bauer-Kahan):
• Requires the Energy Commission to establish a process for data center owners to submit monthly reports on energy and water usage, including specified operational metrics. Would also require the CEC to publish aggregated data and incorporate data center load trends into future energy policy reports, and would require similar information to be provided to local agencies for planning and environmental review purposes, while protecting confidential customer information.
Proposed Amendments: Align reporting timelines with IOU-to-CCA data flows and prevent penalties for delays outside LSE control to ensure feasible implementation.
Support: Support if Amended:
Data Center Energy and Water Use Reporting
Process:
• Passed Assembly
• Next step: Senate Energy Committee
(presumably)
Support if Amended
17 AB 1975 Electrical corporations: grid utilization metric (Schultz):
• Requires the PUC to establish a grid utilization metric to measure electrical load as a percentage of system capacity; requires IOUs to publicly report on that metric; sets increasing minimum utilization targets; and establishes performance-based incentives or disincentives, while requiring utilities to propose programs to meet those targets.
Proposed amendments: Ensure CCAs can participate in and benefit from grid utilization programs while preventing IOU-only implementation.
Grid Utilization Metric and Associated Rules
Support: Support if Amended: Process:
No longer moving forward – died in
Assembly Appropriations Committee
Oppose:
Support if Amended
18 AB 2389 (Property taxation: active solar energy systems: customer sited: extension (Irwin - Principal coauthor:
McNerney, Coauthor: Blakespear):
• Extends the property tax exclusion for certain customer-sited solar energy systems, including systems up to 2 megawatts and those located on public entity property, through January 2032.
Proposed amendments: Require new solar systems to include battery storage to qualify for the exemption, while preserving eligibility for existing and resilience-focused projects.
Support:
Rooftop Solar Installation Tax Exemption
Process:
No longer moving forward – died in
Assembly Appropriations Committee
Support if Amended: Oppose:
Full Universe of Ava Monitored Bills
AB 13 Ransom (D) PUC membership and reporting
AB 34 Patterson (R) Extends the authority of POUs to count large hydro towards RPS AB 61 Pacheco (D) Require PAO to analyze ratepayer impacts of mandated programs AB 705 Boerner (D) Creates independent PUC audit office AB 706 Aguiar-Curry (D) Fire fuel reduction procurement program AB 710 Irwin (D) POU dynamic pricing and advanced metering mandate AB 942 Calderon (D) Changes climate credit
AB 1020 Schiavo (D) Requires IOUs to report taxpayer funding AB 1156 Wicks (D) Updates farmland solar-use easement statute AB 1577 Bauer-Kahan (D) Data center monthly reporting
AB 1738 Carillo (D) Requires local governments to offer remote inspections AB 1761 Rogers (D) PCIA data transparency
AB 1787 Schultz (D) Require IOUs to offer a dynamic tariff if smart meter infrastructure is in place AB 1813 Ward (D) Require CEC evaluation of renewable energy programs AB 1975 Schultz (D) Grid utilization metric
AB 2111 Papan (D) Transmission planning alignment with affordability and FERC Order 1920 19 Full Universe of Bills
AB 2175 Garcia (D) Removes advanced electricity storage from smart grid deployment objectives AB 2181 Petrie-Norris (D) Requires PUC commission diversity AB 2182 Irwin (D) Creates IOU run industrial decarbonization program AB 2234 Papan (D) CEQA exemptions for geothermal exploratory projects AB 2266 Schultz (D) RA valuation standardization
AB 2313 Berman (D) Require gas corporations to offer electrification incentives AB 2369 Rogers (D) Enables partial RA, allowing energy-only resources earn RA value AB 2383 Zbur (D) Require creation of a large load customer class and rate schedule AB 2463 Petrie-Norris (D) Require PUC to study IOU return on equity AB 2464 Wicks (D) Require PUC to study clean firm's role in 2045 goal AB 2493 Petrie-Norris (D) Require IOUs to have an interconnection auditor AB 2516 Petrie-Norris (D) California Grid Manufacturing Initiative AB 2518 Sharp-Collins (D) Requires SDG&E to prioritize and fast-track affordable housing energization.
