The Board of Public Utilities backed a working group's six-project spending plan, though some members questioned whether city-facility investments would deliver enough direct benefit to customers.
RPU Board Advances $34M Plan for Solar, Battery and Efficiency Programs
The Board of Public Utilities backed a working group's six-project spending plan, though some members questioned whether city-facility investments would deliver enough direct benefit to customers.
Riverside Public Utilities' Board of Public Utilities on Monday advanced a plan to spend roughly $34 million in public benefits charge reserve funds, sending to City Council a package of six energy-efficiency and resiliency projects recommended by a community working group.
The proposal would direct the largest shares toward community and emergency centers, residential battery storage, a neighborhood pilot program and expanded help for low-income and mobile-home customers. The board approved the report — with one no vote — and sent the plan to City Council for further consideration.
The working group, which met four times between July 2025 and January 2026, recommended using the reserve funds for solar, battery storage, energy efficiency and research programs. Its largest recommendation was $12 million for solar, battery storage and energy-efficiency upgrades at community and emergency centers, followed by $9 million for a residential battery storage or solar-plus-storage pilot, $5 million for residential energy storage rebates, $5 million for resiliency upgrades at the utility operations center and city emergency operations center, $2 million for low-income and housing-related program expansions and $1 million for university research grants. Staff said the final amount available could be lower than $34 million depending on year-end program performance.
Board members broadly supported the direction of the plan, but raised concerns about its emphasis on solar and battery projects and the way the neighborhood pilot would be structured.
One board member questioned whether city-facility projects would produce enough direct benefit for customers.
"I do think from a perception standpoint, it does look like there's a lot of, half of the money is going to city facilities. And so we need to make real clear what the benefit is to customers broadly," said Board Member Tom Evans.
Staff said the proposal would return later in a more detailed form and that spending levels may still shift based on available funds and final program design.
The report also noted that several ideas were not carried forward — including a refund of reserve funds to customers, which staff said would not be legal under state law, and a demonstration facility proposal that lacked support from the working group.
A daytime solar support program was also set aside for future review.
Staff said the utility will bring back individual programs for approval before spending begins.
Civic Engagement Reporter who calls the Inland Empire home. Five years covering SoCal. APU journalism grad. Good conversations over coffee and stories that matter.
