The Brief

Rooftop solar installations have plummeted in the city of L.A. in recent years, according to a data analysis by LAist and Crosstown LA.

It’s a trend across California after the state’s utility regulators cut incentives drastically in 2022.

But that policy change applied only to the big three investor-owned electricity providers — Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric. City-owned utilities, such as the L.A. Department of Water and Power, were not affected by that change.

So why has rooftop solar adoption dropped in L.A. city limits?

What the data say

LAist and Crosstown LA analyzed permitting data to understand how rooftop solar adoption has changed in the city over the past five years. We found that, after years of growth, rooftop solar permits in Los Angeles have dropped by nearly a quarter.

Permits for rooftop solar installations reached a high of 10,513 in 2022 but have since dropped to 7,967 in 2024. Through the first six months of 2025, there were 3,729. (The data analyzed across all years were city electrical permits classified as solar and noting an installation. Depending on how permits were classified, slight under- or over-counting is possible.)

Reasons behind the drop

LADWP customers still have a generous incentive to put solar panels on their rooftops — customers with net energy meters receive bill credits for the energy their solar systems send back to the grid. These compensation rates match the rates customers pay for their energy usage.

Comparatively, new rooftop solar customers in Southern California Edison territory get paid back about 75% less than the rate. While that change has reduced solar panel adoption, it is expanding battery storage, though slowly.

David Jacot, LADWP’s director of distributed energy solutions, said he's not sure why there’s been such a significant drop in installs, but he offered several theories.

“We think the market is somewhat saturated in terms of early adopters who have the interest and the means and have already largely installed systems,” Jacot said.

He added that rising household costs and inflation, which has raised the cost of solar panels themselves, may also be a factor. Lastly, he said, the changes to incentives at the state level have led to solar companies leaving the state. The Trump administration’s cuts to federal tax credits for solar will also slow adoption, Jacot predicts.

By 2018, LADWP also had phased out past incentive programs and paid out the last of rebates available to help cover the cost of solar installation. But Jacot said he doesn’t think that’s the reason for the big drop since 2022.

“2022 was the peak, so we don't think that not having an upfront incentive for solar systems necessarily had anything to do with the recent fall off,” Jacot said.

City utilities have never led in solar adoption 

The main driver of solar adoption across the state has been the high cost of electricity, said Severin Borenstein, director of UC Berkeley Haas Energy Institute. And municipal utilities, such as LADWP, have long had lower rates than investor-owned utilities such as Southern California Edison, which means residents are less likely to adopt solar.

“If you just look at LADWP’s rates relative to the investor-owned utilities, they have always been substantially lower,” Borenstein said. “For the last 25 years in the lifetime of rooftop solar, they’ve been substantially lower.”

LADWP’s rates are between 19 cents and 38 cents per kilowatt hour, depending on your consumption tier and time of year. Southern California Edison’s rates are between 27 cents and 72 cents per kilowatt hour, depending on time of use and climate.

Still, LADWP has far more generous net energy metering than most other municipal utilities, which is surprising, Borenstein said. There was a boost in solar installation as part of former Mayor Eric Garcetti’s “Green New Deal,” but since then, political leadership hasn’t pushed for additional solar policy beyond net energy metering.

“ I think that municipal utilities have been much more resistant to generous rooftop solar policy subsidies than the investor-owned utilities, which take their direction from the California Public Utilities Commission,” Borenstein said. “And the CPUC is a statewide political organization and has been much more aggressive in subsidizing rooftop solar.”

But municipal utilities have never been leaders in rooftop solar adoption, “and they aren’t now,” said Borenstein.

Solar plus batteries seen as next step

As the largest public utility in the nation, LADWP can pull a lot of weight in the transition to clean energy and has set ambitious goals to run entirely on clean energy by 2035.

Rooftop solar can help with that while also reducing the need to build massive solar farms in the desert — in L.A., solar panels on rooftops, mostly people’s homes, currently supply about 7% of the city’s total energy use, Jacot said.

But Jacot said the utility is now turning its focus to residential batteries.

“ Frankly, we don't want to encourage solar-only projects at this point. We really want to get the batteries,” he said.

That’s because electricity demand goes up as the sun sets — just when solar panels stop generating power.

Before the end of this year, Jacot said, LADWP will launch a new battery incentive program through the state-funded Self-Generation Incentive Program to help low-income homes install solar plus battery storage. LADWP will distribute more than $30 million in incentives.

And that shift to batteries will also likely lead to a change in LADWP’s net energy metering, similar to what the state has done.

