California lawmakers nearing vote on controversial solar power bill that cuts compensation for rooftop systems
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
Fetterman Calls California Protests ‘Anarchy' as He Criticizes Democrats
Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania warned fellow Democrats that they could face a political backlash if they were seen as failing to sufficiently condemn acts of violence by protesters in Southern California, which local officials have said were limited. On Monday, he posted a photo on social media of a car engulfed in flames and a masked, shirtless person waving a Mexican flag. He suggested that Democrats — many of whom have in fact criticized acts of destruction or violence — should go further in denouncing unruly demonstrations. 'This is anarchy and true chaos,' he wrote. 'My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement.' Local officials in California have described the violence as limited, under control and exacerbated by President Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard and deploy troops over the governor's objection. 'I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration — but this is not that,' Mr. Fetterman wrote. 'This is anarchy and true chaos.' Mr. Fetterman, elected in 2022, has become one of the Democrats whom Republicans love to quote as he has broken with some of his party's orthodoxies. He checked himself into a hospital for depression early in his first year in office, and his mental health has recently been the subject of both concern and scrutiny. Democrats on Capitol Hill tried to shrug off his latest comments on Tuesday. 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion,' said Representative Yvette D. Clarke of New York, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Some praise appeared to arrive, however, from Elon Musk, the owner of the social media site X, where Mr. Fetterman made his comment. Mr. Musk replied to the post with an American flag emoji.
New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump's Flawed Message to Los Angeles
President Trump thinks he's sending a message. By deploying waves of National Guard officers and active duty Marines to Los Angeles, he's trying to show that he's powerful and in control, that anyone who protests his policies will pay a price. This is a classic deterrence strategy: hit hard in one place to scare Americans into staying home. But this strategy often backfires. If the majority of protests in Los Angeles reject violence, Mr. Trump may end up proving the opposite of what he intended: that he's afraid, that the protesters are disciplined and that the threat isn't the people — it's him. Counterinsurgency experts have long understood this dynamic. If you want to radicalize a population, there is no faster way than to use disproportionate force against civilians. David Kilcullen, a former senior adviser to General David Petraeus in Iraq, made this clear: Heavy-handed state violence doesn't pacify dissent, it inflames it. Another federal authority, the F.B.I., learned this lesson the hard way. In 1992 at Ruby Ridge in Idaho, an F.B.I. sniper shot and killed the wife of Randy Weaver while she stood in the doorway of her home, holding her baby. The F.B.I. had been called in to back up U.S. marshals who were engaged in a standoff with Mr. Weaver, whom they were trying to arrest on a fugitive warrant. A year later in Waco, Texas, federal agents engaged in a 51-day standoff with the Branch Davidians, a religious sect whose leader, David Koresh, was being investigated for alleged child abuse and the unlawful stockpiling of weapons. The siege ended in disaster: The compound went up in flames and more than 75 people, including at least 20 children, died. Public trust in federal law enforcement plummeted. Militias exploded in size and number. Timothy McVeigh later cited Waco as one of the reasons he bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995. Since then, the F.B.I. has trod carefully when confronting American civilians, especially armed ones. In 2014, after the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy had long refused to pay federal grazing fees and hundreds of armed supporters faced off with federal agents, law enforcement backed down rather than risk another Waco. And two years after that, during the 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon (this time led by Mr. Bundy's sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy), the bureau showed patience. For weeks agents avoided direct confrontation, choosing instead to wait, negotiate and de-escalate. It turns out that this strategy is more effective in avoiding violence. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
Hegseth Defends Deployment of Troops to Los Angeles at Testy Hearing
In response to often sharp questioning from House Democrats on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the Pentagon's deployment of nearly 5,000 active-duty Marines and National Guard members to help the police in Los Angeles quell sporadic unrest. Mr. Hegseth, a former National Guardsman, also suggested in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee that the use of the Guard, part-time citizen soldiers, for homeland defense would expand under President Trump. 'I think we're entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,' Mr. Hegseth told lawmakers. Officials in Los Angeles, as well as other major cities across the country controlled by Democrats, have expressed concern that the military deployments in California could set a precedent and serve as a test run for other urban areas where the administration's aggressive immigration enforcement could prompt large protests. Mr. Hegseth defended the deployment on Monday of 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines, telling lawmakers, 'We ought to be able to enforce immigration law in this country.' The secretary had several testy exchanges with Democrats on the committee, who challenged him on the efficacy and cost of the deployments. At one point, he ignored direct questions from Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the committee's defense panel, about the cost to deploy troops to Los Angeles. Instead, Mr. Hegseth used his time to attack Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles and the Biden administration. A clearly frustrated Ms. McCollum yielded back her time. When he was questioned again on the mission's projected costs, Mr. Hegseth deferred to the Pentagon's acting comptroller, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, who said that Marine and National Guard deployments — estimated to last 60 days — would cost about $134 million, mainly for travel, housing and food. John Ismay contributed reporting.
