Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Hi Gene,
Last week, the CA Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) proposed to block renters, farmers, and schools from using their own solar energy. This would close the door on rooftop solar for apartments, farms, and schools across California.
Please tell the CPUC not to block solar for renters, farms and schools. Go to the CPUC website and click "Add Public Comment". Complete the public comment form and hit submit. Below are points you can use for your comment.
Details:
There are a lot of multi-family homes with solar, and could be a lot more

  • California’s nearly 2 million solar rooftops include lots of single-family homes, of course. But they also include multi-family homes, farms, and schools that lower their utility bills through programs that are similar to the net energy metering (NEM) program used by homeowners.
  • Thanks to these programs, thousands of tenants, farms, and schools across the state of California are now saving money with rooftop solar.
The CPUC has proposed to prohibit apartments, farms, and schools from using their own rooftop solar to reduce their electricity bill
  • The way it works for homeowners is that your solar energy directly powers your home when the sun is shining, which reduces the amount of electricity you buy from the utility. This is common sense, and how it ought to work for everyone.
  • But the CPUC is proposing that properties that have more than one electrical meter be blocked from directly using their rooftop solar energy.
  • Instead, the CPUC is proposing that the utilities be given exclusive control over that rooftop solar energy as soon as it is made. The landlord and tenants of the apartment building would then have to buy their own solar energy back from the utility.
The CPUC is proposing a seizure of property
  • Yes, you read it correctly. The CPUC is essentially letting the utilities seize control over privately-owned rooftop solar systems on apartments, condos, farms, and schools—and then making the property owner pay the utility to get their own solar power back!
You helped stop utilities from taking away homeowners' solar rights. Now utilities are trying to take it away from renters, farmers, and schools.
  • Thanks to your efforts, homeowners' solar rights are safe for now.
  • But it appears that the utilities and the CPUC are trying to pick off renters, farmers, and schools. There is no good reason to discriminate against properties that have more than one electrical meter. Everyone—homeowner, renter, farmer, business owner, school—should have the right to make and own their own solar energy.
  • If the CPUC takes away the fundamental solar right for renters, farmers, and schools, there's little reason to doubt they will try again for homeowners at some point.

Renters, affordable housing developers, farmers, and schools are fighting back—will you back them up?

  • Letters signed by hundreds of community organizations & nonprofit housing developers, farmers, schools, elected officials, and apartment owners were sent into the CPUC in late June.
  • You can help amplify their message.
Please tell the CPUC not to block solar for renters, farms and schools
Thank you for considering this request, and for all you do!
-- Dave Rosenfeld, Executive Director
P.S. See this article for more details and for links to the information presented above.
P.P.S. On a separate note, the campaign to stop the Utility Tax is building momentum. Here is a letter from more than 100 other organizations calling for the repeal of the Utility Tax. More on this soon.
Solar Rights Alliance
302 Washington St
# 150-5062
San Diego, CA 92103
 

Hi All​

This week, I received several emails that might interest you.​


First, an update about the Utility Tax
Last week, state Legislators were sent a letter signed by more than 125 organizations calling for the repeal of the Utility Tax law. Thanks to Jennifer Tanner of the Indivisible Green Team for emailing the letter on behalf of everyone. Thanks to all the organizations that responded quickly and helped circulate the letter.
The letter is still active, and your group can still sign it by completing this form!

Other actions your organization can take:
  • Meet with your local assemblymember and senator and ask them to repeal the Utility Tax provision in the law (Public Utilities Code Section 739.9).
  • Ask your members to call their legislators and tell them to repeal the Utility Tax provision in the law.
  • Spread the word however you see fit.
  • CALL : You can look up their phone number here.
Here’s a suggested Phone message. Feel free to modify it:

Hello, my name is _____. I live in _____. I just learned that the legislature voted for a Utility Tax that will increase bills on millions of people living in apartments, condos, and small homes that don’t use much energy.

This will also discourage all forms of energy conservation. I am opposed to this Utility Tax.
Either author legislation to re-cap the Utility Tax at or below the national average of $120/year
Or direct the CPUC to do the same.
Since the legislature voted for this Utility Tax, I expect you to fix this mess.


