University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Organizational dimensions of energy justice: affordable energy program implementation in California's San Joaquin Valley

(USC Thesis Other)

Organizational dimensions of energy justice: affordable energy program implementation in California's San Joaquin Valley

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Organizational Dimensions of Energy Justice:
Affordable Energy Program Implementation in California's San Joaquin Valley
By
Luis Gutierrez
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT
May 2025
Copyright 2025 Luis Gutierrez

ii
DEDICATION
To Ignacio y Maria Gutierrez - my parents, my compass, my foundation. Your journey
from Mexico wasn't measured in miles but in dreams: the dreams you set aside so that your
children could dream bigger. Every page of this work echoes your unwavering belief that
through education, any door can be opened.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Committee: Dr. Kim - your mentorship has shaped my research and path forward. Your
guidance carried me through this program, and I'm grateful for the mentor and friend you've
become. Mike - you helped me find clarity in challenging times, and our friendship has been one
of this journey's greatest rewards. Laura - your energetic (pun intended) enthusiasm and steady
support have meant the world to me.
Wife: Denise, you've been my constant source of support and understanding. From our
wedding to my defense days later, you've shown what true partnership means. I love you, and
sharing this milestone with you makes it complete.
Family: Mom, Dad, Claudia, Ara, Isa, Metz, Santi, Gael, Maya – you've been my
foundation. Your support and unconditional love carried me through the challenging moments,
especially when I struggled to believe in myself. Steve, Josephine, Dustin – thank you for your
endless encouragement; I'm honored to call you family.
Friends: Adam – I wouldn't have accomplished this without you; you're amazing. Sergio
– our high school selves would be proud of who we are today; dreams beyond BG made real.
Sam, Jorge – your check-ins meant a lot; gracias, Aguilas. Dr. Shiau – thanks for the early
guidance and recommendation. Rudy – your support of both professional and academic dreams
made this possible. Jill – thank you for stepping up when it mattered most; your participation in
the proposal defense was instrumental. Tammy, Chris, Lisa, Diana – your encouragement helped
me cross this finish line; I'm grateful for your trust. Daniela – thanks for cheering me on and
connecting me to you know who. Interviewees – I can’t name you, but please know I’m deeply
thankful for your participation. Lastly, I extend my deepest gratitude to California's San Joaquin
Valley residents, whose willingness to participate in the Pilot made this research possible.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION................................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................viii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions..................................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 6
Methodological Overview........................................................................................................... 7
Study Scope and Delimitations................................................................................................... 9
Organization of the Dissertation ............................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................... 12
Inequities in Energy Transitions and Systems .......................................................................... 12
Theoretical Foundations of Justice............................................................................................ 13
Philosophical Perspectives on Justice.................................................................................... 14
Application to Energy Transitions......................................................................................... 15
Energy Justice Frameworks ...................................................................................................... 17
Conceptualizing Energy Justice............................................................................................. 18
Core Tenets of Energy Justice ............................................................................................... 18
Expanded Frameworks and Principles .................................................................................. 20
Application of Energy Justice in Policy and Practice............................................................ 21
Critiques and Ongoing Debates............................................................................................. 23
Organizational Inertia, and Public versus Private Behaviors.................................................... 24
Organizational Theory and Energy Justice ............................................................................... 26
Classical and Human Relations Theories.............................................................................. 27
Bureaucratic Dysfunction and Power Dynamics................................................................... 29
Decision-Making, Behavioral Approaches, and Organizational Learning............................ 32

v
Organizational Innovation, Change Management, Networks, and Capacity ........................ 34
Institutional Theory, Critical Perspectives, and Recent Developments ................................ 35
Organizational Actors in Energy Justice Implementation: Utilities.......................................... 37
Organizational Actors in Energy Justice Implementation: Regulatory Agencies................. 39
Organizational Actors in Energy Justice Implementation: Community-Based Organizations
............................................................................................................................................... 41
Case Studies Highlighting Inequities: Electric Vehicles (EVs)................................................ 43
Case Studies Highlighting Inequities: Photovoltaic (PV) Systems........................................... 44
Case Studies Highlighting Inequities: Building Electrification in California........................... 46
Gaps in the Literature................................................................................................................ 48
Emerging Electrification in California...................................................................................... 51
Overview of Energy Policies................................................................................................. 52
Policy Analysis of the SJV Affordable Energy Pilot Project ................................................ 53
Organizational Factors and Energy Justice Implementation..................................................... 56
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY................................................. 60
Statement of the Problem.......................................................................................................... 60
Research Design: Qualitative Explanatory Single-Case Study................................................. 61
Setting the Case: SJV Proceeding and Pilot.............................................................................. 63
Policy Origins and Objectives............................................................................................... 63
Program Framework.............................................................................................................. 66
Implementation Components and Progress........................................................................... 68
Case Selection Rationale: San Joaquin Valley Affordable Energy Pilot Project...................... 71
Participants and Sampling: Inclusion Criteria........................................................................... 72
Participants and Sampling: Sampling Strategy ......................................................................... 74
Data Collection Methods........................................................................................................... 76
Semi-structured Interviews.................................................................................................... 76
Document Analysis................................................................................................................ 77
Thematic Analysis..................................................................................................................... 78
Approach to Thematic Analysis............................................................................................ 79
Coding Process...................................................................................................................... 79
Theme Development.............................................................................................................. 82

vi
Developing Measures for Energy Justice.................................................................................. 84
Ensuring Rigor and Trustworthiness......................................................................................... 86
Ethical Considerations in Data Analysis................................................................................... 86
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 87
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS.............................................................................................................. 88
Data Collected........................................................................................................................... 88
Thematic Analysis Findings: Distributional Justice.................................................................. 89
Global Theme 1: Infrastructure and Housing Challenges Impacting Implementation.......... 89
Global Theme 2: Economic Challenges and Strategies for Affordability............................. 91
Thematic Analysis Findings: Procedural Justice ...................................................................... 94
Global Theme 3: Community Engagement Strategies and Trust Building........................... 94
Thematic Analysis Findings: Recognition Justice .................................................................... 96
Global Theme 4: Socio-Cultural Dynamics and Adaptations............................................... 97
Analysis of Research Questions: Research Question (RQ) 1 ................................................... 99
Distributional Justice in the SJV Pilot................................................................................. 100
Procedural Justice in the SJV Pilot...................................................................................... 101
Recognition Justice in the SJV Pilot.................................................................................... 103
Analysis of Research Questions: Research Question (RQ) 2 ................................................. 105
Intra-organizational Dynamics............................................................................................ 110
Integration of Organizational Theory and Implementation................................................. 113
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................... 116
Practical Applications ............................................................................................................. 120
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 127
Future Research Directions..................................................................................................... 129
Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 134
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 140
APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................. 163
APPENDIX B............................................................................................................................. 164
APPENDIX C............................................................................................................................. 165
APPENDIX D............................................................................................................................. 166

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Core Tenets Energy Justice........................................................................................... 19
Table 2 - Thematic Codes ............................................................................................................ 79
Table 3 - Summary of Analysis of Organizational Dynamics and Their Influence on Energy
Justice Implementation ............................................................................................................... 105

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Induction Oven............................................................................................................ 54
Figure 2 – Electric Dryer ............................................................................................................. 54
Figure 3 - Map of 11 Communities Selected for the SJV Pilot ................................................... 66

ix
ABSTRACT
Energy transitions designed to address climate change have historically overlooked the
needs of disadvantaged communities, often worsening existing social and economic inequities.
Energy justice principles (distributional, procedural, and recognition) provide frameworks for
assessing whether energy transitions are equitable. This dissertation’s hypothesis is that beyond
program design, justice outcomes depend on the dynamics within and between implementing
organizations. This study examines how organizational factors influence the operationalization
of energy justice through a qualitative explanatory case study of California's San Joaquin Valley
Affordable Energy Pilot Project. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with program
stakeholders and analysis of regulatory documentation, the research reveals how organizational
structures, cultures, and practices shape justice outcomes in energy transitions. Findings
demonstrate that traditional utility planning processes, designed primarily for operational
efficiency, often proved inadequate for addressing systemic inequities in infrastructure and
resource distribution. Organizations varied significantly in their capacity for cultural adaptation
and community engagement, with some developing innovative practices while others maintained
rigid approaches that constrained effectiveness. Power asymmetries between implementing
organizations often limited collaborative potential, suggesting need for adaptive governance
frameworks. The study advances theoretical understanding of how organizational factors
influence energy justice implementation while offering practical insights for future initiatives.
Results indicate that achieving energy justice may require transformation of organizational
capabilities rather than modified program designs, with particular attention to developing
capacity for sustained community engagement and equitable resource distribution.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Background
Energy transitions designed to address climate change have historically overlooked the
needs of disadvantaged communities, often exacerbating existing social and economic inequities
(Carley & Konisky, 2020; Sovacool et al., 2019). Research consistently demonstrates that energy
systems produce outcomes that result in underserved communities facing disproportionate
energy burdens and higher rates of energy poverty. Low-income households typically spend
three times more of their income on energy costs compared to higher-income households, with
some spending up to 30% of their monthly income on energy bills (Brown et al., 2020). This
disparity is particularly pronounced among African-American households, who experience
significantly higher energy burdens even when controlling for income and other socioeconomic
factors (Dogan et al., 2022).
The San Joaquin Valley region of California exemplifies these challenges. Despite
California's progressive energy policies, communities in this region continue to face significant
barriers to affordable and reliable energy access. Many communities lack natural gas
infrastructure, forcing residents to rely on more expensive and environmentally harmful energy
sources such as propane and wood for heating and cooking (California Public Utilities
Commission, 2018b). As documented in the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC)
proceedings, these conditions create significant energy insecurity while exposing residents to
elevated levels of indoor and outdoor air pollution (Memmott et al., 2021). These conditions
persist not only due to historical underinvestment but also because conventional organizational
approaches to energy program implementation often fail to account for disadvantaged
communities' specific needs and circumstances adequately.

2
Energy Justice has emerged as a valuable framework for analyzing and addressing these
disparities. Building on Jenkins et al.'s (2016) work, energy justice encompasses three core
principles: distributional justice, which addresses the equitable allocation of benefits and
burdens; procedural justice, which focuses on inclusive decision-making processes; and
recognition justice, which emphasizes acknowledging and respecting diverse community needs
and identities. These principles provide an analytical framework for examining how energy
programs and policies impact disadvantaged communities. The failure of many energy programs
to reach those most in need is not merely a question of policy design but also of implementation -
how effectively policies are translated into practice and whether they achieve their intended
outcomes. While existing energy transition research primarily examines program costs and
benefits through their structural and operational elements, another critical yet less frequently
highlighted aspect involves the role of organizational challenges. These organizational
challenges are particularly evident in efforts to promote clean energy technologies, which often
fail to reach marginalized populations due to high costs, lack of access, and organizational
barriers (Baker, 2019).
All energy systems depend on intricate interactions among a broad spectrum of entities,
including government bodies (such as federal, state, and local policymakers and regulators),
utilities and other infrastructure providers, as well as community-based organizations. Utilities,
regulatory agencies, and community organizations must navigate bureaucratic procedures, and
inter-organizational dynamics while attempting to promote justice objectives (Sovacool et al.,
2019). Understanding how these organizational factors influence justice outcomes is important
for developing more effective approaches to energy transitions in disadvantaged communities.
California's policy response to these challenges, particularly through the San Joaquin Valley

3
Affordable Energy Pilot Project (from this point forward referred to as the “SJV Pilot” or
“Pilot”) presents an opportunity to examine how organizational factors shape the implementation
of energy justice principles. The Pilot, developed under Assembly Bill 2672, represents a
systematic attempt to address energy affordability and access in disadvantaged communities
while navigating complex organizational dynamics inherent in energy transitions.
Other energy transition studies have found that those responsible for energy policy
implementation and related infrastructure are often constrained by organizational inertia, which
leads to significant delays in adopting new technologies and systems, as entrenched practices and
resistance to change slow progress (Hannan et al., 2002; Merton, 1940; Sovacool et al., 2019).
Such inertia issues typically manifest in layers of bureaucracy and organizational norms that
prioritize routines over innovation, making implementing new policies and practices required for
energy transitions challenging.
Moreover, the behaviors of public and private organizations differ significantly
concerning program implementation, influenced by their organizational structures, goals, and
operational environments. Public organizations, such as government agencies and public utilities,
tend to be more bureaucratic and formalized, facing higher levels of red tape that can slow down
decision-making processes and reduce flexibility in responding to changes or implementing new
programs (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998). This is mainly due to the need for accountability to
multiple stakeholders, including taxpayers and oversight bodies, which requires adherence to
formal procedures (Ring & Perry, 1985).
Understanding how organizational factors influence the implementation of energy justice
principles thus emerges as a critical research imperative. While theoretical frameworks for
energy justice are well-developed, there remains limited empirical understanding of how

4
organizational factors shape justice outcomes in practice. This gap in knowledge hinders the
development of more effective approaches to energy transitions in disadvantaged communities
and limits our ability to address persistent inequities in energy systems.
Purpose of the Study
Using the San Joaquin Valley Affordable Energy Pilot Project as a case study, this
research investigates how utilities, regulatory agencies, and community organizations navigate
the complex demands of operationalizing distributional, procedural, and recognition justice. The
study hypothesizes that organizational characteristics fundamentally shape program
implementation through specific mechanisms: planning processes affect resource distribution,
bureaucratic structures influence community engagement, and organizational cultures mediate
recognition of diverse community needs.
While energy justice provides conceptual frameworks for assessing equitable outcomes in
energy transitions, its practical application depends significantly on the organizations responsible
for program delivery. Drawing on organizational theory and empirical evidence from the SJV
Pilot, the research analyzes how organizational structures – including inter-organizational and
intra-organizational dynamics enable or constrain the achievement of energy justice objectives,
with particular attention to organizational planning processes, resource dependencies, and
cultural competencies.
This research aims to advance both theoretical understanding and practical knowledge of
organizational factors and their influence on energy justice implementation. Through systematic
examination of the SJV Pilot, the study identifies specific organizational mechanisms that
influence program delivery in disadvantaged communities while offering insights for improving
organizational capacity to promote energy justice effectively. The findings contribute to energy

5
justice scholarship by demonstrating how organizational characteristics mediate the
operationalization of justice principles, while providing actionable recommendations for
enhancing organizational effectiveness in energy transition programs.
An emphasis on sustained organizational capacity, rather than isolated program
interventions, represents another practical contribution of this study. By examining how
organizations develop and maintain their ability to serve disadvantaged communities effectively,
the research provides insights for building long-term organizational capabilities instead of
modifying individual programs. This focus on organizational transformation reflects an
understanding, with potential for further exploration, that achieving energy justice requires
fundamental changes in how implementing organizations approach their work with marginalized
communities.
Research Questions
This study is structured around a central research question accompanied by two
supporting sub-questions. The primary question seeks to establish definitions for the energy
justice principles pertinent to this investigation and to assess the extent to which these principles
have been realized in practice. The second sub-question further delves into an analysis of how
organizational dynamics have influenced and shaped the dimensions of energy justice as defined
by the first question.
Central Research Question:
How do organizational factors affect energy transition programs and energy justice more
broadly?
Sub-Questions:
1. How are distributional, procedural, and recognition justice defined and measured
in the context of the SJV Pilot, and to what extent were these dimensions of
justice achieved in practice?

6
2. What organizational dynamics, both within and between different types of
organizations, influence these dimensions of energy justice in the SJV pilot? Are
there identifiable patterns among different types of organizations, and how do
they facilitate or limit specific forms of justice? Additionally, are there specific
intra-organizational dynamics that hinder justice outcomes?
In terms of framing, the central question addresses the broad relationship between
organizational characteristics and energy justice outcomes, while the sub-questions examine
specific mechanisms through which organizational factors shape program implementation. This
structure facilitates a thorough examination how the organizations in focus navigate the complex
demands of operationalizing justice principles in practice.
Significance of the Study
While existing scholarship has established theoretical frameworks for energy justice,
analyses of how, and why, organizational factors shape justice outcomes remain limited.
Through detailed examination of how implementing organizations' structures and practices
influence their capacity to promote equity in energy transitions, this study addresses a crucial gap
between justice principles and implementation realities. The explanatory case study approach
provides unique insights linking organizational factors to justice outcomes, contributing
methodological understanding of how to assess the influence of organizational factors on equity
in energy transitions.
For practitioners and policymakers, this research provides guidance for developing
organizational capacity to promote energy justice effectively. The findings identify specific
organizational mechanisms enabling or constraining equitable outcomes, moving beyond general
recommendations to offer detailed insights about organizational structures and processes that
support justice objectives. This practical contribution is particularly valuable given the growing
imperative to ensure that energy transitions advance both sustainability and equity goals.

7
Methodological Overview
A qualitative explanatory case study approach was selected for this study, which
facilitates the examination of complex organizational dynamics while maintaining a clear
connection to both theoretical foundations and empirical analysis (Yin et al., 2018). Employing
a case study approach proves particularly suitable for investigating how various types of
organizations address the intricate demands of implementing energy justice in practice.
This methodological choice facilitated investigation of how different organization types -
utilities with their standardized planning processes, community organizations with their local
knowledge networks, and regulatory agencies with their oversight responsibilities - approached
the complex demands of operationalizing justice principles in disadvantaged communities.
Expert sampling identified key informants from each organizational category who possessed
direct implementation experience, including utility program managers, CPUC commissioners,
technical implementers, and Community Energy Navigators (CEN). Their varied organizational
perspectives, combined with extensive document analysis of regulatory decisions and program
evaluations, provided rich empirical evidence for this study.
To examine these organizational dynamics, data collection combines semi-structured
interviews with systematic document analysis. Semi-structured interviews with seven key
stakeholders - including utility program managers from PG&E and SCE, CPUC commissioners,
technical implementers, and Community Energy Navigators - provided detailed insights into
organizational decision-making processes and implementation challenges. Document analysis
focused on five critical sources: two CPUC proceeding decisions that established the Pilot's
framework, a comprehensive process evaluation, and two utility annual progress reports. These
regulatory and evaluation documents revealed how organizational structures and practices

8
evolved throughout implementation, while enabling methodological triangulation to strengthen
findings about organizational influences on justice outcomes.
An analytical framework employing theory-driven thematic analysis further supports the
identification of insights into how organizational factors affect the implementation of justice
principles. By incorporating foundational concepts from energy justice and organizational
theory, the analysis systematized 497 coded quotes based on their connections to distributional,
procedural, and recognition justice outcomes. This deductive approach illuminated how
organizational structures and processes can function as either enabling or constraining forces in
the pursuit of justice.
The integration of organizational factors into the thematic framework emerged
organically throughout the analytical process, revealing specific mechanisms that influence
program delivery. Instead of treating the analyses of justice principles and organizational factors
separately, the study treats these two pillars as mediating forces in achieving justice objectives.
This comprehensive approach facilitated a comprehensive exploration of how diverse
organizations navigate the complex challenges associated with implementing justice principles in
practice.
The methodology's emphasis on organizational factors in justice implementation
distinguishes this research from previous studies that focus primarily on program outcomes or
policy design. While the single-case design may limit broad generalizability, the analytical
framework supports theoretical development regarding organizational dynamics that impact
equity in energy transitions. The findings contribute to both scholarly understanding and
practical knowledge about organizational requirements for advancing energy justice and how

9
organizations also maintain capacities for promoting equitable outcomes in disadvantaged
communities.
Study Scope and Delimitations
This research examines organizational influences on energy justice implementation
within specific temporal, methodological, and contextual boundaries. The temporal scope
concentrates on the SJV Pilot's active implementation phase, enabling detailed analysis of how
organizations developed and adapted their approaches to promoting energy justice in
disadvantaged communities. While this focus facilitates close examination of organizational
decision-making processes and implementation practices, it necessarily limits investigation of
long-term organizational transformations and sustained justice outcomes beyond the initial
program period.
The single-case design supports intensive examination of public and private organizations
implementing the complex demands of energy justice. The study captures detailed insights into
organizational dynamics while acknowledging limitations in broader stakeholder perspectives
through purposive sampling of expert stakeholders directly involved in program delivery.
The study's situation within California's regulatory environment and the San Joaquin
Valley's specific socio-economic context creates important analytical boundaries. California's
progressive energy policies and strong regulatory oversight mechanisms shape how
implementing organizations approach energy transitions. The San Joaquin Valley's historical
patterns of infrastructure investment, distinct community needs, and existing organizational
capacities further influence how justice principles are operationalized. These contextual factors
bound the direct applicability of findings to other jurisdictions while providing rich insight into
how organizations navigate complex justice demands in disadvantaged communities.

10
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation has five chapters in total, each building upon previous elements; the
structure progresses from theoretical foundations through empirical analysis to theoretical
synthesis and practical implications.
Chapter 2 establishes the theoretical framework through comprehensive literature review,
examining intersections between energy justice principles and organizational theory. The chapter
begins by analyzing historical inequities in energy transitions. It then explores theoretical
conceptualizations of justice, emphasizing distributional, procedural, and recognition principles
that frame subsequent analysis. The review examines organizational theories relevant to energy
transitions, including bureaucratic dysfunction, resource dependency, and cultural competency
frameworks. Case studies of electric vehicle adoption, photovoltaic systems, and building
electrification in California illustrate energy justice issues of previous energy transitions. The
chapter concludes by identifying critical gaps in understanding how organizational
characteristics shape the implementation of justice principles in energy transitions.
Chapter 3 presents the research methodology, establishing the rationale for adopting an
explanatory case study approach focused on California's San Joaquin Valley Affordable Energy
Pilot Project. The chapter details the problem statement, research questions, and case selection
criteria that guide the investigation of organizational influences on justice outcomes. It describes
the purposive sampling strategy that identified seven key stakeholders representing utilities,
regulatory agencies, and community organizations. The data collection methods combine semistructured interviews with systematic analysis of regulatory decisions, process evaluations, and
utility progress reports.

11
Chapter 4 organizes findings according to four global themes that emerged from the
analysis: infrastructure and housing challenges impacting implementation, economic challenges
and strategies for affordability, community engagement strategies and trust building, and sociocultural dynamics and adaptations. Each theme reveals how organizational characteristics
influenced the operationalization of distributional, procedural, and recognition justice. The
analysis integrates participant perspectives with documentary evidence to demonstrate how
different types of organizations approached justice implementation, highlighting both successful
adaptations and persistent challenges.
Chapter 5 synthesizes key findings while advancing theoretical understanding of
organizational influences on energy justice. The discussion examines how organizational
structures shaped infrastructure planning, resource allocation, and community engagement
processes. It analyzes variations in organizational learning and adaptation across different types
of implementing organizations. The chapter presents practical recommendations for transforming
organizational capabilities to better serve disadvantaged communities, particularly focusing on
infrastructure assessment, cultural competency development, and inter-organizational
coordination. After examining methodological limitations and contextual constraints, the chapter
concludes by identifying promising directions for future research on organizational dynamics in
energy transitions.

12
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Inequities in Energy Transitions and Systems
Historically, energy transitions have resulted in unequal outcomes, often reinforcing or
exacerbating existing social and economic inequities (Sovacool et al., 2019; Sovacool &
Scarpaci, 2016). In particular, disadvantaged communities have disproportionately borne the
negative externalities of energy systems—such as pollution and adverse health effects—while
reaping comparatively fewer advantages from newly implemented technologies and
infrastructure (Carley & Konisky, 2020). Research consistently demonstrates that energy systems
regularly produce outcomes that result in underserved communities facing disproportionate
energy burdens and higher rates of energy poverty. Low-income households typically spend
three times more of their income on energy costs compared to higher-income households, with
some spending up to 30% of their monthly income on energy bills (Brown et al., 2020). This
disparity is particularly pronounced among African-American households, who experience
significantly higher energy burdens even when controlling for income and other socioeconomic
factors (Dogan et al., 2022). A comprehensive national assessment found that low-income
households, communities of color, and older adults face the highest energy burdens across
metropolitan areas (Drehobl et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these inequities,
with low-income households experiencing increased rates of energy insecurity and utility
disconnections (Memmott et al., 2021). Recent research using the energy equity gap framework
has revealed that these disparities are systematic and persistent, with underserved communities
consistently facing barriers to accessing affordable and reliable energy services (Cong et al.,
2022).

13
The lack of targeted interventions that address the specific needs of vulnerable
populations means that many energy programs fail to reach those most in need. This failure is
not merely a question of policy design but also of implementation - how effectively policies are
translated into practice and whether they achieve their intended outcomes. Policies and programs
intended to promote clean energy technologies often fail to reach marginalized populations due
to high costs, lack of access, and organizational barriers (S. H. Baker, 2019).
The concept of a "just transition" emerged in the 1970s, rooted in concerns over displaced
workers affected by environmental regulations and the decline of certain industries (MertinsKirkwood, 2018; Newell & Mulvaney, 2013). Just transition frameworks advocate for strategies
that address the social dimensions of environmental policies, ensuring that the shift toward a
low-carbon economy does not marginalize vulnerable populations (Heffron, 2018). Closely
aligned, a growing recognition of energy justice as a critical framework highlights the need to
address the inequities in energy systems(K. Jenkins et al., 2016). This perspective emphasizes
the importance of equitable access to clean energy, fair distribution of energy burdens, and
inclusive participation in energy-related decision-making processes to ensure that all
communities, particularly the most vulnerable, benefit from energy transitions. These
frameworks emphasize that equitable transitions must consider not only the distribution of costs
and benefits but also procedural and recognition justice, ensuring that marginalized communities
have a voice in decision-making processes.
Theoretical Foundations of Justice
The concept of justice is central to philosophical discourse, serving as a key component
to the organization of societies and the governance of institutions. Within the context of energy
transitions, understanding the theoretical foundations of justice is essential for examining how

14
policies and practices either perpetuate or mitigate inequalities. This section draws heavily from
classical and contemporary theories of justice, particularly those of John Rawls and Robert
Nozick, while also exploring the application of social justice principles to energy transitions.
Philosophical Perspectives on Justice
Contemporary justice theory rests heavily on the shoulders of John Rawls. (L. H. Meyer
& Sanklecha, 2016; Pogge & Pogge, 2007) . Rawls’ (Rawls, 1971, 2001) theory of justice argues
that every person alive has an equal claim to a standard set of liberties. To convey the logic
behind this rationale, Rawls developed an exercise called the “veil of ignorance,” which is a
thought experiment designed to measure the risk an individual would tolerate in allowing
complete chance to determine their position in society (Schildberg-Hörisch, 2010). Under the
veil of ignorance, Rawls posits that rational individuals would agree upon two fundamental
principles of justice: (1) The Principle of Equal Liberty: Each individual is entitled to the most
extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for others; (2) The Difference
Principle: Social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they are arranged to benefit
the least advantaged members of society and if positions of advantage are open to all under
conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Ultimately, Rawls' Veil of Ignorance is not only a philosophical exercise but a position
on how society must restructure itself, systemically, to ensure that all individuals, regardless of
luck or natural abilities, are provided with equal resources and opportunities; and to achieve such
equality, those with less are given more to make up for any deficits in society. However, for this
perspective to function, Rawls theorizes that a system and its institutions must be capable of
facilitating the resources and agreements necessary to establish equal outcomes (L. H. Meyer &
Sanklecha, 2016; L. B. Murphy, 2003).

15
In contrast to Rawls Theory of Justice, philosopher Robert Nozick (1974) offers a
competing view on how society manages systems to achieve “fairness.” Nozick argues that
denying individuals any rewards, or perceived benefits, based on luck, merits or natural abilities
in an effort to achieve the type of equality Rawls describes, is unjust (Choptiany, 1973;
DiQuattro, 1986; Hayek, 1976). According to Nozick, societal fairness has more to do with
ensuring that individuals have the rights and abilities to use any benefits or privileges they
already possess than it is about the redistribution of these benefits and privileges according to
some standard of fairness. For Nozick, the role of the state should be minimal, limited to
protecting individuals against force, theft, and fraud, and enforcing contracts.
The contrasting views of Rawls and Nozick were selected because they represent two
foundational and opposing approaches to justice—one emphasizing fairness and redistribution to
support the disadvantaged, and the other prioritizing individual rights and minimal state
intervention. Together, these perspectives offer a way to explore the philosophical underpinnings
of equity and fairness.
Application to Energy Transitions
Theoretical frameworks of justice are also constructed through issue-specific lenses.
Social justice (SJ), for instance, is a segment of justice theory that encompasses “distributive,
procedural and interactional” (Jost & Kay, 2010, p. 1122) forms of justice and is a framework for
the distribution of “power, resources, and obligations to all people” (Ayala et al., 2011, p. 2796)
through judgments that are deemed fair and equitable in existing societies to reduce existing
social and economic inequalities (Ayala et al., 2011; Leslie & Catungal, 2012; Van den Bos,
2003).

16
Transitioning economic sectors, specifically those relating to energy, fall within the
overlapping frameworks of environmental (Farrell, 2012; Slatin & Scammell, 2011), climate
(Bulkeley et al., 2013; Cameron et al., n.d.; Schlosberg & Collins, 2014) and energy justice
(Healy & Barry, 2017; K. Jenkins et al., 2018). Much like SJ, these frameworks are not only
concerned with who “wins” and “loses” in society, but they are also concerned with the fairness
of the rules and procedures associated with societal outcomes. In an effort to bind these justice
discourses together, Heffron and McCauley (Heffron & McCauley, 2018; D. McCauley &
Heffron, 2018) fold all three into a repurposed version of Just Transition, which extends far
beyond the aforementioned foundations in the labor movement of the 1970s.
In the context of energy transitions, social justice principles provide essential frameworks
for evaluating and guiding policies that impact different segments of society. The transformation
toward low-carbon economies and the adoption of new energy technologies carries significant
implications for the distribution of resources, opportunities, and risks across communities. These
transitions can either mitigate or exacerbate existing inequalities, depending on how they are
managed and implemented (K. Jenkins et al., 2016; D. A. McCauley et al., 2013)
Energy transitions present challenges for disadvantaged communities, who may face
multiple barriers to accessing new technologies while simultaneously bearing a disproportionate
share of environmental burdens. Communities facing energy injustices often endure higher
energy costs relative to their income, with low-income households in the U.S. spending an
average of 8.6% of their income on energy, compared to 2.3% for higher-income households
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). They also encounter limited access to energy-efficient technologies;
for instance, a 2022 report revealed that low-income households receive only about 13% of
electric and gas utility energy efficiency spending, despite comprising 27.5% of all U.S.

17
households (ACEE, 2022). Additionally, these communities are disproportionately exposed to
environmental hazards, with low-income and minority populations more likely to reside near
power plants and industrial facilities, leading to increased exposure to pollutants and associated
health risks (ACEE, 2020). The application of social justice frameworks to energy transitions
necessitates careful consideration of these existing disparities and their underlying causes.
The integration of social justice principles into energy transitions requires attention to
multiple dimensions of equity and access. Organizations implementing energy programs must
address financial barriers that prevent marginalized communities from adopting clean energy
technologies, while also ensuring that decision-making processes are inclusive and representative
(Fuller & McCauley, 2016). This includes developing mechanisms for community engagement
and ensuring that traditionally marginalized voices are heard in program design and
implementation (Suboticki et al., 2023).
The success of social justice applications in energy transitions ultimately depends on the
development of comprehensive frameworks that address both immediate needs and long-term
structural inequities. This includes ensuring affordability and access to clean energy
technologies, fostering inclusive decision-making processes, and building organizational
capacity to serve diverse communities effectively (D. A. McCauley et al., 2013). By integrating
social justice principles, energy policies can promote more equitable outcomes while
contributing to broader sustainability goals.
Energy Justice Frameworks
The concept of energy justice has gained prominence as a critical framework for
addressing the ethical and equity considerations inherent in energy systems and transitions. It
provides a lens through which to evaluate the fairness of energy production, distribution, and

18
consumption, focusing on ensuring that the benefits and burdens of energy systems are equitably
shared among all members of society and that associated decision-making is representative and
impartial (K. Jenkins et al., 2016; Sovacool et al., 2019; Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015). This
section explores the foundational principles of energy justice and its theoretical underpinnings.
Conceptualizing Energy Justice
Energy justice extends beyond mere access to energy services; it encompasses broader
social, economic, and environmental considerations related to energy systems (van Bommel &
Höffken, 2021). At its core, energy justice seeks to apply principles of social justice to energyrelated issues, recognizing energy as fundamental to human well-being and societal development
(Sovacool et al., 2017) . It emphasizes the need to address inequalities in energy access,
affordability, and impacts, particularly for marginalized and disadvantaged communities (Galvin,
2020).
The origins of energy justice are rooted in earlier movements and concepts, including
environmental justice, climate justice, and the study of fuel poverty (Fuller & McCauley, 2016).
While environmental justice focuses on the fair distribution of environmental benefits and
burdens, energy justice specifically addresses the ethical dimensions of energy systems. It
acknowledges the critical role energy plays in enabling or constraining opportunities for
individuals and communities, influencing everything from economic development to health
outcomes (D. A. McCauley et al., 2013).
Core Tenets of Energy Justice
The most widely adopted framework for energy justice (van Bommel & Höffken, 2021;
Van Uffelen et al., 2024), developed by Jenkins et al. (2016), identifies three core tenets:
distributional justice, procedural justice, and recognition justice. Distributional justice addresses

19
the unequal allocation of energy services, costs, and benefits across different segments of
society. It examines who receives the benefits of energy production and who bears the burdens,
such as environmental degradation or health impacts. Procedural justice focuses on the fairness,
inclusivity, and transparency of decision-making processes related to energy. It emphasizes the
importance of involving all stakeholders, particularly marginalized groups, in energy planning
and policy development to ensure that their voices are heard and their concerns addressed
(Walker & Day, 2012). Recognition justice involves acknowledging and respecting the diverse
identities, experiences, and needs of different social groups affected by energy systems. It calls
for the validation of cultural practices, values, and contributions, seeking to address injustices
that arise from misrecognition or disrespect of marginalized communities (Fraser, 2000; D. A.
McCauley et al., 2013; Wynne, 2000).
Table 1 - Core Tenets Energy Justice
Tenet Critical
Arguments Key Findings Practical
Implications
Distributiona
l Justice
Focuses on the
unequal allocation
of benefits and
burdens from
energy systems,
emphasizing
fairness in
distribution.
Energy injustices arise from
the uneven siting of
infrastructure,
disproportionate financial
burdens, and limited access
to affordable energy
services.
Address inequities by
redistributing benefits
and burdens, ensuring
fair access to energy,
and mitigating
negative impacts on
vulnerable
populations.
Recognition
Justice
Calls for
acknowledgment
and respect for
marginalized and
underrepresented
groups affected by
energy decisions.
Injustices manifest as nonrecognition, misrecognition,
or disrespect, often
marginalizing specific
cultural, ethnic, and social
identities in energy
decision-making.
Recognize diverse
perspectives and
histories in decisionmaking processes to
build trust and
promote equitable
representation of all
affected groups.

