After nearly a year of watching and waiting and reading tea leaves and anxious anticipation, a new proposal to revamp how rooftop solar owners are billed and credited has been released by state regulators — and everyone can still find something to hate!

This edition of the proposal would change the amount that new rooftop solar owners get paid for exporting energy to the grid, depending on how much solar energy is available at the time. But — and this is a tremendously large but — it would not affect existing rooftop solar owners, who’ll remain on their current tariff plans for 20 years after their systems connected to the electric grid.

Going forward, folks who install batteries to store solar power, and who can pump energy into the grid after dark when it’s most needed, would get the most handsome compensation. Folks without batteries, who only pump excess energy to the grid during the day – when it’s already plentiful – would get less compensation.

The idea, of course, is to push folks toward storage. That’s because solar owners without batteries must pull energy from the grid at night, just like everyone else, requiring utilities to crank up fossil fuel-powered plants, which aggravates the whole climate change thing.

“To support this evolution and the industry’s growth, the proposal provides extra credits to residential customer bills who adopt solar over the next five years, which allows the industry to gradually transition from solar-only sales to solar plus battery storage sales,” the California Public Utilities Commission said in a prepared statement.

The new proposal for what’s formally known as “Net Energy Metering” will be discussed (and likely fought over) at the CPUC’s Dec. 15 meeting. Folks can read the proposal and comment at apps.cpuc.ca.gov/p/R2008020.

Advocates for the solar industry argue against major changes to the current system and for a long, gentle step-down period that preserves the current system as long as possible.The major utility companies argue that the people without solar have been subsidizing the people with solar for years, to the tune of some $3 billion, and it’s long past time to pull the plug and get on with it. (File photo by Michael Goulding, Orange County Register/SCNG)

‘Extremely disappointed’

Critics of the current system are sorely disappointed.

They say that, as things are now structured, solar owners escape the significant costs of keeping up the grid, shifting a burden of billions of dollars onto the folks without solar.

“It is extremely disappointing that under this proposal, low-income families and all customers without solar will continue to pay a hidden tax on their electricity bills to subsidize rooftop solar for mostly wealthier Californians,” said Affordable Clean Energy for All spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks in a prepared statement.

“The failure to finally eliminate the growing cost burden carried by non-solar customers in California is particularly troublesome given the billions of dollars in new federal clean energy subsidies that will ensure continued growth and healthy profits for large solar corporations for the next decade.”

Separately, the PUC is seeking to restructure the manner in which fixed costs are collected, away from charges based on volume and toward an “income-graduated fixed charge” on all residential customers, including those with solar. That “would further reduce cost shifts through an equitable approach to the distribution of electric costs,” the proposed decision says.

Solar industry champions — who want things left exactly as they are — also were disappointed.

Though the proposal avoids higher fixed charges on current solar owners to pay for grid upkeep — what they call “unfair and illegal solar taxes and fees,” they worry it will make solar less affordable by reducing the credit that consumers receive for contributing their excess solar energy back to the grid. While everyone is still digesting the proposal, it would apparently slash the average credit in California by nearly three-quarters, from 30 cents to 8 cents per kilowatt.

“The CPUC’s new proposed decision would really hurt,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the California Solar & Storage Association, in a prepared statement. “It needs more work or it will replace the solar tax with a steep solar decline. An immediate 75 percent reduction of net energy metering credits does not support a growing solar market in California.

“If passed as is, the CPUC’s proposal would protect utility monopolies and boost their profits, while making solar less affordable and delaying the goal of 100 percent clean energy. California needs more solar power and more solar-charged batteries, not less. We urge Governor Newsom and the CPUC to make further adjustments.”

Details

Civil Code in California provides guidance regarding installation on common area roofs. An HOA cannot deny solar installations because they would be on common area roofs. (Tamir Kalifa/The New York Times)

The new proposal would save a residential solar customer $100 a month on average, and a residential solar plus battery storage customer at least $136 a month on average, the PUC said in a press release. Again, just to be clear, it would have no impact on existing rooftop solar customers, who would maintain their existing compensation rates, the PUC said.

The proposals also would allow eligible customers access to $900 million — with $630 million set aside for low-income customers — to encourage solar-paired-with-storage systems and stand-alone storage. This funding will help eligible customers access these systems and further support the sustainable growth of solar, the proposal says.

The average new-solar and solar-plus-battery-storage customers would fully pay off their systems in nine years or less with their savings, the PUC said. And, again, the proposal has no impact on existing rooftop solar customers, who maintain their current compensation rates.

“Affordability is front and center in this proceeding, given the finding that a significant and growing cost shift exists in the previous tariff and, to a lesser extent, remains in the adopted successor tariff,” the proposed decision says. “The successor tariff adopted in this decision is designed to compensate customers for the value of their exports to the grid…. This improved valuation will significantly reduce the cost shift and improve affordability for nonparticipating ratepayers, particularly low-income ratepayers.”

There are more than one million rooftop solar households in California right now, the overwhelming majority without battery storage. California’s goal is to rely entirely on renewable energy by mid-century.

“The update launches the solar industry into the future so that it can support the modern grid by incentivizing solar paired with battery storage and the adoption of electric vehicles, heat pump water heaters, and other electrification appliances while making rates more affordable for Californians,” the PUC said in a prepared statement. It “continues to support the solar industry while it pivots to a solar plus battery storage marketplace, which will bolster the local green energy economy.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

A solar powered electric-vehicle charging station in Pasadena. (SGVN/Staff Photo by Walt Mancini/SXCity)