A conspiracy between big government and big utilities to protect big corporate profits? The host said no, no.
Against the law to require solar roofs to continue growing in California? Regulators say it's not a law.
Is the government perpetuating the lie that subsidizing (wealthy) solar installers burdens (billions of dollars) their (less-wealthy) neighbors? The regulator said this was incorrect, and claims that there had been no tariff change were "false claims and misrepresentations".
So the California Public Utilities Commission has rejected requests to change controversial new solar rules that took effect in April. They give everyone something to hate. But alas, the solar war continues: Opponents continue to fight it in court, armed, for better or worse, with the same arguments that have failed to convince the powers that be at the PUC.
The problem: updating (among many other things) how much new rooftop solar owners are paid for exporting electricity to the grid based on the net energy available at that time.
Those who install new battery systems to store solar energy and those who can take advantage of energy at night when they need it most will be compensated. People without batteries, who pump excess energy into the grid during the day - when there is plenty of it - will be charged much less.
After all, the compensation will be less than those who used solar energy before this change. And it will significantly increase the time it takes people to recoup their investment - from 3-5 years to nine years. Critics say it would stifle the growth of solar power in California, which is against the law.
Have you looked at your electricity bill recently? does he cry Average electric home prices in California are about 80% higher than other states.
Whether it's sunny or not, this battle is going on in your home too.
Breaking the law?
The argument was rejected by the PUC and is now pending in the California State Court of Appeals, 1st District, III. In the section, they detail the formulas used, which variables are weighted or not, if the costs are calculated correctly or not. is not calculated correctly.
The onus is on the petition's critics — the Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Working Group and the Protect Our Communities Foundation — to prove that the PUC made a legal error in its decision on the new regulations.
"Over the past 25 years, California has driven the transition from fossil fuel generation to clean, renewable energy," the petitioners argued in the appeals court filing. California communities have stepped up, installing rooftop solar on more than 1.5 million homes, schools, churches and businesses. State policy promotes this transition to clean energy through clean energy metering ("NEM") tariffs that allow residents to earn a reasonable income. Great return on initial investment…
"Local production provides important social benefits, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, resilience to extreme weather and power outages, and avoidance of land use impacts by reducing the need for public utility transportation infrastructure, which also lowers electricity bills."
Owners of rooftop solar systems receive credit for the energy they generate and use on site. The company also compensates NEM customers for excess electricity they feed back into the grid, at the same rate that regular customers traditionally pay for grid electricity.
Despite the benefits of home-generated solar, "profitable businesses across the country are turning to NEM programs," they say. For utility investors looking for a guaranteed return on transportation infrastructure capital expenditures, distributed energy sources such as rooftop solar threaten the utility business model. That's why nonprofits across the country have launched multi-state campaigns to shut down the NEM program, spreading the false narrative that NEM is causing "cost shifting" away from wealthy NEM customers and raising fees for everyone else, costing public utilities billions. Completely ignore the dollar. It is spent on raising the price of transport infrastructure.'
Critics say the House has completely swallowed the utility narrative, and that the changes included violate the Legislature's mandate to ensure "sustainable and distributed generational growth."
Petitioners asked the PUC to hold off on implementing the new rules pending, but "cockroaches," said Roger Lane, the CBD's general counsel. And despite the PUC's concerns about the shift to low-cost customers, $600 million to help low-income customers get solar power has been cut in half and must be spent through 2026, when the window for action narrows.
They asked the court to do what the PUC failed to do. "The decision makes the installation of new solar systems economically attractive and, as a result, will significantly reduce the growth of solar energy," they said.
Are we doing our job?
Generous subsidies built into the old system contributed to the rooftop solar industry's "sudden success" and rapid expansion, turning the new technology into a mature industry, the PUC said in court filings.
"The renewal is over, because in 2019 NEM customers received six times the value of electricity generated from solar panels on the grid," he said. Customers without rooftop solar systems subsidize their neighbors by $31,402 per solar owner.
"The Legislature understands that clean energy benchmark rates may require updates or changes from time to time," he said. "To do so ... the Commission revised the NEM program to better align with the current state of the state's grid and with updated results of the program's costs and benefits."
The analysis said the old system — which was the same for solar users before April — was paying far more than market value for rooftop solar. Of the total, about $4 billion a year, the least is paid by consumers who don't have solar roofs and whose wealthier neighbors subsidize their solar.
This "appalling" cost disparity — which critics say doesn't really exist — caught the attention of lawmakers a decade ago. The PUC was directed to guide the Legislature. Already said
The law calls for solar energy to grow faster, but that doesn't mean it has to run faster with more generous subsidies. Market growth "should not come with the burden of unnecessary financial costs and non-participation fees."
In its submission to the Court of Appeal, the association said: "Although the petitioners disagree with the Commission's decision, they do not demonstrate that the Commission's decision lacks strong evidence." "To the contrary ... the Commission has fulfilled all its legal obligations and its findings are well substantiated."
According to him, the PLC is not an "ordinary administrative body" but a constitutional body with many powers, responsibilities and functions. There is a strong presumption of validity of committee decisions. On judicial review, it should be given a constitutional resource. a lot of weight Interpretation of the Public Utilities Law Commission as a body constitutionally empowered to carry out its decisions.
According to him , when conflicting evidence is presented and from which conflicting conclusions can be drawn, the PUC's conclusion is "almost always" considered final . "Here, KPU respects the law in all respects and petitioners' arguments are without merit. Petitioner has not shown any legal error and his petition must be dismissed."
What to expect next?
Center for Biological Diversity et al. You will respond to the PUC's response this month. Then everyone will wait to see what the appeal court does.
Can plan oral discussion. Of course not
"We really hope the court will deal with this case," Lin said. "It was clear that the law had been violated."
In a prepared statement, Lin complained. "It's troubling that state regulators are keeping working-class Californians from benefiting from solar rooftops. State lawmakers have added insult to injury by making deep cuts to an equity fund designed to help ordinary people buy renewable energy. This is shocking behavior for a country. which requires a fairer energy system. and encourage a cheaper transition."
A reminder that the new solar rules do not affect those with solar roofs before April; They will remain on the current tariff plan for 20 years after their system is connected to the network.
What is right and what is wrong is often in the eye of the beholder. Let's see what the appellate court decides.
