The last thing California needs is a new barrier to clean energy production. Yet the state Public Utilities Commission is poised to add one at the behest of private companies that see rooftop solar as a threat to future revenue.
California's utility regulator could vote as soon as Thursday on a proposal to undercut the net energy metering program, which has led to rooftop solar installations on more than 1.3 million California households — the most in any state. Under the program, utility companies credit solar customers for the surplus energy they export to the grid, driving down their monthly bills and paying off the installation costs faster.
According to private utilities, customers who don't use solar pay an estimated $3.4 billion a year more as a result, subsidizing the program through higher monthly bills. Utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric Co. have weaponized this so-called cost shift to compel the PUC to act, claiming vulnerable, lower-income customers are harmed the most.
But overhauling the rooftop solar program will only drive up the cost to acquire the technology. Making it harder for middle- and lower-income households to install solar panels on their properties is antithetical to the urgent need for California's clean energy transition to occur as rapidly and widely as possible.
The largest utilities are justifying this action by disingenuously positing this is as a class divide, a claim as dubious as the notion that solar customers are causing higher utility bills — rather than the exorbitant wildfire liabilities that corporations like PG&E seem unable to avoid. Opponents of the current net energy metering program also ignore the growing affordability of solar, putting it on a path toward reaching communities that have disproportionately experienced the greatest consequences of the climate crisis.
The PUC proposal would slash the credit solar customers receive for excess power distributed, impose fixed monthly fees and institute higher rates for using grid power at certain times. In a recent New York Times op-ed opposing the overhaul, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger aptly called it a "solar tax."
The proposal does include the possibility of $600 million in subsidies to help low-income households acquire rooftop solar. But the need for such an equity fund shows how much the new regulations are expected to increase solar costs.
If there is one aspect of this worth supporting, it's the emphasis on pairing battery storage with every future installation so each home is more independent and less reliant on the grid. In the absence of widespread battery storage, California's power system has been strained by declines in solar power on summer nights, when the sun sets but demand for energy to cool homes remains high. The state has turned to fossil fuels such as natural gas to fill the gap.
Unfortunately, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District already slashed solar subsidies last fall, mirroring many of the PUC's proposed actions. This could prevent millennial home buyers entering the market for the first time from installing solar on older and more affordable homes.
California has been a national leader in democratized clean energy production. If the PUC adopts the proposal as is, it will perpetuate environmental injustices in the service of the profit motives of utility giants that are more adept at harming Californians than serving them.
