California Energy Data Proposal Raises Concerns for ASA Members

Proposed California Energy Commission data rule could increase costs, complicate compliance, and raise confidentiality concerns for distributors.

ASA is weighing in on a California Energy Commission (CEC) proposal that could significantly affect water heating equipment distributors of doing business in California. In response to the Commission’s third request for information on energy data collection for space conditioning and water heating equipment, ASA emphasized that any new reporting requirements must be practical, narrowly tailored, and protective of confidential business and customer information.

Because many ASA members operate in California or serve customers there, the Commission’s proposed reporting framework could have a direct impact on day-to-day operations, staffing, technology systems, customer relationships, and compliance costs. Recent policy decisions adopted in Sacramento have also moved quickly to other states, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, Colorado, and New England.

ASA supports accurate energy forecasting and thoughtful policy development. However, data collection must not come at the expense of small businesses, customer privacy, or the efficient movement of essential water heating products through the supply chain.

Key Regulatory Concerns

ASA urged CEC to narrow the proposed scope so that reporting applies only to transactions that meaningfully reflect end-use installation activity. Ordinary supply-chain movements, such as transfers between branches, transfers between distributors or wholesalers, parts transactions, and products not designated for installation in California, should be excluded. Without those guardrails, the rule could capture data that offers little value for energy forecasting while creating unnecessary administrative work for distributors.

Confidentiality is another central concern. ASA cautioned that terms such as “masked, aggregated, and anonymized” must be paired with clear, enforceable safeguards. Reported information could include sensitive sales data, customer-specific details, and proprietary business records, making it essential that the Commission define how data will be protected from disclosure, misuse, or unintended competitive harm.

ASA also emphasized that any compliance timeline must reflect operational reality. Distributors would need sufficient time to modify systems, train staff, develop reporting processes, and validate data. For that reason, ASA recommended extending implementation beyond the proposed implementation during the start of the 2027 calendar year and include a one-year penalty enforcement grace period after the rule takes effect.

The cost of compliance would also fall unevenly across the industry. Mandatory reporting could require new technology investments, additional personnel, outside service providers, and ongoing administrative oversight. Smaller distributors may lack centralized data-management systems or dedicated compliance teams, which is why ASA urged the Commission to fully evaluate these burdens before moving forward, as well as considering subsidizing or paying for reporting related costs for distributors outright.

Finally, ASA encouraged the Commission to align any reporting requirement with how products are tracked in the marketplace. Allowing reporting by model family and fuel type, rather than requiring serial numbers or detailed original equipment manufacturer model numbers, would still provide useful information for policy evaluation and forecasting while reducing compliance costs and protecting sensitive commercial data.

Comments to Regulators

ASA’s comments made clear that distributors should not be required to determine complex customer classifications at the point of sale when they may not have reliable access to that information. The Commission should limit reporting to data that is reasonably available to sellers and necessary to meet clearly defined policy objectives.

ASA also urged the Commission to avoid collecting or linking data in ways that could reveal confidential sales activity, customer relationships, market share information, or other competitively sensitive records. Strong guardrails on access, use, retention, and disclosure should be established before any new reporting obligation takes effect.

CEC was also encouraged to consider alternatives that would produce actionable insights without building an expansive and fragmented sales registry. Streamlined online permitting, targeted field enforcement, and enhanced contractor education could provide more reliable compliance information at a lower cost and with less disruption to the supply chain.

These approaches would better support California’s energy forecasting and decarbonization goals while recognizing the practical realities of the water heating marketplace.

What Comes Next

ASA requested an additional public workshop so stakeholders can discuss the proposed rule in greater detail. Continued engagement will be essential to ensure that any final requirements are workable for distributors, protective of sensitive information, and aligned with the Commission’s policy objectives.

ASA will continue advocating for balanced policy solutions that support energy goals while protecting the businesses that keep essential products moving through the marketplace.

By Stephen Rossi