California's war on rooftop solar: A new bill could dim homeowners' energy freedom
California has long been a leader in solar adoption in the U.S., but a new bill gutting the state's net metering policy would deal a sharp blow to solar homeowners in the Golden state.
With the help of favorable government policies and incentives spurring the expansion of solar deployment, California became a solar-friendly state for homeowners looking to save money while living more sustainably.
But now, the state is poised to renege on its commitment to solar customers with the potential passage of Assembly Bill 942, a bill that would repeal net metering rules that had previously grandfathered in homeowners who had already gone solar years earlier.
This May, the California State Assembly Commission passed an amended bill, known as AB 942, that proposes to sunset existing net metering contracts beginning in July 2026. Net metering is a policy that allows homeowners to send the excess electricity produced by their solar panels back to the grid and receive a credit for that energy on their utility bill. This practice is designed to return excess output to the grid, which in turn benefits local economies and reduces homeowners energy bills.
Stay informed on the latest industry news—delivered to your inbox each month. Sign up for EnergySage's newsletter.
All told, NEM programs have proved wildly successful at spurring solar adoption, with over 2 million households installing solar panels —, totaling 17 gigawatts. According to one industry study from M.Cubed, a solar and storage trade group, those installations have produced $1.5 billion in cumulative savings for all customers.
Net metering was first made available to Californians 30 years ago, and in subsequent years and revisions to the program, the state uncapped net energy metering (NEM) to allow new systems to produce more than a previously mandated limit of 1,000kW. While some of the other benefits of NEM were rolled back over the past few years, the program still greatly benefited solar homeowners.
If AB 942 passes it will be a different story: Existing net metering contracts (under NEM versions 1.0 and 2.0) would be voided once a home is sold or its deed is transferred. That home and its system would then be regulated under the most recent version, NEM 3.0.
According to the bill's author, Assemblyperson Lisa Calderon, AB 942's purpose is to address the financial shortfall of grid maintenance costs that are being covered largely by non-solar customers. 'Our energy bills are becoming increasingly unaffordable, and we must address this ratepayer inequity,' Calderon said in a recent press release.
The environmental imperative of renewable energy aside, a key motivation for homeowners who want to go solar is to save money.Of course, lower utility bills piques anyone's interest, and is one of the reasons reason net metering has become so popular in one state after the next – it helps homeowners conserve energy and money at the same time. But according to critics, California had already strayed from its original mission.
With the introduction of NEM 3.0 in April 2023, California swapped out net metering for a net billing tariff program (aka net billing), an arguably inferior system that substantially reduces the credits customers receive for sending excess energy to the grid, averaging about 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour. This is because the energy offsets are now valued based on the avoided costs to the utility company. In previous versions of NEM, the credits' value was equal to those deducted whenever energy had to be imported from the grid; a simple 1:1 exchange rate.
Should AB 942 become law, homebuyers would be unable to inherit the benefits of existing contracts under NEM 1.0 or 2.0. (Under these versions, net metering contracts have a 20-year term and are tied to the installations, not homeowners.) Instead, those contracts would automatically shift to NEM 3.0.
'People made huge financial decisions to put solar on their roofs, with guaranteed paybacks because of these agreements,' Jeremy Nicholson, CEO of Sunergy, a California-based solar installer, told EnergySage. 'Changing that midstream would be a huge disservice. It completely erodes consumer confidence. Whatever agreements you have in place, you need to ride out to the finish line.'
A key feature of those older agreements is the guarantee that one homeowner can pass savings onto the next. That alone is a huge selling point for buyers in a state like California where electricity rates seem to increase exponentially.
Assemblyperson Calderon, a democrat representing California's predominantly suburban 56th State Assembly district, claims AB 942 is a question of economic equity. Her office cites a recent study conducted by the state's Public Advocates Office, which claims that in 2024 alone net metering shifted excess costs totaling $8.5 billion to non-solar ratepayers.
'Without modifications, the cost shift will continue to escalate as retail rates for electricity increase,' according to the study. It's also worth noting that Calderon herself is a former long-time employee of Southern California Edison, a large investor-owned utility and understands how they operate.
While it is true that electricity rates in California are well above the national average—30 cents/kWh versus 19 cents nationally—the data for these figures comes directly from the utility companies themselves—an obvious conflict of interest. Other reports found different results: A 2021 counter study conducted by Solar United Neighbors denies the claim that cost shifting is hurting regular Californians.
