Original aggregate analysis
What six states' license records show
A six-state licensing view with matched CPUC applications for California licenses only. Activity is not quality, and source-reported cost is not a quote.
Calculated from 8,662 merged records · Build date 2026-08-31
Geographic distribution
Largest record counts by county
This ranks records in the current dataset, not market size, quality, or availability. Differences can reflect source scope and reporting practices.
| # | County | Relative count | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Los Angeles | 180 | 2.1% | |
| 2 | San Diego | 128 | 1.5% | |
| 3 | Riverside | 73 | 0.8% | |
| 4 | Orange | 71 | 0.8% | |
| 5 | Santa Clara | 50 | 0.6% | |
| 6 | Sacramento | 49 | 0.6% | |
| 7 | Contra Costa | 45 | 0.5% | |
| 8 | Alameda | 40 | 0.5% | |
| 9 | San Bernardino | 33 | 0.4% | |
| 10 | Sonoma | 33 | 0.4% | |
| 11 | Fresno | 31 | 0.4% | |
| 12 | Placer | 22 | 0.3% |
Interpretation
What these aggregates mean
They describe the public records included in this release. They are useful for seeing coverage, missingness, concentration, and reported patterns. They do not establish causation or individual quality.
Counts are computed during the same build that creates the map and record pages. A source update changes the analysis automatically.
Review sources and methodologyGo from aggregate to record