“The net energy metering program that we currently have will most likely get revisited in our next power rate action, but we don't have any timeline on exactly what that's going to look like,” Jacot said. “ In the meantime, we can pursue what we're doing on the battery side while [net energy metering] is currently operating as is.”

Erin Stone is LAist's climate reporter. Mallika Seshadri writes for Crosstown LA and is a USC graduate student.

By the end of January, students will have returned to two of the three public school campuses burned in the Palisades Fire one year prior, though their classrooms are temporary.

Palisades Charter High School students are scheduled to return to their campus Jan. 27. They’ve been in a refurbished Santa Monica department store since April.

“ I am just overwhelmed with gratitude for the constant support that has been shown for our school and for our families, our teachers, all of our administrators and staff,” said Principal Pamela Magee at a press conference Tuesday with Los Angeles Unified leaders. Pali High is an independent charter high school located on district property.

In June, the LAUSD Board approved a $604 million plan to rebuild the high school, as well as two burned district elementary schools— Marquez and Palisades.

Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said the three campuses’ new buildings will open in 2028— shaving two years off of the original 5-year timeline.

“ These projects will come in on time or ahead of schedule,” Carvalho said. “These projects will come in at or below budget, and these projects will honor the resilience, the determination, the courage and yes, the suffering and the sacrifice of the community of the Palisades.”

About the costs and the design

The district plans to use money from the $9 billion bond voters approved in 2024 to help pay for the rebuild, but also anticipates some reimbursement from its insurer and FEMA.

District-contracted architects are finalizing their designs and plan to submit to the state for approval in the spring, said Chief Facilities Executive Krisztina Tokes. She said the plan is to rebuild with future environmental risks in mind.

“ From the earliest design stages, wildfire resiliency has been treated as a core requirement and not an add-on,” Tokes said. For example, using fire-resistant concrete blocks, installing enhanced air filtration systems and planting shade trees where they won’t hang over buildings.

Environmental testing preceded students’ return to the fire-impacted campuses. Director of the Office of Environmental Health and Safety Carlos Torres said the district continues to monitor air quality through its network of sensors and is developing a plan for periodic testing.

“We just can't just walk away,” Torres said.

Enrollment is down at all three schools compared to before the fires, but district leaders say they are confident families will return to the rebuilt campuses.

“I find it hard to believe that this community won't come back to its former glory,” said Board Member Nick Melvoin, who represents the Palisades. “We gave a lot of thought in an accelerated timeline to rebuilding for the next century.”

Marquez Charter Elementary

What’s the damage? The campus is a “total loss.” More than three dozen classrooms, administration buildings, the school’s auditorium and playground burned down.

How much has LAUSD budgeted to rebuild? $202.6 million

Where are the students? Students returned in September to portables covering about one-third of the campus. There’s also two playgrounds, a garden, library and shaded lunch area. Enrollment has dropped 60% compared to before the fire from 310 to 127 students.

What’s next? District-contracted architects are finalizing their designs and plan to submit to the state for approval in the spring.

Palisades Charter Elementary School teacher Ms. Davison talks with her students in their new classroom on the campus of Brentwood Elementary Science Magnet last year.

(

Brian van der Brug

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

Palisades Charter Elementary

What’s the damage? About 70% of the campus was destroyed including 17 classrooms, the multipurpose room and play equipment.

How much has LAUSD budgeted to rebuild? $135 million

Where are the students? Students continue to share a campus with Brentwood Science Magnet. Enrollment has dropped 25% compared to before the fire from 410 to 307 students.

What’s next? District-contracted architects are finalizing their designs and plan to submit to the state for approval in the spring.

Palisades Charter High School, pictured in December 2025, is scheduled to reopen to students Jan. 27, 2026.

(

Kayla Bartkowski

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

Palisades Charter High School

What’s the damage? About 30% of the campus was destroyed including 21 classrooms, storage facilities and the track and field.

How much has LAUSD budgeted to rebuild? $266 million

Where are the students? Students started the school year in a renovated Sears building in downtown Santa Monica. Enrollment has dropped 14% compared to before the fire, from 2,900 to 2,500 students.

What’s next? Classes will resume at the main campus Tues. Jan. 27 in a combination of surviving buildings and 30 new portable classrooms.

The Trump administration says it’s planning to freeze about $10 billion in federal support for needy families in California and four other Democrat-run states, as the president announced an investigation into unspecified fraud in California.

The plans come on the heels of the Trump administration announcing a freeze on all federal payments for child care in Minnesota, citing fraud allegations against daycare centers in the state.