'The utility's cost shift claim is false,' the Solar United report says 'Research on the issue concludes that rooftop solar more often provides a net benefit to all ratepayers.'
'Utility companies are forced monopolies, and what they're trying to do is get rid of the competition,' Nicholson says. 'An apt analogy is the U.S. Post Office versus FedEx, it's utility companies versus solar. We are the industry disruptor. And even with that competition, even with all the solar in California, rates have gone up over 50% in the last seven years.'
Large utilities have made the case that increased rates are needed to help offset the costs of upgrading the U.S.'s aging electrical grid. But that,too, has been called into question, given that transmission and distribution spending on the part of California's three largest utilities has increased exponentially in recent years while electricity usage has remained relatively steady. The conclusion many critics have drawn is that, as investor-owned businesses, the utilities are motivated more by profit margins and keeping shareholders happy than providing value to their customers.
'The claim here is people who went solar are placing an undue burden on the rest of consumers, but that's not a fluid argument,' Nicholson told EnergySage. 'It may have held water if consumption remained the same across the nation and across utilities, but demand has only increased … people say you can't see the future, but I disagree. Solar takes strain off the grid and gives resiliency to customers. It's not even an ROI or cost-saving argument anymore. This is insurance.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Don't click that link: DMV warns of fake registration discount on social media
( — Many California residents have reported seeing scam social media advertisements offering to help them renew vehicle registrations at discounted rates. According to the Department of Motor Vehicles, the state prohibits DMV from offering discounted vehicle registration renewals. Officials are warning Californians to avoid advertisements that claim to provide discounted DMV services. Davis PD seeks help in identifying man who tore down Israeli flag 'The DMV does not offer discounts on vehicle registration renewals and will never ask for payment or personal information through unofficial channels,' DMV authorities said. Officials stated that the recent scam was on a social media post that was offering 50% off vehicle registration renewal fees. The post was requesting payment through an online payment app and asked customers to send their license plate numbers. 'The safest way to renew your vehicle registration is directly through the official DMV website,' said DMV Director Steve Gordon. 'We do not offer discounts, and we never conduct official business through social media or other unofficial channels.' DMV officials want to remind the public to always use the DMV business online at the official DMV website or through an authorized business that is listed in the official Business Partner Automation program for vehicle registration and title services. The DMV is offering some steps to reduce the chances of falling victim to online scams: Avoid offers for discounted DMV services: The DMV does not offer special deals through unauthorized third parties or on social media. Never respond to unsolicited or suspicious texts: If you receive a message asking for personal or financial information, do not reply. Verify the source: If you are unsure, always contact the DMV through official channels. Call the DMV if you have concerns: The DMV customer service team is available to help you at 800-777-0133. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Newsweek
14 hours ago
- Newsweek
California To Investigate State Farm's Wildfire Insurance Claims
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California regulators have launched an investigation into State Farm's handling of thousands of damage claims from policyholders affected by the devastating wildfires that ravaged Los Angeles County in January. Ricardo Lara, the state's insurance commissioner, said the inquiry was prompted by a growing number of complaints against the company in the wake of the deadly blazes. "Californians deserve to return to homes that are truly safe, not forced to handle smoke, soot, and ash on their own," Lara said in a news release. "Our goal is to close the protection gap and make sure insurance works the way it is supposed to, especially in the face of climate-intensified disasters." What Happened? The catastrophic wildfires that burned through Los Angeles County for days in January covered tens of thousands of acres of land, killed at least 29 people, destroyed thousands of properties and caused billions of dollars in damages. According to CoStar, the blazes wiped out almost $31 billion in property values, ravaging about 11,000 properties between homes and businesses. More than 95 percent of these real estate losses affected single-family homes. State Farm, the largest home insurer in the country, said it had received a total of 12,855 claims related to the fires as of June 10 and had already paid more than $3.96 billion in claims. The company has estimated that the January wildfires will cost it a total of $7.6 billion, though reinsurance payments from its parent company would lower the losses to about $612 million. A State Farm insurance company sign amid the rubble of a building destroyed by the Palisades fire on Sunset Boulevard in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles on January 16. A State Farm insurance company sign amid the rubble of a building destroyed by the Palisades fire on Sunset Boulevard in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles on January 16. FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images While State Farm says it is