The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has just proposed significant changes to rooftop solar policies in California that are likely to stifle rooftop solar energy growth and hurt California’s plans to decarbonize quickly. Frankly, it’s a stunning step backwards.
https://t.co/yxu0mZ7mpu pic.twitter.com/fGuYKVu3u3
— Ben Inskeep (@Ben_Inskeep) December 14, 2021
We will get into the details of the proposal much more, but before that, John Farrell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), had a tweet-thread in November picking apart the arguments for such changes. I’ve been meaning to publish a piece highlighting the thread ever since. To keep it simple, and just acknowledging that Farrell has done the hard work of concisely communicating it all in a good way, here’s the full thread:
You might have heard about the campaign to Save Solar in California, due to deliberations by state regulators to reduce compensation for solar producers. We're being played by utility lobbyists, my friends. Here's a thread 🧵 #solarenergy #NEM
— John Farrell ☀️🌬🔋 (@johnffarrell) November 19, 2021
So, Point 1: if we're debating whether solar customers get compensated adequately, let's keep in mind that utilities see it as their legal obligation to screw over solar customers to protect their market share. This debate is their debate.
— John Farrell ☀️🌬🔋 (@johnffarrell) November 19, 2021
Point 2: bringing in low-income folks is yet another utility strategy. If you think some consumer advocate woke up one day and said "we better investigate the cost implications of solar customers," you're dreaming. Some utility lobbyist fed them a line.
— John Farrell ☀️🌬🔋 (@johnffarrell) November 19, 2021
See Shalanda Baker's excellent essay on the value of solar: "When regulators ask, “What is the value of solar?” embedded at the end of the question, in an invisible parenthetical, are the words, “to the existing system.” https://t.co/aNJtumW6hx
— John Farrell ☀️🌬🔋 (@johnffarrell) November 19, 2021
Point 3a. What's the marginal cost to add a customer to the utility grid? Does that customer actually pay it? No, it's a cost shift.
— John Farrell ☀️🌬🔋 (@johnffarrell) November 19, 2021
Summary: there's nothing new or wrong about having cross subsidies in electric rates, especially when (in the case of low-income rates or solar energy) they serve a larger social purpose.
— John Farrell ☀️🌬🔋 (@johnffarrell) November 19, 2021
Point 4a. No really, think about it. We have bled to pass policy providing federal, state, and local subsidies to get people to *use their own money* to install clean power generation. Why are we contemplating clawbacks proposed by utility lobbyists?
— John Farrell ☀️🌬🔋 (@johnffarrell) November 19, 2021
Point 5 cont…mobile companies (logically) built a separate network. But solar customers, offering a similar technological leap forward, don't have that luxury, and the utilities are leveraging every advantage of their market power and monopoly platform.
— John Farrell ☀️🌬🔋 (@johnffarrell) November 19, 2021
Point 6. What should we do instead of debating a "cost shift?" We should leverage good policy and the fact that we, the public, own the utility's franchise to operate. We should force utilities to maximize the value of distributed solar.
— John Farrell ☀️🌬🔋 (@johnffarrell) November 19, 2021
There's a lot of excitement about the billions in the Build Back Better bill for clean energy, but millions of individual homes and businesses have ready-to-deploy capital to build clean energy! We just need to design a grid and rate structure to encourage them!
— John Farrell ☀️🌬🔋 (@johnffarrell) November 19, 2021
California has 1.3 million solar customers. If they each spent $30k on solar, that's $39 billion in private capital — more than the entire market cap of PG&E! Leverage that shit! Make the grid that welcomes distributed solar! /END
— John Farrell ☀️🌬🔋 (@johnffarrell) November 19, 2021
That’s the deal. We’ll surely have a lot more to say about the California solar proposal in coming days and weeks. In the meantime, make your voice heard however you see fit in response to this horrible attack on solar power and climate action.
I don't like paywalls. You don't like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Here at CleanTechnica, we implemented a limited paywall for a while, but it always felt wrong — and it was always tough to decide what we should put behind there. In theory, your most exclusive and best content goes behind a paywall. But then fewer people read it! We just don't like paywalls, and so we've decided to ditch ours. Unfortunately, the media business is still a tough, cut-throat business with tiny margins. It's a never-ending Olympic challenge to stay above water or even perhaps — gasp — grow. So ...
Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!
Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
