Latest news with #AB942
E&E News
5 days ago
- Business
- E&E News
Calif. lawmaker exempts farms, schools from bill slashing solar subsidies
SACRAMENTO, California – Assemblymember Lisa Calderon exempted public schools and farms from her proposal to reduce subsidies for some rooftop solar customers as both opponents and proponents ramp up their fight ahead of a key legislative deadline this week. What happened: The amendments published late Monday eliminate one of several hurdles for the bill, AB 942, as it faces Friday's deadline to pass out of its house of origin. Michael Boccadoro, who represents the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association, said in an interview that his group was removing its opposition to the bill following the exemption and that other farming groups were expected to follow. The amendments don't change the main premise of the bill, which is to reduce payments for customers who installed rooftop solar panels before 2023. Advertisement Why this matters: AB 942 has reignited a fiery debate over the payments, which customers get on their bills for selling their surplus energy back to the electric grid through a process called 'net metering'.
Politico
6 days ago
- Business
- Politico
All noisy on the Western solar panel front
Presented by the Stop the Oil Shakedown Coalition. With help from Alex Nieves and Timothy Cama SOLAR WARS: There's enough heat behind California's long-simmering rooftop solar fight that it's boiling over on two fronts this week. On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments from both sides on whether regulators broke the law when they slashed rooftop solar credits for new customers in 2022. At the same time, assemblymembers have a Friday deadline to pass (or not) a controversial legislative proposal to reduce the payments for legacy rooftop solar customers. The multipronged fight shows just how entrenched the two camps are — with rooftop solar advocates allying with builders and real estate agents on one side and utilities with labor unions and ratepayer advocates on the other — and just how willing they are to take their arguments to as many venues as possible. It's a fight that's likely to continue, given that the Supreme Court appears poised to rule narrowly — and perhaps not even on the policy debate itself. Instead, the Supreme Court's clerk and executive officer, Jorge Navarrete, asked lawyers last month to focus on how much the judicial branch should give deference to the California Public Utilities Commission when reviewing its various decisions. A lower court had previously cited deference to the CPUC — one of the rare state agencies created by the California Constitution itself — to reject a lawsuit by environmental groups that sought to restore the rooftop solar subsidies. For the environmental groups, the focus on deference is now an opportunity to take their fight to the agency itself, which some see as too cozy with the investor-owned utilities it regulates. 'Already, there's a gap in checks and balances on the commission,' said Roger Lin, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, which is bringing the lawsuit against the CPUC. 'The implications of this case stretch beyond rooftop solar.' The investor-owned utilities, who otherwise argued in support of the CPUC's decision, declined to weigh in on how much the court should defer to the agency in a filing earlier this year. But Attorney General Rob Bonta's office is defending the agency, arguing in a brief that the CPUC deserves deference because of precedent, because of the agency's expertise and because the Legislature has 'repeatedly tasked the Commission with studying the effects of the NEM tariff and revising it as appropriate.' It's timely, then, to point out that the Legislature is currently considering doing part of the commission's work itself. Assemblymember Lisa Calderon's AB 942 would slash the payments to longstanding rooftop solar customers who got spared by the CPUC's 2022 decision to reduce payments solely for new customers. Calderon agreed this week to exempt farms and schools, which is eliminating opposition from farming groups close to some moderate Democrats. She also picked up support from the CPUC's Public Advocates Office, which said the measure could reduce costs for ratepayers without rooftop solar. But it'll come down to the wire: Some progressive Democrats have already peeled off from the bill in committee votes, citing concerns from their constituents with rooftop solar that the bill would break existing contracts. The Supreme Court will start hearing arguments at 9 a.m. on Wednesday (and it will be livestreamed if you want to follow along). AB 942 has until Friday to pass off the Assembly floor. — CvK Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! MUSK MANIA: Elon Musk has finally returned to his roots — and Democrats are loving it. Musk's departure from the White House, where he was once among Trump's top advisers, took an explosive turn Tuesday as the Tesla CEO ripped Republicans' budget megabill on X, calling it a 'disgusting abomination' that will raise the national debt. As we've noted, Musk's company never stopped stumping for California policies like the low-carbon fuel standard, even as Trump promised to unravel the state's regulations and Republicans blamed state officials for high gas prices. The eccentric billionaire was always expected to eventually butt heads with an administration poised to throttle the electric vehicle transition and eliminate clean energy incentives his company has profited greatly from. While the episode shocked Republicans and drew pushback from House Speaker Mike Johnson, Democrats could barely hide their excitement, Timothy Cama reports for POLITICO's E&E News. 'I haven't spoke to Elon Musk, I'm not sure what the reasons are for this extraordinary statement, but we're in complete agreement,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said. — AN WE HAVE A BEE PROBLEM: California lawmakers are coming to the rescue of one of nature's most important insects: honeybees. The Assembly unanimously approved Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom's bill today to launch a program within the California Department of Food and Agriculture to monitor the health of honeybee populations. AB 1042 would allow the department, when extra funding is available, to provide incentives and grants for health intervention projects to support the state's managed honeybee population. The critical species is responsible for pollinating crops like fruits and tree nuts that underpin the state's agriculture sector and maintaining natural ecosystems, but are dying in large numbers due to climate change, habitat loss, pesticides and other factors. Commercial beekeepers reported an average loss of 62 percent of their bee colonies between June 2024 and February of this year, according to a national survey by Project Apis m. (honeybees' Latin name). — AN RECYCLE THE REDO: Gov. Gavin Newsom told CalRecycle to redo its plastic waste reduction rules in the name of affordability. Now, the lawmakers that passed the law behind the rules say the redo goes against their intent — and that they were the ones who wanted to make recycling affordable to begin with. Twenty-two lawmakers joined Sen. Ben Allen, the author of 2022's SB 54, in a letter to Newsom, CalEPA Secretary Yana Garcia and CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller last week. Their goal all along, they write, was to lower costs to cities and ratepayers by making manufacturers responsible for recycling their products. The new rules, they argue, stray from their intent by exempting too much food and medication packaging and not preventing hazardous recycling technologies. A coalition of environmental groups including Oceana and Californians Against Waste also blasted the new rules Monday. 