20
Tenet Critical
Arguments Key Findings Practical
Implications
Procedural
Justice
Advocates for fair
and inclusive
decision-making
processes that
engage all
stakeholders
meaningfully.
Procedural inequities are
evident in inadequate public
consultation, poor
information disclosure, and
limited representation of
minorities and women in
energy governance.
Ensure meaningful
participation through
early stakeholder
engagement,
transparent
information-sharing,
and equitable
organizational
representation.
Note. Adapted from: Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H., & Rehner, R.
(2016). Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 174–182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.10.004
These tenets provide a comprehensive framework for analyzing energy systems and
policies, guiding efforts to identify and address injustices within energy transitions. They are
interrelated and emphasize that achieving energy justice requires attention to both the outcomes
of energy policies and the processes by which those policies are developed and implemented.
Expanded Frameworks and Principles
Beyond the core tenets, some scholars have expanded the energy justice framework to
include additional dimensions. Sovacool et al. (2017) propose eight principles of energy justice:
availability, affordability, due process, transparency and accountability, sustainability,
intergenerational equity, intragenerational equity, and responsibility. Availability ensures
sufficient energy resources to meet societal needs, while affordability focuses on providing
energy services at a cost that is fair and manageable for all. Due process guarantees fair legal
procedures and transparency in energy decision-making, and transparency and accountability
promote openness and responsibility among energy providers and policymakers. Sustainability
emphasizes balancing current energy needs with the preservation of resources for future
generations. Intergenerational equity considers the rights and needs of future generations in

21
energy planning, and intragenerational equity addresses inequalities among the current
population. Responsibility acknowledges the duty of individuals and organizations to contribute
to energy justice.
These expanded principles highlight the multifaceted nature of energy justice and its
intersection with broader ethical considerations, including environmental sustainability and
intergenerational concerns. They underscore the importance of integrating justice considerations
across all aspects of energy systems, from resource extraction to consumption.
While expanded frameworks of energy justice include additional principles, this study
focuses exclusively on the three core principles of energy justice - recognitional, procedural, and
distributional justice - due to their foundational role in the conceptualization of energy justice
and their direct relevance to organizational factors influencing energy transitions. These
principles are widely acknowledged as the essential components of energy justice frameworks,
providing a robust and coherent basis for analysis (Jenkins et al., 2016; D. A. McCauley et al.,
2013; van Bommel & Höffken, 2021; Van Uffelen et al., 2024)
Application of Energy Justice in Policy and Practice
The principles of energy justice have practical implications across various scales, from
local initiatives to national and global energy policies. In the United States, energy justice
considerations have been incorporated into policy frameworks such as California's Senate Bill
350, which mandates the consideration of energy equity in state energy planning (S. H. Baker,
2019). Similarly, the concept of "just transitions" has gained prominence in discussions about
moving towards low-carbon energy systems, emphasizing the need to ensure that workers and
communities are not left behind in the shift away from fossil fuels (Newell & Mulvaney, 2013).

22
At the local level, energy justice informs efforts to address energy poverty and improve
energy efficiency in low-income communities. Programs aimed at weatherization, energy
assistance, and community solar projects seek to reduce energy burdens and enhance access to
clean energy technologies (Hernández, 2015; Reames, 2016). Additionally, from a practicecentered perspective, organizations are applying variations of this conceptual framework to
program and policy recommendation reports. For instance, the Energy Equity Project at the
University of Michigan has created a national framework with standardized metrics to assess and
advance energy equity (Energy Equity Project, 2022). Similarly, the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power’s Equity Metrics Data Initiative tracks the distribution of programs and
resources to identify and address disparities in service delivery across the City of Los Angeles
(LADWP, 2024).
Internationally, energy justice principles guide efforts to expand access to modern energy
services in developing countries, recognizing that lack of access to energy is a significant barrier
to economic development and quality of life (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015; Tucho, 2020). The
United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 7 aims to ensure access to affordable, reliable,
sustainable, and modern energy for all, reflecting the global commitment to energy justice
(United Nations, 2015). Initiatives such as the Clean Energy for All Europeans package
demonstrate how regional policies can incorporate energy justice by focusing on energy
efficiency, renewable energy deployment, and consumer empowerment (European Commission,
2019).
Measuring and balancing different dimensions of justice, especially when facing tradeoffs with other policy objectives like rapid decarbonization, requires careful consideration and

23
adaptive practices (Sovacool et al., 2017). The complexity of energy systems and the diversity of
stakeholders involved make it difficult to develop one-size-fits-all solutions.
Critiques and Ongoing Debates
Ongoing debates also focus on the tension between individual responsibility and systemic
change. While individual actions can contribute to energy justice, systemic changes driven by
organizations and governments are necessary to address energy injustices (K. E. H. Jenkins et al.,
2020) . The complexity of energy systems requires multifaceted approaches that combine
technological innovation, policy reform, and social engagement.
While energy justice provides a valuable framework, some critics argue that the concept
can be challenging to operationalize and measure (K. E. H. Jenkins et al., 2020). There are
debates about how to prioritize different justice dimensions and how to address potential
conflicts between equity considerations and other policy goals. For instance, efforts to rapidly
transition to renewable energy sources may sometimes conflict with procedural justice if
communities are not adequately consulted or with distributional justice if the costs
disproportionately affect vulnerable populations (Lacey-Barnacle, 2020; Simcock, 2016).
A key issue raised in the literature is the tendency of the energy justice framework to
overlook “normative uncertainties” situations where there are multiple, morally defensible but
incompatible views on what is just (Van Uffelen et al., 2024) This can limit the legitimacy of
justice claims and policy recommendations. Normative uncertainties challenge the assumption
that there is an objective way to define what is just. For example, there may be differences in
perspectives on whether nuclear energy is just, due to conflicting values such as safety,
environmental sustainability, and economic equity. This perspective argues that energy justice
must better acknowledge and incorporate these diverse viewpoints to avoid oversimplification

24
and to enhance the legitimacy of policy recommendations. Furthermore, scholars highlight the
importance of incorporating diverse perspectives to ensure that energy justice frameworks are
inclusive and globally relevant (Dunlap & Tornel, 2023). The integration of indigenous
knowledge and practices, for example, can enrich energy planning and policy development,
leading to more sustainable and equitable outcomes (Whyte, 2017).
Organizational Inertia, and Public versus Private Behaviors
Most of the literature on issues pertaining to just energy transitions focuses on the costs
and benefits resulting from program design and implementation practices. Another important
factor, which is less discussed, is the role of organizational issues in achieving equitable
transitions. All energy systems are facilitated through complex interactions between diverse
organizations, such as government entities (e.g., federal, state, and local policymakers,
regulators, etc.) utilities and other similar energy and infrastructure-providing organizations, and
community organizations.
Early organizational theory emphasized efficiency, rationality, and formality, viewing
organizations as machine-like entities designed to maximize productivity (Fayol, 1949; Gulick &
Urwick, 2004; Taylor, 1911, 2004). While these classical approaches offered foundational
principles for management, they often neglected the complexities of human behavior and the
adaptability that benefits individuals and structures in dynamic environments (Maslow, 1943b,
1943a; Schein, 1971; Simon, 1956). This theoretical foundation helps explain why organizations
often struggle with innovation and change, particularly in complex domains like energy
transitions.
This resistance to change manifests as organizational inertia, which leads to significant
delays in adopting new technologies and systems, as entrenched practices and institutional norms

25
prioritize established routines over innovation (Hannan et al., 2002; Merton, 1940; Stinchcombe,
1965). Such structural inertia typically manifests in layers of bureaucracy that make it
challenging to implement new policies, practices, and technologies required for energy
transitions.
At the implementation level, Lipsky's (2010) concept of "Street-level bureaucrats"
illuminates how front-line workers face constraints, such as high caseloads or ambiguous goals,
that limit their ability to adapt programs to stakeholder needs. This can result in standardized
approaches that fail to address specific barriers faced by marginalized populations, thereby
perpetuating inequities in energy access.
Moreover, the behaviors of public and private organizations differ significantly
concerning program implementation, influenced by their organizational structures, goals, and
operational environments. Public organizations, such as government agencies and public utilities,
tend to be more bureaucratic and formalized, facing higher levels of red tape that can slow down
decision-making processes and reduce flexibility in responding to changes or implementing new
programs (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998; Farnham & Horton, 1996). This is mainly due to the
need for accountability to multiple stakeholders, including taxpayers and oversight bodies, which
requires adherence to formal procedures (Ring & Perry, 1985). In contrast, private organizations
typically have more streamlined processes and greater operational flexibility, allowing for faster
decision-making and adaptation (Rainey et al., 1976).
The goals of public organizations are often more complex and less clearly defined than
those of private organizations. Public organizations must balance multiple objectives, including
public welfare, equity, and political considerations (Christensen & Opstrup, 2018; Meier &
O’Toole Jr, 2006). These goals can be vague or conflicting, making it difficult to measure

26
success or implement programs efficiently. Private organizations, on the other hand, usually have
more specific goals centered around profitability and efficiency, which can lead to more focused
program implementation (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998; Hvidman & Andersen, 2014; Sheshinski
& López-Calva, 2003).
Such differences can have significant implications in the context of energy transitions.
Public institutions and organizations may prioritize equity and accountability but struggle with
efficiency and innovation, impeding responsiveness to emerging challenges and inhibiting the
adoption of sustainable technologies (Milchram et al., 2019). Private institutions and
organizations, driven by competition and profitability, may emphasize speed, flexibility, and
measurable outcomes but may lack accountability, potentially overlooking the needs of
disadvantaged communities.
Additionally, research shows that private sector organizations provide greater support for
innovation and evidence-based practices compared to their public counterparts. Private
organizations tend to foster positive attitudes toward the adoption of new technologies by
offering more organizational support for innovation (Aarons et al., 2009). Public sector
organizations are often slower to adopt new practices due to higher levels of bureaucracy and
risk aversion (Aarons et al., 2009). This can result in standardized approaches that fail to address
specific barriers faced by marginalized populations, thereby perpetuating inequities in energy
access.
Organizational Theory and Energy Justice
Understanding how public organizations influence energy justice outcomes necessitates
an examination of key organizational theories that explain bureaucratic behavior, institutional
change, decision-making processes, power dynamics, and adaptation mechanisms. These

27
theories provide insights into the internal dynamics of organizations, their interactions with
external environments, and their capacity to adapt—or fail to adapt—to emerging challenges
such as those presented by energy justice.
Classical and Human Relations Theories
Frederick Taylor's scientific management advocated for standardized tasks and
hierarchical supervision to achieve efficiency (Taylor, 1911). Henri Fayol's (1949) management
principles—planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling—sought to
enhance organizational effectiveness through clearly defined structures. Similarly, Luther Gulick
and Lyndall Urwick emphasized specialization and clear lines of authority to promote
administrative efficiency (Gulick & Urwick, 2004). From a similar school of thought, New
Public Management (NPM) emerged as an influential approach that aimed to improve public
sector efficiency by incorporating private sector management practices (Hood, 1991). This
framework emphasizes performance measurement, customer service orientation, and marketbased mechanisms in public service delivery, influencing how utilities and regulatory bodies
approach energy program implementation.
However, these classic perspectives mostly fail to fully appreciate the complexities of
modern public organizations, especially in dynamic environments (Rainey et al., 1976). Rigid
structures may limit adaptability, stifling outcomes when standardized procedures fail to consider
localized barriers and information (Burns & Stalker, 1996; Farnham & Horton, 1996). The
human relations movement emerged in response to these limitations, highlighting the importance
of informal social structures, worker satisfaction, and human needs within organizations. The
Hawthorne studies demonstrated that social relationships and employee morale significantly
impact organizational effectiveness (Roethlisberger, 1941). Neo-human relations scholars like

28
Chris Argyris (1973) argued that hierarchical structures could inhibit individual growth, leading
to dissatisfaction and decreased efficiency, and advocated for environments that promote
personal development and participative decision-making. Contingency theory further suggests
that organizations must adapt their structures to specific environmental demands to remain
effective (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967).
These evolving perspectives mostly boil down to two seemingly contradicting defining
factors for organizations - they must compartmentalize their tasks, in the interest of efficiency,
and they must rise above simple economic efficiency in order to be impactful; they must
collaborate, and integrate complex, values-driven forms of communication (Vasu et al., 2017) .
And, as systems, their purpose is largely motivated by minimizing transaction costs (i.e., efforts
that require running “the system”) (Milgrom & Roberts, 1994). Principal-agent theory (M. C.
Jensen & Meckling, 1979) provides additional insight into organizational behavior by examining
the challenges that arise when one party (the principal) delegates authority to another (the agent).
This framework is particularly relevant for understanding relationships between regulatory
bodies and utilities, where information asymmetries and misaligned incentives can affect policy
implementation.
In the context of energy justice, these approaches suggest that focusing solely on
efficiency may undermine justice by neglecting the human and social factors essential for
equitable policy implementation; justice calls for more than a hierarchical lens toward solutions;
it also involves taking into consideration how the actors involved change and work together.
Empowering public facing on-the-ground workers and fostering a supportive organizational
culture is important for adapting energy programs to meet the specific needs of underserved
communities. Additionally, these perspectives recognize that flexibility is essential for meeting

29
diverse community energy needs, as rigid, one-size-fits-all structures may hinder responsiveness
and justice. Lastly, organizational theory helps frame instances in which organizations struggle
with contradictory identities and factors. This understanding, through an added layer of energy
justice, may help illuminate why certain barriers and obstacles emerge in the implementation of
the Pilot.
Bureaucratic Dysfunction and Power Dynamics
Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy described organizations characterized by hierarchy,
rules, specialization, and impersonality, aiming for rational and efficient operations (Weber,
1947). However, scholars like Merton (1940) identified dysfunctions within bureaucratic systems
(this study will encompass these ideas as “organizational dysfunction” or “bureaucratic
dysfunction” moving forward), such as rigid adherence to rules leading to goal displacement and
inflexibility. Selznick (1984) observed that groups within organizations develop their own
informal subsystems and practices, leading to the development of goals that conflict with
established institutional objectives.
These critiques are pertinent to energy justice, as bureaucratic rigidity can hinder the
implementation of flexible energy programs tailored to disadvantaged communities (Bondi &
Horowitz, 2024). Strict procedures and eligibility criteria may inadvertently exclude populations
that initiatives, with energy justice-aligned goals, aim to serve, perpetuating inequities in energy
access (Tozer et al., 2024).
Power relations within organizations affect resource allocation, policy priorities, and
strategic decisions (Sisaye, 1992). Internal politics can lead to prioritizing certain interests over
the needs of marginalized communities, especially if those communities lack representation
within the organization. From the perspective of resources, resource dependency theory (Pfeffer

30
& Salancik, 1978) explains how reliance on external resources influences internal power
dynamics, often shaping policy priorities and resource allocation. This perspective can relate to
the challenge of balancing resource needs with equitable goals; external funding and political
pressures may prioritize certain initiatives or interests over the needs of underserved
communities. Building on these concepts, theories of power in organizations explore how formal
and informal authority structures shape organizational behavior and outcomes (Clegg et al.,
2006). Power dynamics within bureaucracies can significantly influence how resources are
allocated and how decisions are implemented, particularly in contexts involving multiple
stakeholders with potentially competing interests.
An additional aspect of bureaucratic dysfunction is the presence of organizational silos,
where departments or units within an organization operate in isolation, leading to communication
breakdowns and inefficiencies (Bento et al., 2020; de Waal et al., 2019). While organizational
silos often hinder the flow of information and collaboration necessary for cohesive policy
implementation, there is evidence that ‘silos,’ when perceived as clusters within organizations,
can create isolated spaces that protect ideation and knowledge exchange (Bento et al., 2020). In
the context of energy justice initiatives, silos between utility departments or between utilities and
community organizations can result in misaligned goals and fragmented efforts, ultimately
impeding the equitable distribution of resources (Fenwick et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2012).
Overcoming these silos requires deliberate organizational strategies to enhance interdepartmental
communication and foster a culture of collaboration.
Effective communication within and between organizations is critical for successful
policy implementation. Organizational Communication Theory explores how communication
processes shape organizational structures, culture, and effectiveness (Muhamad et al., 2019;

31
Putnam & Nicotera, 2008). Miscommunication or lack of communication can lead to
misunderstandings, decreased morale, and inefficiencies. In energy justice initiatives, clear and
transparent communication is essential for coordinating efforts among utilities, regulators, and
community organizations (Putnam & Nicotera, 2008). Enhancing communication channels can
mitigate bureaucratic dysfunctions and improve collaboration, advancing organizational goals
and equity objectives.
Trust is another important organizational factor, particularly in matters that relate to
underserved communities. Trust, as framed by Mayer et al. (1995), Schoorman et al. (1996)
examines the factors that contribute to the development of trust within relationships, including
ability, benevolence, and integrity. In organizational settings, trust between stakeholders is
essential for cooperation, information sharing, and effective functioning. Trust deficits can arise
from past negative experiences, perceived injustices, or lack of transparency. In energy justice
initiatives, building trust with marginalized communities is essential for successful engagement
and program adoption. Organizations must demonstrate competence, show concern for
community well-being, and act with integrity to foster trust and facilitate collaborative
relationships.
Participatory governance theory further illuminates how bureaucratic structures can either
facilitate or inhibit meaningful community engagement (Baldwin, 2020). Fung (2006) argues
that the effectiveness of participation depends on three key dimensions: who participates, how
they communicate and make decisions, and how their input connects to policy outcomes. This
framework helps explain why some organizational structures may struggle to incorporate
community voices effectively, even when formal participatory mechanisms exist. In energy

32
policy implementation, the degree and quality of participation can significantly affect both
procedural justice and overall program outcomes (Baldwin, 2020).
From a policy perspective, policy implementation theory examines the processes and
challenges involved in translating policy decisions into practical actions and outcomes (Pressman
& Wildavsky, 1984). It recognizes that policy implementation is complex and can be hindered by
inadequate resources, conflicting objectives, and bureaucratic resistance. Similarly, Charles E.
Lindblom's concept of incrementalism, often referred to as "the science of muddling through"
(Lindblom, 2001) , suggests that policymakers frequently opt for small, incremental changes
rather than comprehensive overhauls due to practical limitations in information, resources, and
political feasibility. Incrementalism highlights how decision-makers work within existing
structures and make minor adjustments, which can lead to slow progress and perpetuation of the
status quo. In the context of energy justice, understanding the intricacies of policy
implementation and the tendency toward incrementalism helps explain how well-intentioned
policies may fail to achieve transformative results. For instance, in the context of this study, the
principal intervention is a pilot - or a test that precedes the actual solution or program. In this
case, decision-makers appear to have chosen the incremental route in determining how to
implement the goals of the legislation that originated the SJV Pilot.
Understanding these dynamics is important in the context of addressing barriers to energy
justice. Organizations must be aware of how power imbalances can impede equitable outcomes
and take steps to ensure that diverse perspectives inform decision-making processes.
Decision-Making, Behavioral Approaches, and Organizational Learning
Herbert Simon's concept of bounded rationality challenged the notion of purely rational
decision-making, asserting that decision-makers operate under cognitive and organizational

33
constraints, leading them to "satisfice" rather than optimize (Simon, 1956). The Behavioral
Theory of the Firm (Cyert & March, 2015; Gavetti et al., 2012) explored how organizations
make decisions based on routines and standard operating procedures influenced by conflicting
goals and limited information. Prospect Theory, developed by Kahneman and Tversky (2012),
explains how decision-makers evaluate potential losses and gains, often exhibiting risk-averse
behavior when facing uncertainty.
In the context of energy justice, these theories imply that organizational decisions may
not fully consider the needs of marginalized communities due to biases, risk perceptions, and
organizational constraints (Heffron & McCauley, 2018). Policies intended to promote energy
justice may thus fall short if shaped by incomplete understanding or aversion to perceived risks
associated with innovative approaches.
Systems theory views organizations as open systems interacting with their environments,
emphasizing adaptability for survival (Katz, 1966; G. Morgan, 2011) (Katz, 1966; G. Morgan,
2011). Organizational learning theory explores how organizations acquire and apply knowledge
to improve performance (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Senge, 2006). Learning organizations actively
promote knowledge sharing, continuous improvement, and adaptability through feedback
mechanisms and reflective practices. The concept of organizational support systems (Eisenberger
et al., 1986) emphasizes how employee perceptions of organizational commitment to their wellbeing affect performance and engagement. This theory suggests that organizations must provide
adequate resources and support to enable effective implementation of new initiatives and
changes.
From an energy justice perspective, these frameworks highlight the importance of
organizational capacity for change in addressing inequities. Organizations that engage in learning

34
and intentional support can modify policies and practices to better serve disadvantaged
communities. For example, utilities that analyze energy burdens among low-income customers
and adjust programs accordingly demonstrate learning that supports energy justice (Garud et al.,
2011; Ingram et al., 2023).
Organizational Innovation, Change Management, Networks, and Capacity
Innovation diffusion theories, such as Rogers' (2010) Diffusion of Innovations, explain
how organizations adopt new technologies and practices. The adoption process is influenced by
factors like perceived advantages, compatibility with existing values, and complexity. In energy
transitions, organizations may face barriers to adopting innovations necessary for equitable
energy access due to resistance to change or lack of resources (Hoppe & de Vries, 2019; Seyfang
& Haxeltine, 2012; Wolsink, 2012).
Change management frameworks, including Lewin's (1975) Change Model and Kotter's
(2007) eight-step model, provide strategies for navigating organizational transformations.
Effective change management is essential for organizations to overcome inertia and implement
practices that promote equity in energy justice.
Organizations increasingly operate within public, private, and non-profit networks.
Network theory suggests collaborative governance can enhance problem-solving capacity and
innovation (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Inter-organizational collaboration can pool resources, share
knowledge, and coordinate actions to effectively reach underserved communities (Hardy et al.,
2003). These networks can overcome individual organizational limitations but require effective
management to navigate differing objectives and power dynamics. Collaboration enhances the
capacity to address complex issues, such as those inherent in energy justice issues, that no single
organization can tackle alone.

35
Lastly, organizational capacity is another factor that, in particular, helps frame the actions
of non-profit organizations. Eisinger (2002, p. 118) defines capacity as “a set of attributes that
help or enable an organization to fulfill its missions.” Commonly accepted attributes are strong
leadership, stable financial resources, strong external relationships, specialized skills, and
political capital (Chaskin, 2001; Eisinger, 2002; Glickman & Servon, 2012). However, the
reliability of these attributes in determining the role capacity plays in an organization’s
effectiveness varies as a function of organization type. Rural organizations, like those at the
center of the SJV pilot, operate in geographically isolated areas, which make securing strong
social networks difficult (Walters, 2020), and typically experience greater instances of financial
insecurity (Lin & Wang, 2016) . Financial challenges for rural organizations are mostly linked to
organizational factors, such as lack of training and resources to apply for grants (Walters, 2020).
Yet, despite these challenges, rural organizations regularly demonstrate success through
adaptation and embracing innovative programmatic practices, such as embracing digital-based
services for their stakeholders (Walters, 2020).
Institutional Theory, Critical Perspectives, and Recent Developments
Institutional theory examines how organizations conform to norms and expectations to
gain legitimacy (DiMaggio et al., 1983; J. W. Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Isomorphism describes
organizations becoming similar over time by adopting standard practices. While this can promote
stability, it may stifle innovation needed within spaces that are typically associated with complex
energy initiatives. Organizations might adopt uniform energy programs that fail to address
specific needs of marginalized communities due to pressures to conform.
A more recent construct that is associated with understanding diverse needs is cultural
competency. Cultural competency refers to the ability of organizations and individuals to

36
understand, appreciate, and interact effectively with people from diverse cultures (Betancourt et
al., 2003; Van Driel & Gabrenya Jr, 2013). It involves recognizing and respecting cultural
differences, and adapting practices to meet the cultural, social, and linguistic needs of diverse
populations. In organizational contexts, cultural competency is crucial for delivering services
effectively to marginalized communities. Energy organizations must develop cultural
competency to address barriers related to language, traditions, and historical experiences that
affect community engagement and program participation. Incorporating cultural competency
frameworks enhances organizational capacity to promote energy justice by ensuring that
initiatives are culturally sensitive and accessible. One step further, and more applicable to
institutional and organizational structures is Critical Race Theory (Delgado et al., 2017). This
theory explores how race and racism are embedded within social structures and institutions,
perpetuating inequality and marginalization. In organizational contexts, CRT examines how
policies, practices, and cultures within organizations can reinforce systemic racism. Applying
CRT to energy justice highlights the importance of recognizing historical injustices and
addressing the structural factors that contribute to disparities in energy access among
marginalized racial and ethnic groups
Contemporary organizational theories offer critical perspectives on power structures and
advocate for transformative change. Alvesson and Willmott (2024) emphasize the role of critical
management studies in questioning traditional organizational practices that perpetuate
inequalities. These perspectives can assist in understanding how systemic changes, within
organizations can occur (e.g., questioning the status quo of existing practices and decisionmaking approaches) in support of developing alternative, more equitable organizational
structures.

37
Organizational Actors in Energy Justice Implementation: Utilities
Utility companies, as a critical part of the infrastructure sector, often emerge in regulated
contexts where market failures—such as natural monopolies—necessitate oversight and control
(Joskow, 2007; Newbery, 1999). Historically, utilities have often been conceptualized as
vertically integrated, regionally monopolistic entities that own and manage generation,
transmission, and distribution systems (Hausman & Neufeld, 2004; Hunt, 2008; E. Kahn, 1988).
In the United States, their organizational structures are shaped by long-term capital investments,
sunk costs, and significant regulatory constraints (Beecher, 2013). Governance models within
these entities tend to emphasize stability, reliability, and compliance with external regulatory
mandates more than rapid strategic pivots (A. Klass et al., 2022; A. B. Klass et al., 2024).
From an organizational theory perspective, utility companies have been described as
large, bureaucratic structures characterized by hierarchical decision-making processes, pathdependent asset investments, and routine-driven cultures (Joskow & Schmalensee, 1983; Kovvali
& Macey, 2023; McNabb, 2005; Sioshansi & Pfaffenberger, 2006). These organizational
features are influenced by various forces: (1) technical imperatives related to ensuring system
reliability and meeting demand, (2) regulatory frameworks that impose cost-of-service rules or
performance-based incentives, and (3) stakeholder pressures from customers, shareholders, and
public interest groups (Green, 1999; Kwoka Jr, 2007). Consequently, decision-making in such
firms often reflects a careful balance between meeting regulatory requirements, managing longterm operational risks, and optimizing financial performance within the allowed rate of return
(Joskow, 2000, 2014).
Over time, regulatory reforms and the introduction of competition in some segments of
the industry—particularly generation—have led to partial unbundling and the emergence of new

38
organizational forms (Newbery, 1999). Investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which are privately held
and publicly traded, have become the dominant model in many U.S. states, including California
(Weare, 2003). Within this context, IOUs operate under state and federal regulatory commissions
(e.g., the California Public Utilities Commission), which wield substantial authority over
investment decisions, rate structures, and service standards (Joskow, 2007). IOUs in California,
such as Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, face unique pressures stemming
from aggressive renewable energy targets (Basseches, 2024), wildfire mitigation requirements
(Singh et al., 2024) , and evolving retail competition (Borenstein & Bushnell, 2015; Fowlie,
2010).
In California, IOUs’ decision-making processes have become increasingly complex and
risk-sensitive (Ayyub et al., 2024), as they must navigate strict environmental regulations
(Basseches et al., 2021), integrate intermittent renewable resources (Niswander & Xydis, 2023),
and manage climate-related operational threats (Hart et al., 2024). These firms rely on
sophisticated regulatory strategies, including long-term procurement plans (Blondell et al., 2020)
and robust stakeholder engagement processes (Tapio et al., 2024), to ensure regulatory approval
of capital expenditures (Agüero & Khodaei, 2015). Simultaneously, IOUs have developed
internal analytical capabilities and strategic planning units dedicated to scenario modeling,
resource forecasting, and grid modernization strategies (Borenstein & Bushnell, 2015; Homer et
al., 2023). The result is a complex interplay of organizational inertia, regulatory oversight,
market conditions, and sociopolitical pressures that shapes the decision-making landscapes of
California’s investor-owned utilities.

39
Organizational Actors in Energy Justice Implementation: Regulatory Agencies
Regulatory agencies have been extensively studied in political science, public
administration, and organizational sociology as critical mechanisms for the governance of
markets and public services (Carpenter, 2010; Maggetti, 2010; McCubbins et al., 1987). These
agencies are typically structured with formal hierarchies, specialized subdivisions, and statutory
mandates that delineate their jurisdiction and decision-making processes (Carpenter, 2010;
Hanretty & Koop, 2009). While they are designed to function as quasi-independent bodies, they
operate within a web of political control; legislatures define their mandates and budgets, and
executive branches often appoint agency leaders, creating intrinsic political linkages (Balla,
2011; Hanretty & Koop, 2009). Over time, these agencies cultivate expertise and may develop a
considerable amount of independence which allows them to innovate or set policy agendas while
remaining subject to political oversight (Hanretty & Koop, 2013).
Regulatory behavior reflects the need to balance technical expertise with responsiveness
to political and public pressures (Carrigan & Poole, 2015; Cooper & Kovacic, 2012). Decisionmaking processes are typically channeled through formal mechanisms such as notice-andcomment rulemaking, public hearings, and stakeholder consultations (Yackee, 2019). These
procedures serve dual functions: enhancing legitimacy by fostering participation from industry,
consumer, and advocacy groups, and providing forums for political principals—legislatures and
courts—to monitor and shape agency actions (Furlong & Kerwin, 2005; Woods, 2009). Decision
outcomes often integrate technical assessments, such as cost-benefit or risk analyses, with
political considerations, reflecting the agency's mediating role between expertise and
accountability (Anderson et al., 2000).

40
At a broad level, regulatory agencies such as public utility commissions exemplify these
dynamics. These commissions traditionally oversee natural monopolies in industries like
electricity, water, and telecommunications, aiming to ensure fair pricing, service reliability, and
compliance with policy mandates (Jones, 2006). State-level regulators like the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) further illustrate the structural, behavioral, and decision-making
characteristics of such agencies (Kirshner et al., 2017). The CPUC is governed by five governorappointed commissioners serving fixed terms, supported by professional staff organized into
specialized bureaus and divisions (Kirshner et al., 2017). This structure reflects the agency's dual
focus on technical expertise and regulatory oversight.
The CPUC’s decision-making processes involve evidentiary hearings, lengthy
proceedings, and active participation by stakeholders, including industry representatives,
consumer advocates, and environmental groups. These mechanisms allow the CPUC to produce
policy outputs that balance diverse objectives, including consumer protection, environmental
sustainability, and industry viability (Dworkin et al., 2000). The agency operates within a context
of significant political oversight from the governor’s office and the state legislature, further
exemplifying the interplay between bureaucratic autonomy and external accountability
(California Public Utilities Commission, 2014).
As a regulator of investor-owned utilities in one of the most progressive energy markets
in the United States, the CPUC demonstrates the challenges and opportunities inherent in modern
regulation. Its role in advancing renewable energy integration, mitigating wildfire risks, and
modernizing the electrical grid highlights the evolving demands placed on regulatory agencies .
The CPUC’s reliance on formal procedures, professional expertise, and stakeholder engagement
underscores its efforts to balance regulatory independence with political responsiveness.

