
California wants to kill rooftop solar — all because officials were duped by this flawed theory
Late last year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that instructed state energy agencies to look for ways to cut power costs.
The motivation behind the governor's order was obvious. PG&E's residential rates are more than twice the national average, increasing an average of 12.5% annually over the past six years. This is more than double the rate increases approved under California's three previous governors, including those following the electricity crisis in 2001.
Unfortunately, California has spent the intervening months since Newsom's mandate focusing on all the wrong things. The California Public Utilities Commission and some state legislators have almost exclusively pointed fingers at their favorite scapegoat: rooftop solar consumers.
California's latest attack on rooftop solar comes from AB942, which would retroactively break contracts with millions of solar consumers by cutting the compensation they receive from providing energy to the grid if their home is sold or transferred. Those with solar leases, who are predominantly lower income, will be forced to buy out those contracts when they sell.
Why would the state do that to solar users?
For the same reason they've spent the past several years trying to make it financially untenable for homeowners to add rooftop solar: Too many officials have bought a key utility company excuse for rising energy prices — solar 'cost shift.'
Maintaining, operating and expanding the electrical grid is expensive; transmission lines, substations and more need to be built and repaired to deliver electricity to homes. The rates you pay for electricity include the cost of this infrastructure. Cost shift theory argues that since home solar users generate their own electricity, everyone else is stuck paying more to keep the system running.
This theory has a kind of superficial logic. But its supporting evidence is based on a seriously flawed notion.
It asserts that PG&E owns 100% of the electricity generated by its customers and is entitled to full profits even for energy it does not deliver from solar users. PG&E's claim that it is 'losing money' on rooftop solar is only true when it claims ownership of the kilowatt-hours generated and used by home solar.
In other words, embedded in the seemingly dire calculations of the role cost shift plays in rising energy costs is the idea that PG&E deserves a profit on the energy generated by home solar owners.
But PG&E is not entitled to those profits. Nor does it need them to run a sustainable business.
As an energy consultant with four decades of experience, I did the math myself. Using the California Public Utilities Commission staff's own spreadsheet, I found that customers with rooftop solar supply their own energy only about half of the time. They do not owe PG&E any payments for that amount.
Further, I found that in trying to tabulate the alleged impacts of cost shift to the system, the commission staff made several calculation errors, ignored the payments home solar customers do make to PG&E and excluded most of the savings created by the investments these customers have made.
Instead of freeloading off the system, rooftop solar actually saves ratepayers money by preventing the need for the system to expand. It played a major role in keeping energy demand flat since 2006, especially on hot summer days when California gets itself into the most trouble. In fact, the California Independent System Operator, which runs the grid, credited rooftop solar in its decision to cancel 18 transmission projects — saving ratepayers $2.6 billion in 2018 alone.
Those savings include avoiding the costs of new generators, transmission lines and distribution grid equipment. By my calculations, solar users provide 12,000 megawatts of energy to the system that would have needed to be filled through utility-controlled generation and assets.
Without rooftop solar customers paying to add that capacity, those expenses would have been added to current electric rates. That is why California launched the Million Solar Rooftop program in 2006 — it was wildly successful at meeting growing loads with customers' own resources.
Moreover, California's 2 million solar users aren't the wealthy land barons they are often portrayed as. Nearly 60% are working and middle-class families who earn on average only 8% more than other homeowners. Their investments are on pace to save all ratepayers $1.5 billion in 2024 due to decreased load on the grid and other shared benefits.
Gov. Newsom should be doing more to promote rooftop solar, not less, if he wants to keep electricity prices down. He should also focus on the real driver of skyrocketing energy rates.
When analyzed over time, utility infrastructure spending — more than any other type of spending on things like wildfire mitigation, clean energy incentives or subsidies for lower-income households — is what's primarily driving up rates. Grid infrastructure spending to bring power in from remote generation to your house has increased more than threefold over the past two decades, four times faster than the rate of inflation — despite electricity demand remaining flat. Wildfire spending, meanwhile, accounted for only 12% of total utility costs recovered from ratepayers in the past two years.