'Getting this right is about more than checking a legislative box,' the letter reads. 'California has an opportunity to lead in the global effort to tackle plastic pollution, but not if vague, watered-down language subverts that very goal.' Who is happy: the California Chamber of Commerce, which is arguing that the new rules are more achievable. Spokesperson John Myers shared a takeaway: 'By fostering a regulatory environment that balances ecological responsibility with economic viability, the state sets a precedent for sustainable innovation of a circular economy.' — CvK TWO STRIKES: It's been a bad week for Sable Offshore Corp.'s oil drilling ambitions. Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Donna Geck issued an order Tuesday blocking a waiver granted by the state fire marshal that would allow the Texas-based oil company to restart a crude pipeline off Santa Barbara. That decision comes just days after a different Santa Barbara judge sided with the California Coastal Commission and stopped repairs on the 124-mile pipeline that leaked over 100,000 gallons in 2015. Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, which sued the fire marshal and Sable, cheered the rulings and used the moment to call out Newsom, who has stayed relatively quiet on the issue. 'At the very least, Governor Newsom should demand that his agencies follow the law and do everything possible to prevent another ecological and economic disaster in our state,' she said. — AN — Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a message for climate activists worried about the White House: roll up your sleeves and "stop whining.' — Southern California is being hit with a triple whammy of thunderstorms, dry lightning and rip tides. — Underground water supplies in the Colorado River basin are depleting even faster than the river itself, according to a new study based on NASA satellite data.
CBS News
28-05-2025
- Business
- CBS News
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.
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
To address homelessness, we need affordable housing and addiction treatment
'California has spent billions on homelessness. Audit shows we haven't been tracking it | Opinion,' ( April 11, 2024) An audit done in 2024 revealed that the state spent $24 billion over five years to solve our homelessness crisis. Sacramento Homeless Union President Crystal Sanchez said recently that a real solution to homelessness is more affordable housing. Proposition 1, passed last year, and CARE Court, established by Gov. Gavin Newsom, aim to address other root causes of homelessness by compelling treatment for mental illness, drug addiction and alcoholism. Both these solutions are paramount to addressing the scourge of homelessness we see around us. We need shelter and jobs. We also cannot accept non-treatment of mental illness, drug addiction and alcoholism as merely 'lifestyle choices.' Our society can have standards, allow for quirky eccentricities and honor those who flaunt convention without okaying behavior that adversely affects everyone. Leslie Shaw Klinger Modesto 'Trump's Medicaid cuts versus California's healthcare stance,' ( May 15) In the Republican's so-called 'big beautiful bill,' Medicaid is the biggest loser, and 13.7 million Americans will lose their health care. We, the people, get no tax on tips and overtime. Meanwhile, the rich will pay less taxes thanks to President Donald Trump. This alone would increase our national deficit. The nation's credit rating just got downgraded, and our interest rates and borrowing costs have increased. This bill would just make everything worse. Elected officials making decisions for the rest of us are only benefitting the rich and defrauding every other American. It's much easier to please Trump and the Republican party than represent us — the majority who aren't rich enough to help officials get elected. Diane Kroeze Modesto 'Rooftop solar subsidies raise electricity costs in California,' ( May 16) California has long established rooftop solar as a cornerstone of its energy and climate goals. Rooftop solar is a key tool in providing affordable housing for all, allowing middle class families to maintain control over their energy bills. Assembly Bill 942, however, threatens to inject chaos into the housing market. Under the bill, new homeowners purchasing properties with existing solar installations would have their contracts retroactively changed to the less favorable Net Energy Metering 3.0. This would diminish the value of homes with solar panels to buyers and create unnecessary friction in the home sale. For homebuilders, this is particularly problematic. AB 942 will create new housing market risks, exacerbating housing costs. While AB 942 claims to address energy 'affordability,' it will have the opposite effect. California should be doing everything we can to help homebuyers enter into affordable and energy resilient homes. AB 942 undermines that goal. Chris Ochoa Senior counsel, California Building Industry Association 'Prison closure, Ozempic limit, cap-and-what? 5 takeaways from Gavin Newsom's budget,' ( May 16) It would be a mistake for Gov. Gavin Newsom to restrict Medi-Cal coverage of weight loss drugs, like Zepbound and Wegovy. Medi-Cal will continue GLP-1 coverage for diabetics, meaning California won't offer overweight Medi-Cal patients access to GLP-1 drugs to help them avoid becoming diabetic, but it will pay for these treatments once they put on so much weight that they develop the disease. This is illogical. GLP-1 drugs will save Medi-Cal money. It is common sense that a person who is not obese or diabetic will need less medical care over time. Hank Naughton Clinton, Mass.
San Francisco Chronicle
11-05-2025
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
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 which provides economic and public policy consulting services to public and private sector clients.