41
Organizational Actors in Energy Justice Implementation: Community-Based Organizations
Community-based organizations (CBOs) are grassroots, nonprofit entities that operate at
the local level to address specific community needs and improve resident well-being (Wilson et
al., 2012), typically filling service gaps created by market and state institutions (Leroux, 2007).
These organizations are distinguished by several key characteristics: they are typically led by and
represent the communities they serve, focus on localized challenges, operate as nonprofit
entities, maintain a grassroots orientation that emphasizes bottom-up decision-making, and
collaborate with various stakeholders to enhance service delivery (Levine, 2016). Their structure,
organizational behavior, and decision-making processes are shaped by a complex interplay of
internal dynamics, external pressures, and the specific context in which they operate (Salamon et
al., 2000; Wang, 2022). Acting as intermediaries between communities and larger institutions
and organizations, CBOs serve a vital role in mobilizing resources and implementing initiatives
that reflect local priorities while fostering trust and accessibility among residents.
From an organizational behavior perspective, CBOs blend grassroots activism with
formal nonprofit management in ways that reflect McGregor's (1960) "Theory Y" management
philosophy. This approach emphasizes democratic management styles and close relationships
with the environment, operating on the principle that work can be rewarding when individuals
are given appropriate responsibility and autonomy. Unlike traditional hierarchical organizations,
CBOs typically encourage self-direction, provide supportive guidance, and maintain flexible
structures that enhance community participation (J. W. Murphy & Murphy, 2014; Pfeffer &
Salancik, 1978).
This management philosophy shapes how CBOs operate within their communities, which
is principally participatory – characterized by collaboration, information sharing, and mutual

42
growth (J. W. Murphy & Murphy, 2014). Their organizational structures are deliberately
designed to integrate thoroughly with their communities rather than maintain rigid institutional
boundaries (J. W. Murphy & Murphy, 2014; Onyett, 2003). Resource dependence theory
suggests that this participatory approach, while fostering community engagement, also influences
how CBOs manage their reliance on external funding sources—whether government grants,
philanthropic donations, or membership fees (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). This dependence may
create tension between maintaining their participatory nature and meeting institutional
requirements for funding and legitimacy (DiMaggio et al., 1983).
In California's energy sector, CBOs operate within a complex regulatory environment,
engaging with state agencies like the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and
California Energy Commission (CEC). Their behavior is heavily influenced by the state's strong
environmental movement and the availability of funding for clean energy initiatives (Pastor Jr. et
al., 2005; Pastor, 2018). These organizations work to ensure equitable distribution of benefits—
such as lower utility costs or cleaner air—particularly in underserved communities (Elmallah et
al., 2022). Decision-making within these organizations reflects both institutional pressures and
community needs. While formal governance structures may suggest a top-down approach, the
reality often involves extensive stakeholder negotiation and compromise (Hess, 2019; Stokes,
2020). The strong emphasis on community engagement and environmental justice in California
energy policy shapes their decision-making processes, frequently requiring extensive
consultation with affected communities (Minkler et al., 2008; Schlosberg, 2004; Valencia, 2023).
This participatory approach not only builds community trust but also enables rapid adaptation to
emerging issues and policy shifts (Saxton, 2005). Thus CBOs' effectiveness in California's
energy sector appears to be influenced by their capacity to mobilize resources through trust-

43
based networks and local partnerships while maintaining legitimacy with both community
constituents and institutional stakeholders.
Case Studies Highlighting Inequities: Electric Vehicles (EVs)
California's transition to electric vehicles (EVs) encompasses a range of vehicle
technologies that require charging from external electrical sources and contain battery storage
(Chau et al., 2017). Despite state efforts to promote EV adoption, higher-income households
have disproportionately benefited from this transition compared to low-income households
(Canepa et al., 2019; J. H. Lee et al., 2019; Tal & Nicholas, 2013). Barriers to EV adoption
among low-income households include prohibitive upfront costs associated with purchasing or
leasing new vehicles (Silvia & Krause, 2016), lack of awareness and knowledge about new
technologies (Hardman et al., 2016), and distrust in electric alternatives due to perceptions of
unreliability and limited charging infrastructure (Egbue & Long, 2012). Geographic and
infrastructural inequities compound these barriers, as charging stations are often concentrated in
more affluent areas, making it difficult for low-income communities to access the necessary
infrastructure.
Market-based incentives, such as flat rebates and tax credits, have predominantly
benefited affluent communities because they are more likely to purchase new vehicles and have
the financial means to take advantage of such incentives (DeShazo et al., 2017). Bureaucratic
structures within these incentive programs have created additional barriers for low-income
households. Program administrators often require complex documentation and verification
processes that make it difficult for low-income households to access rebates (Sheldon &
DeShazo, 2017).

44
Rebate programs that require upfront payment and subsequent reimbursement are often
inaccessible to those without sufficient financial capital, further limiting access for low-income
households (Rubin & St-Louis, 2016). The implementation of point-of-sale incentives, which
could address this barrier, has been hindered by administrative challenges and limited
organizational capacity to coordinate between dealers, manufacturers, and state agencies
(Sheldon & Dua, 2019). The design of these incentive programs reflects a broader trend in
energy policy, where market-based mechanisms are assumed to be equitable without considering
the structural barriers that prevent disadvantaged populations from participating.
Efforts to address these inequities, such as modifying incentive programs to include
income-based eligibility and providing subsidies at the point of sale, have had mixed success due
to organizational challenges (Sheldon & Dua, 2019). Bureaucratic hurdles—including complex
application procedures and stringent documentation requirements—discourage participation
among low-income households who may lack the time, resources, or familiarity to navigate them
(Sheldon & DeShazo, 2017). Limited resources for program administration result in understaffed
programs and delayed application processing, hindering outreach efforts and reducing awareness
of available incentives (DeShazo et al., 2017; Rubin & St-Louis, 2016). Additionally,
insufficient coordination between implementing agencies leads to fragmented efforts and
inconsistent messaging, causing confusion over eligibility criteria and benefits among potential
beneficiaries (Sheldon & Dua, 2019). These organizational challenges collectively impede the
effectiveness of interventions aimed at promoting equitable EV adoption.
Case Studies Highlighting Inequities: Photovoltaic (PV) Systems
Access to residential photovoltaic (PV) systems faces similar inequitable challenges. PV
systems, commonly referred to as rooftop solar, allow individuals to generate local electricity

45
and can provide financial benefits through reduced utility bills and increased property values
(Black, 2004). However, adoption of PV systems is highly correlated with homeownership and
higher household incomes (G. Barbose et al., 2018). Conversely, there is an inverse correlation
with factors such as housing burden, linguistic isolation, poverty, and low levels of education
(Lukanov & Krieger, 2019).
Organizational factors contribute significantly to these disparities. Institutional norms
within utility organizations have historically focused on single-family homeowners as the
primary market for solar adoption (Brown et al., 2020). These embedded assumptions have
influenced program design and implementation practices, resulting in policies that fail to
adequately address the needs of renters and multi-family housing residents (Fournier et al.,
2020). The bureaucratic structures governing solar incentive programs often reflect these
institutional biases, creating additional barriers for disadvantaged communities.
Financial incentives for PV adoption, such as rebates and tax credits, often require
substantial upfront investment and are structured in ways that favor those with higher incomes
and greater access to capital (Borenstein, 2015). Some companies have capitalized on this gap by
offering predatory financing arrangements or misleading lease agreements that
disproportionately target lower-income homeowners, promising energy savings but often
resulting in higher costs or long-term financial obligations (Bansal et al., 2024; Gardner & Stern,
2008). Program administrators have developed complex eligibility criteria and application
processes that can be particularly burdensome for disadvantaged communities (Fournier et al.,
2020). These administrative requirements often stem from organizational policies that prioritize
accountability and risk management over accessibility, inadvertently creating barriers for the
communities these programs are intended to serve.

46
Moreover, organizational policies often lack provisions for renters or those living in
multi-family housing, further limiting access for low-income households (Brown et al., 2020;
Reames, 2020). This oversight reflects deeply embedded institutional assumptions about
property ownership and energy infrastructure decisions. Renters, who often have little control
over the energy infrastructure of their residences, are particularly disadvantaged by policies that
focus solely on homeowners. The implementation of community solar programs, which could
address some of these barriers, has been hindered by complex regulatory requirements and
limited organizational capacity to coordinate between multiple stakeholders.
In recent years, more targeted interventions have emerged to increase solar adoption
more equitably. Examples include reforms to the benefit structure of residential solar in
California (G. L. Barbose, 2024) and community solar programs that allow low-income residents
to reap the financial benefits of residential solar without installing panels on their homes (Bery et
al., 2024). However, administrative barriers—such as confusing auto-enrollment practices—
continue to hinder the adoption of these interventions (Bery et al., 2024). The persistence of
these disparities suggests that achieving equitable access to solar energy requires not only policy
changes but also fundamental shifts in organizational cultures and practices within implementing
agencies.
Case Studies Highlighting Inequities: Building Electrification in California
One of the most pressing challenges in addressing climate change is the decarbonization
of residential buildings. In California, buildings are responsible for approximately 25% of the
state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with natural gas appliances such as water heaters and
space heaters accounting for a significant portion of these emissions (Mahone et al., 2019). To

47
meet California's ambitious climate goals, policies have been introduced to transition homes
from gas-based technologies to electricity-based alternatives.
Building decarbonization generally refers to a wide set of strategies aimed at reducing a
building’s GHG emissions. Passive strategies include increasing building efficiency in heating
and cooling, while active strategies focus on fuel switching by replacing gas and propane
appliances with electric alternatives (Schwarz et al., 2020; Timmons et al., 2016; Waite & Modi,
2020). This process of building electrification reduces GHGs from an end-use perspective and
pushes for the adoption of alternative technologies that draw energy from the electric grid, which
in California is planned to be 100% carbon-free by 2045 (Tarroja et al., 2020).
A key focus of electrification efforts in California is the replacement of gas appliances—
particularly water heaters and space heaters—with electric alternatives. These gas-based
appliances are responsible for increased air pollutants, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, and particulate matter, which have significant negative health impacts, especially in
low-income communities (Mullen et al., 2016; Seals & Krasner, 2020). The adoption of electric
appliances can thus contribute to both improved health outcomes and reductions in GHG
emissions. However, this transition also poses economic challenges, particularly for low-income
households, as the upfront costs of replacing appliances and upgrading infrastructure can be
prohibitive (Sheikh, 2017).
California’s policy approach to residential electrification has relied on both regulatory
mandates and market-based incentives. For example, new homes are required to be constructed
with solar panels, and financial incentives are available for homeowners who install electric
appliances (Deason & Borgeson, 2019; Schmidt-Costa et al., 2019). However, many of these
incentives have been criticized for primarily benefiting higher-income households, while low-

48
income communities continue to face barriers in accessing these technologies due to high upfront
costs and complex application processes (Canepa et al., 2019; Rubin & St-Louis, 2016). The
implementation of building electrification programs has been complicated by bureaucratic
structures that create coordination challenges between multiple agencies. For example,
permitting processes often involve multiple departments with different requirements and
timelines, creating additional barriers for low-income households seeking to upgrade their homes
(Mahone et al., 2019; Scavo et al., 2016). These administrative complexities can delay project
completion and increase costs, particularly affecting disadvantaged communities that may lack
resources to navigate complex bureaucratic processes (Sheikh, 2017).
These case studies highlight the critical role that organizational factors play in shaping
the outcomes of energy transitions. Bureaucratic structures, institutional norms, and policy
implementation practices can either facilitate or impede equitable access to clean energy
technologies (Sovacool & Hess, 2017). Understanding these organizational dynamics is essential
for designing interventions that promote energy justice and ensure that the benefits of energy
transitions are shared equitably across society.
Organizations responsible for energy policy and program implementation must consider
the diverse needs of communities and adopt strategies that address barriers faced by
disadvantaged populations (Freeman, 2010). This includes revising eligibility criteria,
simplifying application processes, enhancing outreach efforts, and allocating resources to support
inclusive participation (Jenkins et al., 2016).
Gaps in the Literature
While the existing literature provides valuable insights into energy justice frameworks
and organizational factors affecting energy transitions, several gaps remain that warrant further

49
exploration. First, although numerous studies have conceptually examined energy justice
principles - such as distributional, procedural, and recognition justice (Jenkins et al., 2016;
Sovacool et al., 2019) - empirical research investigating how these principles manifest within
specific organizational contexts is fairly scarce. The intersection between organizational
behavior and energy justice outcomes remains understudied, leaving questions about how
bureaucratic structures, institutional practices, and organizational cultures influence the
achievement of justice goals in energy transitions (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015).
Moreover, while research has explored the individual dimensions of energy justice
independently (Heffron & McCauley, 2017; McCauley et al., 2013), few studies have examined
the dynamic interactions among these dimensions within organizational settings implementing
energy transitions. The literature lacks detailed analyses of the potential synergies and tensions
between distributional, procedural, and recognition justice when operationalized through
bureaucratic structures and processes (Jenkins et al., 2016). This gap hinders a comprehensive
understanding of how organizations can effectively balance and integrate multiple justice
considerations in practice (Fuller & McCauley, 2016).
Furthermore, although the importance of community engagement in energy transitions is
well-documented (Aitken et al., 2016; Walker & Devine-Wright, 2008), there is insufficient
research on the effectiveness of specific engagement models, such as Community Energy
Navigators, in promoting justice outcomes. The organizational factors that enable or constrain
these engagement strategies - such as leadership support, resource allocation, and institutional
commitment (Shaw et al., 2021) - merit further investigation . Without empirical studies
assessing these models in real-world settings, it is challenging to determine best practices for
fostering meaningful community participation that advances energy justice.

50
Existing research has also not adequately addressed how organizational learning and
adaptation processes influence energy justice outcomes in pilot programs. While organizational
learning theory (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Senge, 1990) provides insights into how organizations
adapt to new information and challenges, its application to energy justice initiatives remains
limited. There is a need to understand how organizations can develop adaptive capacities to
respond to the complexities of implementing energy justice principles, particularly in the face of
technological, social, and regulatory uncertainties (Fouquet, 2016b, 2016a).
Additionally, while studies acknowledge the importance of cultural competency in
serving disadvantaged communities (Betancourt et al., 2003; Brislin & Yoshida, 1993), there is a
gap in understanding how organizations develop and implement culturally responsive practices
within energy transition programs. Research examining the relationship between organizational
cultural competency and energy justice outcomes is particularly scarce. This gap limits the
ability to design and implement programs that effectively address the unique cultural, linguistic,
and social needs of diverse communities (Williams & Doyon, 2019).
Another notable gap is the limited exploration of how historical contexts and systemic
inequities shape the experiences of marginalized communities in energy transitions. While some
studies have begun to incorporate critical perspectives, such as critical race theory and
intersectionality (Hernández, 2015; K. Jenkins et al., 2018), more empirical research is needed to
understand how these factors interact with organizational practices to influence energy justice
outcomes.
Finally, the literature often overlooks the role of inter-organizational collaboration and
networks in promoting energy justice. While network theory and collaborative governance
models suggest that partnerships among diverse stakeholders can enhance program effectiveness

51
(Ansell & Gash, 2008; Provan & Kenis, 2008) , there is limited empirical evidence on how these
collaborations function in the context of energy transitions targeting disadvantaged communities.
These gaps in the literature highlight the need for comprehensive empirical research that
examines the complex relationships between organizational factors and energy justice outcomes
in practical implementation contexts. In particular, there is a critical need to understand how
organizational issues interact with programs designed to achieve justice in the energy transition
to electricity – a gap this study aims to address by examining the San Joaquin Valley Pilot
Project. Such research should employ interdisciplinary approaches, integrating theories from
organizational behavior, sociology, public administration, and energy policy to provide a
nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities in promoting energy justice.
Addressing these gaps could provide valuable insights for policymakers, practitioners, and
scholars aiming to improve the effectiveness of energy transition programs in disadvantaged
communities, ultimately contributing to more equitable and sustainable energy systems.
Emerging Electrification in California
California has implemented a variety of programs aimed at encouraging residential
electrification, including financial incentives, rebates, and tax credits. These programs have been
designed to reduce the upfront costs of installing electric appliances and increase the overall
adoption of clean energy technologies in homes.
However, research has shown that many of these programs have struggled to reach lowincome households. One of the major barriers is the structure of incentives, which often require
homeowners to pay the full cost of an appliance upfront and then wait for a rebate or tax credit.
For low-income households, this presents a significant financial challenge, as they may not have
the necessary capital to make these investments (DeShazo et al., 2017). Additionally, the

52
application processes for many of these programs are complex and can deter participation from
those without the resources or knowledge to navigate them.
Efforts to address these shortcomings have included the introduction of income-based
eligibility for certain programs, as well as targeted outreach efforts to disadvantaged
communities. For example, the Clean Cars for All program provides subsidies to low-income
households for the purchase of electric vehicles in exchange for trading in older, higher-polluting
vehicles (Connolly et al., 2024). While these efforts have seen some success in increasing
adoption rates among low-income communities, there is still evidence that many participants do
not fully maximize the available benefits, often opting for less expensive but less efficient
vehicles (Connolly et al., 2024; Guo & Kontou, 2021; Hennessy & Syal, 2023; Sheldon & Dua,
2019).
Overview of Energy Policies
Recent policy developments in California have increasingly promoted (indirectly) the
role of energy justice in the state’s efforts to transition to cleaner energy. Energy policies are
being restructured to address not only environmental goals but also social equity concerns,
ensuring that disadvantaged communities benefit from this shift. Notably, recent legislative and
regulatory actions focus on electrification and decarbonization, which are pivotal to achieving
both California’s climate objectives and addressing historical energy inequities (Boudet et al.,
2021; J.-A. Lee, 2022) .
One significant policy shift is the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC)
modification of the "three-pronged test" used in energy efficiency programs. Previously, this test
hindered the promotion of electric appliances over natural gas alternatives, as it required
recommended appliances to reduce energy consumption, meet cost-effectiveness standards, and

53
avoid adverse environmental impacts. Since California’s electricity grid was largely powered by
natural gas, electric appliances were often deemed less efficient due to the conversion process
(California Public Utilities Commission, 2019). However, the CPUC’s update shifted the test’s
focus toward greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, aligning with the state’s renewable energy goals
and opening up substantial financial incentives for electrification (Nadel, 2019). This adjustment
marks a significant turning point in how energy efficiency programs can support the state’s
climate and equity targets by encouraging the adoption of cleaner electric technologies.
Moreover, Senate Bill 1477 (SB 1477) (California State Legislature, 2018b) and
Assembly Bill 3232 (AB 3232) (California State Legislature, 2018a) are pivotal in driving the
state’s building decarbonization efforts. SB 1477, for instance, created two programs, BUILD
and TECH, which aim to foster the market for low-carbon space and water heating technologies,
with an emphasis on equitable outcomes. These programs, administered by the CPUC, allocate
$50 million annually from 2019 to 2023 to promote the adoption of these technologies,
particularly in low-income housing (California State Legislature, 2018b). AB 3232, on the other
hand, requires an assessment of how California can reduce GHG emissions from residential and
commercial buildings by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (California State Legislature,
2018a). Together, these policies represent a comprehensive effort to decarbonize the state’s
building stock while prioritizing energy justice-aligned goals.
Policy Analysis of the SJV Affordable Energy Pilot Project
The San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Affordable Energy Pilot Project, developed under
Assembly Bill 2762 (AB 2762), exemplifies how California’s energy policies are shifting toward
more inclusive and equitable outcomes. The pilot targets 11 disadvantaged communities (DACs)
in the San Joaquin Valley, a region characterized by economic, health, and environmental

54
challenges, aiming to replace propane and wood-burning appliances with electric alternatives.
Pilot offerings included: heat pump space heating appliances, heat pump water heaters, electric
dryers, electric stoves and ranges, and induction stoves (Self-Help Enterprises, 2022).
Initially, the legislation that prompted this pilot focused on extending natural gas
infrastructure, but the CPUC adjusted the program’s goals to prioritize electrification, in line
with the state’s decarbonization strategy (California Public Utilities Commission, 2018a).
Figure 1 - Induction Oven Figure 2 – Electric Dryer
Note. This pilot participant
demonstrates the inductive cookware
required for the induction range she
received by participating in the pilot.
Adapted from: Self-Help Enterprises.
(2022). Heat pump programs and
implementation: San Joaquin Valley
disadvantaged communities pilot
projects. (p.4).
Note. This pilot participant
stands next to an electric dryer
she received by participating in
the pilot. Adapted from: SelfHelp Enterprises. (2022). Heat
pump programs and
implementation: San Joaquin
Valley disadvantaged
communities pilot projects. (p.5).

55
The program’s design addresses both energy affordability and the broader objective of
energy justice by reducing energy costs for households dependent on costly and polluting fuels,
while also focusing on electrification as a long-term solution. The pilot provides no-cost
appliance replacements, bill discounts, and additional support through community engagement
initiatives, such as the use of Community Energy Navigators (CENs), who assist residents in
navigating the program and accessing its benefits (Evergreen Economics, 2022). The CPUC’s
approach to this pilot demonstrates a shift toward recognizing and rectifying historical inequities
by ensuring that underserved communities receive the benefits of clean energy technologies.
Importantly, three of the four projects within the pilot, managed by investor-owned
utilities (IOUs) such as Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE),
focus exclusively on electrification, providing residents with electric-based replacements for
their appliances. Only one project, managed by Southern California Gas (SCG), involves
extending natural gas infrastructure. This has raised questions about the pilot’s alignment with
California’s broader electrification goals, as the other projects have emphasized reducing
reliance on fossil fuels (California Public Utilities Commission, 2018b).
The pilot’s phased approach includes community engagement to select target areas,
appliance retrofits, and a final economic feasibility study to evaluate the project’s overall impact.
Early findings suggest that the pilot has made significant progress in reducing energy burdens
and improving access to cleaner energy, but concerns remain about its long-term sustainability
and the extent to which it fully aligns with the state’s electrification goals (Opinion Dynamics,
2021). Moreover, former CPUC President Picker voiced concerns regarding the potential gap
between the policy’s well-meaning objectives and its implementation outcomes, cautioning that
the program might not adequately address the deep-rooted social challenges in the region and fall

56
well outside of the CPUC’s traditional role as a utility regulator (California Public Utilities
Commission, 2018b).
In total, the SJV Pilot highlights both the promise and challenges of integrating energy
justice into policy frameworks. By prioritizing electrification and targeting underserved
communities, it offers a model for how future energy programs can be designed to achieve both
environmental sustainability and social equity. However, continuous evaluation and adjustments
will be necessary to ensure that the program meets its ambitious goals and delivers tangible
benefits to the communities it seeks to serve.
Organizational Factors and Energy Justice Implementation
The literature reviewed highlights several key organizational factors particularly relevant
to energy justice initiatives like the SJV Pilot. Organizational inertia and bureaucratic rigidity
within utilities and regulatory agencies often impede the adoption of innovative technologies and
policies necessary for equitable energy transitions (Hannan et al., 2002; Merton, 1940). In the
context of providing clean energy access to disadvantaged communities, these entrenched
practices are likely to delay program implementation and limit the flexibility needed to serve
diverse community needs.
Institutional and organizational norms and culture significantly shape how programs are
designed and implemented. Within utilities and regulatory bodies, deeply embedded assumptions
may lead to policies that overlook the specific needs of marginalized groups (Brown et al., 2020;
Fournier et al., 2020). For instance, program designs that prioritize technical efficiency over
accessibility are likely to create barriers for disadvantaged communities, particularly when
complex eligibility criteria or application processes discourage participation (Rubin & St-Louis,
2016).

57
The interactions between different organizational types – regulatory agencies like the
CPUC, utilities, and community organizations – present distinct challenges for program
implementation. Organizational silos and communication breakdowns can hinder effective
collaboration (Bento et al., 2020; de Waal et al., 2019), particularly when different organizations
have varying priorities and operational approaches. Variances in organizational capacities may
also play an important role in promoting or hindering justice outcomes. In the context of the SJV
Pilot, the capacities of the organizations involved may align with innovative solutions and
responses to specific challenges (Walters, 2020). These dynamics are especially relevant in
initiatives addressing energy affordability and access, where coordinated effort across
organizations are crucial for success.
Power dynamics and resource dependencies influence how organizations allocate
resources and make decisions (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Sisaye, 1992). In the context of energy
justice initiatives, these dynamics affect how utilities balance regulatory requirements with
community needs, how regulatory agencies exercise oversight, and how community
organizations advocate for their constituencies. The distribution of decision-making authority
across these organizations can either facilitate or impede equitable program outcomes.
Cultural competency and organizational learning capacity are particularly important for
programs serving diverse communities (Betancourt et al., 2002; Fraser, 2000). While community
organizations often excel at understanding local needs, larger organizations like utilities and
regulatory agencies may struggle to develop and maintain cultural awareness. This disparity
affects how well programs recognize and respond to the unique characteristics of different
communities, particularly in addressing energy affordability challenges. Organizational silos and
communication breakdowns can hinder effective collaboration (Bento et al., 2020; de Waal et al.,

58
2019), particularly when different organizations have varying priorities and operational
approaches. These dynamics are especially relevant in initiatives addressing energy affordability
and access, where coordinated effort across organizations is critical to success.
It is also important to highlight that this (the SJV Pilot) being a pilot project may explain
some of the organizational dynamics and their interactions with the justice principles in focus for
this study. Pilot projects, including those implemented in the public sector, are typically used to
rapidly transform the conditions of their target environments (Ettelt & Mays, 2019; C. Jensen et
al., 2013) while simultaneously affording policy and decision-makers control under fluid
conditions (Sahlin-Andersson & Söderholm, 2002). Pilots also tend to minimize risk when
compared to fully-fledged programs and are typically designed with experimentation in mind
(Ettelt & Mays, 2019) – this may support organizational learning and promote collaboration
between the organizations responsible for the SJV pilot as they approach different stages of
implementation and evaluation. However, organizations must balance the need for
experimentation and learning with the imperative to deliver meaningful benefits, as pilots are
also prone to setting unrealistic expectations (Strong et al., 2009), hold limited scalability
(Bernecker et al., 2018) and suffer negatively because of complex organizational structures that
hinder progress through their divisions of responsibilities (Gore, 2023).The capacity for
organizational learning and adaptation (Argyris, 1978; Senge, 1990) becomes particularly
important as organizations gather insights and adjust their approaches based on implementation
experience.
These organizational factors interact in complex ways that influence program success.
For example, bureaucratic rigidity can amplify communication challenges between
organizations, while power dynamics may affect willingness to adapt practices based on

59
community feedback. Understanding these interactions is crucial for identifying effective
strategies to overcome obstacles in promoting energy justice.
The literature reveals significant gaps in understanding how organizational factors
specifically impact energy justice outcomes in practice. While theoretical frameworks are welldeveloped, there is limited empirical research examining how organizational behaviors and
institutional practices affect program implementation (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015; Jenkins et al.,
2016). This study addresses these gaps by investigating how organizational dynamics influence
energy justice outcomes in the context of the SJV Pilot Project, where multiple organizations
collaborate to improve energy affordability and access in disadvantaged communities.

60
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Statement of the Problem
Energy transitions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions have historically
overlooked the needs of disadvantaged communities, often worsening existing social and
economic inequities (Carley & Konisky, 2020; Sovacool et al., 2017). These shortcomings
manifest not merely as policy oversights but as fundamental challenges that emerge from the
organizational structures and practices governing energy systems. The CPUC’s San Joaquin SJV
Pilot represents a critical effort to address these challenges by explicitly targeting disadvantaged
communities while navigating complex organizational dynamics.
As covered in Chapter 2 (and defined in a more structured manner for this study in
Chapter 4) energy justice in this study is contextualized through three principles—distributional,
procedural, and recognitional justice. These principles are widely acknowledged as the essential
components of energy justice frameworks (van Bommel & Höffken, 2021; Van Uffelen et al.,
2024), offering a lens to assess both the outcomes of energy transitions and the processes shaping
their implementation.
The central research question guiding this study asks: How do organizational factors
affect energy transition programs and energy justice more broadly? This overarching inquiry is
supported by two sub-questions examining: (1) the definitions and measures of distributional,
procedural, and recognition justice in the context of the SJV Pilot and to what extent were these
dimensions achieved, and (2) the organizational dynamics influencing these dimensions of
justice, including patterns among different types of organizations and intra-organizational
dynamics that may hinder justice outcomes.

