In a decision that has sparked controversy, the California Public Utilities Commission last week (May 30) adopted scaled-back regulations on community solar projects. The order followed complaints by the state’s three large investor-owned electric utilities that more ambitious programs would shift costs to their customers who don’t have access to the community solar projects.
Community solar projects are mid-sized arrays that allow consumers who don’t have access to residential roof-top solar to pool their resources. It particularly appeals to apartment dwellers. The state already has a community solar program. The measure the commission rejected would have expanded and liberalized of the rules.
The CPUC action came in response to 2022 legislation (AB 2316) designed to encourage community solar development, including a “net value billing tariff.” Solar Power World explained that this tariff “would have compensated subscribers to community solar projects up to 5 MW (ac) based on the value of a project’s generation at the time it’s provided to the grid.”
The commission specifically criticized the net billing tariff, asserting that it “conflicts with federal law and does not meet the requirements” of the California legislation. Los Angeles Times columnist Sammy Roth dubbed this “a bizarre claim that could have been used to undermine existing community solar programs in other states. Instead, adopting the stance of Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Pacific Gas & Electric, the commission will view generation from community solar projects as conventional wholesale sales.”
The sponsor of the community solar legislation the commission was implementing, San Diego Democrat Chris Ward, said at the commission meeting that the CPUC alternative plan was “fatally flawed,” “inconsistent with my bill,” and will result in “no new projects being built.”
The CPUC decision follows earlier action this year to scale back subsidies for residential roof-top solar. Both are part of the state’s response to high and rising electric rates in the Golden State, the highest in the continental U.S. The commission’s Public Advocate’s Office supported both the earlier decision and last week’s, on the basis that continued solar subsidies shift costs, often to lower income residents.
CPUC President Alice Reynolds said at the meeting, “We need to be very focused on this downward pressure on bills at this moment because we’re in the midst of an affordability crisis in electricity bills. Keeping the bills affordable is also key to unlocking our climate change objectives.”
The commission voted 3-1 to adopt the watered-down community solar plan. Commissioner Darcie Houck opposed the order.
The CPUC decision should clear the way for California to get some $250 million in federal funds for community solar through the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act.
Solar and consumer advocates hammered the CPUC decision. Derek Chernow, Western Regional Director for Coalition for Community Solar Access, said the decision “fundamentally misunderstands the value community solar can bring to California’s grid and the necessary role it can and needs to play in helping the state achieve its clean energy and equity objectives. It relies on one-time federal taxpayer money to subsidize an unworkable program instead of choosing a proven model that leverages private capital and risk to serve hundreds of thousands of income-qualified customers and small businesses.”
the CPUC is doing the bidding of monopoly utilities to block a functional community solar program in California. This decision effectively shuts out the vast majority of low-income Californians, renters, and others that can’t install solar directly on their homes from participating in the clean energy economy.
Stephanie Doyle of the Solar Energy Industries Association said that the “vote ignores calls from the solar industry, environmental justice organizations, consumer advocates, and labor groups to create a workable program. It also puts into question the status of federal Solar for All funding, which is solely dedicated to expanding solar accessibility. This is a shocking decision from a Commission that is charged with protecting ratepayers and keeping electricity bills affordable.”
The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized, “the state is going out of its way to ensure that the green energy transition remains the exclusive domain of private utilities and their chosen partners.”
–Kennedy Maize
To subscribe: The Quad Report