paying claims to policyholders affected by the fires in keeping with its "promise to customers," several customers have accused the insurer of mishandling, delaying and denying claims in the weeks and months following the blazes, leaving them in precarious financial positions or forced to stay in dangerous homes. Anger against the company has been boiling over in California since January following reports that the insurer had cut hundreds of policies in areas affected by the fires only months before the blazes broke out. That anger is mounting as many policyholders feel they are not being treated fairly by the company, which has asked for a 17 percent emergency rate hike to stabilize its financial position in the state after the fires. What Is the Investigation About? Lara announced on Wednesday that the California Department of Insurance had initiated a market conduct examination of State Farm, expanding its ongoing investigation into consumer complaints against the insurer. This type of inquiry includes a "thorough, fact-based review" that typically takes several months, the department said. The commissioner said the department had received numerous complaints from policyholders, with "some troubling patterns" emerging from them, including "the frequent reassignment of multiple adjusters with little continuity in communication, inconsistent management of similar claims, and inadequate record-keeping or information-sharing among claims teams." These issues create "unnecessary stress" for policyholders, "prolong recovery, and erode trust," Lara said. The commissioner added that while the department had launched an investigation, it could take action and advocate for consumers only if it received a formal complaint. "I urge any wildfire survivor facing delayed payments, claim disputes, multiple adjusters, smoke damage issues, or any other problems to file a formal complaint with my Department," Lara said. Complaints can be submitted on the department's website at or homeowners can call 800-927-HELP. State Farm has said it is cooperating with the California Department of Insurance in the market conduct exam process. What Are People Saying? Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in a news release following Wednesday's announcement: "Californians deserve fair and comprehensive treatment from their insurance companies. No one should be left in uncertainty, forced to fight for what they are owed, or face endless delays that often lead consumers to give up. "While there are national standards for insurance claims handling, they can be vague and inconsistently applied, especially during large-scale, climate-driven disasters. This examination will assess whether State Farm has complied with California's consumer protection and claims handling laws and will help determine if further reforms are needed as natural disasters increasingly disrupt insurance markets across the country." Assemblymember John Harabedian, a Democrat representing Pasadena, said in a news release: "Following the Eaton Fire, our community deserves clear communication and fair treatment to facilitate a swift rebuilding process. I have received numerous complaints from neighbors regarding the claims process. A market conduct examination will provide the clarity we urgently need. I am grateful to Commissioner Lara for taking action to demand transparency and ensure that families receive the answers they deserve." State Farm said in a news release on Thursday: "A fair review will find that thousands of State Farm customers are being helped by our teams on the ground in Los Angeles County and are very satisfied. Our efforts will remain on serving all our customers and meeting our obligations under the contract while providing the necessary information to the CDI. The Department routinely examines all insurance companies. These exams help ensure processes and procedures are in full compliance with state regulations." What Will Happen Next? The investigation launched by California regulators on Wednesday is expected to take months. Meanwhile, California homeowners who have insurance policies with State Farm are likely to face a rate increase this year as the carrier's request for a 17 percent hike received interim approval by the California insurance commissioner last month. The rate changes are expected to affect homeowners renewing their policies on or after June 1, 2025.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
California's war on rooftop solar: A new bill could dim homeowners' energy freedom
California has long been a leader in solar adoption in the U.S., but a new bill gutting the state's net metering policy would deal a sharp blow to solar homeowners in the Golden state. With the help of favorable government policies and incentives spurring the expansion of solar deployment, California became a solar-friendly state for homeowners looking to save money while living more sustainably. But now, the state is poised to renege on its commitment to solar customers with the potential passage of Assembly Bill 942, a bill that would repeal net metering rules that had previously grandfathered in homeowners who had already gone solar years earlier. This May, the California State Assembly Commission passed an amended bill, known as AB 942, that proposes to sunset existing net metering contracts beginning in July 2026. Net metering is a policy that allows homeowners to send the excess electricity produced by their solar panels back to the grid and receive a credit for that energy on their utility bill. This practice is designed to return excess output to the grid, which in turn benefits local economies and reduces homeowners energy bills. Stay informed on the latest industry news—delivered to your inbox each month. Sign up for EnergySage's newsletter. All told, NEM programs have proved wildly successful