This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
By Malena Carollo, CalMatters
The California Supreme Court [this month] sided with environmental groups in a case seen as pivotal for the proliferation of rooftop solar power in California.
In a unanimous vote, justices told a lower court to revisit a ruling that upheld reduced payments to solar panel owners for selling excess power back to utility companies. Justices did not rule on whether the changes to the solar program were legal, requiring the court of appeals to determine this.
“They basically said the lower court kind of punted on the whole substance of the [solar payments] decision,” Bernadette Del Chiaro, vice president for California at the Environmental Working Group, said. “I do think they’re clearly stating this needs to be reviewed.”
At issue is a 2022 decision by state regulators to reduce by about 75% payments to solar panel owners for excess power. The change was intended to help make bills affordable for all customers while still encouraging the adoption of renewable energy sources. Three environmental groups that brought the lawsuit — the Center for Biological Diversity, The Protect our Communities Foundation, and the Environmental Working Group — argued in the case that the state utilities commission’s decision left out crucial considerations around benefits to customers and disadvantaged communities.
“We don’t need [to be in] an affordability crisis if we have more local generation,” Roger Lin, senior attorney fro the Center for Biological Diversity, said.
Utilities pay solar panel owners for their excess power under a program known as “net energy metering.” In previous iterations of the program – “NEM 1.0” and “NEM 2.0” – utilities paid solar customers a retail rate for their extra energy, which is the same price the utilities charge other customers when they resell that energy. This was changed under the current iteration of the program – “NEM 3.0” – which instead gives customers the “avoided cost,” which is how much utilities save by not buying that power on the wholesale market.
Customers who joined the program after mid-April 2023 receive the new rate, while customers under the prior two versions will continue to receive the old rate for the duration of their contracts, which is typically about 20 years.
Utility commissioners ruled in favor of power companies, which argued that older versions of the program created an unfair cost burden on customers. Those without rooftop solar, utilities said, have to pay more than their peers for routine maintenance to the grid. The groups bringing the lawsuit said this idea is overblown. A court of appeals upheld regulators’ decision, relying on a legal standard that gives significant deference to decisions made by the California Public Utilities Commission.
Thursday’s decision said the court of appeals “erred” by using this standard.
Whether or not the change in how solar panel owners are paid is legal will be left to the lower courts. But the decision this week could have farther-reaching implications for state utility regulators.
“We appreciate the Court’s careful attention to the appropriate standard of deference for reviewing CPUC decisions,” Terrie Prosper, utility commission spokesperson, said. “We are pleased that the CPUC’s decision will remain in effect as an important part of controlling electricity bills.”
Advocates said the decision reinforces that the utilities commission must ensure that its decisions fit squarely within the law.
“For too long, they really have operated in a black box behind a shroud of complexity,” Del Chiaro said. “Consumers and the planet have consistently lost out as a result of that.”
The fallout from the utilities commission’s 2022 net metering decision included an 82% drop in customers requesting connections for rooftop solar installations, and industry groups expected a loss of about 17,000 jobs during the first year of the change.
Also Read
- Dog Drowns at Santa Barbara Daycare Facility; Police Investigating as Business Suspends Operations
- Vandenberg Officials Identify Airman Who Died in Incident on Base This Week As Cedric Eneluna
- California Strengthens Protections Against Disconnections During Extreme Heat
- ICE detention center to pay $100K settlement in landmark California case
- County Public Health States California is Not Experiencing an Increase in Cyclosporiasis
Solar farms are three times as efficient as rooftop solar, and I don’t have to subsidize my neighbor.
RUBY – not sure that’s the case. Also, just like with coal, oil and gas, you (all of us) are subsidizing to an extent solar (and wind) farms. Of course, you are paying WAY more to subsidize oil and coal, especially under this anti-environment administration.
Microgrids based on rooftop solar are much more robust and resilient than large solar farms that gobble up land and rely on overhead transmission lines.
So wind, solar farms and hydro all no good because they rely on the grid.
Uh….. nothing relies on the grid except customers. Energy powers the grid, not the other way around…. 🤦
Not sure where the idea that ‘farms’ are 3X as efficient as roof top solar. The total cost of taking large patches of otherwise natural space, permanently disfiguring it, building transmission systems into the demand market which threaten safety and require (but don’t get) a lot of maintenance makes one wonder. But the bottom line seems to be that allowing homeowners to invest in environmentally sound utilities should be encouraged. When we put solar on our home over a decade ago the calculation was that the reduction in our electric bills was more than we would have made by investing that money. I know, not everyone can make that call, but many can by simply prioritizing. AND the whole community benefits when even the affluent to this as their production reduces the demand for the whole even if no excess is sold back.
Solar and wind farms, known in the industry as ‘zappers’ and ‘swatters’ require new power lines; few people ever talk about the amount of land these farms take up, in addition to the land taken up for new transmission lines. Solar and wind farms beholds the USA to China, who is the worlds leader in making panels and turbines; they are not truly renewable because the parts degrade and need replacement periodically. If you do not believe me, take a drive to Mojave, then Barstow CA, and then to Mesquite NV. In these places you will see the new transmission lines going up. The data on kills of birds, bats, and insects is suppressed to help make people believe they are saving the environment, in the name of climate change. Individual homes supplying their own energy is much better for the world than the massive environmental and biome damage of farms.
GETTHE – “Solar and wind farms, known in the industry as ‘zappers’ and ‘swatters'”
No they’re not. I’ve worked closely with this industry for over a decade. Never once has anyone anywhere across the country with whom I interact called them this.
“few people ever talk about the amount of land these farms take up, in addition to the land taken up for new transmission lines.”
You should ask the thousands of farmers and ranchers who are paid handsomely to lease the land for these projects. They talk about it all the time.
And yeah, just like any energy production, transmission infrastructure is needed. You cannot wireless transmit grid-scale energy. At least transmission and distribution lines don’t leak deadly oil killing thousands or more organisms per acre.
“they are not truly renewable because the parts degrade and need replacement periodically.”
The sun and wind are renewable. That is the “renewable” in “renewable energy.” Also, yes, just like any energy infrastructure made in the current era, some components need periodic replacement. So what? Blades and panels are now almost 100% recyclable.
“The data on kills of birds, bats, and insects is suppressed to help make people believe they are saving the environment”
No it’s not. It’s easily accessible. You might not like it though as it doesn’t fit your narrative. Wildlife death from coal/oil production FAR outpaces that of wind and solar. I’ve posted these facts numerous times here.
“massive environmental and biome damage of farms.”
It’s not massive nor is it even close to as damaging as coal and oil extraction, production and use.
Basically every step in the lifespan of fossil fuels is extremely polluting and damaging to the environment.
You folks need to stop listening to Landman for your “facts” on renewable energy.
Nothing like a conspiracy to rev up the ignorant cons.