CS-1 · Pace to Need
At current pace, no state completes LMI electrification this century
CS-2 · Rate Design
The rate schedule — not the rebate — determines whether electrification saves or costs money
CS-3 · Spending Architecture
Every state spends more subsidizing bills than reducing them — the ratio reveals the structural choice
CS-4 · Enrollment
Program generosity does not drive enrollment. Outreach infrastructure does.
CS-5 · Assistance Models
Five states, three assistance models, and one unresolved question: what level of protection makes electrification possible?
CS-6 · Consumer Protection
Michigan documented that 20% of low-income heat pump participants saw bill increases — and no state adopted safeguards
CS-7 · DER Integration
Across five states, fewer than 2,300 LMI households participate in any DER program — and the $590M that would have scaled it is frozen
CS-8 · Auto-Enrollment
Auto-enrollment quadrupled participation where implemented — but only two utilities across five states have tried it
MA-06 · Program Equity
EJ communities pay the most into Mass Save, receive the least
MA-08 · Gas Transition
The gas transition accelerates — stranded costs follow
MA-11 · Renter Gap
Renters are systematically excluded from electrification benefits
MA-14 · EEAC Timeline
A decade of warnings ignored: how Mass Save's equity gap was built
MA-15 · Renter Investment
Mass Save allocates 21% of incentives to renters who are 38% of households
MA-16 · LI Paradox
LMI households get the least electrification despite needing it most
MI-1 · Readiness Funnel
The electrification readiness funnel: where Michigan's population actually sits
MI-2 · Barriers
Financial barriers dominate — but residential and C&I care about different secondary factors
MI-3 · EWR Effectiveness
Michigan's EWR spending scales up while cost per unit of savings falls
MI-4 · Bills vs. Inflation
Every Michigan utility but one kept residential bill increases below inflation since 2020
MI-5 · MEAP Expansion
Michigan is scaling energy assistance infrastructure while electrification remains voluntary
MI-6 · Cost Shifting
Michigan applies rigorous subsidy analysis to data centers — but not to residential electrification
MI-7 · Stakeholder Sentiment
Michigan made electrification politically invisible by embedding it inside energy efficiency
PA-1 · Enrollment Gap
574,000 confirmed low-income Pennsylvanians eligible for assistance are not enrolled
PA-2 · Spending Inversion
Pennsylvania spends $7.12 subsidizing low-income bills for every $1 spent reducing them
PA-3 · Water Benefits Mask
59% of low-income program benefits come from water savings — not electricity
PA-4 · Termination Paradox
96,913 confirmed low-income electric customers were disconnected in a single year
PA-5 · Weatherization Wall
You can't install a heat pump in a house with a bad roof — and 40% of deferred homes are never repaired
PA-6 · Cost Allocation
Pennsylvania runs low-income energy policy through three separate tracks that don't talk to each other
VT-1 · Discount Gap
Vermont offers the lowest low-income electric discount in its region — while mandating electrification
VT-2 · Disconnections
Vermont utilities sent disconnection notices to 12–16% of households in a single month
VT-3 · Enrollment Paradox
GMP made its assistance program more generous. Enrollment fell 26%.
VT-4 · Depth vs. Breadth
Efficiency Vermont reached 22% more people in 2024 — and delivered 21% less savings
VT-5 · LI Throughput
Vermont allocated low-income funding — but can't convert it to completed projects
VT-6 · Policy vs. Safety Net
Vermont mandates electrification through three major laws — while its assistance infrastructure serves a fraction of those who need it
WI-01 · Cost Gap
Heat pump economics depend entirely on which rate schedule applies — and the right one doesn't exist yet
WI-02 · Policy Sequencing
Wisconsin launched heat pump rebates faster than any state — then stopped short of rate reform
WI-03 · Rate Architecture
Wisconsin built rate design tools for EVs and summer cooling — but left winter heating and LMI completely blank
WI-04 · Cross-Subsidy
Both are cross-subsidies. One has 9.4/10 approval. The other has near-unanimous opposition.
WI-05 · Rebate Trap
A $14,000 rebate makes year zero look great. At flat rates, the advantage is gone by year 4–8.
WI-06 · Building Emissions
Wisconsin cut electricity emissions 28% since 2005. Residential buildings: 4%.