California Utilities Plan All Out War On Solar, Please Read And Help

[Redhill_qik]

It's obvious even from the wording that this was written by an industry shill. The notion that the escalation of utility energy cost is being driven by rooftop solar is just such an outrageous piece of total horseshit and of course completely aligned with what the utilities want the public to believe namely that solar is some kind of elitist fraud that will do nothing for anyone's real carbon footprint and is just a way for the rich to avoid paying their fair share. Total horseshit, and robustly contradicted by all the studies that show that it's mostly middle class people who are installing solar panels. It's amazing that somebody can put that stuff on a website and not get sued. It's full of disinformation, unsupported and probably unsupportable claims and it begs the question as to who wrote that and what their ties are to industry. Does anybody know? Perhaps folks knowledgeable enough on this forum can get together and craft a rebuttal and insist that it get published next to the b******* as an opposing opinion. The other thing we could do is actually expose the authorship of that b******* statement. Of course it's put up on the website without anyone taking any responsibility for it and without anyone supplying any data that would align with the wild claims that net metering is costing the average poor person billions of dollars.

I also came across this article about the "Affordable Clean Energy for All" coalition (they said coal he-he) that was funded by the IOUs.

Coalition received $1.7 million from three California utilities to push NEM 3.0, a rooftop solar ‘killer’

The Affordable Clean Energy for All coalition received payments from PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E to "stop the cost shift" and support the proposed (and since postponed) Net Energy Metering 3.0 decision.

pv-magazine-usa.com

Their website is still up Home - Fix The Cost Shift , but they are not listed as submitting a proposal in the latest CPUC doc.

 

[bkp_duke]

Back to the drawing board to start all over again, hopefully with more common sense proposals.

Apparently not. I just got a notice from Solar Rights Alliance. They are still parsing the "replacement" proposal, but they have some early warning signs.

I'm going to screenshot the email here, as that is easiest.

 

[power.saver]

Apparently not. I just got a notice from Solar Rights Alliance. They are still parsing the "replacement" proposal, but they have some early warning signs.

I'm going to screenshot the email here, as that is easiest.

View attachment 873409

Yup, looks like they had it all ready to go. I've read it and find some improvements over the original PD.

 

[bkp_duke]

Yup, looks like they had it all ready to go. I've read it and find some improvements over the original PD.

The fight goes on then. That proposal is just not acceptable.

 

[power.saver]

The fight goes on then. That proposal is just not acceptable.

Typical negotiation. Present a terrible offer, then make a few tweaks so it looks like you're getting a great deal. /s

 

[sunwarriors]

So from this post from Solar Rights Alliance, NEM1.0/2.0 aren't changing at all? Not even the $15/month charge and we get to keep our 20 years? That's great for all of us I suppose, but think they may need to give up a bit more for new installs.

I think the cut in credits for peak solar does make some sense (less banking), and good to see if 20 years is still there since I assume there will be a lot of lawsuits if they changed that to 15 years like Nevada.

 

[dfwatt]

Yeah, that's a load of horse *sugar* (not you, their position). This was recently debunked by the authority of all authorities on the matter: LBL (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory).

Here’s how US rooftop solar adoption breaks down by income – it might surprise you

Here are the latest trends broken down by income bracket among 2.8 million US rooftop solar adopters, according to a new report.

electrek.co

The argument the utilities have been pushing is that solar NEM causes non-solar customers that are poorer to foot more of the bill for maintenance. The study clearly showed that was not the case, as there has been continuing growth in the working and middle classes and span all income classes. Interestingly enough the "upper middle class" at 200-250k/yr in income had the lowest rate of solar adoption of everyone. Most importantly the rate of solar adoption among ALL income ranges was increasing, and the lower socioeconomic groups were increasing at a faster pace than the upper groups.

As somebody once said "light is the best disinfectant." Although this comes from a webpage titled public advocates office, it's pretty obvious that they're only advocating for power companies and not for the public.

Is there some way that the authorship of this piece (which has so much bull---- that it's really quite astonishing) could be exposed?? The idea that taxpayers can pay for a website that disseminates disinformation hurtful to taxpayers seems like potential leverage point. The "Public Advocates Office" statement presents as facts (as though accepted and uncontested) notions that are absolutely without basis, and as you point out there is no evidence base offered for any of their claims. Claims without authorship and without data should be challenged as violating the public trust and fiduciary responsibility of the government to the public. Someone should insist that the authors of this disinformation piece put their names to it instead of hiding behind anonymity. It's of course much easier as we've seen from the disaster that is now social media to say damaging and inflammatory things when you're hiding behind anonymity. That anonymity should never be acceptable on a website page paid for with public funds.

What's interesting is to see how the industry shill point of view is presented as though it's really interested in "sharing the benefits of clean energy with everyone". Nope. It's only interested in securing a monopoly around solar just as they secured a monopoly around fossil fuels. All they have to do is spread around enough bullshit and grease enough palms in the Legislature so that rooftop solar can be taxed point of it no longer having any payback period. Mission accomplished, monopoly ensured for the foreseeable future – keep those guaranteed profits rolling and make sure that the disruptive technology (a distributed grid based on rooftop solar and batteries) is killed deader than a doornail.

