|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) recently set aside plans to vote on a controversial proposal to revise the state’s rooftop solar program. That’s good. This time-out gives regulators a chance to rethink their proposal and tackle what Gov. Gavin Newsom described as “still … some work to do.”
I agree there is still work to be done. California is the U.S. leader in solar energy and adds a power plant-worth of rooftop solar about every five months. As of last year, our state had 25 gigawatts (GW) of solar on the grid, with utility-scale solar accounting for 15 GW and 10 GW of distributed solar, nearly all of it from rooftop solar. To put that into perspective, 1 GW is enough to power 110 million LEDs or about 9,060 Nissan Leafs.
However, being the leader doesn’t mean our work is over. Our state’s current plans assume California will need as much as 208 GW from a mix of clean energy technologies to reach the goal of 100% clean electricity by 2045. We need more clean energy of every kind, and I’m working on legislation to encourage that.
The CPUC’s pause on its proposal is important because it provides time to craft a better solution to balance incentives for clean energy and remedies to address affordability concerns for non-solar customers. An updated approach shouldn’t slam the brakes on the growth of solar, or other clean energy technologies. Our goal is a clean energy transformation. We need to get there faster, and we need to bring everyone along in the process.
The CPUC proposed changing the key incentives that enabled Californians to put solar on more than 1 million roofs of homes, apartments, schools and businesses including many in the 13th Senate District. Supporters of the CPUC’s proposed changes say these benefits have gone mostly to the wealthy, but in recent years almost half the growth in rooftop solar occurred in working- to middle-income neighborhoods, according to a study of solar-adopter income trends.
The CPUC proposed several changes:
• A “participation fee” only for solar customers
• Changing the payments to existing solar customers
• For new solar customers, dramatically reducing the rate of compensation customers get for selling excess energy to the grid.
I strongly agree that more support is essential for low-income Californians to participate in clean energy transformation and to incentivize storage. However, there are ways to accomplish this without drastic changes that kill new rooftop solar and change the deal for existing solar customers.
We should protect existing customers.
Josh Becker is a Menlo Park resident and a California state senator representing the 13th Senate District.
Becker says “we should protect existing customer.”
What he’s saying is we need to protect the wealthy customers, his voters and donors, including the solar industry.
Home solar users are being paid 8 times the value of the electricity they send back into the grid. They are being subsidized by the higher electric bills of those without solar.
“It’s wrong that non-solar customers, many of whom live in disadvantaged communities or are renters without the option to install solar, are paying for subsidies that go to primarily wealthier property owners with solar panels,” said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for Affordable Clean Energy for All, in a statement.
“Solar industry attempts to fight any proposed reforms are motivated by their desire to protect their bottom line profit margin. The higher the subsides, the more the solar companies profit and the more their executives and shareholders are compensated. We believe everyone who uses the electric grid should pay their fair share.”
The cost of rooftop solar (systems) has dropped 70% while the subsidies have continued to increase over the past 25 years, making rooftop solar the most expensive source of clean energy — eight times costlier.”
Observer,
Menlo Park passed a requirement that all new houses must have Solar. Many of the people in my neighborhood have added Solar Power to their homes to offset the high costs of PG&E as well as to help the environment. I assure you I am not getting paid 8 times what PG&E is charging for electricity. In fact when I put electricity back into the grid I am losing money because I then pay much more for it in the evenings when I am not generating. I would love to add batteries but that is pricy right now. In addition PG&E charges me a monthly fee to connect my solar system to their grid and I don’t have a choice as it is required to be connected to them. I would personally over to get rid of PG&E completely but that is not an option. Letting them collect more and more money from Solar owners to give higher bonuses to the execs is ridiculous. Maybe they need to money to help pay off all the lawsuits they have for not maintaining the grid in the first place and causing multiple deadly fires around the state? Should that be the responsibility of people adding Solar to their homes.
Maybe it is time for Menlo Park to go the way of Palo Alto and take charge of their own utilities. Then they could invest in community power banks that excess solar power flows into and users can then take power when needed and pay a small additional fee to pay for the banks and maintenance. It seems to have proven to work in Australia. I would add more panels if that were the case…
Observer is stating incorrect information. The utilities are hiding behind the claim that lower income residents are not being treated fairly. To the extent that is the case, the solution is not to cut bck on solar. but to enable solar projects that benefit this portion of the residents. Becker has it right.