Residential and nonresidential buildings: energy savings program.
One of the major changes proposed by AB 35 is the extension of the update frequency for energy efficiency programs from every three years to every five years. This aims to streamline processes and reduce the frequency of revisions that agencies need to undertake, which proponents argue will lead to a more stable regulatory environment. The bill also promotes the adoption of comprehensive energy assessments and improvement programs that are designed to achieve greater energy savings across California's building stock, particularly for structures that do not currently meet energy efficiency standards.
Assembly Bill No. 35, introduced by Assembly Member Quirk, addresses energy efficiency programs aimed at both residential and nonresidential buildings, especially focusing on low-income communities in California. The bill amends Section 25943 of the Public Resources Code, which provides a framework for the Public Utilities Commission to regulate utilities and ensure access to affordable electricity for low-income ratepayers. It emphasizes the need for agencies implementing energy efficiency programs to develop metrics and data collection methods to better serve these communities, thereby improving the overall effectiveness of such programs.
The sentiment around AB 35 appears to be mixed. Proponents hail the bill as an essential step in promoting energy efficiency and protecting low-income families from high energy costs, emphasizing that effective energy policies can lead to substantial long-term savings and environmental benefits. However, some critics raise concerns about the implications of reducing the frequency of program updates, suggesting that it could hinder responsiveness to rapidly evolving energy efficiency needs and advancements. The discourse reflects a broader debate about balancing regulatory burdens with the necessity for efficient and timely energy solutions.
Key points of contention regarding AB 35 include the effectiveness of extending the update cycle for energy efficiency programs and the adequacy of metrics used to evaluate the success of these programs in low-income communities. Opponents may argue that less frequent evaluations could lead to outdated practices and that the bill does not adequately address immediate needs within these communities. Additionally, the reliance on community and nonprofit organizations for implementing energy savings projects raises questions about funding and operational capacities across different regions in California.