AB 2589 Irwin (D) Requires PUC to analyze OBBBA and adjust rates to reflect impacts AB 2612 Schultz (D) Building standards for plug-in solar systems AB 2647 Calderon (D) Bans new nuclear power plants without fuel reprocessing capacity or adv tech 20 Full Universe of Bills
AB 2700 Gallagher (R) Requires a report to reduce electricity rates by at least 30% AB 2748 Quirk-Silva (D) Revert EV regulations to 2022 state building code for BMR housing SB 222 Weiner (D) Heat pump water heater and HVAC system permitting streamlining SB 327 McNerney (D)
Prohibits IOUs from using ratepayer funds for advocacy activities related to municipalization
SB 332 Wahab (D) Study breaking up IOUs
SB 453 Stern (D) Microgrid incentive program
SB 742 Perez (D) IOUs to remove unused transmission facilities SB 842 Stern (D) Report on firm zero-carbon resources
SB 868 Wiener (D) Plug-in solar interconnection exemption SB 886 Padilla (D) Large load cost shift prevention
SB 887 Padilla (D) Large load CEQA application
SB 905 Becker (D) Utility Cost and Performance Reform
SB 913 Becker (D) Resource Adequacy for aggregated distributed capacity resources SB 924 Hurtado (D) PUC to consider affordability when looking at home weatherization SB 925 McNerney (D) Requires state strategy and permitting framework to advance fusion 21 Full Universe of Bills
SB 943 Becker (D) Industrial billing and NBC/TAC reform SB 1138 Padilla (D) RA transactability
SB 1158 Stern (D)
Adds status of utility transmission upgrades and electrical grid infrastructure to Reliability Planning Assessment
SB 1167 Blakespear (D) Clarifies ebike definition and bans advertising of non-eligible bikes SB 1168 McNerney (D) Data center tariff study
SB 1233 Allen (D) Requires enhanced justification of CPUC findings tied to utility returns SB 1245 Stern (D)
Intent of legislature to address cost containment of renewable integration into grid
SB 1295 Stern (D)
Requires IOUs to evaluate distributed storage and nonwire alternatives and authorizes them to own distributed storage assets
Budget
Trailer Dept of Finance
Reallocates outstanding funding from the Distributed Energy Backup Assets (DEBA) program to the Demand Side Grid Support (DSGS) program Budget
Trailer Dept of Finance
Transitions 2026 DSGS participants to the Emergency Load Reduction Program (ELRP) or an equivalent CPUC load reduction program. 22 Staff Report Item 6
Staff Report Item 6
To: Ava Community Energy Authority
From: Dan Bertoldi, Electrification Program Manager
Subject: Update on the results of the Health-e Communities Pilot (Informational Item) Date: June 12, 2026
__________________________________________________________________ Summary/Recommendation
It is recommended that the Marketing, Regulatory, and Legislative Committee receive a presentation on the results of the Health-e Communities pilot. This is an information item and no action is required.
Analysis and Context
Executive Summary
The Health-e Communities pilot (“Pilot”) was a kitchen stove electrification pilot program targeting low-income customers that measured indoor air pollution impacts of removing gas stoves. The Pilot used a “direct installation” program delivery model, which means Ava covered all costs associated with the installation (equipment and labor) with no cost to the customer. Ava also coordinated the temporary installation of indoor air quality monitoring. Indoor air quality monitoring was conducted before and after each installation of an all-electric induction stove to measure indoor air pollution levels within the participant’s living space.
Applications for the Pilot ran for approximately one year, from October 2024 to September 2025.
Marketing efforts included direct outreach to approximately 56,000 income-qualified Ava customers via email to meet the goal of installing 200 electric induction stoves. Of that goal, 162 projects were successfully completed with an average cost of over $7,000 per project. Despite the low conversion rate from marketing efforts, overall customer satisfaction remained high for Staff Report Item 6
those who did participate, even with longer than anticipated project completion timelines averaging 90 days.
At the end of the Pilot, staff concluded that it did not demonstrate a delivery model that is scalable, given the low conversion rate and the high costs resulting from equipment cost, administration costs and long installation timelines. Although the air quality study on the impact of removing gas stoves shows promising results for reductions in a key pollutant - nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which is known to cause negative health effects - more research is needed to understand the impacts of this change. Further understanding would require expansion of the health-focused scope to accommodate additional research, resulting in significant additional resource requirements, logistical complexity, and customer burden for each project, further hindering scalability.
During the Pilot, staff identified key barriers to electrification projects that go beyond stove electrification, which are further detailed in this report. Staff will take the learnings from the Pilot and apply it to future planning for program development.