If electricity demand has remained flat for so long, what is PG&E spending all that money on exactly?
That's the question state officials should be asking.
If the system's costs are mostly 'fixed' as PG&E claims, then these costs should not have increased so rapidly.
Yet instead of getting to the bottom of this quandary, the state is going after low- and middle-income families just trying to make living in California affordable by generating their own electricity from the sun.
Of course, flattened demand and cancelled investment projects do mean less profit for utilities like PG&E. To keep earning higher profits, PG&E must keep finding new ways to spend ratepayer money on grid infrastructure, and the commission must keep giving it the green light.
Yet utility profit motive should not be what drives energy policy in California.
If we really want to get rates under control, we need to stop attacking what's working — betraying the good deeds that we asked solar customers to do — and instead focus on the true source of the problem.
Regulators and political leaders need to get serious about reigning in spending by utilities and stop basing our energy policy around expanding their profits.
Richard McCann is a founding partner of M.Cubed, which provides economic and public policy consulting services to public and private sector clients.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
16 minutes ago
- Washington Post
‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has found himself in the center of the internet's spotlight after squaring off with President Donald Trump on social media over the deployment of military troops to counter protesters in Los Angeles. While police deployed tear gas and shot at protesters in Los Angeles with rubber bullets on Monday, Newsom shared a screenshot on TikTok of a Washington Post headline reporting that California would sue Trump over the National Guard's presence, paired with a trending sound sampled from the movie 'Mean Girls. ' The video was captioned 'We will not stand while Donald Trump illegally federalizes the National Guard' and was liked more than 255,000 times.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
American Service Members Are Getting Real Sharing Their Thoughts On The Marines Being Sent Into LA
As the protests in Los Angeles against ICE continue, the Trump administration announced it would be sending in 2,000 additional National Guard soldiers as well as 700 active duty Marines. According to Reuters, they will "protect federal personnel and property" as the administration carries out "even more operations to round up suspected immigration violators." Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that the president did not have the legal authority to call in the National Guard, as well as requested a temporary restraining order to stop the use of the National Guard and active Marines "for law enforcement purposes." This is the first time that active duty military members have been called up to assist with law enforcement since 1992, and unsurprisingly, many of them (as well as veterans) have thoughts on the topic. NotSlayerOfDemons asked, "Those in the American Armed Forces, how do you feel about troops being used to quell unrest in-country?" and service members, both active and former, did not hold back in these 28 responses: 1."Former Army. Unrest is when the citizens are trying to send a message to the government. Using troops against your citizens is the government's way of not listening." —cobra7 2."Marine here. (Once a Marine, always.) Iraq vet. I definitely do not agree with using the Marines. Hopefully, they used MPs with riot training, but using infantry to do police work is not smart. It's like trying to use a trained attack dog to herd sheep. What do you think those teenagers are going to do when someone starts throwing rocks at them?" —Nevada_Lawyer 3."USAF veteran. We swear an oath to the Constitution. Not to any regime, party, or person." —chiksahlube 4."Trump is creating his Reichstag fire. Take the time to look this up if you aren't familiar with it." —RuralMNGuy (The Reichstag fire was a fire that burned down the Reichstag building, which housed the German parliament, in 1933. The origins of the fire remain unclear, but it became propaganda for Hitler's Nazi government, and he used it to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree, restricting free speech, freedom of the press, and allowing him to begin arresting members of the opposition parties.) 