California Supreme Court kicks decision on rooftop solar rates to lower court
The court did not order reduced rates for solar users, but the standard it set for lower courts — requiring them to consider whether the commission has followed the law, and considered the costs and benefits of power generation it is regulating — may lead to a reversal of the rate increases that the CPUC approved in 2022.
A state appeals court that upheld the commission's decision used 'an unduly deferential standard of review,' Justice Leondra Kruger wrote in Thursday's 7-0 ruling.
She quoted legislative findings in a 1998 state law that 'the activities of the energy, telecommunications, and transportation industries will require expanded access to the court system at all levels.'
While the court stopped short of overturning the CPUC's decision, its ruling was welcomed by environmental groups that challenged the commission's action and sought to lower rooftop solar rates.
'I'm relieved to see the state's highest court rein in this runaway commission, which is putting corporate utilities ahead of Californians' pocketbooks, the climate and the law,' said attorney Roger Lin of the Center for Biological Diversity.
'Now we get our day in court,' said Bernadette Del Chiaro, a vice president of the Environmental Working Group. 'This is a precedent much bigger than rooftop solar.'
In its 2022 decision, the CPUC reduced the state's subsidies to households with solar systems, payments to compensate them for the electricity they generate and provide to the power grid.
The commission said those subsidies raise electricity rates for most customers. But rooftop-solar advocates said the payments were authorized by state law, reduced pollution and improved conditions in low-income communities. They said the commission's decision has greatly reduced solar installations in California, increasing air pollution from conventional electric generation and actually increasing costs for other ratepayers.
At the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, is reportedly considering a plan to cut off $7 billion in federal grants to states and other recipients for rooftop-solar projects serving lower- and middle-income residents.
The funding program, authorized by a law signed by President Joe Biden, was designed to enable more than 900,000 households to install solar systems.
The budget bill that Trump signed last month will also eliminate federal tax credits for homeowners and businesses who purchase and install solar systems after 2025. According to a UC Irvine study in 2023, the average cost to install solar panels in California was $16,380, but was reduced to $11,466 by the tax credits, which were first provided by federal law in 1978.
The case is Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Commission, No. S283614.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
an hour ago
- Epoch Times
California's 1-Gun-per-Month Purchase Limit Violates Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules
The full panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to review a lower court's ruling that California's one gun per month purchase limit violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. The mandate made final the June decision against the California law. Last June, a three-judge panel ruled that the state failed to prove that the law met the standard set in the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith
It's enraging. More than a decade after the Obama administration first tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy contraception including abortifacient drugs for employees, states are still hounding the nuns in court. At its heart, ObamaCare was a massive welfare program meant to redistribute health-care costs to the middle class. But it was also a social engineering project aimed at coercing religious organizations and businesses to adopt progressive values. The Affordable Care Act mandated employers, including nonprofits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for contraceptives in their worker-provided health insurance as an 'essential health benefit' under the euphemistic category of 'preventative and wellness services.' There was no 'religious exemption.' It's worth taking a step back and thinking about that term: The very idea that an American citizen should be impelled to ask the state for an 'exemption' to practice their faith is an assault on the fundamental idea of liberty. Imagine having to ask the state for an exemption to exercise your free speech? What makes the case even more unsettling, of course, is that the state is demanding citizens engage in activity that is explicitly against their faith. Now, there may well be numerous theological disputes within the Catholic Church. The use of contraception and abortion aren't among them. There is absolutely no question that nuns hold genuine, long-standing religious convictions. And there is no question that liberals want to smash them. Nevertheless, the Little Sisters spent years in court, working their way up to the Supreme Court and winning protections against the federal government (twice). In 2017, the Trump administration exempted religious groups like the Little Sisters from the ObamaCare mandate entirely. The government, however, bolstered with unlimited taxpayer funds, can hunt its prey in perpetuity. So states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania began their own lawsuits against the Little Sisters. This week, in a nationwide ruling, Judge Wendy Beetlestone, chief judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the Trump administration's expansion of religious exemptions from the contraception mandate was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Religious nonprofit groups and businesses will again have to ask for special accommodations from the Department of Health and Human Services to avoid buying abortifacients. Even if the Trump administration grants every one of them, one day there will be authoritarians in charge who won't — and nonprofit employees will still be guaranteed contraception through health plans paid for by employers. Beetlestone, incidentally, was the same judge who issued a nationwide injunction against the contraception exemption back in 2017, arguing it was 'difficult' to think of any rule that 'intrudes more into the lives of women.' The Supreme Court overturned it in 2020 by a 7-2 majority. Because no one has a right to free condoms. Indeed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds that the state must have a 'compelling interest' and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious practice. Free birth control isn't a compelling interest. And fining religious organizations millions of dollars to pressure them into abandoning their beliefs is perhaps the most restrictive means of action, short of throwing nuns in prison. You'd think attacking a group of nuns who offer end-of-life care for the elderly would be a public relations nightmare for Democrats. Yet they've never really shied away from it. Because the point is to intimidate others. In many ways, the Little Sisters' struggle is reminiscent of the travails of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refuses to create unique message cakes for gay weddings. Phillips is now embroiled in his umpteenth court case over his crimes. The message: Dissent from those who practice their faith will be punished. Take the Catholic Charities adoption agencies, which shuttered in numerous states due to laws and policies compelling them to place children with same-sex couples. The attacks will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment and religious liberty. It's already punted once: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in favor of Jack Phillips, the court barred the state's attacks only if state officials openly demeaned their target's faith — a ruling so narrow as to be largely useless. But it shouldn't matter why the state is steamrolling the religious liberty of nuns, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that the ObamaCare mandate is authoritarian and unconstitutional. And the only way to fix that problem is to overturn it. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi
Engadget
2 hours ago
- Engadget
The Supreme Court lets Mississippi's social media age-verification law go into effect
The Supreme Court has decided not to weigh in on one of the many state-level age-verification laws currently being reviewed across the country. Today, the top court chose not to intervene on legislation from Mississippi about checking the ages of social media users, denying an application to vacate stay from NetChoice. The Mississippi law requires all users to verify their ages in order to use social media sites. It also places responsibility on the social networks to prevent children from accessing "harmful materials" and it requires parental consent for minors to use any social media. NetChoice represents several tech companies — including social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube — and it sued to block the law on grounds that it violates the First Amendment. A district court ruled in favor of NetChoice, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its temporary block. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the application to vacate stay on the appeals court ruling, he also wrote that "NetChoice has, in my view, demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits—namely, that enforcement of the Mississippi law would likely violate its members' First Amendment rights under this Court's precedents." He denied the application because NetChoice "has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time." This decision means that, at least for now, Mississippi's law will be allowed to stand. "Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment," said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. "This is merely an unfortunate procedural delay." There are several other state laws being assessed at various points in the US legal system. Some are centered on adult content providers such as pornography sites , while others are more broadly targeting social media use. Arkansas and Florida have seen federal judges block their laws, while Texas and Nebraska are working toward adopting their own rules about social media for minors. Yahoo, the parent company of Engadget, is a member of NetChoice.