at spurring solar adoption, with over 2 million households installing solar panels —, totaling 17 gigawatts. According to one industry study from a solar and storage trade group, those installations have produced $1.5 billion in cumulative savings for all customers. Net metering was first made available to Californians 30 years ago, and in subsequent years and revisions to the program, the state uncapped net energy metering (NEM) to allow new systems to produce more than a previously mandated limit of 1,000kW. While some of the other benefits of NEM were rolled back over the past few years, the program still greatly benefited solar homeowners. If AB 942 passes it will be a different story: Existing net metering contracts (under NEM versions 1.0 and 2.0) would be voided once a home is sold or its deed is transferred. That home and its system would then be regulated under the most recent version, NEM 3.0. According to the bill's author, Assemblyperson Lisa Calderon, AB 942's purpose is to address the financial shortfall of grid maintenance costs that are being covered largely by non-solar customers. 'Our energy bills are becoming increasingly unaffordable, and we must address this ratepayer inequity,' Calderon said in a recent press release. The environmental imperative of renewable energy aside, a key motivation for homeowners who want to go solar is to save course, lower utility bills piques anyone's interest, and is one of the reasons reason net metering has become so popular in one state after the next – it helps homeowners conserve energy and money at the same time. But according to critics, California had already strayed from its original mission. With the introduction of NEM 3.0 in April 2023, California swapped out net metering for a net billing tariff program (aka net billing), an arguably inferior system that substantially reduces the credits customers receive for sending excess energy to the grid, averaging about 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour. This is because the energy offsets are now valued based on the avoided costs to the utility company. In previous versions of NEM, the credits' value was equal to those deducted whenever energy had to be imported from the grid; a simple 1:1 exchange rate. Should AB 942 become law, homebuyers would be unable to inherit the benefits of existing contracts under NEM 1.0 or 2.0. (Under these versions, net metering contracts have a 20-year term and are tied to the installations, not homeowners.) Instead, those contracts would automatically shift to NEM 3.0. 'People made huge financial decisions to put solar on their roofs, with guaranteed paybacks because of these agreements,' Jeremy Nicholson, CEO of Sunergy, a California-based solar installer, told EnergySage. 'Changing that midstream would be a huge disservice. It completely erodes consumer confidence. Whatever agreements you have in place, you need to ride out to the finish line.' A key feature of those older agreements is the guarantee that one homeowner can pass savings onto the next. That alone is a huge selling point for buyers in a state like California where electricity rates seem to increase exponentially. Assemblyperson Calderon, a democrat representing California's predominantly suburban 56th State Assembly district, claims AB 942 is a question of economic equity. Her office cites a recent study conducted by the state's Public Advocates Office, which claims that in 2024 alone net metering shifted excess costs totaling $8.5 billion to non-solar ratepayers. 'Without modifications, the cost shift will continue to escalate as retail rates for electricity increase,' according to the study. It's also worth noting that Calderon herself is a former long-time employee of Southern California Edison, a large investor-owned utility and understands how they operate. While it is true that electricity rates in California are well above the national average—30 cents/kWh versus 19 cents nationally—the data for these figures comes directly from the utility companies themselves—an obvious conflict of interest. Other reports found different results: A 2021 counter study conducted by Solar United Neighbors denies the claim that cost shifting is hurting regular Californians. 'The utility's cost shift claim is false,' the Solar United report says 'Research on the issue concludes that rooftop solar more often provides a net benefit to all ratepayers.' 'Utility companies are forced monopolies, and what they're trying to do is get rid of the competition,' Nicholson says. 'An apt analogy is the U.S. Post Office versus FedEx, it's utility companies versus solar. We are the industry disruptor. And even with that competition, even with all the solar in California, rates have gone up over 50% in the last seven years.' Large utilities have made the case that increased rates are needed to help offset the costs of upgrading the U.S.'s aging electrical grid. But that,too, has been called into question, given that transmission and distribution spending on the part of California's three largest utilities has increased exponentially in recent years while electricity usage has remained relatively steady. The conclusion many critics have drawn is that, as investor-owned businesses, the utilities are motivated more by profit margins and keeping shareholders happy than providing value to their customers. 'The claim here is people who went solar are placing an undue burden on the rest of consumers, but that's not a fluid argument,' Nicholson told EnergySage. 'It may have held water if consumption remained the same across the nation and across utilities, but demand has only increased … people say you can't see the future, but I disagree. Solar takes strain off the grid and gives resiliency to customers. It's not even an ROI or cost-saving argument anymore. This is insurance.'