5."As a Marine vet, this fucking sucks. These kids are 18–22 years old and don't know shit about what the Constitution allows or what the Posse Comitatus Act is. They are taught enough not to harm an unarmed civilian, but decades of training for combating guerrilla warfare makes people jumpy. If protesters start throwing Molotov cocktails, or god forbid shooting, then shit gets real for these kids quick. I am afraid that if anything happens, it's going to put a black eye on the Corps that will never be forgotten by the American public." —Maikudono 6."As a vet, I will say it comes across as totalitarian. There is no reason to use active duty military against your own citizens. There's a great quote from Battlestar Galactica: 'The police and the military have always been separate for a reason. One serves and protects the people, the other fights enemies of the state. When the military does both, the enemies of the state tend to become the people.'" —Ok-Student7803 7."Army veteran and a SoCal native of 30 years here. Glad to see the president not allowing California to burn to the ground. Everyone knows the governor wasn't going to intervene." —ChinMuscle 8."Man, that makes me think of the saying 'When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' That's the really scary part of having the military do the policing, isn't it?" —kkeiper1103 Related: "Honestly Speechless At How Evil This Is": 26 Brutal, Brutal, Brutal Political Tweets Of The Week 9."Telling soldiers to stand on the street with weapons drawn doesn't quell unrest. It provokes unrest." —timf3d 10."Honorably discharged Army veteran here (Gulf War era). I can say that I and my fellow vet friends think that these troop deployments are fucking terrible. Horrifying, actually." —PSadair 11."This is what the National Guard is for. Putting active duty military personnel on the streets of America to play policeman is a mistake." —RC10B5M 12."I served in the Marines, and I'm glad I don't have to sit there and think, 'Question the legality of this and get an NJP [Non-Judicial Punishment], or go and potentially be put in a situation where they'll have me on trial in The Hague in a few years…'" "Sooner or later, for everyone, the uniform comes off, and those guys are going to have a hell of a time integrating back into civilian society, even if they end up doing nothing while there." —Bureaucratic_Dick 13."I'm not active, but former military. I think it's wrong. It's an overreach on presidential power. Plus, it's hard enough getting the everyday American to support our troops these days without deploying them to attack our own civilians." —crash218579 Related: AOC's Viral Response About A Potential Presidential Run Has Everyone Watching, And I'm Honestly Living For It 14."Retired Marine here. There are units in the military trained for this. Active duty infantry units are not those units. They can say all they want that they are trained in de-escalation, but in reality, it's maybe one to two days of training a year and maybe some rapid last-minute refreshers as soon as they found out they were getting sent to LA. The bulk of their training and instincts are to destroy the enemy. This will not go well." —RonWill79 15."Former Army here — it's complete bullshit. Let law enforcement enforce the law, let the military do military operations. To be honest, they were waiting for any reason to do this because they want to 'send a message,' but the message that's sent isn't what they think it is. I feel sorry for those soldiers sleeping on the hard floor with no plan of provisions for water/food, not abroad in a war zone, but in downtown fucking LA." —mcstevied 16."Former Marine, from Los Angeles, from immigrant parents. Fuck this administration. I hope those troops remember their oath to the US Constitution and to the people of the nation. I'm so disappointed with this whole situation." —Tacos_and_Yut 17."I think following the orders of a 34-count felon who is responsible for attacking the Capitol of the USA is reprehensible. I sincerely regret my service to the USA and wish I could take it back. It will not happen again." —TheDwellingHeart 18."I don't support violent protests. I also don't support Marines being used to quell said protests. Marines are a tool you use to destroy an area or group of people, not to peacefully resolve it. The guard makes more sense here, but the best answer is just keeping it at the police level." —Well__shit 19."GWOT [Global War on Terrorism] veteran here. This shit is absolutely wack. The United States has used the National Guard MANY times throughout its history, albeit for civil unrest or not. The National Guard does an impeccable job at this, and to hear the National Guard is being utilized isn't too concerning." "The VERY large, stomach-churning moment is the president giving the green light to utilize 2/7 out of Twentynine Palms. These are not 'peacekeepers.' Their motto is fucking literally 'First to Fight.' They have a long history of intense combat operations from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and GWOT. This is a highly decorated combat unit within the US military's arsenal. Pitting young, war-fighting men against the people they thought they were protecting is going to be a disastrous clusterfuck." —NSTalley 20."I support the National Guard being used to