61
While theoretical frameworks for energy justice are well-developed, analyses of how
organizational factors shape justice outcomes remain limited. This study addresses this gap
through detailed examination of how implementing organizations' structures and practices
influence their capacity to promote equity in energy transitions.
Research Design: Qualitative Explanatory Single-Case Study
A case study approach is particularly well-suited to this research as it enables in-depth
examination of how organizational structures, behaviors, and processes shape energy justice
implementation in real-world contexts (Yin et al., 2018). Case studies are valuable when the
boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clearly evident (Yin et al., 2018),
which is particularly relevant in this study where organizational factors are deeply intertwined
with the implementation of energy justice principles.
A qualitative approach is justified by its capacity to capture the intricate experiences,
perspectives, and contextual factors that shape energy justice outcomes (Creswell & Poth, 2016;
Lim, 2024). Energy justice principles—distributional, procedural, and recognitional—and
organizational factors involve complex social interactions and dynamics that require nuanced
investigation. For instance, this approach enables exploration of how organizational structures
and processes may impact the distribution of resources and benefits that are central to the Pilot
(e.g., appliances, bill benefits). The qualitative lens facilitates understanding of these
multifaceted relationships while maintaining sensitivity to local contexts and historical
conditions.
The explanatory case study approach facilitates systematic examination of mechanisms
linking organizational characteristics to justice outcomes and is particularly appropriate for
addressing the "how" and "why" questions central to understanding the ways in which the SJV

62
Pilot promotes energy justice (Yin et al., 2018). Energy transitions involve complex interactions
among organizational structures, stakeholder relationships, and resource constraints. While
descriptive approaches may document these elements, an explanatory design enables an
investigation supporting analysis of specific mechanisms through which organizational
characteristics—such as bureaucratic processes and inter-organizational dynamics—shape the
achievement of justice objectives. This approach also facilitates the examination of multiple
variables and their interactions within the complex social and policy contexts of energy
transitions in disadvantaged communities (Baxter & Jack, 2008), thereby allowing the
integration of diverse data sources that offer a comprehensive understanding of the case. Such
methodological triangulation enhances the validity of findings by incorporating multiple
perspectives and ensuring robust analysis (Siggelkow, 2007; Stake, 1995). Moreover, the
integration of data from semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and regulatory reports
bolsters the study’s internal validity by providing multiple sources of evidence that converge on
key findings (Yin et al., 2018).
The single-case design enables detailed examination of how theoretical principles
manifest within specific organizational contexts in a bounded system. This approach advances
both theoretical understanding of organizational influences on justice outcomes and practical
knowledge regarding program implementation in disadvantaged communities. While alternative
approaches like comparative case studies might identify broader patterns, the single-case
explanatory design encourages the depth of analysis helpful for understanding how
organizational characteristics shape justice implementation.
The research design incorporates multiple data sources to enhance validity and ensure
comprehensive understanding of organizational influences on justice outcomes. Semi-structured

63
interviews with key stakeholders reveal decision-making processes and implementation
challenges. Document analysis provides historical context and formal evidence of organizational
practices. This methodological triangulation strengthens internal validity while enabling
systematic examination of how different organizational factors influence justice implementation
(Yin et al., 2018).
Setting the Case: SJV Proceeding and Pilot
The SJV Pilot and the subsequent Disadvantaged Communities Pilots are pivotal
initiatives aimed at addressing long-standing energy inequities in California. These efforts
represent a crucial attempt by the CPUC to extend affordable energy options to disadvantaged
communities that have historically been overlooked by traditional energy infrastructure
investments. By examining both the regulatory background and the implementation details of the
SJV Affordable Energy Proceeding and Pilot projects, we gain an in-depth understanding of how
these initiatives aim to bridge the energy equity gap in marginalized communities. This section
provides a comprehensive overview of both the regulatory background and the implementation
details of the SJV Affordable Energy Proceeding and Pilot projects.
Policy Origins and Objectives
Building upon this study's qualitative explanatory case study approach, it is essential to
understand the complex policy landscape that gave rise to the SJV Pilot. Many communities in
California's San Joaquin Valley have historically lacked access to natural gas infrastructure,
forcing residents to rely on more expensive and environmentally harmful energy sources such as
propane and wood for heating and cooking (California Public Utilities Commission, 2018b). This
reliance creates significant energy insecurity, as these fuel sources typically cost substantially
more than natural gas while exposing residents to elevated levels of indoor and outdoor air

64
pollution (Drehobl et al., 2020; Memmott et al., 2021). These conditions contribute to adverse
health outcomes, including increased rates of asthma and respiratory illnesses, and exacerbate
existing socio-economic vulnerabilities in historically disadvantaged communities.
Assembly Bill (AB) 2672, signed into law in 2014, directed the CPUC to identify
disadvantaged communities in the San Joaquin Valley and analyze options for providing them
with affordable energy access (California State Legislature, 2014). The legislation outlined
several potential interventions, including extending natural gas pipelines, increasing subsidies for
electricity, or exploring alternative energy solutions such as electrification. Through subsequent
rulemaking (R.15-03-010), the CPUC established a framework for identifying eligible
communities and evaluating the economic feasibility of various energy interventions.
CPUC Decision 17-05-014 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2017) developed
specific criteria for community selection, requiring that eligible communities have more than
25% of households relying on propane or wood, maintain a population greater than 100, and be
located within seven miles of a natural gas pipeline. This methodical selection process reflected
the program's commitment to addressing systemic barriers to energy access in the most impacted
communities. To provide further context, the eligible communities were predominantly rural,
with a combined population of over 35,000 residents, and faced higher-than-average energy
burdens, with households spending as much as 20% of their income on energy costs.
The culmination of these policy developments came with CPUC Decision 18-12-015,
which authorized approximately $50 million in funding for pilot projects across 11 selected
communities. These communities were identified as having among the highest levels of energy
poverty in the state, with significant portions of their populations below the federal poverty line
and lacking affordable, reliable energy solutions. The pilot projects aimed to provide immediate

65
relief by replacing costly propane and wood-burning systems with more affordable and
sustainable alternatives, while simultaneously gathering valuable data to inform future statewide
energy policies.
Economic feasibility assessments, guided by Decision 17-05-014, evaluated various
interventions by analyzing direct costs and benefits, including implementation costs to utilities,
ratepayers, and participating households, as well as broader societal benefits such as improved
health, safety, and environmental outcomes. These assessments considered the economic
viability of extending natural gas infrastructure compared to electrification options, factoring in
capital costs, maintenance, and expected long-term benefits. The CPUC leveraged a Data
Gathering Plan adopted in Decision 18-08-019 to collect detailed baseline data on energy use,
household conditions, and community needs. This comprehensive data included information on
the types of fuels used for heating and cooking, household energy consumption levels, and
structural characteristics of homes, such as insulation quality and appliance efficiency. The
collected data informed cost-benefit analyses used to prioritize solutions that balanced
affordability, environmental impact, and economic sustainability (California Public Utilities
Commission, 2018a).
By integrating economic feasibility considerations into the program's design and
implementation phases, the SJV Pilot aligned with California's broader energy justice and
climate goals while addressing immediate community needs. Its evolving focus on providing
clean, affordable energy to disadvantaged communities also supported the state's greenhouse gas
(GHG) reduction targets by reducing reliance on carbon-intensive fuels like propane and wood.
The pilot's complex organizational structure and ambitious objectives make it particularly
suitable for qualitative investigation, as understanding the interactions between multiple

66
stakeholders and implementation challenges requires in-depth analysis beyond quantitative
metrics alone.
Program Framework
The SJV Pilot's organizational structure reflects the complexity of implementing
comprehensive energy transitions in disadvantaged communities. The CPUC selected 11
communities for pilot implementation: Allensworth, Alpaugh, Cantua Creek, California City,
Ducor, Fairmead, Lanare, Le Grand, La Vina, Seville, and West Goshen. Each community was
chosen based on the specific criteria established in Decision 17-05-014, ensuring that pilot
resources targeted areas with the most acute energy access challenges. These communities
collectively represented over 3,300 households, with a majority relying on costly and inefficient
fuels for their daily energy needs.
Figure 3 - Map of 11 Communities Selected for the SJV Pilot
Note. This is a map of the 11 communities chosen for the SJV Pilot. Communities are colorcoded according to the organizations involved in implementation. Adapted from: Evergreen
Economics. (2022). San Joaquin Valley disadvantaged communities pilot projects: Process
evaluation final report. (p.11).

67
The pilot relies on a multi-layered organizational model that distributes responsibilities
across several entities. The Pilot Administrators (PAs) included the three investor-owned utilities
(IOUs) - Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and Southern
California Gas (SoCalGas) - plus Richard Heath and Associates (RHA). While PG&E, RHA, and
SCE focused on electrification measures, SoCalGas implemented natural gas infrastructure
projects in California City. Supporting the PAs were Pilot Implementers (PIs) - including
Proteus, Staples Energy, and Synergy - who managed home assessments and measure
installations. The PIs worked with local contractors who conducted assessments and installations
while coordinating with the PAs on implementation requirements.
An important and relatively unique aspect of the pilot's engagement approach is the
Community Energy Navigator Program Manager (CPM) role, filled by Self-Help Enterprises.
The CPM oversees Community Energy Navigators (CENs) and maintains direct engagement
with residents, offering guidance and significant support throughout the application process in
the interest of program accessibility. By the end of 2021, pilot outreach staff reached 86 percent
of all eligible households and completed pilot applications for over half of those contacted
(Evergreen Economics, 2022). The CPM and CENs played a crucial role in building trust and
maximizing participation in historically underserved communities, with survey data showing that
90 percent of participants and 78 percent of non-participants reported that the CEN seemed 'very'
or 'extremely' trustworthy (Evergreen Economics, 2022).
The pilot incorporates several core program elements, including infrastructure upgrades,
appliance replacements, bill protection measures, and split incentives agreements. The electric
PAs (PG&E, RHA, and SCE) focused on electrification measures, while SoCalGas implemented
natural gas infrastructure projects in California City. Bill protection strategies varied by fuel type

68
- electric PAs offered a 20% monthly discount for five years (with potential continuation based
on evaluation), while SoCalGas provided $500 over three years prorated for winter months. As
of December 2023, PG&E completed installations in 158 out of 316 eligible homes, achieving a
50% conversion rate from eligible homes to completed projects (Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, 2023). SCE achieved installations in 132 homes and SoCalGas had nearly completed
its pilot installations (Southern California Edison Company, 2023). PG&E reports that 87% of
completed projects required remediation, with 24% of participants having remediation costs
exceeding the $5,000 cap (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2023). Additional funding sources,
including the TECH Clean California Initiative and Self-Help Enterprises, were secured to
address these higher remediation costs.
The pilot integrated with existing energy assistance programs, though implementation
faced some challenges. While the pilot aimed to coordinate with programs like ESA for
weatherization and appliance upgrades, PIs reported that delays in pilot implementation
sometimes made it difficult to complete ESA installations within required timeframes. The pilot
also sought to leverage programs like DAC-GT and CSGT, with SCE planning to automatically
transition eligible pilot participants to these programs when available in their communities.
Implementation Components and Progress
The SJV Pilot's implementation framework employed a phased approach, beginning with
comprehensive community outreach and enrollment. Community Energy Navigators conducted
door-to-door outreach, hosted informational workshops, and provided individualized support to
help residents navigate the enrollment process. To ensure cultural relevance and accessibility,
materials were provided in multiple languages, including Spanish, and outreach events were
conducted implemented to boost engagement. This inclusive approach was critical in achieving a

69
high level of engagement, with between 50% and 68% of contacted eligible households applying
to participate in the program, depending on the service territory (Evergreen Economics, 2022).
After enrollment, homes underwent detailed assessments to evaluate energy systems,
structural conditions, and household needs. These assessments often revealed necessary
remediation work, for which the pilot allocated up to $5,000 per home to address issues such as
outdated electrical systems, mold, or asbestos. When remediation costs exceed this cap, the
program sought additional funding through complementary programs or alternative measures to
maintain household eligibility. Recent data indicates that in SCE's pilot areas, 87% of completed
projects required remediation, with costs often exceeding $20,000 per household (Southern
California Edison Company, 2023). This highlighted the critical need for addressing housing
quality as part of broader energy transition efforts, as inadequate housing can pose barriers to
effective energy upgrades.
Implementation progress in the Pilot varied across service territories, highlighting
different achievements and challenges among the program administrators. PG&E reported that
its CENs attempted to contact all 316 eligible households in its three pilot communities,
successfully completing 214 applications, which represents approximately 68% of those
contacted. Of the 316 eligible homes, 158 underwent electrification treatments, resulting in a
50% conversion rate for eligible households. Average monthly propane costs among PG&E
participants decreased significantly, dropping from $67.87 to $2.09. Total fuel costs also fell
from $194.97 to $161.67, indicating tangible financial benefits for participants (Evergreen
Economics, 2022; Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2022).
Southern California Edison (SCE) reported similar efforts, with CENs completing
applications for 50% of the 404 residents contacted (201 applications). However, a 25% drop-out

70
rate occurred when transitioning from application to assessment, leaving 150 assessments
completed. Of these, 132 households (88%) moved forward with electrification treatments. SCE
participants experienced notable monthly cost savings as well: fuel costs declined from $282.42
pre-participation to $180.99 post-participation (a $101.43 savings) with a 20% discount. Without
the discount, average monthly costs decreased to $226.22, reflecting an $80.98 reduction
(Evergreen Economics, 2022).
The pilot encountered several implementation challenges that required adaptive
responses. Mobile homes presented unique obstacles, including permitting requirements from the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and significant
remediation needs. Many mobile homes lacked proper registration or certificates of title, initially
hindering the permitting process. In response, the CPUC and program administrators worked
with HCD to waive some of these requirements, enabling nearly two dozen projects to move
forward. The COVID-19 pandemic also impacted implementation by disrupting supply chains,
delaying the delivery of critical equipment, and necessitating adjustments to outreach strategies.
To address these issues, program administrators established pre-purchasing agreements to ensure
material availability and adapted project timelines. Furthermore, Decision 20-04-006 removed
income eligibility requirements for the communities of Allensworth, Alpaugh, Fairmead, and Le
Grand, allowing universal access to pilot benefits within these areas. This modification was
based on updated data showing high eligibility rates for the California Alternate Rates for Energy
(CARE) program and significantly enhanced the pilot's inclusivity and impact.
Additionally, the pilot likely contributed to improved indoor air quality by replacing
combustion-based appliances with electric alternatives. Although specific data on particulate
matter (PM2.5) reductions or health improvements such as fewer respiratory issues were not

71
explicitly documented, participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the program. Many
credited the electrification measures with improving their overall quality of life (Evergreen
Economics, 2022; Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2022).
Case Selection Rationale: San Joaquin Valley Affordable Energy Pilot Project
A single-case design focusing on the Pilot was selected as an instrumental case study
(Stake, 1995) to examine how energy justice principles are applied in practice within
disadvantaged communities. Initiated by Assembly Bill 2672 (California State Legislature,
2014), the Pilot specifically targets energy affordability and access in disadvantaged
communities within the San Joaquin Valley. These communities have historically faced
economic, environmental, and infrastructural challenges that limit their access to affordable and
clean energy. The Pilot’s apparent aim to address matters of justice aligns directly with the
dissertation's central research question, resulting in a unique case to examine how energy
policies impact marginalized communities.
Another contributing factor in selecting this Pilot as a case is the fact that many
households in this region rely on propane and wood-burning appliances for heating and
cooking—sources that are not only costly but also environmentally detrimental. The pilot project
seeks to transition these households to cleaner, more affordable energy alternatives, such as
electrification and community solar initiatives. This shift from traditional, higher-emission
energy sources to cleaner options offers a valuable context for studying the implications for
energy justice and the practical challenges involved in such transitions.
However, the Pilot is not singularly focused on swapping out appliances. It is a
comprehensive approach that includes upgrading existing infrastructure, providing financial
support to reduce energy bills, and facilitating communication through the CENs. This multi-

72
pronged strategy allows this study to examine how different aspects of energy justice play out in
real-world settings.
Additionally, although the original legislation considered expanding natural gas
infrastructure, the CPUC prioritized electrification in the Pilot’s design. This pivot aligns with
broader decarbonization goals and reflects a significant policy decision impacting the Pilot's
direction (California Public Utilities Commission, 2018b). Studying this aspect provides insights
into the challenges and successes of promoting electrification in underserved communities,
including technological feasibility, cost implications, and general acceptance.
The Pilot acknowledges and attempts to address historical injustices faced by
communities in the San Joaquin Valley, such as systemic underinvestment and environmental
burdens(California Public Utilities Commission, 2018b). By incorporating elements that
specifically aim to rectify past injustices—like targeted investments and inclusive/participatory
program designs—the Pilot serves as a valuable case for exploring how energy transitions can
contribute to social justice objectives beyond matters directly tied to energy.
Participants and Sampling: Inclusion Criteria
This study recruited individuals directly involved in the development and implementation
of the SJV Pilot. Participants were selected according to the following criteria:
1. Program management staff from participating electric utilities (Pacific Gas and
Electric, Southern California Edison) and contracted implementers;
2. Representatives from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
involved in project oversight and development;
3. Staff from the principal community organization involved in the design and
implementation of the SJV Pilot.
Participants were required to have working knowledge of the program's design and
implementation processes. This focus on stakeholders directly involved in the Pilot aligns with

73
this study’s emphasis on understanding the strategies employed to promote energy justice and
the challenges encountered during implementation.
For analytical purposes, this study categorizes the organizations involved in the SJV Pilot
into three distinct types: regulatory agencies, utilities, and community organizations. The
primary organizations driving pilot development and implementation were the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) as the regulatory agency, the Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs)—
Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric—and Self Help Enterprises as the lead
community organization. However, the pilot's operational framework extended beyond these
entities to include specialized implementation contractors who played roles in program delivery.
These contracted implementers—Proteus, RHA, Staples Energy, and Synergy—served as Pilot
Implementers (PIs), managing the technical conversion of household energy systems across
different service territories. Proteus oversaw implementation in SCE's communities, while
Staples Energy and Synergy managed PG&E's regions. RHA held a distinctive position, serving
both as a PI and Pilot Administrator (PA) (IOUs were also designated Pas) across five
communities. These organizations shouldered primary responsibility for the pilot's technical
operations, from conducting initial home assessments to coordinating final installations, ensuring
that households successfully transitioned from propane and wood-burning appliances to electric
alternatives (Evergreen Economics, 2022).
The decision to categorize these contracted implementers within the utility grouping
stems from their operational relationships with utilities and their shared organizational
characteristics. These organizations function as extensions of utility operations, sharing similar
bureaucratic processes and standardized approaches to program implementation. Their
operational methods align closely with what Merton (1940) identifies as bureaucratic behavior

74
patterns typical of utility organizations - emphasizing standardized procedures, hierarchical
decision-making, and systematic program delivery. RHA's dual role as both PA and PI
particularly exemplifies this alignment, demonstrating how these organizations effectively
integrate utility-style administrative and implementation functions. In contrast, community
organizations like Self Help Enterprises operate with distinctive organizational approaches
rooted in community-based engagement and advocacy work. Regulatory agencies, such as the
CPUC, function through formalized administrative structures designed specifically for policy
development, program oversight, and regulatory enforcement. These fundamental differences in
organizational purpose and operation - with community organizations prioritizing direct
community interaction and regulatory agencies emphasizing systematic oversight - create distinct
organizational cultures that shape how each approaches energy justice implementation.
Participants and Sampling: Sampling Strategy
This study implemented a purposive sampling strategy, specifically expert sampling, to
identify and recruit participants with in-depth knowledge of the Pilot (Etikan et al., 2016). This
approach is appropriate for case study research as it allows for the selection of information-rich
cases that can provide detailed insights into the phenomenon under study (Yin et al., 2018).
The sampling process targeted 1) at least one representative from each participating
electric utility; 2) two to three CPUC representatives involved in project oversight; 3)
Representatives from the community organization that oversaw the Community Energy
Navigator model, with at least one individual serving in the role of Community Energy
Navigator; 4) at least one representative from an organization responsible for the implementation
of the SJV Pilot’s resources (i.e., an individual with first-hand experience of the logistics
involved in the energy upgrades for participants of the SJV Pilot).

75
The sample size was determined based on the principle of data saturation, where data
collection continued until no new substantial information was obtained (Guest et al., 2006).
Given that the study focuses on expert-level stakeholders directly involved in the Pilot’s design
and implementation, each participant was likely to provide exceptionally comprehensive
information about the Pilot - these experts possess in-depth knowledge that can rapidly lead to
saturation of key themes (S. E. Baker & Edwards, 2012). While the participants hold
perspectives from different organizations, they all share the common experience of being closely
involved in the Pilot; this relative homogeneity can lead to faster data saturation (Guest et al.,
2006). Additionally, the research questions focus on specific aspects of a single pilot project,
which narrows the scope of inquiry. Such a focused approach reduces the need to target a high
volume of participants to fully explore the relevant themes, especially when compared to broader
studies that incorporate a wider set of cases and perspectives (Malterud et al., 2021).
Additionally, Malterud et al. (2021) propose the concept of "information power," suggesting that
studies with a narrow aim, high specificity, strong dialogue, and clear theoretical background
require fewer participants. Lastly, some energy policy case studies have used similar sample
sizes. For example, Devine-Wright et al. (2017) conducted an in-depth case study of energy
justice in wind farm development using eight interviews with key stakeholders.
Participants were recruited by leveraging pre-existing relationships with the organizations
involved. Introductions and requests for participation were managed via individualized emails,
each of which included an information sheet (appendix A) and an informed consent sheet
(appendix B) developed for this study. A snowball sampling technique was also implemented,
where initial participants recommended other participants (Noy, 2008). To gain in-depth insights
into the Pilot’s design, implementation challenges, and efforts to promote energy justice, the

76
sampling approach gathered perspectives of individuals closely aligned with the implementation
of the SJV pilot (Bogner et al., 2009; Flick, 2021; Meuser & Nagel, 2009).
Data Collection Methods
This study used two data collection methods: semi-structured interviews and document
analysis. These methods are well-suited for case study research, allowing for the collection of
detailed data from multiple sources to develop an understanding of the phenomenon under study
(Yin et al., 2018).
Semi-structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the selected participants to gain in-depth
insights into the design, implementation, and outcomes of the SJV pilot. This method is
appropriate for exploring complex social phenomena like energy justice, as it allows for
flexibility in probing emergent themes while maintaining a consistent focus across interviews
(Kallio et al., 2016).
The interview guide was developed based on the research questions and informed by the
energy justice theoretical framework underpinning this study, focusing on distributional,
procedural, and recognition aspects of justice in the context of energy (Jenkins et al., 2016)
(interview questions included in appendix C). In terms of objectives, interviews focused on
attaining information on strategies used to address energy affordability and access in
disadvantaged communities, the effectiveness of community engagement processes, challenges
encountered in implementing the Pilot, perceived energy justice outcomes, and lessons learned
and recommendations for future initiatives.
Interviews were conducted entirely via video conferencing and averaged 60-90 minutes
in duration. Participants acknowledged consent by participating (as described in the informed

77
consent form that was attached to each participation invitation) and were recorded and
transcribed verbatim to ensure accurate data capture (Sutton & Austin, 2015).
Document Analysis
An analysis of key documents was also conducted in an effort to complement interview
data and provide additional context. This method allows for the examination of how the pilot
project was conceptualized, implemented, and evaluated through official documentation (Bowen,
2009; H. Morgan, 2022). There are two proceeding decisions, one evaluation document, and two
annual progress reports that set the groundwork for the SJV pilot. These five documents
comprehensively cover the SJV Pilot from inception to implementation and evaluation (from a
process lens), most of which are government documents. Government documents, such as the
regulatory proceedings described below, tend to carry a high level of validity that makes them
invaluable to a qualitative study such as this (Mackieson et al., 2019).
Decision D.18-12-015 formally authorizes the SJV Affordable Energy Pilot Projects and
provides detailed guidance on the implementation strategies, budget allocations, and stakeholder
roles. This decision emphasizes how the CPUC operationalized actions that relate to the energy
justice principles in focus for this study. D.18-12-015 also outlines the specific measures taken to
ensure equitable distribution of resources and the engagement of underserved communities
throughout the Pilot’s implementation. Analyzing this decision will help understand how justice
was conceptualized and planned for implementation.
Decision D.17-05-014 established the methodology for identifying disadvantaged
communities in the San Joaquin Valley. This decision is essential, as it sets the criteria for
community selection and outlines the baseline conditions under which the pilot projects were
implemented. By analyzing this document, the study will explore how recognition and

78
distributional justice were considered from the outset, particularly in the identification and
prioritization of the communities most in need of intervention.
The SJV Disadvantaged Communities Pilot Process Evaluation provides an independent
assessment of the pilot project's implementation and outcomes, and offers additional data for
understanding some of the real-world impacts and challenges of the Pilot (Evergreen Economics,
2022). The process evaluation complements the other two decisions by providing empirical data
and analysis on how well the pilot met its objectives and the extent to which it addressed the
needs of the targeted communities. This document will be used to trace what happened
bureaucratically and better understand the Pilot's alignment with energy justice principles (Yin,
2018).
Both SCE’s 2023 and PGE’s 2023 annual progress reports offer relatively comprehensive
updates on the implementation of the SJV Pilot from their respective sets of responsibilities and
agreements. Notably, they document both customer successes and challenges, which is
particularly promising given that self-evaluations often risk underreporting deficiencies
(Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002).
Analysis for these documents was incorporated into the overall thematic analysis
approach for this study - using a theory-driven set of codes (Herzog et al., 2019), essential quotes
were coded and triangulated with the interview data to enhance the validity of the findings
(Patton, 2014).
Thematic Analysis
The data collected from semi-structured interviews and document analysis were
examined using thematic analysis, a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns
within qualitative data (Clarke & Braun, 2017). This approach is well-suited for exploring

79
complex social phenomena and allows for a rich, detailed understanding of participants'
experiences and perspectives (Nowell et al., 2017). Thematic analysis was chosen to
systematically analyze both the implementation of energy justice principles—specifically
distributional, procedural, and recognition justice—and the organizational dynamics that shaped
their implementation. The analysis paid particular attention to how different types of
organizations approached justice implementation and how inter-organizational and intraorganizational factors influenced outcomes.
Approach to Thematic Analysis
The thematic analysis process for this study involved a multi-stage approach, integrating
both deductive and inductive reasoning (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Initially, a deductive,
theory-driven approach was employed, drawing primarily on the three core principles of energy
justice as outlined by Jenkins et al. (2016) and other key scholars in the field. These principles
provided the theoretical framework for the development of a codebook, which contained a
predetermined set of codes derived from the energy justice literature and the specific components
of the SJV Pilot (Kalpokaite & Radivojevic, 2019). This ensured that the initial coding process
was directly aligned with the study's focus on energy justice and allowed for a structured
examination of the Pilot's design and implementation in relation to established concepts of
justice (Pearse, 2019).
Coding Process
The predetermined deductive codes derived from the literature on energy justice and the
specific components of the Pilot are as follows:
Table 2 - Thematic Codes

80
Category Code Code Details
Energy
Affordability and
Access
Infrastructure upgrades Any reference to physical or technological
improvements made to support energy
access.
Bill benefits and
discounts
Specific mentions of financial incentives
or reduced costs for participants.
Cost-effectiveness Discussions about the economic
feasibility and sustainability of the Pilot
project.
Energy savings Evidence of reduced energy consumption
or improved efficiency.
Community
Engagement and
Participation
Stakeholder
involvement
Involvement of various stakeholders such
as utilities, community organizations, and
regulatory bodies.
Community outreach
strategies
Methods and strategies used to engage the
community.
Participation of
marginalized
communities
Specific references to the involvement and
impact on marginalized groups.
Energy navigator
model effectiveness
Evaluation of the energy navigator model
in facilitating community participation.
Distributional
Justice
Equitable distribution
of benefits
Assessment of how benefits are
distributed among different community
groups.
Access to clean energy
solutions
Measures taken to ensure access to
renewable energy sources
Addressing
affordability challenges
Strategies to overcome financial barriers
to energy access.
Procedural
Justice
Inclusivity in decisionmaking processes
Inclusion of community voices in
planning and decision-making.
Engagement of
disadvantaged
communities
Specific efforts to engage and involve
disadvantaged communities.
Integration of
community
perspectives
Evidence of how community feedback
influenced project design and
implementation.
Recognition
Justice
Socio-cultural
considerations
Acknowledgment of the unique sociocultural dynamics of the target
communities.
Addressing
vulnerabilities (e.g.,
language barriers,
digital literacy)
Identification and mitigation of specific
vulnerabilities (e.g., language barriers).
Tailoring solutions to
community needs
Customization of project components to
meet the needs of different community
segments.

81
Category Code Code Details
Challenges and
Barriers
Implementation
challenges
Obstacles faced during the
implementation of the Pilot project.
Policy and regulatory
hurdles
Regulatory and policy-related barriers.
Economic barriers Financial constraints and funding issues.
Technological
obstacles
Technical difficulties encountered.
Opportunities
and Successes
Successful strategies Effective methods and strategies that
contributed to project success.
Positive outcomes Successful outcomes and achievements.
Lessons learned Key takeaways and insights from the Pilot
project.
Recommendations for
future projects
Suggestions for improving future
initiatives.
Policy
Implications
Influence on future
energy policies
Impact of the Pilot project's findings on
future policy-making.
Recommendations for
policy improvements
Specific policy recommendations based
on the study.
Broader applications of
findings
Potential for applying the Pilot project's
lessons to other contexts or regions.
These codes were informed by key studies in the field (e.g., Carley & Konisky, 2020;
Sovacool et al., 2017) and principally aligned with the dimensions of energy justice as outlined
by Jenkins et al. (2016). Categories that resulted in additional codes were developed through an
iterative process of reviewing and analyzing Pilot documents (e.g., policy implications,
opportunities and success) to ensure that practical aspects of the Pilot were adequately captured
by codes, and subsequently by themes developed through an analysis of coded materials.
Transcripts from interviews and relevant documents were manually coded and organized
using a spreadsheet database. Each transcript was read multiple times to ensure familiarization
with the content (Clarke & Braun, 2017). Segments of text relevant to the predetermined codes
were identified, coded, and organized into a table structure. The use of a spreadsheet facilitated
the systematic organization of quotes and codes, allowing for effective management of
qualitative data and enhancing consistency in coding practices (Ose, 2016; Saldana, 2014).

82
Participant and document quotes were organized within individual tabs within one central
spreadsheet workbook to ensure that quotes correctly corresponded with their respective
participant. Once all coded quotes were organized into individual tabs, the data were brought
together into one central table. A portion of this central table is located in appendix D as an
example. Altogether this table contained 497 quotes, each coded with a maximum of three codes.
The decision to limit the number of possible codes was made in the interest of maintaining as
much structure as possible over the data. While the deductive coding process for this limits how
the initial data are constructed, these restrictions did not limit opportunities to find patterns in the
data, thus permitting the development of themes for this study.
Theme Development
Theme development followed a systematic process grounded in the three core principles
of energy justice - distributional, procedural, and recognition justice (Jenkins et al., 2016). These
principles provided the primary framework through which the coded data were analyzed and
organized. This step involved collating codes into overarching initial themes that addressed the
research questions and reflected the conceptual energy justice framework (Clarke & Braun,
2017; Jabareen, 2009). These initial themes were developed by examining how participants'
experiences and perspectives aligned with each justice principle while remaining attentive to
organizational factors that influenced justice outcomes. Themes were reviewed and refined
through an iterative process to ensure they were coherent, distinct, and accurately represented the
data (Nowell et al., 2017). This process also involved identifying sub-themes that provided more
nuanced insights into the specific mechanisms through which organizational factors shaped
justice outcomes. These sub-themes were developed by examining how participants' experiences

83
and perspectives clustered around particular aspects of each justice principle and how specific
organizational dynamics influenced these aspects.
The analysis began with organizing the 497 coded quotes according to their primary
relationship to energy justice principles. Quotes were categorized based on whether they
primarily addressed the fair distribution of resources and benefits (distributional justice),
inclusive decision-making processes (procedural justice), or recognition of diverse community
needs and identities (recognition justice). While many quotes demonstrated relationships to
multiple principles, they were initially organized according to their dominant justice alignment to
maintain analytical clarity. Dominant alignment was determined by examining the primary focus
and intended outcome described in each quote. For example, quotes that primarily discussed
resource allocation or infrastructure improvements were aligned with distributional justice, while
those focused on community engagement processes were assessed under procedural justice, even
if they had secondary implications for other justice principles.
As themes related to justice principles emerged, organizational factors surfaced as
important mechanisms through which justice outcomes were either advanced or hindered. For
example, analysis of quotes related to distributional justice revealed that organizational planning
and resource allocation systems fundamentally shaped the equitable distribution of program
benefits. Similarly, examination of procedural justice themes highlighted that organizational
cultures influenced community engagement and decision-making processes. The integration of
organizational factors into the thematic framework took place naturally during this analytical
process, rather than through a separate thematic analysis of organizational factors. This allowed
the enabling or constraining forces, in the implementation of justice principles, to emerge. This

84
integrated approach allowed for a nuanced understanding of organizational dynamics and their
influence on justice outcomes in practice.
Themes were refined through an iterative process of reviewing and comparing data
within and across justice principles. This process involved returning to original transcripts and
documents to ensure themes accurately captured both justice principles and their organizational
influences. When quotes suggested relationships to multiple justice principles or organizational
factors, these interconnections were preserved through multiple code assignments while
maintaining clear thematic organization.
Developing Measures for Energy Justice
To operationalize the analysis of energy justice principles in the SJV Pilot, a set of
specific measures for each dimension of justice – distributional, procedural, and recognition –
was developed. The development of these measures involved a multi-step process that integrated
the theoretical foundations of energy justice with the empirical data collected for this study. First,
clear definitions for each justice principle were established, drawing upon the established
literature reviewed in Chapter 2 (Jenkins et al., 2016; Sovacool et al., 2017). These definitions
make up the theoretical framework for identifying relevant aspects of the SJV Pilot's design and
implementation.
Second, the Pilot's stated objectives, program design elements, and implementation
strategies, as detailed in the project documents and described in this chapter, were carefully
examined. This involved identifying elements within the Pilot that implicitly or explicitly aimed
to address each dimension of justice. For example, efforts to improve energy access and
affordability were linked to distributional justice, while community engagement strategies were

85
connected to procedural justice, and considerations of cultural preferences and historical context
were linked to recognition justice.
Third, these potential indicators were connected to the data collection methods employed
in this study – semi-structured interviews and document analysis – and to the findings that
emerged from the thematic analysis detailed in Chapter 4. This step involved a careful
consideration of how the available data could be used to assess the extent to which each justice
principle was operationalized in practice. Specific attention was paid to which data sources (e.g.,
interview transcripts, project reports, regulatory documents) provided evidence related to each
principle and which themes from the thematic analysis illuminated the organizational dynamics
influencing justice outcomes.
Based on this multi-faceted analysis, specific, operationalized measures for each justice
principle were formulated. These measures served as indicators of the extent to which each
dimension of justice was realized in the Pilot's implementation. For example, "Infrastructure
Upgrades" was operationalized as the number of households receiving necessary upgrades, as
documented in project reports, providing a tangible measure of distributional justice. Similarly,
"Community Engagement Strategies" was measured by the intensity and reach of outreach
efforts, reflecting the Pilot's commitment to procedural justice. "Cultural Sensitivity" was
operationalized through the project's efforts to tailor outreach and communication to the specific
cultural and linguistic needs of participating communities, serving as an indicator of recognition
justice.
The development of these measures was an iterative process, refined through multiple
rounds of analysis and reflection. As the findings were analyzed and organized into themes, the
measures were revisited to ensure their continued relevance and alignment with the theoretical

86
framework and empirical evidence. This iterative approach ensured that the measures were both
theoretically grounded and empirically valid, providing a robust framework for assessing the
operationalization of energy justice principles in the SJV Pilot.
Ensuring Rigor and Trustworthiness
To enhance the credibility and dependability of the thematic analysis, several strategies
were employed (Lincoln & Guba, 1988; Shenton, 2004). Triangulation was achieved by
integrating data from multiple sources—interviews and document analysis—to corroborate
findings and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena (Patton, 2014).
Peer debriefing was conducted by discussing preliminary themes with academic advisors
familiar with qualitative research (Spall, 1998). This process provided an external check on the
research process and helped identify potential biases or assumptions.
Ethical Considerations in Data Analysis
Throughout the analysis, ethical considerations were paramount to protect participant
confidentiality and integrity of the data (Orb et al., 2001). All identifying information was
removed from transcripts and documents before analysis, and participants were assigned
pseudonyms (Wiles et al., 2008). Data were securely stored on password-protected devices
accessible only to the researcher, in compliance with institutional review board guidelines.
Prior to conducting the interviews, informed consent was obtained from each participant.
Participants were provided with a detailed information sheet outlining the purpose of the study,
the nature of their participation, and their right to withdraw at any time. They were also assured
of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. The informed consent process
emphasized that participation was voluntary and that there would be no negative consequences
for declining to participate or withdrawing from the study.

