California lawmakers nearing vote on controversial solar power bill that cuts compensation for rooftop systems

CBS News

28-05-2025

State lawmakers are getting closer to a vote on a bill that would, once again, change the way owners of rooftop solar power systems are compensated for the energy they add to the grid.
Opposition to the bill has been fierce, and on Tuesday, solar advocates rallied outside the Capitol in Sacramento.
"No AB 942! No AB 942!!" chanted a group of angry solar owners across the street from the State Capitol building. They have not been shy in expressing their views about Assembly Bill 942. The bill is authored by Southern California Assemblymember Lisa Calderon, who has been telling various Assembly committees that the 20-year solar incentives, created by the legislature, no longer work.
"Today," she said, "subsidies are no longer fair or equitable and have led to a cost shift onto non-solar customers to ensure the grid is maintained. This cost shift amounted to an estimated $8.5 billion last year alone, and is expected to increase in future years."
The argument is that early adopters of solar are getting such a high price for the excess energy they produce that they avoid paying for the cost of the grid and PG&E's operation, including the billions of dollars being spent to mitigate wildfires. That leaves those who don't have solar to pay those costs, and Calderon said it's not a small amount.
"In total, the cost shift onto non-solar customers is roughly 25% of a non-solar customer's energy bill," she said.
"Well, they're lying," said Dave Rosenfeld, director of the Solar Rights Alliance. "There's a dozen economists that have completely debunked that claim that somehow solar customers are to blame for high rates."
He said what's being ignored is all the energy that rooftop solar is providing that the big utilities do NOT have to pay to create. And they're mad as hell that the state is considering breaking its written contract with solar owners.
"It refers to the 20-year terms as a 'guarantee,' that's the CPUC's own words," said Rosenfeld. "So, in every way, for all of this time, the State has been representing this as a contract, as a legal agreement, something that is very, very serious. And people made long-term financial decisions believing the State at its word, that it was a guarantee, that it was a contract."
Initially, AB 942 proposed to cut the 20-year payment term to only 10 years. But the outcry over that was such that it was removed from the bill. Now, the argument is over what happens if someone with a favorable contract sells their home. Under the current rules, the new owner would inherit the previous solar agreement. Under AB 942, the agreement would end, and they would get a much lower rate for their energy. Solar owner Kathy Schiffer considers that a betrayal.
"I do want to sell my house in the future, and so this is going to be an addition to my house, would make it more attractive. And now, it won't be that," she said. "To me, the whole thing has just kind of fallen apart. The reason to get solar, the financial reason to get solar, has fallen apart."
Even under the new proposed rules, a solar power system would still be a better deal than no solar at all. The question is how long it would take for the system to pay for itself and how attractive it may be to buyers when it comes time to sell the home.