protect federal buildings and to quell riots and obstruction to the enforcement of federal law." —Bravelakes 21."Served in the Navy from '09–'13. The bulk of these guys have never deployed, which is a badge of honor. Young, untested 18–22 year olds with guns seems like a really bad idea to me." —anthonyajh 22."As a veteran I am pissed that I spent four years defending this country only to have some idiots vote for and support a Christo-fascist government and despite all evidence still believe this is going to be a 'good' thing." —MediocreDecking 23."Retired Navy here and also a former Marine. Sending an infantry battalion (2/7) to assist the LAPD and the National Guard is the wrong move. There are whole-ass battalions of military police who are specifically trained for this scenario. Why weren't they sent? Every active duty/veteran I know is against this." —Baker_Kat68 24."It's a complicated issue. Most service members take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously, which includes the rights of Americans to protest. Using the military for domestic unrest should be an absolute last resort, not the go-to option. We're trained to engage enemies, not fellow citizens." "Many of us feel deep discomfort at the idea of turning our training inward. Peace, order, and public safety are crucial, but so is trust between the people and their government! And nothing erodes that faster than boots on home soil in situations that call for dialogue, not force." —Emotional_Ticket_357 25."Marine here, many of the brothers and sisters I served with came from immigrant families and communities in LA or ones just like them. I'm sure there's a few Marines who are on board with this crap, but many are really struggling with this, I can guarantee you." —skamatiks671 26."Nobody likes the idea that this administration is attempting to politicize the military. It's awkward for us. The way the Secretary of Defense talks is vile, unprofessional, and embarrassing. Recruiting and retention will plummet." —220solitusma 27."It's an accident waiting to happen." —kozmo30 finally, "Real take, most of them don't particularly care and just want to do their job and go home, regardless of the situation. Marines are people and lean slightly right — so you do have people who are giddy about 'enforcing order' — but nobody wants to be dressed up in full kit in LA summer heat." —HerrArado What do you think? Let us know in the comments. Comments have been edited for length and clarity. Also in In the News: JD Vance Shared The Most Bizarre Tweet Of Him Serving "Food" As Donald Trump's Housewife Also in In the News: A NSFW Float Depicting Donald Trump's "MAGA" Penis Was Just Paraded Around Germany, And It' Also in In the News: This Senator's Clap Back Fully Gagged An MSNBC Anchor, And The Clip Is Going Viral
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Newsom gains a step in brawl with Trump: ‘It'll help Gavin — especially if he gets arrested'
President Donald Trump has catapulted Gavin Newsom to the front of the Democratic resistance. The California governor had faded from national prominence as public attention shifted to Washington and, in his home state, the deliberations over Kamala Harris' political future. But as Trump and his allies make Newsom their foil in a brawl over immigration unrest in Los Angeles and the president's unilateral deployment of the National Guard and Marines, they are also elevating his stature on the left. No longer is Newsom responding to criticism, often from fellow Democrats, over aligning with Republicans on transgender athletes or proposing to scale back health insurance for undocumented immigrants. Instead, as Trump turns California into a test of his power to impose his will on blue states, Newsom is the Democrat standing in his way. 'We're at an inflection point in the country's history,' said South Carolina state Rep. JA Moore, a lawmaker who has been deeply involved in his state's early presidential primary politics. 'I see in this moment that the governor is fighting like hell, not just for the people of LA or the people of California or even the country. He's fighting for democracy itself.' In the span of several days, Newsom has become a ubiquitous antagonist, excoriating Trump administration officials on social media and on television. He has personalized the conflict by daring the administration to follow through on a threat by Trump's border czar Tom Homan to arrest him. (On Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he should be 'tarred and feathered' as an alternative). He is forcing a legal reckoning by suing to block Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines. On Tuesday, Newsom's press office mocked Trump with an X post casting Trump as a Star Wars villain. The governor's response to his threatened arrest — 'come and get me, tough guy' — turned into a rallying cry that's getting noticed by Democrats nationally