87
Limitations
While thematic analysis is a versatile and widely used method in qualitative research, it
has limitations (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Because the deductive approach constrains the analysis
to predefined codes, there is a potential to overlook emergent themes that provide additional
insights (Joffe, 2011). To mitigate this limitation, new themes that surfaced during data
familiarization and additional refinement/assessment of themes were considered.
Another limitation concerns the subjectivity inherent in qualitative analysis, where the
researcher's perspectives may influence the interpretation of data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). By
employing strategies such as peer debriefing, efforts were made to reduce personal biases and
enhance the objectivity of the findings (Nowell et al., 2017).
Furthermore, the study's focus on organizational perspectives, while valuable for
understanding inter and intra-organizational dynamics, may have limited attention to the
experiences and perspectives of individual community members. Future research could address
this limitation by incorporating more direct engagement with program participants to capture
their perspectives on energy justice outcomes.

88
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
This chapter presents the findings from the explanatory case study of the SJV Pilot by
answering the following:
How do organizational factors affect energy transition programs and energy justice more
broadly?
Sub-Questions:
1. How are distributional, procedural, and recognition justice defined and measured
in the context of the SJV Pilot, and to what extent were these dimensions of
justice achieved in practice?
2. What organizational dynamics, both within and between different types of
organizations, influence these dimensions of energy justice in the SJV pilot? Are
there identifiable patterns among different types of organizations, and how do
they facilitate or limit specific forms of justice? Additionally, are there specific
intra-organizational dynamics that hinder justice outcomes?
Data Collected
A total of 7 participants were interviewed for this study. Participants included:
• Two investor-owned utility (IOU) program managers (Pilot Administrators -
PAs). One from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and one from Southern
California Edison (SCE). These program managers maintain deep knowledge and
understanding of the overall SJV Pilot from both implementation and policy
development perspectives.
• Two senior leadership CPUC representatives. One is a current CPUC
commissioner and the other is a former CPUC commissioner. Both of these
individuals have extensive experience with the SJV Pilot and hold a deep
understanding of how the CPUC functions and makes decisions.
• One individual with technical implementation experience (Pilot Implementers -
PIs) This individual is currently a program implementer that was contracted by an
IOU.
• Two Community Energy Navigators. Both individuals have extensive knowledge
of the Pilot’s development and all community-focused functions.

89
Thematic Analysis Findings: Distributional Justice
Distributional justice concerns the equitable allocation of energy benefits and burdens
among different social groups. In the context of the SJV Affordable Energy Pilot Project, this
principle examines how the project's design and implementation addressed energy access,
affordability, and the fair distribution of resources and infrastructure improvements.
Global Theme 1: Infrastructure and Housing Challenges Impacting Implementation
Dominant Codes: Infrastructure upgrades, Technological obstacles, Implementation
challenges
While the Pilot aimed to provide necessary infrastructure upgrades to improve energy
access and reliability, evidence suggests that planning for such upgrades was insufficient, leading
to delays and challenges during implementation:
Sub Theme - Underestimation of Infrastructure Needs and Costs:
• "In a lot of communities, the costs were really, really high... We upgraded just local
infrastructure that, you know, was in need of upgrades but had not been on the plans to
really, you know, be able to electrify full communities... So customers did not pay any
costs." (Participant 2, personal communication, 2024)
• "PG&E said they had done the evaluation... But it turned out to be approximately 70% of
the customers in SJV-DAC had to have infrastructure upgrades completed, primarily
transformers." (Participant 7, personal communication, 2024)
• "So that's in the home itself... But we also had to do trenching from that main service
panel to like a transformer in the community... All kinds of expenses were incurred by the
utility in just planning." (Participant 2, personal communication, 2024)
• "It wasn't just the build-out of, you know, the individual units and their own boxes, and
even incorporating like a budget for upgrading that. It was the distribution system."
(Participant 4, personal communication, 2024)

90
• "They [the utilities] didn’t do quite the homework that they should have done. Because
some of the projects even today are still waiting on upgrades... Some of the people have
over one year of having a solar system that they cannot get permission to operate because
there were upgrades that were performed but that created a constrained circuit."
(Participant 6, personal communication, 2024)
• "Electrical upgrades at the household and community levels caused installation delays."
(SJV Process Evaluation, p. 7)
• "There were instances where they went and upgraded a transformer in Seville and then
four months later... we got to the neighbor to electrify them... and they had to upgrade the
transformer again." (Participant 7, personal communication, 2024)
Sub Theme - Challenges Due to Poor Housing Conditions:
• "We serviced a lot of mobile homes, a lot of really old stock housing... Some of the
challenges were too hard, too much for us to overcome." (Participant 7, personal
communication, 2024)
• "There were homes that weren't eligible for the program because the costs were just too
high to do the kinds of upgrades that were needed depending on the condition of the
home." (Participant 5, personal communication, 2024)
• "In some instances, the Pilot faced significant obstacles, such as black mold and asbestos
issues, which made it unsafe to proceed with the installation." (Southern California
Edison Company, 2023, p. 5)
• "Excessive remediation was an initial barrier causing a delay in installations; however,
external funding was identified and allowed for some homes with higher remediation
costs to be treated." (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2023, p. 3)
• "Most of the mobile homes were... not properly registered or did not have a certificate of
title, which prevented the SJV Contractor from obtaining permits..." (Southern California
Edison Company, 2023, p. 7)
• "The SJV Contractor worked with customers to identify alternate solutions to safely
install as many measures as possible at reduced remediation costs... However, some
projects could not proceed due to excessive remediation costs." (Southern California
Edison Company, 2023, p. 5)
These infrastructure and housing challenges significantly impacted the Pilot’s ability to
deliver energy access improvements in a timely and efficient manner.

91
Global Theme 2: Economic Challenges and Strategies for Affordability
Dominant Codes: Economic barriers, Addressing affordability challenges, Addressing
vulnerabilities, Cost-effectiveness
The Pilot made concerted efforts to address economic barriers for participants and to
ensure affordability for participants through various bill protection and discount measures:
Sub Theme - Implementation of Bill Discounts and Protections:
• "We have a bill discount element to the program... We actually for the company take
another sort of reduction of their bill another 20% off... We're doing that for 10 years and
right now we're in an evaluation where the evaluation is going to dictate to us what the
next five years looks like." (Participant 2, personal communication, 2024)
• "There was also going to be an added benefit of a bill reduction due to solar potential
solar credits. And that was a 20% bill reduction. On top of that, they were also going to
leverage other programs like weatherization programs or the ESA programs to further
improve affordability." (Participant 6, personal communication, 2024)
• "We had the CARE rate and then there was a 20% discount because the idea was to
ensure that people weren't paying more for their electrified home than they would have
been if they still had their propane." (Participant 5, personal communication, 2024)
• "Well, the biggest thing is we put in a rate protection, so that people's, people will not see
a rate increase in the worst case scenario." (Participant 4, personal communication, 2024)
• "SCE will automatically transition Pilot participants to either the DAC-GT program or
CSGT program when those programs become available to each community, and as
applicable based on the customer's eligibility for each program." (Southern California
Edison Company, 2023, p. 9)
• "SCE will evaluate pilot participants' total energy cost savings in 2024 to determine if the
20 percent discounts will continue for an additional five years or if it should be reduced
to a 10 percent discount." (Southern California Edison Company, 2023, p. 2)
• "The average monthly fuel cost prior to participation was $282.42. Post-participation the
average fuel cost was $180.99 with the 20 percent discounts (a $101.43 per month bill
savings)." (Southern California Edison Company, 2023, p. 6)

92
• "The bill impacts continue to appear favorable for customers; however, no final
conclusions can be made because the data is still preliminary and the Pilot did not require
actual propane and/or wood bills as an eligibility criteria..." (Southern California Edison
Company, 2023, p. 6)
Sub Theme - Integration of Multiple Energy-Saving Programs:
• "Our hope was that they would always have a benefit... the initial utility being propane
and electric compared to all electric... The goal was to stack as many programs as they
could." (Participant 6, personal communication, 2024)
• "These pilots will leverage the Energy Savings Assistance (ESA) Program and other
Commission programs for weatherization and solar technologies." (D.18-12-015, p. 3)
• "The SJV Contractors have utilized the ESA Program's self-certification approach to
qualify and enroll 147 Pilot participants in ESA." (Southern California Edison Company,
2023, p. 10)
• "SCE worked with the CEN and SJV Contractors to leverage existing programs that
provided additional benefits and energy cost savings." (Southern California Edison
Company, 2023, p. 8)
• "Utilities will leverage their programs and oftentimes just because some utilities don't
like to play fair in the sandbox, they won't allow other programs that have different and
more favorable measures to assist." (Participant 6, personal communication, 2024)
• "SCE encouraged both SJV Contractors to become authorized SGIP developers to
provide a seamless enrollment and installation process when feasible." (Southern
California Edison Company, 2023, p. 9)
• "The Pilot has achieved some positive results with leveraging other programs... many
participants have been enrolled in installation programs such as the Energy Savings
Assistance Program and Self-Generation Incentive Program." (Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, 2023, p. 4)
• "SCE worked with the CEN and SJV Contractors to leverage existing programs that
provided additional benefits and energy cost savings." (Southern California Edison
Company, 2023, p.8)

93
Sub Theme - Funding Constraints and High Costs:
Despite these efforts, funding constraints posed significant challenges:
• "It's true on both fronts. It is difficult and expensive... But the question is what's the end
goal?... If you're truly trying to electrify disadvantaged communities you should go into it
knowing it's going to be hard and expensive." (Participant 7, personal communication,
2024)
• "I think one of the biggest challenges was the cost... It really highlighted how expensive
it is to decarbonize older homes in disadvantaged parts of the state... Funding is a critical
challenge in making sure that we can actually get where we need to go." (Participant 2,
personal communication, 2024)
• "About 87 percent (115 out of 132) of the projects completed required remediation
funding... SCE re-evaluates all projects with remediation costs exceeding $20,000."
(Southern California Edison Company, 2023, p. 5)
• "The CPM identified four non-pilot funding sources of remediation funding. Three
sources were loans, and the other was a grant from Self-Help Enterprises (SHE).
Participating customers expressed no interest in securing a home loan for repairs
exceeding the $5,000 remediation cap. The grant provided by SHE offered an additional
$5,000 for remediation and did not require any repayment by the customer." (Southern
California Edison Company, 2023, p. A-1)
• "We were able to get the TECH program to provide additional subsidies, but I think the
cost was closer to $10,000 to $12,000 per home." (Participant 5, personal
communication, 2024)
• "SJV Contractors faced challenges in retaining and hiring staff due to the COVID-19
pandemic. The low response rate to the Pilot limited the SJV Contractor's ability to create
a steady and reliable workflow for staff." (Southern California Edison Company, 2023, p.
7)
These economic challenges highlight the complexities involved in making energy
upgrades affordable and underscore the need for sufficient funding to support such initiatives.

94
Thematic Analysis Findings: Procedural Justice
Procedural justice focuses on the fairness and inclusivity of the processes involved in
decision-making and implementation. In the context of the Pilot, this principle examines how
marginalized communities were engaged, how their perspectives were integrated, and the
effectiveness of strategies like the Energy Navigator model.
Global Theme 3: Community Engagement Strategies and Trust Building
Dominant Codes: Community outreach strategies, Engagement of disadvantaged
communities, Energy Navigator model effectiveness, Inclusivity in decision-making processes,
Implementation challenges
The Pilot Project employed various strategies to engage marginalized communities and
encourage active participation:
Sub Theme - Intensive Community Outreach Efforts:
• "There was a lot of going out into the communities, a lot of door-knocking, holding
community events, mailers, flyers, just a lot of in-person engagement... A lot of these
communities are rural and often lack the connectivity infrastructure to rely on Instagram
and Facebook." (Participant 6, personal communication, 2024)
• "We scheduled the meetings in the communities that were impacted and we brought staff
with us." (Participant 5, personal communication, 2024)
• "Multiple outreach activities were performed in-person, and phone call attempts were
made before door-to-door outreach..." (Southern California Edison Company, 2023, p. 3)
• "Self-Help Enterprises had to move to a primarily phone-based outreach model because
people didn't want somebody even coming to their home... That really delayed us getting
started." (Participant 7, personal communication, 2024)
• "The CEN encountered many vacant properties and nonresponsive California City
residents." (Southern California Edison Company, 2023, p. 3)

95
• "The CPUC ended up changing the administrative law judge because I wanted to have
the first hearing in Fresno... It was too much of a burden on the CPUC staff to demand
that they travel to Fresno." (Participant 3, personal communication, 2024)
• "The CEN made significant efforts to reach the forecasted number of households across
the three Pilot communities... As shown in Table 5 below, the CEN was able to complete
an application for about 50% (201 out 404) of the residents reached." (Southern
California Edison Company, 2023, p. 4)
• “Even though the project was aimed at disadvantaged communities, it often felt like the
decision-making process didn’t fully include their voices... Many decisions were made
without fully understanding the on-the-ground realities, which led to some of the
project’s shortcomings." (Participant 1, personal communication, 2024)
Sub Theme - Effectiveness of the Energy Navigator Model:
• "The Community Energy Navigator program component for each of the eleven pilots is
approved to ensure effective community engagement." (D.18-12-015, p. 4)
• "I think that... the Energy Navigator model was effective in engaging the community.
Without trusted CBOs like Self-Help Enterprises, we wouldn't have gotten the
participation we did." (Participant 5, personal communication, 2024)
• "I think it's one of the best things that came out of this pilot project. We've adopted it
and... we're shifting from Community Energy Navigator to Community Sustainability
Navigator within Self Help Enterprises." (Participant 1, personal communication, 2024)
• "Self-Help Enterprises did not have the infrastructure or the experience to be the energy
navigator in this pilot... They didn't have the reach that they said they had." (Participant 7,
personal communication, 2024)
• "The hiring of individuals living in the Pilot communities appeared to have a favorable
outcome when the individual was an active member of the community." (Southern
California Edison Company, 2023, p. 8)
Sub Theme: Challenges in Maintaining Community Trust:
Despite extensive efforts, the Pilot faced difficulties in maintaining trust:
• "There was some trust there... but in some of the other communities... folks had never
heard of them. So there was a little bit of a trust issue... overcoming trust issues is a huge
barrier." (Participant 7, personal communication, 2024)

96
• "There was so much chaos that the Community Energy Navigator ended up also getting
kind of a bad rap from a 'hey, you brought me something that was good and look what
they did'... But the relationship between us is only momentary while I'm there doing the
job... I have to live and see you every day." (Participant 6, personal communication,
2024)
• "The customer is the one who really got a lot of runaround, a lot of delays, a lot of
confusion... What would normally be one site visit to do a thorough assessment ended up
being anywhere from 5 to 10 site visits." (Participant 6, personal communication, 2024)
• "After you've knocked on doors, you know, two, three, four times; you've had community
meetings; if the customers are not attending, they're not responding to the phone calls, or
emails; not responding to the door knocking, I mean, at some point we have to just say,
hey - I think this customer is just not interested." (Participant 3, personal communication,
2024)
• "Engagement and completion of applications was a positive experience for customers,
but a communication gap developed after the customer application was transitioned to the
SJV Contractor." (Southern California Edison Company, 2023, p. 8)
• "One CEN noted that many residents were wary about participating in any solar-related
programs... They explained that there has been a history of solar predatory lending that
has contributed to residents' lack of trust." (SJV Process Evaluation, p. 36)
• "Engagement and completion of applications was a positive experience for customers,
but a communication gap developed after the customer application was transitioned to the
SJV Contractor." (Southern California Edison Company, 2023, p. 8)
These insights highlight the critical role of trust and effective communication in
community engagement and the importance of utilizing trusted local organizations to facilitate
participation. They also demonstrate that there was conflict between stakeholders in assessing
the Energy Navigator model.
Thematic Analysis Findings: Recognition Justice
Recognition justice involves acknowledging and respecting the diverse identities,
experiences, and needs of different social groups. In the Pilot, this principle examines how socio-

97
cultural dynamics, potential vulnerabilities, and historical contexts were considered and
addressed.
Global Theme 4: Socio-Cultural Dynamics and Adaptations
Dominant Codes: Addressing vulnerabilities (e.g., language barriers, digital literacy),
Socio-cultural considerations
The Pilot recognized and addressed various socio-cultural dynamics and potential
vulnerabilities within the participating communities:
Sub Theme - Recognition of Cultural Preferences and Practices:
• "Latin American people like their gas stoves... We actually had folks that say food just
tastes better on a gas stove... So it was trying to work through concerns they had about
giving those up." (Participant 7, personal communication, 2024)
• "We definitely want... to move toward... no fossil fuels, but we still face cultural
resistance... People have been cooking with gas stoves for generations, and convincing
them to switch was challenging." (Participant 1, personal communication, 2024)
• “Even with a no-cost to participant offering, there are many barriers to community
adoption and participation that need to be accounted for in the program design.” (Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, 2023, p. 26)
• "What we learned from interacting with folks... is that people may not want to adopt
certain appliances because of cultural differences... The good thing was that you didn't
have to necessarily qualify based on your income." (Participant 1, personal
communication, 2024)
• "The cooking demos were really helpful... Having a few champions in the community
who really, you know, went through this... They're the brave soul and they go through
and then they're happy and then they tell their friends and neighbors and everyone."
(Participant 2, personal communication, 2024)
Sub Theme - Addressing Language Barriers and Communication

98
• "We tried to make the benefits clear... We always try to write in these kinds of things for
like, you know, 5th to 8th grade level... Not saying people are not educated but just in this
sense make it really simple." (Participant 2, personal communication, 2024)
• "We tried to have everyone working in the home, even with their contractors and
subcontractors, make sure they had Spanish-speaking representatives available... We tried
to really make it at a technical level that made sense." (Participant 2, personal
communication, 2024)
• "We made sure we were speaking in the native language of the people we were trying to
reach... Listening and spending a lot of time in these communities is not something we
usually do because that's just not the way the PUC processes are set up." (Participant 5,
personal communication, 2024)
• "The CPM believed that it was very beneficial to have bilingual (English and Spanish)
contractors that could explain the home treatment plan to participating residents." (SJV
Process Evaluation, p. 42)
• "And our job really was or to promote the program we spent months and months even
years in some of the communities flyering speaking with people and also working on
some of the forums... marketing putting out banners about the programing to the
community in both English and Spanish..." (Participant 1, personal communication,
2024)
Sub Theme - Adaptation to Community Schedules and Lifestyles:
• "We had to make adjustments for example... if people got home at five... my staff would
stay late... so that we were limiting the inconvenience of having to have somebody
home." (Participant 2, personal communication, 2024)
• "But was everyone in the community there? No, of course not... So who came? Whose
opinions are we hearing? Are those the people who have the flexibility to come to a
meeting?... We tried to really show up in spaces and times that would be most accessible,
but low-income families cannot just drop everything and go to a town hall." (Participant
2, personal communication, 2024)
• "You know COVID, wildfires, heat... it felt like the end of the world... but we were still
out there with masks and doing some of that outreach... people appreciated that... And I
think what happened was once folks started getting some items installed, then..."
(Participant 1, personal communication, 2024)
Sub Theme: Recognition of Historical Context and Distrust

99
• "One of the communities is a community of Allensworth, which is one of the utopian
black communities that formed after slavery and had gone through really a real peak
historically in their economy. Then, of course, they were dealt many racist blows,
including the railroad completely realigning the line so it wouldn't stop there. So they
have a rich history, and rich black Californian history." (Participant 4, personal
communication, 2024)
• "One CEN noted that many residents were wary about participating in any solar-related
programs... They explained that there has been a history of solar predatory lending that
has contributed to residents' lack of trust." (SJV Process Evaluation, p. 36)
• "We were the really the first point of contact for those customers... People trusted us... we
have water and sewer projects going on in those same communities... And so, people
would call us even for issues outside of our scope, like post-installation problems,
because they trusted us." (Participant 1, personal communication, 2024)
These considerations demonstrate how the Pilot’s recognition of socio-cultural dynamics
shaped its approach, aiming to promote energy justice by being responsive to the communities'
unique needs and concerns.
Analysis of Research Questions: Research Question (RQ) 1
RQ1: How are distributional, procedural, and recognition justice defined and measured in
the context of the SJV Pilot, and to what extent were these dimensions of justice achieved in
practice?
This section explores how the three core principles of energy justice were applied in the
implementation of the SJV Pilot. To answer this question, the analysis defines each principle of
justice, drawing on the literature presented in Chapter 2. It then outlines the specific measures
used to assess each principle within the context of the SJV Pilot and discusses to what extent this
principles were achieved in the context of the Pilot.

100
Distributional Justice in the SJV Pilot
Definition: Distributional justice concerns the equitable allocation of benefits and
burdens associated with energy systems (Jenkins et al., 2016). In the context of energy
transitions, this principle focuses on ensuring fair access to affordable, reliable, and clean energy
resources while mitigating any disproportionate negative impacts on vulnerable populations
(Sovacool et al., 2017).
Measures in the SJV Pilot:
• Infrastructure Upgrades: Measured by the number of households receiving necessary
upgrades (e.g., transformer replacements, electrical panel updates) as documented in
utility records and program implementation reports.
• Energy Cost Reductions: Measured by changes in household energy expenditures, as
indicated by utility data, participant surveys, and program documentation.
• Remediation Efforts: Measured by the number of homes requiring remediation, the types
of remediation needed, and associated costs, as documented in project records.
Findings: The evidence reveals mixed outcomes in achieving distributional justice across
the target communities.
Regarding infrastructure improvements, data from utility records shows varying levels of
success across service territories. PG&E completed electrical service upgrades for 44% of
participating households, enabling these residents to transition from propane to electric
appliances (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2023). However, the scope of necessary upgrades
proved more extensive than anticipated, with SCE reporting that 87% of completed projects
required remediation work beyond basic panel upgrades (Southern California Edison Company,
2023).
Energy cost reductions were achieved for many participating households. SCE's data
demonstrates that average monthly fuel costs decreased from $282.42 to $180.99 after
accounting for the 20% bill discount, representing an average monthly savings of $101.43 per

101
household (Southern California Edison Company, 2023). This reduction in energy costs helped
address energy burden concerns for participating households.
However, remediation efforts faced significant constraints. While the Pilot allocated
$5,000 per household for remediation, project documentation reveals that many homes required
more extensive work. The presence of serious housing deficiencies, including black mold and
asbestos, prevented some households from participating fully in the program (Southern
California Edison Company, 2023). Mobile homes presented particular challenges, with many
requiring substantial structural improvements beyond the allocated funding cap.
The data indicates that program benefits were not uniformly accessible across all eligible
households. A 25% dropout rate occurred during the transition from application to assessment
phase (Southern California Edison Company, 2023), suggesting that barriers to participation
persisted even after initial engagement. This finding raises questions about the equitable
distribution of program benefits across the target communities.
Procedural Justice in the SJV Pilot
Definition: Procedural justice emphasizes the fairness, transparency, and inclusivity of
decision-making processes related to energy policies and programs (Jenkins et al., 2016). It
requires meaningful participation of all stakeholders, particularly marginalized communities, in
shaping decisions that affect their access to and use of energy (Walker & Day, 2012).
Measures in the SJV Pilot:
• Community Engagement: Measured by the reach and effectiveness of outreach efforts,
including number of households contacted, application completion rates, and
participation in community meetings.
• Energy Navigator Model: Measured by participant satisfaction with CEN support,
perceived trustworthiness of CENs, and successful facilitation of program enrollment.

102
• Program Responsiveness: Measured by evidence of program adaptations based on
community input and resolution rates for participant concerns.
Findings: The data reveals varied success in achieving procedural justice across different
aspects of the Pilot.
Regarding community engagement reach, PG&E reported contacting all 316 eligible
households in their pilot communities, with 214 completed applications representing a 68%
completion rate (PG&E, 2023). SCE's outreach efforts resulted in applications from
approximately 50% of contacted residents (Southern California Edison Company, 2023). These
completion rates suggest substantial community contact, though engagement success varied by
location.
The Energy Navigator model demonstrated strong performance in initial community
interactions. Customer surveys showed that 90% of participants and 78% of non-participants
rated the CENs as "very" or "extremely" trustworthy (Evergreen Economics, 2022). However,
participant experiences declined after the initial application phase. The SJV Process Evaluation
found that while application completion was generally positive, participants reported difficulties
maintaining consistent communication during later implementation stages (2022).
Program responsiveness data showed mixed results. Only 49% of participants reported
finding it "extremely" or "very" easy to understand the bill protection offering (Evergreen
Economics, 2022), indicating challenges in communicating program benefits. Additionally,
scheduling data revealed difficulties in maintaining contact with residents during
implementation, with some participants becoming unreachable during daytime hours (Evergreen
Economics, 2022).
The evidence suggests that while the Pilot achieved significant initial community
engagement, maintaining consistent participation and communication throughout implementation

103
proved challenging. The disconnect between early outreach success and later implementation
difficulties indicates gaps in achieving sustained procedural justice throughout the program
lifecycle.
Recognition Justice in the SJV Pilot
Definition: Recognition justice involves acknowledging and respecting the diverse
identities, experiences, and needs of different social groups affected by energy systems (Jenkins
et al., 2016). In the context of energy transitions, this principle requires understanding how
historical injustices, cultural practices, and socio-economic vulnerabilities shape communities'
experiences with energy systems (McCauley et al., 2013).
Measures in the SJV Pilot:
• Cultural Accommodation: Measured through the provision of multilingual services,
culturally appropriate materials, and adaptations to program implementation based on
cultural preferences.
• Historical Context Integration: Measured by evidence of program design elements that
acknowledged and addressed historical patterns of disinvestment in participating
communities.
• Vulnerability Mitigation: Measured through specific program adaptations to address
language barriers, digital literacy challenges, and other socio-economic vulnerabilities.
Findings: Data from project documentation and participant feedback reveals varying
degrees of success in achieving recognition justice across different aspects of the Pilot.
Regarding cultural accommodation, project records show consistent provision of
bilingual materials and support services across implementation sites. The SJV Process
Evaluation (2022) documented that outreach materials and program communications were
regularly provided in both English and Spanish, addressing a key linguistic need in participating
communities. However, data also revealed significant resistance to certain program elements that
conflicted with cultural practices. For instance, the prevalence of gas stove preferences among

104
Latino households emerged as a substantial barrier to full program participation, with many
residents expressing concerns about switching to electric cooking appliances.
Historical context integration showed mixed results. While the Pilot specifically targeted
communities with documented histories of disinvestment, such as Allensworth, an historically
Black community, program implementation data suggests that historical patterns of infrastructure
neglect were not fully addressed. The high prevalence of substandard housing conditions and
inadequate electrical infrastructure in these communities, as documented in utility reports,
indicates the persistent impact of historical disinvestment patterns.
In addressing vulnerabilities, project data shows both successes and limitations. The Pilot
successfully implemented measures to accommodate residents' work schedules, with
implementation teams adjusting site visit timing to increase accessibility. However,
documentation reveals persistent challenges in addressing certain vulnerabilities. The SJV
Process Evaluation found that many participants struggled with the technical complexity of
program requirements, particularly regarding bill protection provisions and new appliance
operation.
The evidence indicates that while the Pilot made deliberate efforts to recognize and
respond to community-specific needs, the achievement of recognition justice was incomplete.
Success in providing linguistically appropriate services was offset by challenges in fully
accommodating cultural preferences and addressing deeply rooted infrastructural inequities.
These outcomes suggest that recognition justice requires more than surface-level
accommodations; it demands fundamental consideration of how historical patterns and cultural
practices shape program participation and benefit distribution.

105
Analysis of Research Questions: Research Question (RQ) 2
RQ2: What organizational dynamics, both within and between different types of
organizations, influence these dimensions of energy justice in the SJV pilot? Are there
identifiable patterns among different types of organizations, and how do they facilitate or limit
specific forms of justice? Additionally, are there specific intra-organizational dynamics that
hinder justice outcomes?
The implementation of the SJV Pilot revealed distinct patterns in how different types of
organizations approached and influenced energy justice outcomes. The thematic analysis
presented in Chapter 4 identified several key organizational dynamics that shaped the Pilot's
implementation, including infrastructure planning approaches, community engagement
strategies, and responses to socio-cultural considerations. Drawing on organizational theory
frameworks, particularly Merton's (1940) concept of trained incapacity and resource dependency
theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), this section examines how utilities, the principal community
organization, and the regulatory agency navigated the complex demands of implementing energy
justice principles.
Table 3 - Summary of Analysis of Organizational Dynamics and Their Influence on Energy
Justice Implementation
Organization
Type
Key
Organizational
Dynamics
Influence on
Energy Justice
Dimensions
Patterns
Facilitating or
Limiting Justice
Intraorganizational
Dynamics
Hindering
Justice
Outcomes
Utilities Bureaucratic
structures
emphasizing
standardized
procedures and
technical
Distributional
Justice:
Underestimated
infrastructure
needs leading
to
Limited Justice:
Standardized
assessment
methods
inadequate for
disadvantaged
Internal
assessment
protocols failed
to capture
community
needs;

106
efficiency;
Limited capacity
for rapid
adaptation;
Traditional
planning
processes
implementation
delays;
Procedural
Justice: Rigid
processes
limited
community
engagement;
Recognition
Justice:
Struggled to
address cultural
preferences
communities;
systematic
underestimation of
remediation needs;
Facilitated Justice:
Technical expertise
in infrastructure
upgrades when
properly planned
Organizational
culture prioritized
efficiency over
flexibility;
Single-loop
learning limited
fundamental
change
Community
Organization
Strong local
relationships;
Limited technical
and
administrative
capacity;
Resource
constraints;
Greater cultural
adaptability
Distributional
Justice:
Limited
influence on
resource
allocation;
Procedural
Justice:
Enhanced
initial
community
engagement;
Recognition
Justice:
Effective
cultural
adaptation
through
innovative
approaches
Facilitated Justice:
Strong community
trust; innovative
engagement
strategies; Limited
Justice: Resource
dependencies
restricted program
influence; inability
to scale successful
practices
Inadequate
administrative
infrastructure;
Limited technical
expertise despite
strong
community
knowledge;
Budget
constraints
affected program
delivery
Regulatory
Agency
Formal
bureaucratic
procedures;
Hierarchical
decision-making;
Focus on
administrative
efficiency
Distributional
Justice:
Administrative
constraints
affected
resource
allocation;
Procedural
Justice: Formal
procedures
limited
community
Limited Justice:
Administrative
requirements
impeded
responsive program
delivery; rigid
oversight
processes;
Facilitated Justice:
Provided structured
framework for
Internal
procedures
prioritized
administrative
efficiency over
community
access;
Organizational
resistance to
adapting standard
practices; Limited
capacity for

107
accessibility;
Recognition
Justice:
Limited
flexibility in
community
engagement
program
implementation
integrating
community
perspectives
Note. Analysis based on findings from the SJV Pilot implementation. Organizational dynamics
significantly shaped the achievement of distributional, procedural, and recognition justice
outcomes through specific mechanisms and patterns identified in the study.
Patterns Across Organization Types
The implementation of the SJV Pilot revealed distinct organizational patterns that shaped
how each key organization approached program delivery. Drawing on themes identified in
Chapter 4, clear differences emerged in organizational characteristics and their influence on
implementation strategies and effectiveness.
Utilities demonstrated patterns consistent with Merton's (1940) concept of trained
incapacity, where specialized competencies and standardized procedures sometimes hindered
effective response to community needs. This manifested particularly in infrastructure planning
approaches, where utilities' traditional assessment methods proved inadequate for evaluating
needs in disadvantaged communities. One utility representative noted: "They didn't do quite the
homework that they should have done... Some of the projects even today are still waiting on
upgrades" (Participant 6, personal communication, 2024). This reflects how utilities'
standardized planning processes, designed for typical infrastructure projects, failed to capture the
extensive remediation needs in communities with historically underinvested infrastructure.
Resource dependency theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) helps explain the constraints
faced by community organizations in program implementation. Self-Help Enterprises, while
possessing strong community relationships, faced limitations in organizational capacity that

108
affected program delivery. As one participant observed: "Self-Help Enterprises did not have the
infrastructure or the experience to be the energy navigator in this pilot... They didn't have the
reach that they said they had" (Participant 7, personal communication, 2024). This illustrates
how resource constraints influenced community organizations' ability to fulfill expanded roles in
energy transition programs.
The regulatory agency exhibited characteristics of bureaucratic dysfunction (Merton,
1940), where formal procedures sometimes impeded responsive program administration. This
was evident in the resistance to holding hearings in affected communities: "The CPUC ended up
changing the administrative law judge because I wanted to have the first hearing in Fresno... It
was too much of a burden on the CPUC staff to demand that they travel to Fresno" (Participant 3,
personal communication, 2024). This exemplifies how routines within these organizations were
designed with a stronger emphasis on administrative efficiency, and how that can conflict with
procedural justice objectives.
Inter-organizational dynamics further shaped implementation effectiveness. The
relationship between utilities and community organizations revealed patterns of power
asymmetry consistent with resource dependency theory. While utilities controlled program
resources and technical implementation, community organizations possessed crucial local
knowledge and relationships. This interdependence created tensions in program delivery,
particularly evident in the coordination challenges between Community Energy Navigators and
utility contractors: "Engagement and completion of applications was a positive experience for
customers, but a communication gap developed after the customer application was transitioned
to the SJV Contractor" (Southern California Edison Company, 2023).

