Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Tesla Solar Roof on California home, Powerwalls inside. Photo by Kyle Field, CleanTechnica.

Clean Power

Is California Becoming an Anti-Solar State?

A sweeping new bill was introduced in California that would greatly increase the cost of solar.

Is California becoming an anti-solar state? It sure seems that way considering the state’s recently released state Public Utilities Commission plan, which includes a “grid participation charge”  of up to $8 per kW for solar customers. That amounts to more than $50 a month in additional fees for a typical residential customer. The plan would also dramatically cut the price that solar customers get for the surplus electricity they provide back to the grid by eliminating a key incentive program, called net energy metering, that is largely responsible for establishing California as the nation’s largest rooftop solar market, with more than 1.3 million systems installed.

What’s more, the state’s utility commission also wants to cut its rooftop solar energy incentives after many years of success. Grist has noted that the new solar tax could financially hurt low-income families. The article also covered the backlash against policymakers in the state, noting that a coalition of 600 organizations and community leaders have been vocalizing their opposition to the changes through op-eds, petitions, and calling on Governor Newsom to do the right thing – to save California solar.

The coalition also pointed out the obvious: the state Public Utilities Commission plan is a cash grab that will favor the utilities.

At the center of the debate, Grist pointed out, is what is best for California’s low-income electricity consumers and the state’s plans to cut carbon emissions. Those in favor of the change think that net metering has become an unfair burden to lower-income families who have higher electric bills. Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney at the Utilities Reform Network, told Grist that net metering “massively overcompensates participating customers relative to the value that they are providing to the system. It’s a reverse Robin Hood scenario,” he says.

Those opposing the change think that it would harm the state’s thriving solar industry while removing the opportunity of bringing rooftop solar to low-income families who are only now beginning to get access. It would also mean greater use of fossil fuels for generating electricity, which disproportionately harms lower-income communities.

While the simple argument is that paying homeowners for electricity from solar adds costs to other utility ratepayers, the often neglected fact is that rooftop solar reduces the need for transmission infrastructure, saving ratepayers money. It also creates a more secure, stable, and resilient grid. Overall, there are many benefits from rooftop solar, including benefits that mostly help lower-income communities, and framing rooftop solar in a one-dimensional “costs only” way does not do justice to the technology.

Interestingly, due to all of the backlash the proposed solar policy changes garnered before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) actually approved the changes, a vote on the policy modifications has been postponed, indefinitely – but that doesn’t mean the cash grab won’t be back! Keep your voices heard. If you don’t want to see this anti–rooftop solar update go into effect, reach out to the CPUC, Governor Newsom, and anyone else who might have authority on these topics.

About Net Metering

Image courtesy Bright Brothers.

Here’s a great infographic on bi-directional metering, which allows a meter to measure the kWh coming into a home, and also “subtract” the kWh going from the home to the grid, effectively charging the customer just for their “net” energy usage. Eliminating or reducing the rate that solar customers get credited for their excess energy would greatly increase the cost of going solar, with absolutely zero benefit for the people or the environment.

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 ...
If you like what we do and want to support us, please chip in a bit monthly via PayPal or Patreon to help our team do what we do! Thank you!
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.

Written By

Johnna owns less than one share of $TSLA currently and supports Tesla's mission. She also gardens, collects interesting minerals and can be found on TikTok


You May Also Like


Lucid Motors is revolutionizing the electric vehicle (EV) industry with its luxury electric cars. Lucid has reimagined the driving experience to create an unparalleled...


Tesla officially moved its corporate headquarters from California to Texas in 2021, but in recent weeks, the automaker has debuted another new headquarters in...


Moderate to major spring flooding predicted along upper Mississippi River from Minneapolis to St. Louis

Clean Power

California regulators should revise a new rooftop solar plan to make solar more affordable for low-income communities, dozens of groups will tell the California...

Copyright © 2023 CleanTechnica. The content produced by this site is for entertainment purposes only. Opinions and comments published on this site may not be sanctioned by and do not necessarily represent the views of CleanTechnica, its owners, sponsors, affiliates, or subsidiaries.