and in states that will be key to his potential 2028 prospects. Democrats have united behind Newsom, with top party officials echoing his warnings that Trump is unnecessarily thrusting the nation into crisis. The party's official social media account posted a glam shot of a stoic-looking Newsom emblazoned with his 'come and get me' quote. Democratic governors began reaching out over the weekend to see how they could assist, according to multiple people with knowledge of the developments granted anonymity to speak about private discussions, producing a statement lambasting the Trump administration. Signatories included Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a potential 2028 contender who earlier this year assailed Newsom for hosting Trump counselor Steve Bannon on his podcast. Governors were motivated to act by an 'abuse of power that was much bigger than just one state,' one of the people familiar with the letter's drafting said. It is a perilous issue for Democrats, who have suffered from public sentiment favoring Trump's hardline posture on immigration, and the dynamic cuts both ways. Trump himself mused that 'Gavin loves the publicity' in response to a question about a potential arrest. Nightly images of protesters setting fires or clashing with law enforcement, even as Newsom has condemned demonstrators who destroy property, may play into Trump's argument for federal intervention. But it's an issue — and a governor — Democrats are seizing as they look to regain their political footing in Trump's Washington. And if the feuding is benefiting Trump, it may ultimately improve Newsom's prospects with his own base, too. 'I think this is helping Trump broadly,' said Mike Madrid, a California-based Republican consultant who opposes Trump. 'I also think it'll help Gavin — especially if he gets arrested.' In California, the crisis has led Democrats to close ranks behind Newsom while shifting attention from budget negotiations that alienated some key Newsom allies as he looked to close a massive deficit. Newsom joined other Democrats in demanding the release of David Huerta, a prominent labor leader who was detained during a protest. 'We've been waiting to feel like the governor is standing up and fighting for California and every Californian, and he seems to be doing that,' said California Labor Federation leader Lorena Gonzalez. Even onetime foes, like former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, gave props for Newsom's pugilistic stance. 'I've criticized him in the past … but I commend him for what he's doing,' Villaraigosa said. 'You stand up to a bully. You don't let a bully take away our First Amendment rights.' The standoff marks a return to the arena for a governor who initially sought to avoid open strife with the president. Newsom worked with the Trump administration to secure wildfire aid and invited MAGA figures like Bannon on his podcast as part of a bid to make inroads with voters who swung away from the party in 2024. But the crisis roiling California's largest city has propelled Newsom back into the familiar role of anti-Trump combatant. This time, it is different from previous legal and policy clashes over matters like climate policy — an explosive showdown about the fundamental balance of power in America. Rather than focus on immigration policies like California's 'sanctuary' limits on cooperation between local law enforcement and the federal government, Newsom has framed the fight as a matter of safeguarding democracy against authoritarianism — a microcosm of Democrats' case against Trump and a key gauge of their ability to stop him. 'If this doesn't become about immigration but becomes about federal deployment of military domestically,' said Rob Stutzman, a California-based Republican consultant who opposes Trump, '(Newsom) may be onto the issue that propels him not just within the party but beyond the party as a bulwark against a potential threat to democracy.' Trump and key policymakers like Stephen Miller, an architect of the White House's immigration agenda, have cast the conflict as part of an existential quest to rescue Democratic cities from unchecked migration, and they have vilified Newsom as the embodiment of Democratic failings. 'This is a result of the Democratic Party's failed policies and failed leadership,' said California Republican Party Chair Corrin Rankin. 'The president took decisive action to restore order, and I think that's something our governor should've done sooner.' Democrats in Los Angeles and beyond, by contrast, see Newsom as a shield against Trump's efforts to intimidate blue jurisdictions into compliance. Courtni Pugh, a Los Angeles based consultant who has worked for Newsom, said she has begun carrying proof of her naturalization with her. 'He is showing up and he's showing up strong,' Pugh said, 'and I think LA needs that kind of unwavering strength in this time of real fear.'