Background and Introduction
At its November 2022 meeting, the Board of Directors directed staff to develop a program proposal to deploy home electrification, specifically induction technology, to Ava customers with a focus on human health. In October 2023, Ava secured a grant totaling $164,000 from the US Energy Foundation to support indoor air quality research efforts to support the Health-e Communities pilot. In February 2024, Ava executed an agreement with Berkeley Air Monitoring Group to provide indoor air quality monitoring services.
At its April 2024 meeting, the Ava Board of Directors approved staff’s recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the CEO to execute a contract with Franklin Energy. On July 10, 2024, Ava and Franklin Energy entered into an agreement with a not to exceed amount of $1.5 million to implement the Pilot, with a term ending on December 31, 2025. On October 1, 2025, Ava officially launched the Health-e Communities pilot and outreach campaign, with Ava leading marketing efforts for outreach and recruitment.
The Pilot set out to achieve the following objectives:
• Complete up to 200 induction stove retrofit projects
• Develop and refine effective program recruitment and enrollment tactics for a direct installation program
• Gain insights into direct install program management strategies for electrification • Solicit Pilot feedback from all participants
• Conduct analysis of indoor air pollutant concentrations and impacts of cooking electrification for all participants
• Inform on larger programmatic effort linking electrification and health Staff Report Item 6
Approach
Customer eligibility for the Pilot was limited to income-qualified Ava customers. To qualify, customers had to be enrolled in either the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) or Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) programs – or reside in a home that is designated as affordable housing. Both homeowners and tenants were eligible to apply, but property owner permission was required for tenant-occupied homes. Additionally, single-family homes or multifamily buildings with 4 units or less were eligible.
The Pilot’s outreach campaign focused on customers living in areas with the highest asthma rates. Staff utilized the State’s CalEnviroScreen 4.0 to identify the target segments and, using Ava’s customer data, identified CARE and FERA customers living within those target areas. In total, Ava reached out directly to approximately 56,000 residences between four to five times each to let them know about the Pilot. Marketing materials were provided in both English and Spanish.
Once a customer applied and was deemed eligible to participate, Franklin Energy provided in-home site assessments to determine the project's eligibility and install the air quality monitor for projects that were eligible. After at least one week of air quality monitoring, a contractor would install the induction unit and remove the gas unit. Franklin Energy returned to the home after another week of monitoring to retrieve the monitor and conduct an exit survey.
The air quality study component of the Pilot consisted of measuring four pollutants in the kitchen: nitrogen dioxide (NO2), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2). Indoor air quality monitors were placed in participant’s kitchens for at least one week before and after each installation. Additionally, each participant was asked to fill out a questionnaire detailing their stove use habits and other factors that would affect study results. Participants were provided with a personalized indoor air quality report at the end of each successful monitoring period.
Results
Results across marketing and customer recruitment, direct installation, and air quality are listed below, with key pilot observations and lessons learned.
Marketing and Customer Recruitment
• Of the 56,000 customers reached through the pilot, less than 1% applied after four or five email attempts per customer (518 application submissions). • Out of over 200K emails sent, the email open rate was 11%, while the click through rate was 0.66%. The application rate per email was 0.24%.
• 87% of application submissions met the basic customer eligibility criteria for a total of 451 eligible applicants.
Direct Installation Performance
• A total of 162 projects were successfully installed out of the goal of 200 (85% of the goal).
Staff Report Item 6
• On average, customer satisfaction was 9.9/10 out of 161 participants surveyed. • Total applicant attrition rate (i.e. all applicants who applied that did not move forward) was 69%, with 356 of 518 applicants not moving forward. • The eligible applicant attrition rate (i.e. eligible participant dropout, or number of customers who applied and were approved for an assessment) was 64%, with 289 of 451 projects dropping off for various reasons.
• The average installation took approximately 75 days to complete, from application approval to install.
• The average project completion took approximately 90 days, from application approval to final site visit and exit survey.
• The average cost per project for all labor, equipment, and administration was $7,110. • The customer benefit value was approximately $5,000 on average for direct labor and equipment.