The state’s Democrat governor, Tim Walz — who ran for vice president against Donald Trump’s ticket in 2024 — announced Monday he was dropping out of running for reelection. He pointed to fraud against the state, saying it’s a real issue while alleging Trump and his allies were “seeking to take advantage of the crisis.”

On Monday, the New York Post reported that the administration was expanding the funding freeze to include California and three other Democrat-led states, in addition to Minnesota. Unnamed federal officials cited “concerns that the benefits were fraudulently funneled to non-citizens,” The Post reported.

Early Tuesday, President Trump alleged that corruption in California is worse than Minnesota and announced an investigation.

“California, under Governor Gavin Newscum, is more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible??? The Fraud Investigation of California has begun. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP,” the president wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

He did not specify what alleged fraud was being examined in the Golden State.

LAist has reached out to the White House to ask what the president’s fraud concerns are in California and to request an interview with the president.

“For too long, Democrat-led states and governors have been complicit in allowing massive amounts of fraud to occur under their watch,” said an emailed statement from Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the federal childcare funds.

“Under the Trump administration, we are ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are being used for legitimate purposes. We will ensure these states are following the law and protecting hard-earned taxpayer money.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office disputed Trump’s claim on social media, arguing that since taking office, the governor has blocked $125 billion in fraud and arrested “criminal parasites leaching off of taxpayers.”

Criminal fraud cases in CA appear to be rare for this program

Defrauding federally funded programs is a crime — and one LAist has investigated, leading to one of the largest such criminal cases in recent years against a California elected official, which surrounded meal funds.

When it comes to the federal childcare funds that are being frozen, the dollar amount of fraud alleged in criminal cases appears to be a tiny fraction of the overall program’s spending in California.

A search of thousands of news releases by all four federal prosecutor offices in California, going back more than a decade, found a total of one criminal case where the press releases referenced childcare benefits.

That case, brought in 2023, alleged four men stole $3.7 million in federal childcare benefits through fraudulent requests to a San Diego organization that distributed the funds. All four pleaded guilty, with one defendant sentenced to 27 months in prison and others sentenced to other terms, according to authorities.

It appears to be equivalent to one one-hundredth of 1% of all the childcare funding California has received over the past decade-plus covered by the prosecution press release search.

Potential impact on California families

The plans call for California, Minnesota, New York, Illinois and Colorado to lose about $7 billion in cash assistance for households with children, almost $2.4 billion to care for children of working parents, and about $870 million for social services grants that mostly benefit children at risk, according to unnamed federal officials speaking to the New York Times and New York Post.

In the largest category of funding, California receives $3.7 billion per year. The program is known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.

 ”It's very clear that a freeze of those funds would be very damaging to the children, families, and providers of California,” said Stacy Lee, who oversees early childhood initiatives "at Children Now, an advocacy group for children in California.

 ”It is a significant portion of our funds and will impact families and children and providers across the whole state,” she added. “It would be devastating, in no uncertain terms.”

About 270,000 people are served by the TANF program in L.A. County — about 200,000 of whom are children, according to the county Department of Public Social Services.

“Any pause in funding for their cash benefits – which average $1000/month - would be devastating to these families,” said DPSS chief of staff Nick Ippolito.

Ippolito said the department has a robust fraud prevention and 170-person investigations team, and takes allegations “very seriously.”

It remains to be seen whether the funding freeze will end up in court. The state, as well as major cities and counties in California, has sued to ask judges to halt funding freezes or new requirements placed by the Trump administration. L.A. city officials say they’ve had success with that, including shielding more than $600 million in federal grant funding to the city last year.

A union representing California childcare workers said the funding freeze would harm low-income families.

“These threats need to be called out for what they are: direct threats on working families of all backgrounds who rely on access to quality, affordable child care in their communities to go to work every day supporting, and growing our economy,” said Max Arias, chairperson for the Child Care Providers United, which says it represents more than 70,000 child care workers across the state who care for kids in their homes.

“Funding freezes, even when intended to be temporary, will be devastating — resulting in families losing access to care and working parents facing the devastating choice of keeping their children safe or paying their bills.”

Federal officials planned to send letters to the affected states Monday about the planned funding pauses, the New York Post reported. As of 3 p.m. Tuesday, state officials said they haven’t gotten any official notification of the funding freeze plans.

“The California Department of Social Services administers child care programs that help working families afford safe, reliable care for their children — so parents can go to work, support their families, and contribute to their communities,” said a statement from California Department of Social Services spokesperson Jason Montiel.

“These funds are critical for working families across California. We take fraud seriously, and CDSS has received no information from the federal government indicating any freeze, pause, or suspension of federal child care funding.”