109
The implementation challenges between utilities and contracted implementers
demonstrated how silos between organizations can impede effective program delivery, aligning
with research on organizational communication theory (Putnam & Nicotera, 2008). As one utility
representative explained: "What would normally be one site visit to do a thorough assessment
ended up being anywhere from 5 to 10 site visits" (Participant 6, personal communication, 2024).
This inefficiency reflects what Bento et al. (2020) and de Waal et al. (2019) identify as
communication breakdowns between distinct organizational units, where separate entities
operate in isolation despite shared program objectives. The fragmentation between utilities,
implementers, and community organizations created coordination challenges that ultimately
affected program participants, supporting Johnson et al.'s (2012) findings that organizational
silos can impede the equitable distribution of resources. While Bento et al. (2020) suggest that
some organizational clustering can protect knowledge exchange, the SJV Pilot's experience
indicates that excessive separation between implementing organizations hindered effective
program delivery.
Organizational learning theory (Argyris & Schön, 1978) helps explain variations in
adaptation across organization types. Utilities demonstrated limited capacity for rapid adjustment
to implementation challenges, reflecting institutional inertia typical of large bureaucratic
organizations. In contrast, community organizations showed greater flexibility in adapting
outreach strategies, though resource constraints limited their ability to scale successful
approaches.
These patterns illuminate that traditional utility planning processes, designed primarily
for operational efficiency, proved inadequate for addressing systemic inequities. Community
organizations, while more attuned to local needs, faced resource and capacity constraints that

110
limited their effectiveness. The regulatory agency's bureaucratic structure sometimes impeded
responsive program administration. Understanding these organizational dynamics is crucial for
developing more effective approaches to energy justice implementation.
Intra-organizational Dynamics
Analyzing the intra-organizational dynamics reveals how internal structures, processes,
and cultural elements within each organization type influenced their capacity to implement the
SJV Pilot effectively. These internal characteristics created both opportunities and constraints
that shaped program delivery.
The utilities' traditional planning processes also demonstrated structural limitations in
addressing the Pilot's unique challenges. The underestimation of infrastructure needs revealed
how internal assessment protocols, designed for conventional projects, proved inadequate for
evaluating disadvantaged communities: "In a lot of communities, the costs were really, really
high... We upgraded just local infrastructure that, you know, was in need of upgrades but had not
been on the plans to really, you know, be able to electrify full communities" (Participant 2,
personal communication, 2024). This aligns with Merton's (1940) concept of trained incapacity,
where organizational expertise in standard operations actually hindered effective response to
non-standard situations.
The regulatory agency's internal dynamics reflected classical bureaucratic challenges
identified by Weber (1947). The CPUC's formal procedures and hierarchical decision-making
processes sometimes impeded responsive program administration. Initial resistance to
conducting hearings in affected communities exemplified how internal organizational routines,
designed for administrative efficiency, created barriers to community engagement: "It was too
much of a burden on the CPUC staff to demand that they travel to Fresno" (Participant 3,

111
personal communication, 2024). Furthermore, the CPUC’s decision to direct the PAs and PIs to
rely on existing IOU supply chains, in the interest of maximizing bulk-purchasing opportunities
in the interest of economic efficiency instead resulted in increased program costs and
coordination challenges (Evergreen Economics, 2022).
Cultural elements within organizations also influenced implementation effectiveness.
Regulatory and utility cultures, focused on technical expertise, operational efficiency and
adherence to state-level environmental goals, all of which sometimes clashed with the need for
flexible, community-centered approaches. This tension also highlights the importance of cultural
competency within organizations, as described by Betancourt et al. (2003), to effectively address
the diverse needs of communities. This manifested in challenges addressing cultural preferences
around appliance choices: "Latin American people like their gas stoves... We actually had folks
that say food just tastes better on a gas stove... So it was trying to work through concerns they
had about giving those up" (Participant 7, personal communication, 2024). The technical-rational
approach typical of regulatory and utility organizations struggled to accommodate these cultural
considerations effectively. Alternatively, the CEN’s approach to the issue of cultural preference
aligns with the idea that community organizations, particularly those in rural communities,
exercise innovative programmatic practices (Walters, 2020). As Participant 2 notes, “The
cooking demos were really helpful... Having a few champions in the community who really, you
know, went through this... They're the brave soul and they go through and then they're happy and
then they tell their friends and neighbors and everyone" (personal communication, 2024).
The organizational culture of the principal community organization, while more attuned
to local needs, sometimes conflicted with the technical requirements of energy program
implementation. As one participant noted regarding Self-Help Enterprises: "They didn't have the

112
infrastructure or the experience to be the energy navigator in this pilot" (Participant 7, personal
communication, 2024). Specifically, project documentation indicates that SHE lacked essential
management oversight, quality-check processes, and database infrastructure necessary to capture
pilot participation or report information consistently (Evergreen Economics, 2022). The
organization's historical focus on community engagement and social services created internal
barriers when attempting to expand into more technical program areas. For instance, SHE's lack
of experience in electrification and program management manifested in inadequate guidance to
Community Energy Navigators regarding time allocation, leading to budget overruns. Their
organizational identity, while strong in fostering community trust, initially proved insufficient
for managing the complex technical and administrative demands of the pilot. Furthermore, the
Community Energy Navigator Program Manager felt their local knowledge was underutilized,
with utilities exercising excessive control over outreach planning, demonstrating how
organizational culture clashes can impede effective program implementation. This highlights a
broader challenge for community organizations: while they possess valuable local relationships
and cultural understanding, their organizational structures and processes may not readily adapt to
the technical requirements of complex energy transition programs.
These intra-organizational dynamics reveals that successful energy justice
implementation requires not just policy design but careful attention to organizational structures,
processes, and cultures that enable or constrain program delivery. Understanding these internal
dynamics is critical for developing organizational capacity to serve disadvantaged communities
effectively through energy transition programs.

113
Integration of Organizational Theory and Implementation
The organizational structures and processes revealed in Theme 1 (Infrastructure and
Housing Challenges) demonstrate how utilities' established practices influenced program
implementation. Utilities, driven by their traditional focus on efficiency and cost-effectiveness,
often exhibited behaviors consistent with Merton's (1940) concept of "trained incapacity." Their
specialized expertise and standardized procedures, while effective in conventional contexts,
proved inadequate for addressing the unique infrastructure needs of disadvantaged communities.
This was particularly evident in the underestimation of infrastructure needs and costs, where
utilities' reliance on existing assessment models led to significant delays and cost overruns. As
Participant 6 noted, "They didn't do quite the homework that they should have done,"
highlighting the limitations of applying standard procedures to non-standard contexts. This
pattern extends Merton's framework by demonstrating that organizational competencies
developed for conventional service territories can actually impede effective program delivery in
historically underserved communities.
Resource dependency theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) illuminates the power dynamics
and interdependencies revealed in Theme 2 (Economic Challenges and Strategies for
Affordability). Community organizations, while possessing crucial local knowledge and
community trust, often lacked the resources and technical capacity to independently implement
complex energy programs. This dependence on utilities for funding and technical expertise
created an asymmetrical power relationship that shaped program implementation approaches.
The relationship between utilities and community organizations demonstrated how resource
dependencies influenced organizational behavior, with utilities maintaining control over
technical implementation while relying on community organizations for local knowledge and

114
relationships. This dynamic extends resource dependency theory by showing how power
asymmetries in energy transition programs can affect both organizations' ability to achieve their
objectives effectively.
The CPUC's organizational dynamics exemplify Weber's (1947) theory of bureaucracy,
particularly through Theme 3's findings on community engagement challenges. The CPUC's
formal procedures and hierarchical structure, designed to ensure accountability and standardized
decision-making, created barriers to responsive program administration in disadvantaged
communities. For example, the resistance to conducting hearings in affected communities
stemmed from established administrative routines that prioritized operational efficiency over
community accessibility. The CPUC's subsequent modifications to program guidelines and
engagement approaches demonstrate how bureaucratic organizations navigate competing
pressures. While maintaining core regulatory functions, the CPUC adapted its processes to
accommodate community needs, suggesting that bureaucratic structures can evolve while
retaining their essential organizational characteristics. This experience extends Weber's
framework by illustrating how regulatory agencies can maintain procedural consistency while
developing more flexible approaches to program implementation in historically underserved
communities.
The Pilot's implementation revealed varying capacities for organizational learning across
different organization types, extending Argyris and Schön's (1978) theoretical framework in
important ways. Theme 3, focused on community engagement strategies, demonstrates this
variation particularly well. Utilities exhibited characteristics of single-loop learning by making
operational adjustments to address implementation challenges, such as modifying outreach
approaches and incorporating additional funding for remediation work. However, they showed

115
limited evidence of double-loop learning, which would have involved questioning fundamental
assumptions about program design and infrastructure assessment methods. While more adaptable
in their engagement strategies, community organizations faced resource constraints that limited
their ability to institutionalize and scale successful approaches. For instance, while Self-Help
Enterprises developed innovative responses to cultural preferences around appliance choices
through cooking demonstrations and community champions, their organizational capacity
constraints prevented broader application of these successful practices. This pattern extends
organizational learning theory by demonstrating how resource availability and organizational
structures influence the capacity for learning and the ability to operationalize insights gained
through implementation experience.
Through Theme 4's examination of socio-cultural dynamics, the findings demonstrate
that effective implementation requires organizations to develop structures and processes that
extend beyond traditional efficiency models. For example, utilities' established practices, focused
primarily on technical efficiency and standardized operations, proved inadequate for addressing
the complex social and cultural dimensions revealed through program implementation. The
interorganizational relationships between utilities, community organizations, and regulatory
agencies further highlight how their characteristics as organizations influence program delivery.
The community engagement challenges documented in Theme 3 reveal that successful
implementation depends on well-designed policies and organizations' capacity to adapt their
established practices and foster meaningful collaboration across organizational boundaries. This
extends organizational theory by demonstrating how traditional organizational models must
evolve to effectively serve disadvantaged communities, particularly in contexts requiring
sustained community engagement and cultural competency.

116
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This study examined how organizational factors shaped the implementation of energy
justice principles in the San Joaquin Valley Affordable Energy Pilot Project (SJV Pilot). The
findings, detailed in Chapter 4, reveal how organizational structures, processes, and cultures
significantly influenced the achievement of distributional, procedural, and recognition justice.
Analysis of utilities, a principal community organization, and the regulatory agency involved in
the Pilot demonstrates that bureaucratic processes, resource dependencies, and cultural
competencies both enabled and constrained the pursuit of equitable outcomes in this energy
transition program targeting disadvantaged communities.
A central finding was how utilities' organizational structures and processes fundamentally
shaped the implementation of distributional justice, mostly by proving inadequate for addressing
the infrastructural needs of disadvantaged communities. This inadequacy manifested most
clearly in the systematic underestimation of necessary upgrades, with utilities discovering that
approximately 70% of participating households required transformer replacements and 87%
needed substantial remediation work (PG&E 2023; SCE 2023). These planning failures illustrate
Merton's (1940) concept of trained incapacity, where organizational competencies developed for
conventional service territories actually hindered effective program delivery in historically
underserved communities. As Participant 2 explained, utilities encountered unexpectedly high
costs for "local infrastructure that had not been on the plans to really be able to electrify full
communities." The consequences of these organizational limitations directly impacted
distributional justice outcomes, creating barriers to equitable resource allocation through project
delays, cost overruns, and ultimately, the inability to serve some eligible households due to
remediation constraints.

117
The findings revealed complex relationships between organizational capacity and
procedural justice implementation, particularly through the Energy Navigator model. While the
model demonstrated success in initial community engagement, with 90% of participants rating
Community Energy Navigators as highly trustworthy (Evergreen Economics, 2022),
organizational constraints limited its overall effectiveness. Resource dependency theory (Pfeffer
& Salancik, 1978) helps explain these limitations, as Self-Help Enterprises faced significant
organizational capacity challenges that affected program delivery. Their lack of experience in
electrification program management and inadequate administrative infrastructure led to budget
overruns and inconsistent data reporting (Evergreen Economics, 2022). These organizational
constraints became particularly evident in the transition between initial outreach and technical
implementation, where communication gaps emerged between community organizations and
utility contractors. This breakdown in organizational coordination directly impacted procedural
justice outcomes by creating disconnects in participant support and program information
delivery, highlighting how organizational capacity constraints can undermine even well-designed
community engagement strategies.
Recognition justice outcomes were significantly shaped by organizational cultures and
their capacity to respond to community needs. While implementing organizations made
procedural adaptations like providing bilingual services and flexible scheduling, deeper cultural
considerations often proved challenging. The resistance to electric stove adoption highlighted
these limitations, as program implementers initially struggled to address strong cultural
preferences for gas cooking among Latino households. However, organizational innovation
emerged through community organizations' approach to this challenge. As Participant 2
described, "The cooking demos were really helpful... Having a few champions in the community

118
who really went through this... they're the brave soul and they go through and then they're happy
and then they tell their friends and neighbors." This successful adaptation demonstrated how
organizational learning could enhance recognition justice outcomes, though such innovations
were often constrained by resource limitations and bureaucratic requirements, such as the Pilot
being able to only portionally overcome the initial remediation cap by leveraging other State
programs, as opposed to simply increasing the remediation cap (Evergreen Economics, 2022).
The findings suggest that achieving recognition justice requires organizations to develop not just
surface-level accommodations but fundamental cultural competencies that can respond
effectively to community values and practices.
The analysis of inter-organizational dynamics revealed how relationships between
implementing organizations fundamentally shaped justice outcomes. While the multi-stakeholder
implementation framework brought diverse capabilities to the Pilot, it also created significant
coordination challenges that affected program delivery. The separation between utilities,
contracted implementers, and community organizations led to communication breakdowns that
impacted participant experiences, exemplified by the "communication gap" that emerged when
applications transitioned from Community Energy Navigators to utility contractors (Southern
California Edison Company, 2023, p.8). These coordination difficulties align with research on
organizational silos (Bento et al., 2020; de Waal et al., 2019), where separate organizational units
operate in isolation despite shared objectives. The fragmentation between utilities' technical
implementation processes and community organizations' engagement approaches created
inefficiencies that ultimately affected program participants, supporting Johnson et al.'s (2012)
findings that organizational silos can impede equitable resource distribution. For instance, what
should have been single assessment visits often required "anywhere from 5 to 10 site visits" due

119
to poor coordination between implementing organizations (Participant 6, personal
communication, 2024).
Power relationships between implementing organizations significantly influenced justice
outcomes, particularly through resource dependencies identified by Pfeffer and Salancik (1978).
Utilities maintained control over technical implementation and resource allocation, while
community organizations, despite possessing crucial local knowledge, often lacked the
organizational capacity to influence program design decisions effectively. This dynamic
manifested in program implementation approaches that sometimes prioritized technical
efficiency over community needs. For example, the Community Energy Navigator Program
Manager reported that their local knowledge was underutilized, with utilities exercising
excessive control over outreach planning (Evergreen Economics, 2022). The regulatory agency's
formal procedures sometimes reinforced these power imbalances, as evidenced by initial
resistance to conducting hearings in affected communities due to administrative constraints
(Participant 3, personal communication, 2024). These organizational power dynamics directly
affected procedural justice outcomes by limiting community organizations' ability to shape
program implementation despite their deeper understanding of local needs and contexts.
Lastly, traditional utility planning processes, designed primarily for operational
efficiency, proved inadequate for addressing systemic inequities in disadvantaged communities,
supporting Merton's (1940) concept of trained incapacity in bureaucratic organizations. While
community organizations demonstrated greater adaptability in addressing cultural and social
needs, their effectiveness was constrained by resource limitations and power asymmetries. The
regulatory agency's bureaucratic structure created tensions between standardized oversight
procedures and the need for flexible, community-responsive program administration. These

120
findings extend organizational theory by revealing how institutional characteristics influence
energy justice outcomes through specific mechanisms: organizational planning processes affect
distributional justice through infrastructure assessment and resource allocation; organizational
capacity constraints shape procedural justice through community engagement capabilities; and
organizational cultures influence recognition justice through their ability to respond to
community needs and preferences. This analysis suggests that achieving energy justice requires
not just policy reform but fundamental transformation of organizational capabilities, particularly
in developing sustained capacity for community engagement and equitable resource distribution.
Practical Applications
Analysis of organizational factors shaping the San Joaquin Valley Affordable Energy
Pilot Project (SJV Pilot) reveals critical lessons for improving energy justice implementation in
disadvantaged communities. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of organizational behavior
and energy justice presented in Chapter 2, and building upon the empirical findings detailed in
Chapter 4, this section develops practical recommendations for transforming how utilities,
community organizations, and regulatory agencies approach energy transition programs. These
recommendations address the specific organizational challenges identified in the SJV Pilot—
including infrastructure planning limitations, capacity constraints, and coordination difficulties—
while maintaining focus on advancing distributional, procedural, and recognition justice
outcomes. The emphasis is on concrete, actionable changes to organizational structures,
processes, and cultures that can enhance the achievement of energy justice principles in practice.
The SJV Pilot revealed fundamental limitations in utility organizations' capacity to assess
and plan for infrastructure needs in disadvantaged communities. The finding that approximately
70% of participating households required transformer replacements and 87% needed substantial

121
remediation work (PG&E 2023; SCE 2023) demonstrates how conventional utility processes
underestimated community needs. This pattern extends Merton's (1940) concept of trained
incapacity by showing how utilities' standardized assessment procedures, impeded effective
program delivery in historically underserved areas. To address this organizational limitation,
utilities should establish dedicated infrastructure assessment units with explicit mandate and
resources for disadvantaged community projects. These units should integrate both technical
expertise and community knowledge by incorporating regular consultation with community
organizations in the planning process, establishing formal feedback mechanisms for community
input, and developing assessment metrics that account for historical patterns of underinvestment.
For example, infrastructure assessments should include comprehensive evaluation of housing
conditions, detailed documentation of existing electrical systems, and analysis of potential
remediation requirements before program implementation begins. Such assessments can and
should be done with the support of critical community partners (in this case represented by the
CENs) and may even present workforce development opportunities as support staff extend their
knowledge beyond assisting community members with program applications and enrollment.
Lastly, to ensure accountability, utilities should co-develop and establish clear performance
metrics for these assessment units that emphasize accuracy in needs evaluation in balance with
operational efficiency. It is important that both parties are abundantly clear on objectives and
goals in order to avoid contradicting perspectives and varying understandings of failures and
successes.
Resource dependency theory helps explain the capacity challenges faced by community
organizations in the SJV Pilot. Project documentation reveals that Self-Help Enterprises lacked
essential management oversight, quality-check processes, and database infrastructure necessary

122
to capture pilot participation or report information consistently (Evergreen Economics, 2022).
These organizational limitations manifested in concrete implementation challenges, such as
inadequate guidance to Community Energy Navigators regarding time allocation, leading to
budget overruns. Resource constraints also affected the organization's ability to maintain
consistent communication with participants throughout the implementation process, with the
Process Evaluation noting significant gaps in participant support after initial enrollment. To
address these structural limitations, implementing organizations should develop comprehensive
capacity-building programs that specifically target the administrative and technical requirements
of energy transition programs. This should include establishing dedicated funding streams for
organizational infrastructure development, creating structured training programs in program
management and data systems, and providing ongoing technical support throughout
implementation. For example, utilities could develop formal mentorship programs that pair their
technical staff with community organization personnel, facilitating knowledge transfer while
respecting each organization's distinct role and expertise. These capacity-building efforts must
extend beyond short-term program needs to build sustainable organizational capabilities that
support long-term community engagement in energy transitions.
Implementation challenges between utilities and contracted implementers demonstrated
how organizational silos can impede effective program delivery, aligning with research on
organizational communication theory (Putnam & Nicotera, 2008). As one utility representative
explained, 'What would normally be one site visit to do a thorough assessment ended up being
anywhere from 5 to 10 site visits' (Participant 6, personal communication, 2024). This
inefficiency reflects what Bento et al. (2020) and de Waal et al. (2019) identify as
communication breakdowns between distinct organizational units, where separate entities

123
operate in isolation despite shared program objectives. The fragmentation between utilities,
implementers, and community organizations created coordination challenges that ultimately
affected program participants, supporting Johnson et al.'s (2012) findings that organizational
silos can impede the equitable distribution of resources. To address these structural barriers,
implementing organizations must develop integrated coordination systems that facilitate
continuous information sharing and collaborative decision-making. Such systems should include
standardized protocols for transition points between organizations, shared data platforms for
tracking participant progress, and regular cross-organizational working sessions to address
implementation challenges. These efforts align with the principles of cultural competence, which
emphasize the importance of designing systems that are responsive to the cultural and social
contexts of the populations being served. By fostering a deeper understanding of cultural
differences and community-specific needs, organizations can enhance collaboration and service
delivery (Betancourt, 2003). For example, the high rate of assessment visits could be reduced
through coordinated scheduling and information sharing between Community Energy Navigators
and utility contractors, ensuring that initial assessments capture all necessary technical and social
considerations.
Organizational responses to the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate the critical role of
organizational adaptability in maintaining energy justice implementation during external
disruptions. The pandemic tested the Pilot's organizational structures and processes, revealing
both resilience and limitations in program delivery mechanisms. While Self-Help Enterprises
successfully transitioned to "a primarily phone-based outreach model because people didn't want
somebody even coming to their home" (Participant 7, personal communication, 2024), this
adaptation highlighted existing organizational constraints. The SCE 2023 Progress Report

124
documents how supply chain disruptions and permitting delays for mobile homes created
additional implementation barriers, while the Process Evaluation (Evergreen Economics, 2022)
notes that the transition to remote operations exacerbated existing communication challenges
between implementing organizations. These findings extend organizational learning theory
(Argyris & Schön, 1978) by demonstrating how organizations' capacity for adaptation under
stress depends significantly on pre-existing organizational capabilities and relationships. The
experience suggests that developing robust organizational structures—including flexible
communication systems, strong inter-organizational relationships, and adaptable implementation
processes—is crucial for maintaining energy justice outcomes during external disruptions.
Organizations must therefore build these adaptive capacities systematically rather than relying on
ad hoc responses to emergent challenges.
This Pilot also demonstrates how organizational learning and cultural adaptation can
enhance recognition justice outcomes. While initial program approaches focused primarily on
technical solutions, community organizations developed innovative responses to cultural
barriers, particularly around cooking preferences. As Participant 2 noted, 'The cooking demos
were really helpful... Having a few champions in the community who really went through this...
They're the brave soul and they go through and then they're happy and then they tell their friends
and neighbors' (personal communication, 2024). This adaptation exemplifies how organizations
can develop effective responses to cultural considerations through experiential learning and
community engagement. However, broader organizational constraints often limited the scaling of
such successful practices. To institutionalize cultural competency, organizations should establish
dedicated resources for developing and maintaining community-specific knowledge. Betancourt
et al. (2003) provide a comprehensive framework for this organizational transformation,

125
emphasizing that cultural competency must be embedded within organizational structures,
processes, and values. Drawing on their research, organizations should create formal processes
for documenting successful engagement strategies, establish systematic community feedback
mechanisms, and ensure that organizational decision-making incorporates cultural considerations
at all levels. These can be accomplished through a wide range of strategies, such as surveys or
focus groups, or through less structured avenues embedded in existing community engagement
efforts (e.g., they can hold listening sessions during community meetings organized for ongoing
portions of this effort). This aligns with Betancourt et al.'s finding that effective cultural
competency requires organizations to develop specific structural capacities, including
mechanisms for gathering and applying community knowledge, processes for adapting service
delivery to meet diverse needs, and governance structures that support culturally responsive
decision-making. The experience of Self-Help Enterprises suggests that local knowledge alone is
insufficient without corresponding organizational capacity to operationalize this understanding
effectively. Organizations must therefore develop structures that support both the acquisition and
application of cultural knowledge, moving beyond surface-level accommodations to build
fundamental capabilities for engaging with diverse community perspectives.
The organizational dynamics of the CPUC demonstrate how bureaucratic structures can
impede effective program delivery when technical requirements overshadow community needs.
For instance, the CPUC's decision to direct the PAs and PIs to rely on existing IOU supply
chains, while intended to maximize bulk-purchasing opportunities and economic efficiency,
instead resulted in increased program costs and coordination challenges (Evergreen Economics,
2022). This example illustrates Weber's (1947) theory of bureaucratic dysfunction, where formal
procedures designed for efficiency can actually hinder program effectiveness. To address this

126
tension, regulatory agencies should develop new organizational frameworks that explicitly value
and incorporate community knowledge alongside technical expertise. This could involve
restructuring decision-making processes to require community input on technical specifications,
beyond the existing regulatory proceeding environment, creating dedicated positions for
community liaisons within technical teams, and establishing formal mechanisms for
incorporating local knowledge into program design. For example, the CPUC could require that
technical requirements undergo community review and modification before implementation,
ensuring that program designs balance efficiency with accessibility – while some of this did
appear to take place throughout the development of the Pilot, it may still make sense for the
CPUC to augment such efforts and formalize them at an organizational level. Such
organizational changes would help align technical requirements with community needs while
maintaining necessary standards for program implementation.
Lastly, achieving energy justice requires fundamental transformation of organizational
capabilities rather than merely modified program designs. The findings reveal how traditional
organizational structures—from utilities' planning processes to regulatory agencies'
administrative procedures—can systematically impede the achievement of justice outcomes in
disadvantaged communities. Drawing on organizational learning theory (Argyris & Schön,
1978), successful implementation requires organizations to develop new competencies in areas
such as community-centered planning, cultural adaptation, and inter-organizational
collaboration. The Pilot's experience with the Community Energy Navigator model, despite its
implementation challenges, demonstrates the potential for innovative organizational approaches
that bridge technical expertise with community knowledge. However, sustaining such
innovations requires addressing the resource dependencies and power asymmetries identified in

127
the findings, particularly between utilities and community organizations. Organizations must
move beyond viewing justice principles as additional program requirements and instead integrate
them into their fundamental operational frameworks. This transformation demands sustained
investment in organizational capacity, reformed administrative structures, and new
accountability mechanisms that prioritize justice outcomes alongside technical and operational
efficiency.
Limitations
While this study provides valuable insights into how organizational factors shape energy
justice implementation, several methodological and contextual limitations warrant careful
consideration. The single-case study design, focusing exclusively on the San Joaquin Valley
Affordable Energy Pilot Project, enabled detailed examination of organizational dynamics but
constrains broader generalizability. The SJV Pilot's unique characteristics—including its specific
objectives, organizational participants, and regulatory environment—mean that the
organizational factors identified may manifest differently in other energy transition programs.
For instance, the challenges related to utility planning processes and community organization
capacities observed in this case could vary significantly in programs with different resource
allocations or stakeholder relationships. These constraints do not diminish the study's
contributions to understanding organizational influences on energy justice outcomes but rather
suggest the need for additional research examining these dynamics across diverse contexts and
implementation settings
This study primarily focused on organizational perspectives, drawing heavily on
interviews with utility representatives, regulatory officials, and community organization leaders.
While this approach provided valuable insights into organizational structures, processes, and

128
cultures, it did not capture the full spectrum of community experiences with the SJV Pilot.
Consequently, the findings offer a more limited understanding of how organizational actions
directly impacted individual households and community members. For example, while the study
identified challenges in program communication and responsiveness, it could not fully explore
the nuances of how these issues affected participants' daily lives or their perceptions of energy
justice. Future research should incorporate more direct engagement with program participants,
employing methods such as household surveys, ethnographic observation, and participatory
action research to obtain a closer perspective of those most directly affected.
The temporal boundaries of data collection, mostly confined to the Pilot's implementation
phase, constrained the examination of long-term organizational impacts and justice outcomes.
While the study captured important insights into the organizational dynamics that shaped initial
program delivery, it could not assess how these factors influenced sustained program
effectiveness or long-term changes in organizational behavior. For instance, the analysis of
organizational learning was limited to adaptations made during the implementation period,
without examining how these changes became institutionalized over time. Future research should
adopt longitudinal approaches, tracking organizational and community impacts beyond initial
implementation phases.
The California-specific regulatory context presents another important limitation. The SJV
Pilot operates within a unique policy environment characterized by ambitious climate goals,
strong regulatory oversight, and specific socio-economic conditions in the San Joaquin Valley.
Consequently, the organizational dynamics identified in this study may not be directly applicable
to other regulatory contexts. For example, the specific roles and responsibilities of the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in program design and oversight may differ significantly

129
from regulatory agencies in other states, countries or municipalities. Future research should
investigate how different regulatory frameworks and policy environments influence
organizational approaches to energy justice, potentially through comparative studies of energy
transition programs across different jurisdictions.
Finally, the study's focus on a pilot program, rather than a fully established initiative,
presents inherent limitations. By their nature, pilot programs are experimental and subject to
modifications during implementation. Consequently, the organizational dynamics observed in
the SJV Pilot may differ from those in more mature programs. For instance, the Pilot's emphasis
on organizational learning and adaptation may be less pronounced in established programs with
more standardized procedures. The findings related to inter-organizational coordination
challenges may also be specific to the Pilot's initial development phase. Future research should
examine organizational factors in fully implemented energy transition programs to understand
how their organizational dynamics evolve as initiatives mature and scale up. This could involve
studying programs that have moved beyond the pilot stage or analyzing organizational factors
across different phases of program development.
Future Research Directions
Results suggest several promising avenues for future research that could advance both
theoretical understanding and practical implementation of energy justice in transition programs.
Important questions remain about how organizational factors operate across different contexts
and timeframes in energy justice programs. The following broad research agenda can address
both key findings about organizational influences on justice implementation and the
methodological limitations identified in this study while maintaining theoretical connections to
organizational behavior and energy justice frameworks established in the literature.