Air Quality Impacts
• Considerable reductions in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) with most homes experiencing some level of NO2 decrease.
o The overall median concentration decreased by 70%, suggesting that large improvements were common across participants, not driven by a small number of outliers.
o 98% of the study homes experienced a decrease in the number of minutes per day (median of 13 minutes/day to 0 minutes/day) that NO2 concentrations exceeded 101 ppb, the US EPA threshold above which exposures are considered unhealthy for sensitive groups, including children. • Reductions in carbon monoxide (CO) were moderate, showing an overall median CO concentration decreased by 17%.
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) remained stable.
• Changes in particulate matter (PM2.5) was variable, with a slight observed increase, although results were not statistically significant.
Key Pilot Observations
Staff summarized key observations to preserve learnings from the pilot.
Interest levels. Even with a high value offering ($5,000 value to the customer), the Pilot faced lower than anticipated interest and high attrition for eligible customers that applied (64% attrition for eligible applicants). While specific reasons for participant drop out were often documented, some customers did not provide a reason. Additional market research could be useful to better understand why participants are not interested in a high value offering.
Timelines. The average project timeline of 90 days was largely attributed to logistical complexity, permitting timelines, and customer scheduling.
Staff Report Item 6
Project scoping. Almost half of projects required installation measures beyond “standard project”, meaning contractors had to provide other install services in support of the induction range installation, circuit run, and permit (i.e. tandem breakers, circuit sharing devices, etc.), resulting in higher program costs.
Electrical infrastructure and panel issues. A major contributing factor for the high attrition rate was existing electrical infrastructure issues. Nearly one quarter of homes that were assessed did not move forward because of either unsafe panels or panel capacity issues. Staff observed that electrification was not possible in the Pilot for range installation projects where the home had less than 100 amps of total panel capacity.
Air quality impacts. With the significant reduction in NO2 observed in the Pilot and given the latest research linking NO2 to pediatric asthma, a positive health outcome is likely attributable to stove electrification. However, more research is needed to understand the true impacts of human exposure to gas stoves.
Key Lessons Learned
Staff summarized lessons learned and will apply these key lessons for further program planning and execution.
One key learning focuses on permitting for a 240V circuit run/range installation, which was highly variable across permitting agencies in terms of requirements and timelines. Ample buffer time should be included in projected project timelines to allow for permit timeline flexibility, sometimes up to 4 weeks.
Related to permitting are learnings related to existing electrical infrastructure. Issues including panel capacity and unsafe electrical/panel conditions were common and should be considered when planning for attrition and delays, especially when targeting hard to reach communities.
Adding a panel replacement measure would substantially decrease attrition, but at a high cost.
Additionally, when permits are required, there should be consideration that additional code compliance issues - unrelated to the scope of the program - could be uncovered at homes/sites by the inspecting agency, which could then trigger project delays and increased costs.
One possible way to avoid permitting, electrical capacity, and equipment eligibility holdups is to consider virtual in-home assessments at the beginning stages of each project. This could reveal unsafe or insufficient panels, ineligible equipment, or other factors that would prevent a project from moving forward and reduce the amount of staff time on projects that are ineligible.
Other program offerings available to Ava customers, such as the State’s Equitable Building Decarbonization program, may fill the need for a direct installation approach for induction stoves. These programs couple induction stove installation with other electrification measures like heat pump HVAC and water heater installation, and provide a greater impact for decarbonization, while streamlining administration.
Staff Report Item 6
Conclusion
The Health-e Communities pilot model did not demonstrate a scalable, cost-effective model that could serve a broad segment of Ava’s customers. Adding further complexity with more invasive health-based research methods would further impair the viability of a large-scale program. Staff plans to take the learnings and data gathered in this pilot and apply it to future program planning efforts.
Staff is in the process of documenting and formalizing the results of the Pilot in a final report.
The report can be used by other program administrators and industry professionals interested in direct install induction program implementation.
Financial Impact
As part of the annual budget adoption process for FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25, the Board of Directors approved a total allocation of $10 million for an induction stove program in the Local Development fund.
At its April 2024 meeting, the Board of Directors authorized the use of $1.5 million from the Local Development fund to pay Franklin Energy Services to provide induction stove installation services to support the Health-e Communities pilot. A total of $1,152,179 of Local Development funds was spent on Franklin’s implementation services over the term of the pilot. Air quality monitoring services, provided by Berkeley Air Monitoring Group, were covered by the US Energy Foundation, which cost a total of $119,523.
With the closing of the pilot, the remining $8.85M funds will be reallocated within the Local Development fund for future programs.