 

[bkp_duke]

As somebody once said "light is the best disinfectant." Although this comes from a webpage titled public advocates office, it's pretty obvious that they're only advocating for power companies and not for the public.

Is there some way that the authorship of this piece (which has so much bull---- that it's really quite astonishing) could be exposed?? The idea that taxpayers can pay for a website that disseminates disinformation hurtful to taxpayers seems like potential leverage point. The "Public Advocates Office" statement presents as facts (as though accepted and uncontested) notions that are absolutely without basis, and as you point out there is no evidence base offered for any of their claims. Claims without authorship and without data should be challenged as violating the public trust and fiduciary responsibility of the government to the public. Someone should insist that the authors of this disinformation piece put their names to it instead of hiding behind anonymity. It's of course much easier as we've seen from the disaster that is now social media to say damaging and inflammatory things when you're hiding behind anonymity. That anonymity should never be acceptable on a website page paid for with public funds.

What's interesting is to see how the industry shill point of view is presented as though it's really interested in "sharing the benefits of clean energy with everyone". Nope. It's only interested in securing a monopoly around solar just as they secured a monopoly around fossil fuels. All they have to do is spread around enough bullshit and grease enough palms in the Legislature so that rooftop solar can be taxed point of it no longer having any payback period. Mission accomplished, monopoly ensured for the foreseeable future – keep those guaranteed profits rolling and make sure that the disruptive technology (a distributed grid based on rooftop solar and batteries) is killed deader than a doornail.

We could always start writing the people on this page:

Public Advocates Office

I think direct, with evidence linked, emails to them (be polite) would help get the point across that the information published is flat out wrong, and consumers know it is.

EDIT - found most of their emails on this page:

https://www.westerneim.com/Documents/Public-Interest-Groups-and-Consume-Advocates-SectorContacts.pdf

 

[cali8484]

Does this mean it's done deal?

California pulls the plug on rooftop solar

The Public Utilities Commission approved Net Energy Metering 3.0, slashing payments for sending rooftop solar production to the grid. New rooftop solar projects are now considered uneconomical without an attached battery.

pv-magazine-usa.com

 

[Cheburashka]

Looks like it.

Even Ron DeSantis veto'd this in Florida. I really hope Gavin can come to his senses.

 

[RandyS]

Does this mean it's done deal?

California pulls the plug on rooftop solar

The Public Utilities Commission approved Net Energy Metering 3.0, slashing payments for sending rooftop solar production to the grid. New rooftop solar projects are now considered uneconomical without an attached battery.

pv-magazine-usa.com

Here is a link to the latest document. It will soon be re-issued as a Final Decision after the 5-0 CPUC vote today...

https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M499/K921/499921246.PDF

And, for the record, California did not pull the plug on rooftop solar....Accuracy counts...

 

[mspohr]

Here is a link to the latest document. It will soon be re-issued as a Final Decision after the 5-0 CPUC vote today...

https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M499/K921/499921246.PDF

And, for the record, California did not pull the plug on rooftop solar....Accuracy counts...

This kills rooftop solar. Kind of like pulling the plug.
Corporate profits have corrupted everything. Isn't capitalism great?

 

[gene]

This kills rooftop solar. Kind of like pulling the plug.
Corporate profits have corrupted everything. Isn't capitalism great?

I can’t figure out who is more evil? SCE, SoCal Gas, or it may be Newsom depending how he does or does not act on this.

 

[UkNorthampton]

I can’t figure out who is more evil? SCE, SoCal Gas, or it may be Newsom depending how he does or does not act on this.

Follow the money. Shake up networks of patronage & criminality reduces - choices, don't let a group (of any kind) get too comfortable, let them compete for your approval. More sunlight, more unpredictable & unmanageable individual voices which can be amplified - suddenly blow up, less corporate media.

 

[mspohr]

I can’t figure out who is more evil? SCE, SoCal Gas, or it may be Newsom depending how he does or does not act on this.

The utilities are "evil" because they are only concerned about profits. (That is inherent in capitalism.)
Newsom is corrupt for taking money from them to do their bidding.

 

[Big Dog]

This kills rooftop solar. Kind of like pulling the plug.

Nah, California will just continue raising the retail electric rates to so those folks who have an average $75 monthly bill today will soon be paying over $100+, thus continuing to encourage solar. (And the low income will receive greater subsidies.)

 

[Tam]

I wonder what will happen to Tesla Virtual Power Plant rate for homeowners that currently get paid $2/kWh exported to the grid

 

[mspohr]

Nah, California will just continue raising the retail electric rates to so those folks who have an average $75 monthly bill today will soon be paying over $100+, thus continuing to encourage solar. (And the low income will receive greater subsidies.)

People will not install solar because it will be too expensive so they will be forced to pay high utility rates for power rather than generate their own. It kills residential solar.

 

[Cheburashka]

People will not install solar because it will be too expensive so they will be forced to pay high utility rates for power rather than generate their own. It kills residential solar.

Correct. The ROI on solar is pretty damn bad now with NEM 3, so it won't be worth it for people to add solar, and they'll have to pay higher rates.

 

[Merrill]

This just makes no sense considering that California wants to minimize the use of fossil fuel, no gas cars sold by 2035 and every new home has to have some solar. It’s to bad that we cannot get rid of the 3 monopolies that run our grid.