130
One key area for future research is the relationship between organizational planning
processes and infrastructure assessment in disadvantaged communities. This study found that
utility planning approaches, The SJV Pilot revealed fundamental limitations in utility
organizations mostly focused on technical efficiency metrics, often underestimated the
infrastructure needs of communities with historical underinvestment. Future research should
investigate how utilities can develop more accurate and equitable infrastructure assessment
methodologies tailored to the unique conditions of disadvantaged communities. Such research
could draw on Merton's (1940) concept of trained incapacity to examine how utilities' established
competencies may systematically overlook critical infrastructure needs in marginalized
communities. Studies could also explore how different organizational structures within utilities
influence the accuracy and equity of infrastructure planning, particularly investigating whether
dedicated assessment units for disadvantaged communities or integrated planning teams that
include community representatives lead to more effective needs evaluation. This research
direction could advance understanding of how utilities can overcome barriers to effective
infrastructure assessment while maintaining operational efficiency.
Resource dependencies between utilities and community organizations emerged as a
significant factor shaping program implementation. Future research should investigate how these
dependencies influence organizational behavior and justice outcomes across different energy
transition contexts. Comparative studies could examine how varying levels of resource
asymmetry between utilities and community organizations affect program design,
implementation effectiveness, and the achievement of distributional, procedural, and recognition
justice. This research could draw on resource dependency theory to explore how different
resourcing models, such as direct funding of community organizations or collaborative

131
partnerships with shared resource control, impact organizational dynamics and program
outcomes. Studies could examine innovative funding mechanisms or partnership structures that
help balance power relationships while maintaining accountability. For example, research could
investigate how different models of community organization funding - whether through utilities,
regulatory agencies, or independent sources - affect their capacity to advocate for community
needs effectively. Additionally, research could explore how regulatory frameworks can be
designed to foster more equitable partnerships between utilities and community organizations,
particularly examining how oversight mechanisms and reporting requirements influence resource
allocation and program implementation decisions.
Organizational learning and cultural adaptation emerged as critical factors in achieving
recognition justice, particularly in addressing community resistance to specific technologies and
program elements. Future research should investigate how organizations develop and
institutionalize cultural competency in the context of energy transitions, moving beyond surfacelevel accommodations to build fundamental capabilities for engaging with diverse community
perspectives. Longitudinal studies could track how organizations acquire, integrate, and apply
community-specific knowledge over time, examining the impact of organizational structures,
learning processes, and leadership practices on cultural adaptation. This research could draw on
theories of organizational learning and cultural competency frameworks to identify effective
strategies for building sustained organizational capacity to recognize and respond to diverse
community needs. Of particular interest would be examining how organizations translate
successful cultural adaptations, such as the cooking demonstrations that effectively addressed
resistance to electric appliances, into systematic organizational practices that can be sustained
and replicated. Such research could help bridge the gap between organizational theory and

132
practical implementation by identifying specific mechanisms through which organizations can
develop and maintain cultural competency while meeting technical program requirements.
Inter-organizational coordination challenges significantly impacted program
implementation in the SJV Pilot. Future research should investigate how different coordination
mechanisms and governance structures influence the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder energy
transition programs. This could involve comparative studies examining how formal coordination
structures, such as joint task forces or shared data platforms, affect program delivery across
different organizational contexts. Research could also explore how network governance models
(Provan & Kenis, 2008) can be adapted to improve collaboration between utilities, community
organizations, and regulatory agencies in energy transitions. These studies could examine how
factors such as trust, communication patterns, and conflict resolution processes shape interorganizational effectiveness and ultimately influence justice outcomes.
The study's findings highlighted how power dynamics between implementing
organizations shaped justice outcomes. Future research should investigate how power
relationships influence decision-making processes, resource allocation, and program
implementation across different energy transition contexts. This could involve examining how
organizational hierarchies, formal authority structures, and informal influence networks affect
the ability of different stakeholders to shape program design and delivery. Research could draw
on theories of power in organizations (Clegg et al., 2006) to analyze how power asymmetries
between implementing organizations impact the achievement of distributional, procedural, and
recognition justice. Additionally, research could investigate how participatory governance
models (Fung, 2006) can be implemented to mitigate power imbalances and promote more
inclusive decision-making in energy transition programs.

133
The limitations of this study point to several critical directions for future research on
organizational influences in energy justice implementation. The focus on organizational
perspectives suggests the need for research that directly examines community experiences,
incorporating participatory action research methods, household surveys, and ethnographic
approaches to investigate how organizational processes and justice outcomes are perceived by
community members. This research could explore how factors such as trust, perceived fairness,
and recognition of community needs shape program participation and satisfaction, helping
identify disconnects between organizational intentions and community experiences.
The temporal and geographic boundaries of this study highlight opportunities for both
longitudinal and comparative research. Future studies should track organizational adaptation
over time, examining how implementing organizations modify their structures, processes, and
cultures in response to implementation experiences, while also investigating how these changes
become institutionalized. Comparative studies across different regulatory environments could
analyze how varying policy frameworks, funding mechanisms, and stakeholder relationships
influence organizational approaches to energy justice implementation.
Additionally, future research should investigate alternative organizational models for
energy program implementation, examining the effectiveness of community-based organizations
as lead implementers, public-private partnerships, or new organizational forms such as energy
cooperatives. These studies could analyze how different organizational structures and
governance models influence program delivery and justice outcomes, potentially identifying
innovative approaches to overcoming the organizational challenges identified in this study while
advancing both theoretical understanding and practical implementation of energy justice.

134
Conclusions
This dissertation advances understanding of how organizational characteristics
fundamentally shape the pursuit of energy justice in practice, moving beyond traditional policyfocused analyses to examine the roles of implementing organizations. It does this by illuminating
previously unexplored dimensions of energy justice implementation by analyzing how utilities,
community organizations, and regulatory agencies navigate complex demands while attempting
to serve disadvantaged communities. Rather than treating organizational factors as peripheral
considerations, this research demonstrates their central importance in determining whether
energy transition programs can effectively advance distributional, procedural, and recognition
justice. The findings contribute novel insights about the mechanisms through which
organizational characteristics - from planning processes to cultural competencies - shape both the
possibilities and limitations for achieving energy justice in practice.
One of the most striking contributions of this research lies in its demonstration of how
deeply embedded organizational practices can either facilitate or impede the achievement of
equitable outcomes in energy transitions. The Pilot's mixed success in achieving distributional
justice exposes the limitations of conventional utility planning models when applied to
historically underserved communities. These models, honed for efficiency and standardization,
proved ill-equipped to address the complex infrastructure needs and socio-economic realities of
the San Joaquin Valley. This inadequacy resulted in cost overruns, implementation delays, and
ultimately, barriers to participation for some of the most vulnerable households. This research
offers a novel perspective on the application of Merton's (1940) concept of trained incapacity,
suggesting that it is not merely individual expertise, but ingrained organizational routines and

135
standardized procedures that can systematically hinder the equitable distribution of resources and
benefits.
The study advances understanding of how procedural justice is shaped by organizational
dynamics, particularly within the context of community engagement. The Energy Navigator
model, while innovative in its intent, encountered challenges that underscore the complexities of
fostering genuine participation in disadvantaged communities. The principal community
organization in this case, despite holding extensive local knowledge and strong community
relationships, often found themselves constrained by their dependence on utility funding and the
formal requirements of the program. This dynamic supports and extends resource dependency
theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) by revealing how power imbalances between organizations
can shape the implementation of participatory processes, even when those processes are
explicitly designed to empower marginalized voices. The SJV Pilot experience demonstrates that
procedural justice requires more than simply creating opportunities for input; it demands a
fundamental rethinking of how organizations share power and decision-making authority with
the communities they serve.
In terms of recognition justice, the research provides critical insights into how
organizational cultures and capacities influence the ability to acknowledge and respond to
diverse community needs. The Pilot's efforts to provide bilingual support and tailor outreach
strategies were important steps, yet the findings reveal persistent challenges in fully
accommodating cultural preferences and addressing historical injustices. The resistance to
adopting electric stoves highlighted the limitations of purely technical solutions in the face of
deeply ingrained cultural practices, while implementation delays and communication gaps
demonstrated how organizational structures can impede effective community engagement. These

136
findings underscore the need for organizations involved in energy transitions to cultivate deeper
cultural competency, moving beyond surface-level accommodations to develop processes that
genuinely respect and integrate diverse community values. Betancourt et al.'s (2003) framework
for organizational cultural competency helps explain these dynamics, particularly their emphasis
on how organizations must develop integrated capabilities across multiple domains - from
organizational values to service delivery mechanisms - to effectively serve diverse populations.
The research suggests that achieving recognition justice requires organizations to build long-term
trust while addressing historical patterns of marginalization - objectives that cannot be achieved
through short-term programmatic interventions alone.
The findings on inter-organizational dynamics and organizational learning reveal
complex patterns in how different types of organizations adapt and collaborate in energy
transitions. While the involvement of multiple stakeholders brought diverse expertise to the SJV
Pilot, it also created significant coordination challenges rooted in fundamental differences in
organizational structures, cultures, and priorities. The tensions between utilities' focus on
technical efficiency and community organizations' emphasis on local needs exemplify how
organizational characteristics shape program implementation. The research extends
organizational learning theory by demonstrating varying capacities for adaptation - utilities
tended toward incremental adjustments rather than fundamental changes, while community
organizations showed greater flexibility but often lacked resources to sustain innovations. The
regulatory agency's position between oversight responsibilities and evolving energy policies
further complicated the development of effective learning processes. These dynamics contribute
to network governance theory by highlighting how power relationships and organizational
culture influence multi-stakeholder collaboration effectiveness in energy justice initiatives.

137
This research also provides important insights into organizational learning and adaptation
in the context of energy justice. The Pilot demonstrated that while organizations can and do
adapt their practices in response to implementation challenges, the nature and extent of this
adaptation varied. Utilities exhibited a tendency toward single-loop learning (Argyris & Schön,
1978), making incremental adjustments to existing procedures rather than fundamentally
rethinking their approaches. Community organizations, while more flexible in some respects,
often lacked the capacity to sustain and scale up successful innovations. The regulatory agency,
navigating between its oversight responsibilities and the political pressures of a rapidly evolving
energy landscape, faced challenges in fostering a learning environment that could support both
innovation and accountability.
The distinctive contribution of this study lies in its integration of organizational theory
with energy justice principles to illuminate the organizational mechanisms that shape equitable
outcomes in practice. By systematically analyzing how organizational structures influenced the
implementation of the SJV Pilot, this research offers a framework for understanding the
organizational dimensions of energy justice. The findings reveal that achieving equitable energy
transitions requires more than just well-designed policies; it demands a fundamental
transformation in how organizations operate, collaborate, and engage with communities. This
study advances the theoretical understanding of energy justice by demonstrating how
organizational factors mediate the operationalization of justice principles, extending existing
frameworks by highlighting the critical role of organizational dynamics in shaping equity
outcomes.
The practical implications extend across all dimensions of energy justice implementation.
To promote distributional justice, utilities must develop new planning models that account for

138
historical underinvestment and prioritize the needs of disadvantaged communities. This includes
creating dedicated units for community-centered infrastructure assessment and incorporating
more robust mechanisms for community input into planning processes. Procedural justice
requires a shift towards more equitable power relationships between utilities, community
organizations, and regulatory agencies, with funding models that enhance rather than constrain
community organizations' capacity to act as genuine partners in program design and
implementation. Recognition justice demands investment in cultural competency as a core
organizational capacity, involving not only multilingual services but also deeper understanding
of cultural values, historical experiences, and socio-economic vulnerabilities that shape
community needs. Organizations must create formal processes for integrating community
knowledge into program design and implementation, ensuring that cultural considerations are
central elements rather than afterthoughts in program development.
Future research should build upon these findings by examining organizational dynamics
across a wider range of energy transition programs and contexts. Comparative studies could
explore how different regulatory frameworks, funding models, and organizational structures
influence justice outcomes in diverse settings. A key area for investigation is the relationship
between organizational planning processes and infrastructure assessment in disadvantaged
communities, particularly examining how utilities can develop more accurate and equitable
methodologies tailored to communities with historical underinvestment. Research should also
examine how resource dependencies between utilities and community organizations shape
program implementation across different contexts, investigating how varying levels of resource
asymmetry affect program design and effectiveness. Additionally, longitudinal studies could
track how organizations develop and institutionalize cultural competency over time, examining

139
the impact of organizational structures, learning processes, and leadership practices on cultural
adaptation. Studies of alternative organizational models, including community-based
organizations as lead implementers or new forms such as energy cooperatives, could identify
innovative approaches to overcoming the organizational challenges identified in this research.
Ultimately, this study underscores the imperative to fundamentally rethink how
organizations involved in energy transitions operate as society pursues ambitious climate goals.
Achieving energy justice requires a shift from traditional, efficiency-driven models to more
holistic, equity-centered approaches that prioritize the needs and voices of disadvantaged
communities. This involves developing new organizational capacities for adaptive planning,
collaborative governance, and cultural responsiveness, while challenging existing power
structures and bureaucratic norms. As the urgency to address climate change grows, ensuring
that energy transitions promote both sustainability and justice will require transforming the
organizational structures and practices that shape our energy future. This research offers both a
critical framework for examining these challenges and a roadmap for navigating the complexities
of creating a more equitable and sustainable energy system for all communities. The findings
demonstrate that advancing energy justice depends not just on policy reform but on fundamental
changes to how organizations understand and operationalize equity in their daily practices and
long-term planning.

140
REFERENCES
Aarons, G. A., Fettes, D. L., Flores, L. E., & Sommerfeld, D. H. (2009). Evidence-based practice
implementation and staff emotional exhaustion in children’s services. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 47(11), 954–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.07.006
ACEE. (2020). How High Are Household Energy Burdens? An Assessment of National and
Metropolitan Energy Burdens across the U.S. | ACEEE. American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy. https://www.aceee.org/research-report/u2006
ACEE. (2022). Report: Despite Progress, Low-Income Households Underserved by Utilities’
Efficiency Programs | ACEEE. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
https://www.aceee.org/press-release/2022/11/report-despite-progress-low-incomehouseholds-underserved-utilities
Agüero, J. R., & Khodaei, A. (2015). Roadmaps for the utility of the future. The Electricity
Journal, 28(10), 7–17.
Aitken, M., Haggett, C., & Rudolph, D. (2016). Practices and rationales of community engagement
with wind farms: Awareness raising, consultation, empowerment. Planning Theory &
Practice, 17(4), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1218919
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2024). Critical Management Studies (1–4).
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446261279
Anderson, F., Chirba-Martin, M. A., Elliott, E. D., Farina, C., Gellhorn, E., Graham, J. D., Gray,
C. B., Holmstead, J., Levin, R. M., Noah, L., Rhyne, K., & Wiener, J. B. (2000).
Regulatory Improvement Legislation: Risk Assessment, Cost-Benefit Analysis, and
Judicial Review. Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, 11, 89.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Argyris, C. (1973). Personality and Organization Theory Revisited. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 18(2), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392060
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Ayala, E., Hage, S., & Wilcox, M. (2011). Social Justice Theory (pp. 2794–2801).
Ayyub, B. M., Sawaya, R., Butry, D. T., Helgeson, J., Oum, Y., & Loh, V. (2024). Risk Tolerance,
Aversion, and Economics of Energy Utilities in Community Resilience to Wildfires. ASCEASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering,
10(2), 04024020.

141
Baker, S. E., & Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enoug? National Centre
for Research Methods Review Paper.
Baker, S. H. (2019). Anti-Resilience: A Roadmap for Transformational Justice within the Energy
System. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 54(1), 1–48.
Baldwin, E. (2020). Why and how does participatory governance affect policy outcomes? Theory
and evidence from the electric sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 30(3), 365–382.
Balla, S. J. (2011). Institutional Design and the Management of Regulatory Governance
[Chapters]. Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/elgeechap/13210_5f5.htm
Bansal, A., Dean, C., Kahn, E., Sanchez, D. R., & Hernández, D. (2024). Shady solar:
Understanding barriers and facilitators to residential solar adoption for low- and moderateincome homeowners in New York City. Frontiers in Energy Research, 12.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2024.1293291
Barbose, G., Darghouth, N., Hoen, B., & Wiser, R. (2018). Income Trends of Residential PV
Adopters. 37.
Barbose, G. L. (2024). One Year In: Tracking the Impacts of NEM 3.0 on California’s Residential
Solar Market. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4st8v7j0
Basseches, J. A. (2024). Who pays for environmental policy? Business power and the design of
state-level climate policies. Politics & Society, 52(3), 409–451.
Basseches, J. A., Rubinstein, K., & Kulaga, S. M. (2021). Coalitions that Clash: California’s
Climate Leadership and the Perpetuation of Environmental Inequality. In The Politics of
Inequality (pp. 23–44). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and
Implementation for Novice Researchers. Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
Beecher, J. A. (2013). What matters to performance? Structural and institutional dimensions of
water utility governance. International Review of Applied Economics, 27(2), 150–173.
Bento, F., Tagliabue, M., & Lorenzo, F. (2020). Organizational silos: A scoping review informed
by a behavioral perspective on systems and networks. Societies, 10(3), 56.
Bernecker, A., Klier, J., Stern, S., & Thiel, L. (2018). Sustaining high performance beyond publicsector pilot projects. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved April, 26, 2020.
Bery, S., Gunn, W., Mahieu, A., McLaughlin, M., Snider, M., & Vargas-Weil, D. (2024).
Comparative Analysis of US Community Solar Initiatives: Recommendations for the City of
Detroit.

142
Betancourt, J. R., Green, A. R., Carrillo, J. E., & Ananeh-Firempong, O. (2003). Defining Cultural
Competence: A Practical Framework for Addressing Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health
and Health Care. Public Health Reports®, 118(4), 293–302.
https://doi.org/10.1093/phr/118.4.293
Black, A. J. (2004). Financial payback on California residential solar electric systems. Solar
Energy, 77(4), 381–388.
Blondell, M., Kasliwal, A., Noe, D., & Watson, O. (2020). California: Landscape of Renewable
Energy Policy.
Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Introduction: Expert interviews—An introduction to a
new methodological debate. In Interviewing experts (pp. 1–13). Springer.
Bondi, B., & Horowitz, L. S. (2024). Scope-shifting: Bureaucracy, Energy Justice and the Dakota
Access Pipeline. Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space (Print), 7(2), 742–764.
https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486231192096
Borenstein, S. (2015). The Private Net Benefits of Residential Solar PV: The Role of Electricity
Tariffs, Tax Incentives and Rebates (w21342; p. w21342). National Bureau of Economic
Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w21342
Borenstein, S., & Bushnell, J. (2015). The US Electricity Industry After 20 Years of Restructuring.
Annual Review of Economics, 7(Volume 7, 2015), 437–463.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115630
Boudet, H., Zanocco, C., Stelmach, G., Muttaqee, M., & Flora, J. (2021). Public preferences for
five electricity grid decarbonization policies in California. Review of Policy Research,
38(5), 510–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12442
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bozeman, B., & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk Culture in Public and Private Organizations. Public
Administration Review, 58(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/976358
Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (1993). Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for crosscultural training programs. Sage Publications.
Brown, M. A., Soni, A., Lapsa, M. V., Southworth, K., & Cox, M. (2020). High energy burden and
low-income energy affordability: Conclusions from a literature review. Progress in Energy,
2(4), 042003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2516-1083/abb954
Bulkeley, H., Carmin, J., Castán Broto, V., Edwards, G. A. S., & Fuller, S. (2013). Climate justice
and global cities: Mapping the emerging discourses. Global Environmental Change, 23(5),
914–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.010

143
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1996). The Organization of Innovation. In Knowledge Management
and Organisational Design. Routledge.
California Public Utilities Commission. (2014, August). A Brief History of the California Public
Utilities Commission. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpucwebsite/files/uploadedfiles/cpuc_public_website/content/about_us/history/abriefhistoryofth
ecaliforniapublicutilitiescommission8152014final.pdf
California Public Utilities Commission. (2017). Decision 17-05-014: Adopting Methodology for
Identification of Communities Eligible Under Section 783.5 and Providing Guidance on
Economic Feasibility Study to Be Completed in Phase II. California Public Utilities
Commission.
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M187/K072/187072828.pdf
California Public Utilities Commission. (2018a). Decision 18-08-019: Approving Data Gathering
Plan in San Joaquin Valley Disadvantaged Communities and Adding Nine Communities to
This List. California Public Utilities Commission. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov
California Public Utilities Commission. (2018b). Decision 18-12-015: Approving San Joaquin
Valley Disadvantaged Communities Pilot Projects. California Public Utilities Commission.
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M252/K522/252522682.PDF
California Public Utilities Commission. (2019). Decision 19-08-009: Addressing Fuel Substitution
in Energy Efficiency Programs. California Public Utilities Commission.
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M310/K159/310159146.PDF
California State Legislature. (2014). Assembly Bill No. 2672 (AB 2672).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2672
California State Legislature. (2018a). Assembly Bill No. 3232: Zero-emissions buildings and
sources of heat energy.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB3232
California State Legislature. (2018b). Senate Bill No. 1477: Low-emissions buildings and sources
of heat energy.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1477
Cameron, E., Shine, T., & Bevins, W. (n.d.). Climate Justice: Equity and justice informing a new
climate agreement. Climate Justice, 28.
Canepa, K., Hardman, S., & Tal, G. (2019). An early look at plug-in electric vehicle adoption in
disadvantaged communities in California. Transport Policy, 78, 19–30.
Carley, S., & Konisky, D. M. (2020). The justice and equity implications of the clean energy
transition. Nature Energy, 5(8), 569–577. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6
Carpenter, D. (2010). Confidence games: How does regulation constitute markets? Government
and Markets: Toward a New Theory of Regulation, 164, 170.

144
Carrigan, C., & Poole, L. (2015). Structuring Regulators: The Effects of Organizational Design on
Regulatory Behavior and Performance.
Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case studies
from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), 291–323.
Chau, K. T., Jiang, C., Han, W., & Lee, C. H. T. (2017). State-of-the-Art Electromagnetics
Research in Electric and Hybrid Vehicles. Progress In Electromagnetics Research, 159, 19.
Choptiany, L. (1973). A critique of John Rawls’s principles of justice. Ethics, 83(2), 146–150.
Christensen, J. G., & Opstrup, N. (2018). Bureaucratic dilemmas: Civil servants between political
responsiveness and normative constraints. Governance, 31(3), 481–498.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12312
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. X. (2006). Power and Organizations (1st ed.). SAGE
Publications, Limited. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446215715
Cong, S., Nock, D., Qiu, Y. L., & Xing, B. (2022). Unveiling hidden energy poverty using the
energy equity gap. Nature Communications, 13(1), 2456. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-
022-30146-5
Connolly, R., Coffee, D., & Pierce, G. (2024). An analysis of California electric vehicle incentive
distribution and vehicle registration rates since 2015. Is California achieving an equitable
clean vehicle transition? https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7ht4t1km
Cooper, J. C., & Kovacic, W. E. (2012). Behavioral economics: Implications for regulatory
behavior. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 41(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-
011-9180-1
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among
Five Approaches. SAGE Publications.
Cyert, R., & March, J. (2015). Behavioral theory of the firm. In Organizational Behavior 2 (pp.
60–77). Routledge.
de Waal, A., Weaver, M., Day, T., & van der Heijden, B. (2019). Silo-Busting: Overcoming the
Greatest Threat to Organizational Performance. Sustainability, 11(23), Article 23.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236860
Deason, J., & Borgeson, M. (2019). Electrification of Buildings: Potential, Challenges, and
Outlook. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, 6(4), 131–139.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-019-00143-2
Delgado, Stefancic, & Harris. (2017). Critical Race Theory (Third Edition). NYU Press.

145
DeShazo, J. R., Sheldon, T. L., & Carson, R. T. (2017). Designing policy incentives for cleaner
technologies: Lessons from California’s plug-in electric vehicle rebate program. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management, 84, 18–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2017.01.002
Devine-Wright, P., Batel, S., Aas, O., Sovacool, B., Labelle, M. C., & Ruud, A. (2017). A
conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure:
Insights from energy storage. Energy Policy, 107, 27–31.
DiMaggio, P. J., Powell, W. W., & others. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review, 48(2), 147–160.
DiQuattro, A. (1986). Rawls versus Hayek. Political Theory, 14(2), 307–310.
Dogan, E., Madaleno, M., Inglesi-Lotz, R., & Taskin, D. (2022). Race and energy poverty:
Evidence from African-American households. Energy Economics, 108, 105908.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105908
Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational
behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 245–260.
Drehobl, A., Ross, L., & Ayala, R. (2020). How high are household energy burdens. An
Assessment of National and Metropolitan Energy Burdens across the US.
Dunlap, A., & Tornel, C. (2023). Pluralizing energy justice? Towards cultivating an unruly,
autonomous and insurrectionary research agenda. Energy Research & Social Science, 103,
103217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103217
Dworkin, M., Farnsworth, D., & Rich, J. (2000). The Environmental Duties of Public Utilities
Commissions. Pace Envtl. L. Rev., 18, 325.
Egbue, O., & Long, S. (2012). Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: An analysis of
consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy, 48, 717–729.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.71.3.500
Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational Capacity and Organizational Effectiveness among Street-Level
Food Assistance Programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 115–130.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764002311005
Elmallah, S., Reames, T. G., & Spurlock, C. A. (2022). Frontlining energy justice: Visioning
principles for energy transitions from community-based organizations in the United States.
Energy Research & Social Science, 94, 102855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102855

146
Energy Equity Project. (2022). Energy Equity Framework: Combining data and qualitative
approaches to ensure equity in the energy transition. University of Michigan – School for
Environment and Sustainability (SEAS).
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., Alkassim, R. S., & others. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling
and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.
Ettelt, S., & Mays, N. (2019). Policy Pilots as Public Sector Projects: The Projectification of Policy
and Research. In The Projectification of the Public Sector. Routledge.
European Commission. (2019). Clean energy for all Europeans package.
https://commission.europa.eu/news/clean-energy-all-europeans-package-completed-goodconsumers-good-growth-and-jobs-and-good-planet-2019-05-22_en
Evergreen Economics. (2022). San Joaquin Valley disadvantaged communities pilot projects:
Process evaluation final report.
https://pda.energydataweb.com/api/view/2432/SJV%20DAC%20Final%20Research%20Pl
an%20101220.pdf
Farnham, D., & Horton, S. (1996). Public Service Managerialism: A Review and Evaluation. In D.
Farnham & S. Horton (Eds.), Managing the New Public Services (pp. 259–276). Macmillan
Education UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24723-3_13
Farrell, C. (2012). A Just Transition: Lessons Learned from the Environmental Justice Movement.
4, 19.
Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons. London
(Translated by Constance Storrs).
Fenwick, T., Seville, E., & Brunsdon, D. (2009). Reducing the impact of organisational silos on
resilience: A report on the impact of silos on resilience and how the impacts might be
reduced.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid
approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal
of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.
Flick, U. (2021). Doing interview research: The essential how to guide.
Fouquet, R. (2016a). Historical energy transitions: Speed, prices and system transformation.
Energy Research & Social Science, 22, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.014
Fouquet, R. (2016b). Path dependence in energy systems and economic development. Nature
Energy, 1(8), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.98
Fournier, E. D., Cudd, R., Federico, F., & Pincetl, S. (2020). On energy sufficiency and the need
for new policies to combat growing inequities in the residential energy sector. Elem Sci
Anth, 8(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.419

147
Fowlie, M. (2010). Emissions trading, electricity restructuring, and investment in pollution
abatement. American Economic Review, 100(3), 837–869.
Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New Left Review, 3, 107.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192675
Fuller, S., & McCauley, D. (2016). Framing energy justice: Perspectives from activism and
advocacy. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 1–8.
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration
Review, 66(s1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
Furlong, S. R., & Kerwin, C. M. (2005). Interest Group Participation in Rule Making: A Decade of
Change. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 353–370.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui022
Galvin, R. (2020). Economic inequality, energy justice and the meaning of life☆. In R. Galvin
(Ed.), Inequality and Energy (pp. 75–96). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
12-817674-0.00004-7
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). The Short List: The Most Effective Actions U.S.
Households Can Take to Curb Climate Change. Environment: Science and Policy for
Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.5.12-25
Garud, R., Dunbar, R. L. M., & Bartel, C. A. (2011). Dealing with Unusual Experiences: A
Narrative Perspective on Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 22(3), 587–601.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0536
Gavetti, G., Greve, H. R., Levinthal, D. A., & Ocasio, W. (2012). The Behavioral Theory of the
Firm: Assessment and Prospects. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 1–40.
https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.656841
Glickman, N. J., & Servon, L. J. (2012). More than bricks and sticks. The Community
Development Reader, 54–69.
Gore, R. (2023). Policy by Pilot? Learning From Demonstration Projects for Integrated Care:
Comment on" Integration or Fragmentation of Health Care? Examining Policies and
Politics in a Belgian Case Study". International Journal of Health Policy and Management,
12.
Green, S. D. (1999). The missing arguments of lean construction. Construction Management &
Economics, 17(2), 133–137.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment
with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.

148
Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (2004). Papers on the Science of Administration. Routledge.
Guo, S., & Kontou, E. (2021). Disparities and equity issues in electric vehicles rebate allocation.
Energy Policy, 154, 112291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112291
Hannan, M., Polos, L., & Carroll, G. (2002). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change
Revisited III: The Evolution of Organizational Inertia.
Hanretty, C., & Koop, C. (2009). Comparing Regulatory Agencies. Report on the results of a
worldwide survey [Working Paper]. https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/12877
Hanretty, C., & Koop, C. (2013). Shall the law set them free? The formal and actual independence
of regulatory agencies. Regulation & Governance, 7(2), 195–214.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01156.x
Hardman, S., Shiu, E., & Steinberger-Wilckens, R. (2016). Comparing high-end and low-end early
adopters of battery electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
88, 40–57.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources, Knowledge and Influence: The
Organizational Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration. Journal of Management
Studies, 40(2), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00342
Hart, O., Wachtel, A., Sorge, M., McCombs, A., Brockway, A., & Chwierut, A. (2024).
Integration of equitable resilience metrics into climate-informed electric utility planning
processes: Phase one. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Albuquerque, NM, and
Livermore, CA ….
Hausman, W. J., & Neufeld, J. L. (2004). The economics of electricity networks and the evolution
of the US Electric Utility Industry, 1882-1935. Business and Economic History On-Line,
2(26), 208.
Hayek, F. A. (1976). The Mirage of Social Justice. Vol. 2 of Law, Legislation, and Liberty.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Healy, N., & Barry, J. (2017). Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil fuel
divestment and a “just transition.” Energy Policy, 108, 451–459.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.014
Heffron, R. J. (2018). The Just Transition To a Low-Carbon Economy. 8(4), 4.
Heffron, R. J., & McCauley, D. (2018). What is the ‘just transition’? Geoforum, 88, 74–77.
Hennessy, E. M., & Syal, S. M. (2023). Assessing justice in California’s transition to electric
vehicles. iScience, 26(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.106856
Hernández, D. (2015). Sacrifice Along the Energy Continuum: A Call for Energy Justice.
Environmental Justice, 8(4), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2015.0015

149
Herzog, C., Handke, C., & Hitters, E. (2019). Analyzing Talk and Text II: Thematic Analysis (p.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3068081).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_22
Hess, D. J. (2019). Coalitions, framing, and the politics of energy transitions: Local democracy and
community choice in California. Energy Research & Social Science, 50, 38–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.013
Homer, J. S., Cooke, A. L., Kazimierczuk, K., Tapio, R. M., Peacock, J., & King, A. G. (2023).
Emerging Best Practices for Electric Utility Planning with Climate Variability: A Resource
for Utilities and Regulators (PNNL-34304). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL), Richland, WA (United States). https://doi.org/10.2172/1985294
Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
Hoppe, T., & de Vries, G. (2019). Social Innovation and the Energy Transition. Sustainability,
11(1), 141-. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010141
Hunt, P. (2008). Entry–Exit transmission pricing with Notional Hubs: Can it deliver a panEuropean wholesale market in gas? Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
Hvidman, U., & Andersen, S. C. (2014). Impact of Performance Management in Public and Private
Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 35–58.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut019
Ingram, T., Wieczorek-Kosmala, M., & Hlaváček, K. (2023). Organizational Resilience as a
Response to the Energy Crisis: Systematic Literature Review. Energies, 16(2), Article 2.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en16020702
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406
Jenkins, K. E. H., Stephens, J. C., Reames, T. G., & Hernández, D. (2020). Towards impactful
energy justice research: Transforming the power of academic engagement. Energy
Research & Social Science, 67, 101510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101510
Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H., & Rehner, R. (2016). Energy justice: A
conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 174–182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.10.004
Jenkins, K., Sovacool, B. K., & McCauley, D. (2018). Humanizing sociotechnical transitions
through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change. Energy
Policy, 117, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.02.036

150
Jensen, C., Johansson, S., & Löfström, M. (2013). The project organization as a policy tool in
implementing welfare reforms in the public sector. The International Journal of Health
Planning and Management, 28(1), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2120
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1979). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency
Costs, and Ownership Structure. In K. Brunner (Ed.), Economics Social Institutions:
Insights from the Conferences on Analysis & Ideology (pp. 163–231). Springer
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9257-3_8
Joffe, H. (2011). Thematic analysis. Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health and
Psychotherapy: A Guide for Students and Practitioners, 209–223.
Johnson, D., Chung, P., Schroeder, J., & Meyers, J. (2012). Bridging Silos, Improving Systems.
The Foundation Review, 4(2), 84-97,11.
Jones, D. N. (2006). Agency transformation and state public utility commissions. Utilities Policy,
14(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2005.01.004
Joskow, P. L. (2000). Deregulating and regulatory reform in the US electric power sector.
Joskow, P. L. (2007). Chapter 16 Regulation of Natural Monopoly. In A. M. Polinsky & S. Shavell
(Eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics (Vol. 2, pp. 1227–1348). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0730(07)02016-6
Joskow, P. L. (2014). Incentive regulation in theory and practice: Electricity distribution and
transmission networks. Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?,
291–344.
Joskow, P. L., & Schmalensee, R. (1983). Markets for power: An analysis of electric utility
deregulation.
Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Social justice: History, theory, and research.
Kahn, E. (1988). Structural evolution of the electric utility industry.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2012). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. In
Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making: Vol. Volume 4 (pp. 99–
127). WORLD SCIENTIFIC. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814417358_0006
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological
review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965.
Kalpokaite, N., & Radivojevic, I. (2019). Demystifying qualitative data analysis for novice
qualitative researchers. The Qualitative Report, 24(13), 44–57.
Katz, D. (with Kahn, R. L.). (1966). The social psychology of organizations. Wiley.