Attachments
A. Presentation
Health-e Communities
Pilot Results
• The Pilot offered induction stove installation for
income qualified customers and measured air quality
impacts
• Pilot objectives:
a. Measure indoor air pollution impacts for each stove installation b. Test how to build a viable and scalable program using a direct installation delivery model for installing building electrification measures
c. Gain insights into electrification program delivery through data collection (e.g. panel capacities, customer interest, etc.) d. Determine viability to scale pilot to a larger program • The Pilot ran from Oct. 2024 – Sep. 2025
• The total cost of the Pilot was $1.25 million for both implementation and air quality monitoring
• The Pilot required a high level of effort from Ava and vendors to deliver results (6 organizations and 2 Ava
staff)
Health-e
Communities Pilot
Approach
2 Pilot Results Summary
3 • 162 units installed across 15 jurisdictions
• Significant learnings were gained:
• Indoor air pollution impacts: Promising results for reduction in nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) - known to impact human health; variable impacts to other indoor air pollutants • Project timelines: 90 days to project completion, permitting on widely variable timelines across jurisdictions, permit timelines varied from 0 - 65 days • Panel and Electrical Insights: 22% of assessed homes were ineligible due to unsafe electrical conditions or insufficient panel capacity
• Project Costs: $5K per installation, $7K per project including administration. • Customer interest: 0.24% application rate; 35% of applicants cancelled due to lack of interest or were non -responsive
• The Health -e Communities pilot did not demonstrate a delivery model that is scalable given low uptake rate and high costs
Marketing and Recruitment
4 Staff used the following criteria
for targeted email outreach:
1. Active Ava customers
2. Verified enrollment in
CARE or FERA programs
3. Located in areas with the
highest asthma rates
• Utilized the
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Asthma indicator
• Began in areas in the
75th + percentile
• Expanded outreach to
50 – 75th percentile
• 56k (47% of CARE
Alameda County accounts) were emailed
San Joaquin County
Applicant
Approval
Initial Site
Visit
Air Quality
Monitoring
Begins
Installation
Air Quality
Monitoring
is Complete
Pilot Process and Average Project Timeline
5 30 days to site visit
75 days to installation
90 days to project completion
Permitting Timelines
6 Jurisdiction
Avg
Days to
Approve
Permit
Median No. of
Installs Min Max
Berkeley 31 29 10 7 58
Albany 30 30 1 30 30
Newark 29 29 1 29 29
San Leandro 27 29 12 3 65
Pleasanton 22 22 1 22 22
Union City 14 15 3 0 26
Emeryville 9 9 1 9 9
Lathrop 9 9 1 9 9
Uninc . Alameda Co. 9 6 3 6 15
Hayward 8 6 16 0 30
Stockton 6 3 33 1 20
Fremont 3 0 17 0 28
Tracy 1 1 3 1 1
Oakland 1 0 58 0 20
Highlights
• High degree of variability between
jurisdictions
• Most projects required electrical
permits for 240V circuit runs
• Average project permitting wait
times was 8 days
• Reasons for permitting variation:
• Permit center backlogs
• Jurisdiction -specific
requirements requiring more
time and coordination
• Inspector availability
7 Applicant Attrition Breakdown
- 212k emails sent to
56k accounts ( 47% of
CARE customers)
- 0.24% application rate
- 69% attrition for all
applicants
Air Quality Results
8 Significant and consistent
reductions in nitrogen dioxide
(NO 2)
• The median NO₂ concentration
decreased by 70%, indicating that
a typical household experienced a
substantial reduction.
• Median minutes above EPA
threshold declined from 13 to 0
minutes per day (P<0.0001)
Reductions in carbon monoxide
(CO) were moderate
• Median CO concentrations
decreasing by 17%
• Median minutes above EPA
threshold declined from 1
min/day to 0 min/day
(p < 0.0001)
Average minutes per day with NO2
concentrations exceeding the 101-ppb
threshold.
