Who Should Foot the Huge Bill to Switch California Homes to Heat Pumps?

Source: Canary Media |  By Jeff St. John

When SoCal Edison first announced its plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help 250,000 customers install heat pumps back in 2021, some building-electrification advocates saw it as the kind of proactive step utilities need to be taking to transition their customers off of fossil fuels and help California meet its ambitious climate targets. Others saw it as an unproven building-electrification strategy that could add new charges to already-expensive electric bills, without clear evidence of long-term cost reductions and climate benefits.

Toney of The Utility Reform Network agrees with the Sierra Club and NRDC that California needs to find ways to help its residents meet the state’s aggressive electrification goals. ​“We’re absolutely joined at the hip when it comes to leadership on climate policy,” he said. ​“Where we differ is on the revenue streams to pay for that.” So far, ratepayers have largely borne the costs of the gigawatts of solar power the state’s major utilities have signed contracts for over the past decade and a half, as well as for the roughly $1.5 billion in utility electric-vehicle charging programs launched in the past half-decade. Toney says he’d like to see state lawmakers direct more taxpayer dollars to fund these programs instead. Nor does Toney think that SCE should be allowed to add new building-electrification costs to its customers’ bills until it can explain how that doesn’t just duplicate other sources of funding. The CPUC agreed with that assessment, stating that SCE failed to show how its electrification plan is necessary on top of the various state-approved heat-pump programs that have already provided SCE with more than $100 million. Incentives created by the Inflation Reduction Act will potentially bring hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding into the utility’s service territory, CPUC pointed out in the decision.