151
Kirshner, J., Winkler, F., Fellmeth, R., & Gramme, B. F. (2017). Public Utilities Commission.
California Regulatory Law Reporter, 23(1), 181–213.
Klass, A. B., Macey, J., Welton, S., & Wiseman, H. J. (2024). The Key to Electric Grid Reliability:
Modernizing Governance. Kleinman Center for Energy Policy.
Klass, A., Macey, J., Welton, S., & Wiseman, H. (2022). Grid Reliability Through Clean Energy.
Stan. L. Rev., 74, 969.
Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading Change: Why transformation efforts fail. In Museum Management
and Marketing. Routledge.
Kovvali, A., & Macey, J. C. (2023). The Corporate Governance of Public Utilities. Yale J. on Reg.,
40, 569.
Kwoka Jr, J. E. (2007). Power structure: Ownership, integration, and competition in the US
electricity industry. Springer Science & Business Media.
Lacey-Barnacle, M. (2020). Proximities of energy justice: Contesting community energy and
austerity in England. Energy Research & Social Science, 69, 101713.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101713
LADWP. (2024). LA100 Equity Strategies. https://www.ladwp.com/strategic-initiatives/cleanenergy-future/la100-equity-strategies
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex
Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391211
Lee, J. H., Hardman, S. J., & Tal, G. (2019). Who is buying electric vehicles in California?
Characterising early adopter heterogeneity and forecasting market diffusion. Energy
Research & Social Science, 55, 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.011
Lee, J.-A. (2022). On the Road Again: The Policies, Promises, and Potential for Transportation
Electrification. Texas Environmental Law Journal, 52, 23.
Leroux, K. (2007). Nonprofits as Civic Intermediaries: The Role of Community-Based
Organizations in Promoting Political Participation. Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), 410–422.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087406292257
Leslie, D., & Catungal, J. P. (2012). Social justice and the creative city: Class, gender and racial
inequalities. Geography Compass, 6(3), 111–122.
Levine, J. R. (2016). The privatization of political representation: Community-based organizations
as nonelected neighborhood representatives. American Sociological Review, 81(6), 1251–
1275.

152
Lewin, K. (with University of Michigan Research Center for Group Dynamics). (1975). Field
theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Greenwood Press.
Lim, W. M. (2024). What Is Qualitative Research? An Overview and Guidelines. Australasian
Marketing Journal, 14413582241264619. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1988). Criteria for Assessing Naturalistic Inquiries as Reports.
Lindblom, C. (2001). The Science of “Muddling Through.” In Classic Readings in Urban
Planning. Routledge.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy, 30th Anniversary Edition: Dilemmas of the
Individual in Public Service. Russell Sage Foundation.
Lukanov, B. R., & Krieger, E. M. (2019). Distributed solar and environmental justice: Exploring
the demographic and socio-economic trends of residential PV adoption in California.
Energy Policy, 134, 110935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110935
Mackieson, P., Shlonsky, A., & Connolly, M. (2019). Increasing rigor and reducing bias in
qualitative research: A document analysis of parliamentary debates using applied thematic
analysis. Qualitative Social Work, 18(6), 965–980.
Maggetti, M. (2010, January 1). Legitimacy and Accountability of Independent Regulatory
Agencies: A Critical Review. | EBSCOhost.
https://openurl.ebsco.com/contentitem/gcd:77462162?sid=ebsco:plink:crawler&id=ebsco:g
cd:77462162
Mahone, A., Li, C., Subin, Z., Sontag, M., Mantegna, G., Karolides, A., German, A., & Morris, P.
(2019). Residenital Building Electrification in California: Consumer economics,
greenhouse gases and grid impacts. Greenhouse Gases, 167.
Malterud, K., Siersma, V., & Guassora, A. D. (2021). Information power: Sample content and size
in qualitative studies. In Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in
methodology and design, 2nd ed (pp. 67–81). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0000252-004
Maslow, A. H. (1943a). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Maslow, A. H. (1943b). Preface to Motivation Theory. Psychosomatic Medicine, 5(1), 85.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational
Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
McCauley, D. A., Heffron, R. J., Stephan, H., & Jenkins, K. (2013). Advancing energy justice: The
triumvirate of tenets. International Energy Law Review, 32(3), 107–110.

153
McCauley, D., & Heffron, R. (2018). Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and
environmental justice. Energy Policy, 119, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.014
McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative Procedures as
Instruments of Political Control. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3(2),
243–277. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036930
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.
McNabb, D. E. (2005). Public utilities: Management challenges for the 21st century. Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole Jr, L. J. (2006). Political Control versus Bureaucratic Values: Reframing
the Debate. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2006.00571.x
Memmott, T., Carley, S., Graff, M., & Konisky, D. M. (2021). Sociodemographic disparities in
energy insecurity among low-income households before and during the COVID-19
pandemic. Nature Energy, 6(2), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00763-9
Mertins-Kirkwood, H. (2018). Making decarbonization work for workers. Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives.
Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. Social Forces, 18(4), 560–568.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2570634
Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2009). The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. In
Interviewing experts (pp. 17–42). Springer.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and
Ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Meyer, L. H., & Sanklecha, P. (2016). Philosophy of justice: Extending liberal justice in space and
time. In Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 15–35). Springer.
Milchram, C., Märker, C., Schlör, H., Künneke, R., & van de Kaa, G. (2019). Understanding the
role of values in institutional change: The case of the energy transition. Energy,
Sustainability and Society, 9(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-019-0235-y
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1994). Complementarities and Systems: Understanding Japanese
Economic Organization. Estudios Económicos, 9(1 (17)), 3–42.
Minkler, M., Vásquez, V. B., Tajik, M., & Petersen, D. (2008). Promoting Environmental Justice
Through Community-Based Participatory Research: The Role of Community and
Partnership Capacity. Health Education & Behavior, 35(1), 119–137.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106287692

154
Morgan, G. (2011). Reflections on Images of Organization and Its Implications for Organization
and Environment. Organization & Environment, 24(4), 459–478.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026611434274
Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a Qualitative Document Analysis. Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64–
77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044
Muhamad, J. W., Harrison, T. R., & Yang, F. (2019). Organizational Communication: Theory and
Practice. In An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research (3rd ed.).
Routledge.
Mullen, N. A., Li, J., Russell, M. L., Spears, M., Less, B. D., & Singer, B. C. (2016). Results of the
California Healthy Homes Indoor Air Quality Study of 2011–2013: Impact of natural gas
appliances on air pollutant concentrations. Indoor Air, 26(2), 231–245.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12190
Murphy, J. W., & Murphy, J. W. (2014). Community-based organizations. Community-Based
Interventions: Philosophy and Action, 47–62.
Murphy, L. B. (2003). Moral demands in nonideal theory. Oxford University Press.
Nadel, S. (2019). Electrification in the Transportation, Buildings, and Industrial Sectors: A Review
of Opportunities, Barriers, and Policies. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports,
6(4), 158–168.
Newbery, D. M. (1999). Privatization, restructuring, and regulation of network utilities (Vol. 2).
MIT press.
Newell, P., & Mulvaney, D. (2013). The political economy of the ‘just transition’: The political
economy of the ‘just transition.’ The Geographical Journal, 179(2), 132–140.
https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12008
Niswander, G., & Xydis, G. (2023). California’s electric grid nexus with the environment.
International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, 0.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to
meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1),
1609406917733847.
Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative
research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327–344.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia (Vol. 5038). New York: Basic Books.
Onyett, S. (2003). Teamworking in mental health. Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature.
Opinion Dynamics. (2021). San Joaquin Valley Disadvantaged Communities Data Gathering
Findings Report (Volume 1). Opinion Dynamics. https://www.opiniondynamics.com

155
Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing
Scholarship, 33(1), 93–96.
Ose, S. O. (2016). Using Excel and Word to structure qualitative data. Journal of Applied Social
Science, 10(2), 147–162.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company. (2022). 2022 Annual Report of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (U 39 M) on San Joaquin Valley Disadvantaged Communities Pilot Program.
California Public Utilities Commission.
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M500/K050/500050133.PDF
Pacific Gas and Electric Company. (2023). 2023 Annual Report of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (U 39 M) on San Joaquin Valley Disadvantaged Communities Pilot Program.
California Public Utilities Commission.
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M521/K572/521572762.PDF
Pastor Jr., M., Morello-Frosch, R., & Sadd, J. L. (2005). The Air Is Always Cleaner on the Other
Side: Race, Space, and Ambient Air Toxics Exposures in California. Journal of Urban
Affairs, 27(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00228.x
Pastor, M. (2018). State of resistance: What California’s dizzying descent and remarkable
resurgence mean for America’s future. The New Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice.
Sage publications.
Pearse, N. (2019). An illustration of deductive analysis in qualitative research. 18th European
conference on research methodology for business and management studies.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
Pogge, T. W., & Pogge, T. (2007). John Rawls: His life and theory of justice. Oxford University
Press on Demand.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington
are dashed in Oakland; Or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being
a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers
who seek to build morals on a foundation (Vol. 708). Univ of California Press.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and
Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015
Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (Eds.). (2008). Building Theories of Organization: The
Constitutive Role of Communication. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891025

156
Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. H. (1976). Comparing public and private
organizations. Public Administration Review, 36(2), 233–244.
Rawls, J. (1971). 1999. A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press.
Reames, T. G. (2016). Targeting energy justice: Exploring spatial, racial/ethnic and socioeconomic
disparities in urban residential heating energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 97, 549–558.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.048
Reames, T. G. (2020). Distributional disparities in residential rooftop solar potential and
penetration in four cities in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 69,
101612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101612
Ring, P. S., & Perry, J. L. (1985). Strategic Management in Public and Private Organizations:
Implications of Distinctive Contexts and Constraints1. Academy of Management Review.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4278197
Roethlisberger, F. J. (1941). The hawthorne experiments. Classics of Organization Theory, 6, 158–
166.
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.
Rubin, D., & St-Louis, E. (2016). Evaluating the Economic and Social Implications of
Participation in Clean Vehicle Rebate Programs: Who’s In, Who’s Out? Transportation
Research Record, 2598(1), 67–74.
Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Söderholm, A. (2002). Beyond project management: New perspectives on
the temporary-permanent dilemma. Liber.
Salamon, L. M., Hems, L. C., & Chinnock, K. (2000). The nonprofit sector: For what and for
whom? (Vol. 37).
Saldana, J. (2014). Thinking qualitatively: Methods of mind. SAGE publications.
Saxton, G. D. (2005). The Participatory Revolution in Nonprofit Management. 34, 34–39.
Scavo, J., Korosec, S., Guerrero, E., Pennington, B., & Doughman, P. (2016). Low-Income
Barriers Study, Part A: Overcoming Barriers to Energy Efficiency and Renewables for
Low-Income Customers and Small Business Contracting Opportunities in Disadvantaged
Communities. California Energy Commission.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2016/low-income-barriers-study-part-overcomingbarriers-energy-efficiency-and
Schein, E. H. (1971). The individual, the organization, and the career: A conceptual scheme. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(4), 401–426.

157
Schildberg-Hörisch, H. (2010). Is the veil of ignorance only a concept about risk? An experiment.
Journal of Public Economics, 94(11–12), 1062–1066.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.06.021
Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political
theories. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 517–540.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229025
Schlosberg, D., & Collins, L. B. (2014). From environmental to climate justice: Climate change
and the discourse of environmental justice: Climate change and the discourse of
environmental justice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 359–374.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.275
Schmidt-Costa, J. R., Uriona-Maldonado, M., & Possamai, O. (2019). Product-service systems in
solar PV deployment programs: What can we learn from the California Solar Initiative?
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140, 145–157.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1996). Organizational Trust: Philosophical
Perspectives and Conceptual Definitions. The Academy of Management Review, 21(2),
337–340.
Schwarz, M., Nakhle, C., & Knoeri, C. (2020). Innovative designs of building energy codes for
building decarbonization and their implementation challenges. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 248, 119260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119260
Seals, B. A., & Krasner, A. (2020). Health Effects From Gas Stove Pollution.
Self-Help Enterprises. (2022, April). Heat pump programs and implementation: San Joaquin
Valley disadvantaged communities pilot projects. California Energy Commission.
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=242592
Selznick, P. (1984). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. University of
California Press.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
Doubleday/Currency.
Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of
Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions. Environment
and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(3), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1068/c10222
Shaw, L., Grose, J., Kustra, E., Goff, L., Ellis, D., & Borin, P. (2021). Cultivating an Institutional
Culture that Values Teaching: Developing a Repository of Effective Practices. To Improve
the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad/555
Sheikh, I. A. (2017). Decarbonization of residential space and water heating in California.
University of California, Berkeley.

158
Sheldon, T. L., & DeShazo, J. R. (2017). How does the presence of HOV lanes affect plug-in
electric vehicle adoption in California? A generalized propensity score approach. Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management, 85, 146–170.
Sheldon, T. L., & Dua, R. (2019). Assessing the effectiveness of California’s “Replace Your
Ride.” Energy Policy, 132, 318–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.023
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75.
Sheshinski, E., & López-Calva, L. F. (2003). Privatization and Its Benefits: Theory and Evidence.
CESifo Economic Studies, 49(3), 429–459. https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/49.3.429
Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with Case Studies. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1),
20–24.
Silvia, C., & Krause, R. M. (2016). Assessing the impact of policy interventions on the adoption of
plug-in electric vehicles: An agent-based model. Energy Policy, 96, 105–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.039
Simcock, N. (2016). Procedural justice and the implementation of community wind energy
projects: A case study from South Yorkshire, UK. Land Use Policy, 59, 467–477.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.034
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review,
63(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
Singh, M., Ong, A., & Sud, R. (2024). Trends and drivers of utility costs in California. Available at
SSRN.
Sioshansi, F., & Pfaffenberger, W. (2006). Electricity market reform: An international perspective.
Elsevier.
Sisaye, S. (1992). Organizational Resource Allocation Decisions: The Role of Power. American
Journal of Business, 7(2), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/19355181199200015
Slatin, C., & Scammell, M. (2011). Environmental Justice and Just Transition. NEW SOLUTIONS:
A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 21(1), 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.2190/NS.21.1.a
Southern California Edison Company. (2023). 2023 Annual Progress Report on San Joaquin
Valley Pilot Projects. Southern California Edison Company.
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M521/K572/521572764.PDF
Sovacool, B. K., Burke, M., Baker, L., Kotikalapudi, C. K., & Wlokas, H. (2017). New frontiers
and conceptual frameworks for energy justice. Energy Policy, 105, 677–691.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.005

159
Sovacool, B. K., & Dworkin, M. H. (2015). Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical
applications. Applied Energy, 142, 435–444.
Sovacool, B. K., & Hess, D. J. (2017). Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frameworks
for sociotechnical change. Social Studies of Science, 47(5), 703–750.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717709363
Sovacool, B. K., Martiskainen, M., Hook, A., & Baker, L. (2019). Decarbonization and its
discontents: A critical energy justice perspective on four low-carbon transitions. Climatic
Change, 155(4), 581–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02521-7
Sovacool, B. K., & Scarpaci, J. (2016). Energy justice and the contested petroleum politics of
stranded assets: Policy insights from the Yasuní-ITT Initiative in Ecuador. Energy Policy,
95, 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.045
Spall, S. (1998). Peer debriefing in qualitative research: Emerging operational models. Qualitative
Inquiry, 4(2), 280–292.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE Publishing.
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/31865831
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social Structure and Organizations 1. In Handbook of
Organizations (RLE: Organizations). Routledge.
Stokes, L. C. (2020). Short circuiting policy: Interest groups and the battle over clean energy and
climate policy in the American States. Oxford University Press, USA.
Strong, L. L., Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Reyes, A., Rowe, Z., Weir, S. S., & Poe, C. (2009).
Piloting interventions within a community-based participatory research framework:
Lessons learned from the healthy environments partnership. Progress in Community Health
Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 3(4), 327–334.
Suboticki, I., Heidenreich, S., Ryghaug, M., & Skjølsvold, T. M. (2023). Fostering justice through
engagement: A literature review of public engagement in energy transitions. Energy
Research & Social Science, 99, 103053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103053
Sutton, J., & Austin, Z. (2015). Qualitative research: Data collection, analysis, and management.
The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 68(3), 226.
Tal, G., & Nicholas, M. A. (2013). Studying the PEV market in california: Comparing the PEV,
PHEV and hybrid markets. 2013 World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition
(EVS27), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/EVS.2013.6914965
Tapio, R., Homer, J., Mongird, K., & Eisdorfer, J. (2024). Folding community engagement into
decision making: A continuous process to increase equity in the energy system. The
Electricity Journal, 37(7–10), 107442.

160
Tarroja, B., Peer, R. A. M., Sanders, K. T., & Grubert, E. (2020). How do non-carbon priorities
affect zero-carbon electricity systems? A case study of freshwater consumption and cost for
Senate Bill 100 compliance in California. Applied Energy, 265, 114824.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114824
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles and methods of scientific management. Journal of Accountancy,
12(3), 3.
Taylor, F. W. (2004). Scientific management. Routledge.
Timmons, D., Konstantinidis, C., Shapiro, A. M., & Wilson, A. (2016). Decarbonizing residential
building energy: A cost-effective approach. Energy Policy, 92, 382–392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.030
Tozer, L., Baggio, G., Kantamneni, A., & MacRae, H. (2024). Equity-based energy retrofits to
address energy poverty in Canada. Energy Policy, 195, 114341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114341
Tucho, G. T. (2020). The impacts of policy on energy justice in developing countries. Energy
Justice Across Borders, 137–154.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unga/2015/en/111816
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). U.S. Department of Energy Uses ACS Data to Power the Low-income
Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool. Census.Gov. https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/acs/about/acs-data-stories/lead-tool.html
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis:
Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences,
15(3), 398–405.
Valencia, E. (2023). Evaluating Meaningful Engagement Under Environmental Justice Mandates:
A Case Study of California’s SB1000 Implementation in Santa Ana. Critical Planning,
26(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/CP826159866
van Bommel, N., & Höffken, J. I. (2021). Energy justice within, between and beyond European
community energy initiatives: A review. Energy Research & Social Science, 79, 102157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102157
Van den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of affect as
information in the psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85(3), 482.
Van Driel, M., & Gabrenya Jr, W. K. (2013). Organizational cross-cultural competence:
Approaches to measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 874–899.

161
Van Uffelen, N., Taebi, B., & Pesch, U. (2024). Revisiting the energy justice framework: Doing
justice to normative uncertainties. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 189,
113974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113974
Vasu, M. L., Stewart, D. W., & Garson, G. D. (Eds.). (2017). Organizational Behavior and Public
Management, Revised and Expanded (3rd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315090269
Waite, M., & Modi, V. (2020). Electricity Load Implications of Space Heating Decarbonization
Pathways. Joule, 4(2), 376–394.
Walker, G., & Day, R. (2012). Fuel poverty as injustice: Integrating distribution, recognition and
procedure in the struggle for affordable warmth. Energy Policy, 49, 69–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.044
Walker, G., & Devine-Wright, P. (2008). Community renewable energy: What should it mean?
Energy Policy, 36(2), 497–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019
Walters, J. E. (2020). Organizational capacity of nonprofit organizations in rural areas of the
United States: A scoping review. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership
& Governance, 44(1), 63–91.
Wang, R. (2022). Organizational Commitment in the Nonprofit Sector and the Underlying Impact
of Stakeholders and Organizational Support. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 33(3), 538–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-
021-00336-8
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of economic and social organization. Trans. AM Henderson and
Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press.
Whyte, K. (2017). What Do Indigenous Knowledges Do for Indigenous Peoples? (SSRN Scholarly
Paper 2612715). Social Science Research Network.
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2612715
Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2008). The management of confidentiality and
anonymity in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,
11(5), 417–428.
Williams, S., & Doyon, A. (2019). Justice in energy transitions. Environmental Innovation and
Societal Transitions, 31, 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.12.001
Wilson, M. G., Lavis, J. N., & Guta, A. (2012). Community-based organizations in the health
sector: A scoping review. Health Research Policy and Systems, 10(1), 36.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-10-36
Wolsink, M. (2012). The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart
grids: Renewable as common pool resources. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
16(1), 822–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.006

162
Woods, N. D. (2009). Promoting Participation? An Examination of Rulemaking Notification and
Access Procedures. Public Administration Review, 69(3), 518–530.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.01997.x
Wynne, E. (2000). Reflections on Recognition: A Matter of Self-realization or a Matter of Justice?
Thinking Fundamentals, IWM Junior Visiting Fellows Conferences, 9, 1–11.
Yackee, S. W. (2019). The Politics of Rulemaking in the United States. Annual Review of Political
Science, 22(Volume 22, 2019), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050817-
092302
Yin, R. K., Sage Publications, publisher, copyright holder., & Campbell, D. T. (Donald T. (2018).
Case study research and applications: Design and methods (Sixth edition.). SAGE
Publications, Inc.

163
APPENDIX A
University of Southern California Information Sheet
My name is Luis Gutierrez and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California.
I am conducting a research study to analyze the effectiveness of the California Public Utilities
Commission's (CPUC) San Joaquin Valley Affordable Energy Pilot Project in promoting energy
justice within disadvantaged communities. The name of this research study is "Assessing the San
Joaquin Valley Affordable Energy Pilot Project: A Case Study on Energy Justice." I am seeking
your participation in this study.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and I will address your questions or concerns at any
point before or during the study.
You may be eligible to participate in this study if you meet the following criteria:
• You are involved in the development and implementation of the SJV Pilot Project. This
includes program management roles within participating utilities, the CPUC, and
community organizations in the San Joaquin Valley.
• You possess direct knowledge of the program's design, implementation, and interaction
with program participants.
• You are over 18 years old.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following activities:
• Participate in a 1:1 online interview over Zoom for approximately 60 minutes.
I will publish the results in my dissertation, presentations, and potentially publications.
Participants will not be identified in the results. I will take reasonable measures to protect the
security of all your personal information. All data will be de-identified prior to any publication or
presentations. I may share your de-identified data with other researchers in the future.
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, or your participation in it, please contact
me at ligutier@usc.edu or my advisor Annette Kim at annettek@usc.edu. If you have any
questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email hrpp@usc.edu.

164
APPENDIX B
Informed Consent
Study Title: Assessing the San Joaquin Valley Affordable Energy Pilot Project: A Case Study
on Energy Justice.
Purpose of the Study: This research study aims to understand the impact of the California
Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Affordable Energy Pilot
Project in addressing energy justice within disadvantaged communities. We'll explore successes,
challenges, and areas of improvement to guide future energy equity initiatives.
Procedures: If you choose to participate, you will engage in a one-on-one interview with the
researcher. The interview will focus on your experiences with the SJV Pilot Project's design,
implementation, community engagement, and outcomes. The interview is expected to take
approximately 60 minutes via Zoom and the audio will be recorded for transcription purposes.
The audio files will be destroyed after one year from the date of the interview.
Potential Risks and Benefits: There are minimal risks associated with this study. You may feel
some discomfort discussing sensitive topics related to community challenges. However, your
participation will help improve future energy justice programs, potentially benefiting
communities like those you've worked with.
Compensation: There is no direct compensation for participation in this study. Your name will
not be associated with any data or published in any reports, but your direct quotations may be
included in publications.
Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may decline
to participate, withdraw at any time, or choose not to answer certain questions without any
penalty.
Questions or Concerns: If you have any questions or concerns about this study, or your
participation in it, please contact me at ligutier@usc.edu or my advisor Annette Kim at
annettek@usc.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please
contact the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or
email hrpp@usc.edu.
Consent:
To indicate your consent, please provide your verbal agreement at the start of the interview.
Your interview responses will signify your understanding of this form and your continued
willingness to participate.

165
APPENDIX C
Interview Questions
Warm-up/Background
• Please describe your role in the design and/or implementation of the SJV Affordable
Energy Pilot Project.
• Could you provide a brief overview of your understanding of the program's goals and
objectives?
• How would you define/describe the term “energy justice”? What does it mean to you?
Distributional Justice
• How did the project's design specifically address the energy affordability challenges
faced by disadvantaged communities in the San Joaquin Valley?
• Were necessary infrastructure upgrades considered and implemented as part of the
project? If so, how were those needs determined? If not, why?
• Could you talk about any specific program benefits or measures that were designed to
create affordability and accessibility for participants?
Procedural Justice
• Can you describe the strategies used to engage and involve marginalized communities
throughout the project's development and implementation?
• To what extent do you feel the perspectives of disadvantaged communities were
integrated into the project's design?
• How effective do you believe the energy navigator model was in facilitating meaningful
community participation?
Recognition Justice
• In your view, how did the project acknowledge the unique socio-cultural dynamics of the
San Joaquin Valley when addressing energy justice?
• Did the project take into account potential vulnerabilities of specific communities (e.g.,
language barriers, limited digital literacy, etc.)? If so, how? If not, why?
Challenges and Opportunities
• What do you consider to be the primary challenges the project faced in the pursuit of
energy justice?
• What do you see as the most significant successes or positive outcomes of the project in
terms of promoting energy justice?
• Based on your experience, what key lessons can be learned that would improve similar
energy justice initiatives in the future?
Closing
• Is there anything else you'd like to add or emphasize about the project's impact on energy
justice that we haven't discussed?

166
APPENDIX D
Example of Coded Data
Participant Quote Location Code 1 Code 2 Code 3
SJV Process
Eval
"The hiring and training
of local contractors will
support local energy
workforce development in
pilot communities. The
establishment of CENs
will also support these
development goals."
Page 84 Stakeholder
involvement
Successful
strategies
SJV Process
Eval
"Electric and natural gas
measures will provide a
less expensive fuel source
for heating, water heating,
and cooking, which will
in turn lead to a reduction
in household energy
burden."
Page 85 Costeffectiveness
Bill benefits
and
discounts
Energy
savings
SJV Process
Eval
"There will be a reduction
in GHGs and criteria
pollutants, leading to
increased indoor and
outdoor air quality."
Page 85
Access to clean
energy
solutions
SJV Process
Eval
"Remediation of substandard housing will lead
to improved home
safety."
Page 85
Addressing
vulnerabilities
(e.g., language
barriers, digital
literacy)
SJV Process
Eval
"Improved indoor air
quality will improve the
health of participating
household occupants."
Page 85
Addressing
vulnerabilities
(e.g., language
barriers, digital
literacy)
SJV Process
Eval
"Installation of electric
measures will improve
grid reliability and help
mitigate capacity
concerns. They will
provide a more reliable
energy source for
participating households."
Page 85 Infrastructure
upgrades
SJV Process
Eval
"The cost savings
associated with bulk
purchasing agreements
will reduce the cost per
household and reduce rate
Page 85 Costeffectiveness
Bill benefits
and
discounts

167
impacts for other utility
customers."
Participant 3
"But as we know, those
programs have their own
requirements, to
participate. So it wasn't
necessarily a 1 to 1 where,
hey, because you
participated in this pilot,
you will get solar or you
will get battery. It's like
because there's criteria
that they have. So solar is
the condition of the roof,
right? It's like that's an
example"
0:34:33
Equitable
distribution of
benefits
Economic
barriers
Policy and
regulatory
hurdles
Participant 3
"Where it still did fall,
maybe a little bit short in,
in some customer
engagements that I did
have myself personally
was, the customers were
at least the way they, they
stated it is that they were
led to believe that not
only were they going to
get electric appliances,
but they were going to get
solar as well"
0:33:28 Implementation
challenges
Equitable
distribution
of benefits
Integration of
community
perspectives
Participant 3
"Community Energy
Navigator, is so, like, pro
getting all these services
to these communities like
that, they lose sight of
what a utility has to do to
also manage and be able
to offer these programs.
So from an administration
standpoint, you know,
exhausting their budget
when they weren't getting
results."
0:36:45 Implementation
challenges
Stakeholder
involvement
Economic
barriers
Participant 3
"After you've knocked on
doors, you know, two,
three, four times; you've
had community meetings;
if the customers are not
attending, they're not
responding to the phone
calls, or emails; not
responding to the door
knocking, I mean, at some
00:37:25 Implementation
challenges
Community
outreach
strategies
Engagement of
disadvantaged
communities

168
point we have to just say,
hey - I think this customer
is just not interested"
Participant 3
"Our goals and objectives
weren't necessarily
aligned from that
perspective because the
Community Energy
Navigator felt like, no,
this is not good enough.
We're going to keep on
knocking until we clearly
get a no from this
customer."
[00:38:15] Implementation
challenges
Stakeholder
involvement
Community
outreach
strategies
Participant 3
"Yeah. We (SCE) had a
goal of [recruiting] 449
customers to participate.
Right at the end of this
pilot, we had 135."
[00:38:50] Implementation
challenges
Lessons
learned
Participant 3
"At times I felt that
because of the
conversations and the way
things were said, it almost
felt like the entity that
was hired, contracted to
perform this work almost
felt like "no, you as a
utility, you owe these
customers this thing."
And it was like, well, wait
a minute. Like, like, how
is this, like, all of a
sudden, like, just our
fault"
[00:40:40] Implementation
challenges
Stakeholder
involvement
Integration of
community
perspectives

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Energy transitions designed to address climate change have historically overlooked the needs of disadvantaged communities, often worsening existing social and economic inequities. Energy justice principles (distributional, procedural, and recognition) provide frameworks for assessing whether energy transitions are equitable. This dissertation’s hypothesis is that beyond program design, justice outcomes depend on the dynamics within and between implementing organizations. This study examines how organizational factors influence the operationalization of energy justice through a qualitative explanatory case study of California's San Joaquin Valley Affordable Energy Pilot Project. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with program stakeholders and analysis of regulatory documentation, the research reveals how organizational structures, cultures, and practices shape justice outcomes in energy transitions. Findings demonstrate that traditional utility planning processes, designed primarily for operational efficiency, often proved inadequate for addressing systemic inequities in infrastructure and resource distribution. Organizations varied significantly in their capacity for cultural adaptation and community engagement, with some developing innovative practices while others maintained rigid approaches that constrained effectiveness. Power asymmetries between implementing organizations often limited collaborative potential, suggesting need for adaptive governance frameworks. The study advances theoretical understanding of how organizational factors influence energy justice implementation while offering practical insights for future initiatives. Results indicate that achieving energy justice may require transformation of organizational capabilities rather than modified program designs, with particular attention to developing capacity for sustained community engagement and equitable resource distribution.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Mitigating the energy efficiency gap through Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE): an assessment of the HERO Program in Riverside County, CA

PDF

Lessons from TAP implementation: obstacles and solutions to improve the transit users experience

PDF

Property and labor formalization in the age of the sharing economy: Airbnb, housing affordability, and entrepreneurship in Havana

PDF

Organizational spiritual maturity (OSM)

PDF

A stakeholder approach to reimagining private departments of public safety: the implementation of a community advisory board recommendation report

PDF

A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning

PDF

Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty

PDF

The influence of organizational ethics on job attitudes and government performance

PDF

Representative justice for Black males in the energy transition

PDF

Implementation of restorative justice in schools from a teacher's perspective

PDF

Municipal employee reactions to city council incivility: an exploratory data analysis

PDF

Productive frictions and urbanism in transition: planning lessons from traffic flows and urban street life in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

PDF

A view from below: the development and role of organizational social capital in neighborhood regeneration in Los Angeles

PDF

Bank community development coporation investments in community economic development

PDF

The role of social media for community-based organizations focused on environmental justice in southeast Los Angeles

PDF

Environmental justice in real estate, public services, and policy

PDF

Encoding counter-memories: artificial intelligence as a tool for APIA community empowerment

PDF

Why go green? Cities' adoption of local renewable energy policies and urban sustainability certifications

PDF

The interplay between green space and transit: a case study of revitalization within Atlanta’s Adair Park and its potential to improve future policy outcomes

PDF

Location of warehouses and environmental justice: Three essays

Asset Metadata

Creator Gutierrez, Luis Ignacio (author)

Core Title Organizational dimensions of energy justice: affordable energy program implementation in California's San Joaquin Valley

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Planning and Development,Policy

Degree Conferral Date 2025-05

Publication Date 01/28/2025

Defense Date 12/11/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag decarbonization,electrification,energy affordability,energy justice,energy transition,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational behavior

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kim, Annette M. (committee chair), Renger, Laura (committee member), Thom, Michael (committee member)

Creator Email ligutier@usc.edu,luisigutierrez@gmail.com

Unique identifier UC11399FQDU

Identifier etd-GutierrezL-13791.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-GutierrezL-13791

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Gutierrez, Luis Ignacio

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20250128-usctheses-batch-1238 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu