Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42693139›Full record

ArticleNature communications2026

Evaluating technology upgrades as a complement to traditional bill assistance programs.

Sydney P Forrester, Eric O'Shaughnessy, Galen Barbose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sydney P ForresterLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA. SPForrester@lbl.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8430-843X
Eric O'ShaughnessyLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Galen BarboseLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4687-2309

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

State programs to improve energy affordability and reduce energy burden (the share of income spent on energy) could mitigate concerns about rising electricity prices. Many states offer bill assistance and rebates for weatherization and rooftop solar to income-qualifying households. Here, we analyse how these approaches may complement one another to improve energy affordability. Results illustrate trade offs between program costs and energy burden reduction, as well as between a program's upfront and ongoing costs. Generally, the three strategies complement one another to improve energy affordability at lower net present cost than bill assistance alone, with varying effects across regions. Weatherization can reduce the solar installation capacity needed, and both together can reduce or eliminate ongoing reliance on bill assistance. Under full uptake among cost-effective households, fully rebated weatherization and solar rebated at $0.48/Watt, combined with bill assistance, yield the same modelled net present cost as bill assistance alone while reducing the share of low-income owner-occupied households with high energy burdens from 66% to 19%, compared with 34% under bill assistance alone. Absent tax credits, weatherization still reduces energy burden and bill assistance program costs, whereas solar may not be cost-competitive.

Identifiers

PMID42693139
PMCPMC13542077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.