Change is coming to California’s rooftop solar market, but when that change arrives and what it will look like remains unclear.
Gov. Gavin Newsom told California Public Utility Commission regulators to try again in January after a December proposal to adjust the state’s solar rules landed with a thud.
The first attempt to rewrite the net-energy metering rules was the result of nearly a year of work behind closed doors.
The CPUC has been working for another three months on plan B.
The December proposal called on solar owners to pay a monthly grid access fee — the typical charge would be about $60 a month— on top of any electricity they buy from utilities.
It slashed, by 80%, the value of electricity that rooftop solar owners sell back to the grid.
The plan also called for the creation of a $600 million equity fund where new solar fees would help finance installation of solar for some low-income residents.
The outrage was swift and sustained from solar power backers who saw the effort as a way to cripple the state’s successful solar industry and make it impossible for California to hit aggressive carbon-reduction goals.
The governor essentially shut the December plan down about a month after it was unveiled.
“I’ll say this about the plan: We still have some work to do,” Newsom said.
And that was nearly all he said about solar during the question-and-answer period of a January news conference on his state budget proposal.
“Do I think that changes need to be made? Yes, I do,” Newsom said.
But, since then, crickets.
“It’s all he’s really said,” said Dave Rosenfeld, of the Solar Rights Alliance.
His organization pushed back against the utility-friendly December plan, which his alliance said could devastate an industry that employs more than 68,000 workers.
“It’s remarkable,” Rosenfeld said. “Something this popular. Something this clear where the public is at. And then again his (Newsom’s) primary surrogate at the CPUC, Alice Reynolds, has said, also, remarkably little.”
But the wall of silence has cracks, and Rosenfeld is concerned about what is leaking through.
A senior CPUC official, Simon Baker, told lawmakers holding a regular committee meeting at the end of March that nonsolar customers are paying billions of dollars to subsidize solar.
“I should clarify that there are other points that are on the record, as well, and it is a disputed issue of fact,” Baker told the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee.
But what worried observers is that Baker only presented one side of the story, echoing utility complaints that costs linked to rooftop solar are being shifted to nonsolar customers.
Baker’s numbers came from the Public Advocates Office, an independent agency within the CPUC, and he made no effort to present different points of view that are a part of the official record.
And Wendy Carillo, a Los Angeles Democrat, in turn echoed Baker’s remarks and read them into the legislative record.
“So just to state for the record,” Carillo said. “The cost shift in not addressing net energy metering, which hurts renters and low-income families, would be at the tune of $6.7 billion if not addressed by 2030, correct? Based on what you just said.”
“Yes, that’s what I said,” Baker replied.
Rosenfeld said Baker was spreading utility disinformation.
“The opposite is true, by the way,” Rosenfeld said. “Rooftop solar users not only pay their fair share. But they actually reduce the cost of the electrical grid, and that saves all ratepayers money, whether or not they have solar.”
Rooftop solar does away with the need to build costly transmission lines to large solar farms in the backcountry, Rosenfeld said, and power lines that don’t get built won’t start fires that can cost the state and utilities billions.
Since January, the CPUC voting meetings — which did not even have solar on the agenda — were filled with hours of public comments.
“I wish to state that I totally oppose any kind of solar tax for rooftop solar, including fixed charges that discriminate against solar users,” said Aria White of Oakland. “Please ensure that solar becomes more affordable for working- and middle-class households, not less.”
One meeting included seven hours of public comment, and the remarks were not one-sided.
“The commission should address the recent decision that it made to have nonrooftop solar customers paying into subsidies for others to install solar, when the reality is we need everyone to pay their fair share instead,” said Shamari Davis, a union electrician from Los Angeles.
California’s investor-owned utilities, including San Diego Gas and Electric, are staying quiet on the issue.
SDGE repeatedly declined a request for an interview saying in an email statement that officials “look forward to a CPUC decision.”
And that is something that utility-funded groups such as Affordable Clean Energy for All agree with.
Enough already, said the group’s Kathy Fairbanks.
“Legislators have been complaining about the lack of movement at the Public Utilities Commission,” Fairbanks said. “The solar industry is complaining about the same thing. We’re complaining about the same thing. I think everyone would like to see this wrapped up. And no one is certain when it will be or what the holdup is, when the changes will come. Nobody knows.”
When that decision comes, it could completely change California’s solar landscape, or make only minor adjustments.
Regulators have to balance utility demands to stay profitable, while, at the same time, growing the solar market so California can meet rigorous carbon-reduction targets.