Average minutes per day with CO
concentrations exceeding the 9.5 ppm
threshold
Next Steps
9 • Staff will apply learnings from the Pilot to future program planning and design efforts • Better understanding of electrical constraints across building stock in Ava’s service area • Insights into electrification project costs, permitting constraints, and project timelines for better contractor coordination
• Program offerings that gain more customer interest and program participation • Remaining budget (~$8.5MM) can be reinvested into future building electrification programs (e.g. potential heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC programs) • Berkeley Air Monitoring Group continues to advance health -focused research on air quality and stove electrification under a CEC grant, in coordination with the Equitable Building Decarbonization Program
10 Thank you!
Dan Bertoldi
Electrification Program Manger
[email protected]
Panel and Electrical Insights
11 Highlights
• 22% of total assessed homes (324) were
cancelled because of panel and/or
electrical issues
• 14% unsafe panel/electrical (44)
• 8% panel capacity (25)
• All completed projects were at homes
with 100 amps+
• It was not feasible to electrify with
less than a 100 -amp panel
• Recalled/unsafe panel brands include
Zinsko , Stab -Lok, Sylvania, and Federal
Pacific
• We also encountered melted breakers,
pest infestations in panel box, missing
panel enclosures, etc.
Panel Capacity Observations
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
<50 50 60 70 100 125 200
No. of Assessed Panels
Panel Amperage
Pilot Interest by Jurisdiction
12 Jurisdiction Approved
Applications
Completed
Installs
% Completed
Projects by
City
OAKLAND 156 58 35%
STOCKTON* 115 33 20%
FREMONT 29 17 10%
HAYWARD 36 14 9%
SAN LEANDRO 24 13 8%
BERKELEY 26 11 7%
UNINC ALAMEDA CO 21 5 3%
TRACY 17 3 2%
UNION CITY 7 3 2%
EMERYVILLE 3 1 1%
LATHROP* 7 1 1%
NEWARK 6 1 1%
ALBANY 2 1 1%
PLEASANTON 1 1 1%
DUBLIN 1 0 0%
Highlights
• Stockton achieved 33
installs (20%) in just 4
months
• Stockton and Oakland
account for more than half
of installs – these cities had
the highest CARE/FERA
populations and highest
concentration of asthma
rates
• Staff was able to tap into
the (designated) affordable
housing market in Fremont
with assistance from City
staff *Pilot made available to these cities in May 2025 Outreach Email
Statistics
13 Attrition Rate
Renters vs. Homeowners
14 Success
10%
Attrition
90%
Renter Attrition Rate
n = 110
Success
37%
Attrition
63%
Homeowner Attrition Rate
Success
Attrition
n = 408
• Attrition was 90% for renters compared to 63% for homeowners. • 26% of renting participants did not move forward because of panel or electrical issues, compared to 10% of homeowner participants
Attrition Rate
Single Family vs. Multi-family
15 Success
17%
Attrition
83%
Multi-Family Attrition Rate
n = 60
Success
33%
Attrition
67%
Single Family Attrition Rate
Success
Attrition
n = 458
• Attrition was 83% for multi -family buildings compared to 67% for single -family homes.
• 27% of the multifamily homes observed didn’t move forward because of panel or electrical issues, compared to 12% of homeowners
Air Quality Results
16 Carbon dioxide (CO 2) remained
stable
• Carbon dioxide concentrations
remained largely stable following
the stove transition. Median CO 2
concentrations decreased
slightly (4%) ,
Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)
• High variability, with PM 2.5 being
influenced by factors beyond
stove fuel, including cooking
practices, ventilation, and outdoor
air infiltration.
Average minutes per day with CO2concentrations
exceeding the 1100 ppm threshold (right).
Average minutes per day with PM2.5
concentrations exceeding the 35.5 µg/m³
threshold (right).
Direct Install Program Costs
17 Avg. Cost per
Completed Project Total Cost
Direct Project Costs* $5,050 $818,155
Admin + $2,062 $334,024
Total $7,112 $1,152,179
*Includes costs for equipment, labor, assessments, and cookware +
Includes total admin costs program -wide
Key Observations: Site Conditions
18 • A major factor for the high attrition rate was existing electrical infrastructure. oExpect pre -existing site challenges for the targeted customer segment: uncovering electrical/panel issues and code violations was common. oA disproportionate number of renter and multifamily projects were cancelled because of electrical issues.
oStove electrification was not possible with less than 100 amps of total panel capacity. oAlmost half of projects required installation measures beyond “standard project”, increasing the installed cost for those customers (i.e. required tandem breakers, circuit sharing devices, etc.)
• Virtual assessments may be a solution to reduce unnecessary site visits by uncovering electrical issues.
• Adding a panel replacement measure would substantially decrease attrition, but at a high cost.
This would have the most impact on renters or customers who live in multifamily buildings.