Action 2: RED ALERT: Renters, Schools, and Farms are Under Attack by the State. HOW WE FIGHT BACK!​



The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Proposed Decision (PD) was released earlier this month, and it is BAD! Under this PD - carbon-copied from the investor-owned utility monopoly's proposal - renters (and anyone who lives in multifamily housing), farmers, and schools would be blocked from economically using their own solar energy. This would close the door on rooftop solar for apartments, farms, and schools across California. It would close the door on the ability of renters to save as much as $50 a month on their utility bills. It would make renters worse off than solar customers in single-family housing. Yes, it's bad and downright discriminatory - but with your help, we can amend this decision to give access to local, affordable, renewable energy to grow - not shrink.

THE CPUC NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU! (Please spread the word - you can forward this email in its entirety to others).

Sign Up Here or Call In on 8/31 Using the Info Below.


How to Provide Public Comment at CPUC - Call: 1-800-857-1917, passcode: 9899501# (Spanish speakers: 1-800-857-1917, passcode: 3799627#)
· The next CPUC meeting is Thursday, AUGUST 31st - in-person at Lake County Board of Supervisors, 255 N Forbes St. # 109, Lakeport, CA 95453 or remote.
· CPUC meetings begin at 11 a.m.
··CPUC information on the August 31st meeting is here.

To give a remote comment via phone:

· Dial in at 11 a.m. to get into the queue for speaking. Public comments are among the first things on the agenda.
· Call: 1-800-857-1917, passcode: 9899501# (Spanish speakers: 1-800-857-1917, passcode: 3799627#)
· To make a public comment during the public comment period, press *1 (star one) when you wish to speak to be placed in a queue by the operator. Once you press *1, you will be prompted to state your name and/or organization.
· After that, you may hear the operator prompt you for the info again, but if you have done it once, you should be good to go. Participants will be placed on mute in “listen-only” mode until the public comment portion of the meeting.
· Wait times may be lengthy depending on the number of speakers. Hang in there as best you can. We know many people can only stay on the phone for so long, and we appreciate everything you do.
· To watch the meeting while you are on hold: www.adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc. However, to comment, you must join via the phone line. For captions after clicking on the name of the meeting, click the green button below the video for captions. Then select captions by clicking on the white icon next to the word “live” at the bottom of the video.
· If you experience difficulty calling into the Public Comment line, please email [email protected] or call (415) 703-5263.

If you are unable to attend the voting Meeting on August 31st at 11 a.m., (or if you are and have a few extra minutes to spare), please call the Governor’s office at 916-445-2841 or write to the Governor at https://www.gov.ca.gov/contact/ .


Ideas for what to say in your public comment on August 31st:
Comments are usually limited to 1 minute.
We suggest you write out your comment in advance and practice it out loud a few times while timing yourself.

1) Your name and where you live (and if you are with an organization). Please be sure to mention in your comment if you rent in or own a multifamily property or are affiliated with a school, school district, college, college district, and/or farm, and whether it currently includes solar or if you would like to go solar - but won't be able to if the utilities have their way.

2) Please modify the PD to include on-site netting so that people like me [or my tenants, if you're a landlord; or students; or school districts; or my farm - modify as appropriate] can benefit from local, renewable, and affordable energy in the form of rooftop solar. Such a tariff should, at minimum, include on-site netting (the ability of those in multifamily housing, schools, or farms to benefit from the local renewable energy that their own solar system generates.

3) In your own words, one reason to back up your request. Below are some options. Of course, say it in your own words, it is more powerful that way!

The proposed decision is discriminatory: It would deprive multifamily housing tenants [or condominium owners], schools, and farmers of the ability to receive full savings on their energy bill from the solar that our solar roof produces/would produce - a benefit enjoyed by single-family homeowners with solar. Modify the proposed decision to include on-site netting, thereby ensuring an opportunity for tenants, property owners alike, schools, and small farmers to save costs through solar on their own rooftops or farms.

No one should have to choose between paying their rent and paying their utility bills: At a time when the cost of both is dramatically going up, rooftop solar can save multifamily tenants as much as $50/month in utility bills. Please don't abandon this important lifeline for renters in the name of further profit to the utilities. Modify the proposed decision to include on-site netting, thereby ensuring an opportunity for tenants, property owners alike, schools, and small farmers to save costs through solar on their own rooftops or farms.

The proposed decision flies in the face of the Governor's own commitment to housing affordability. The Governor has often spoken about the need to build more multifamily housing to address the housing affordability crisis renters [or working/middle-class families] like me face. The utilities' proposal makes the cost of building and maintaining this housing more expensive. Modify the proposed decision to include on-site netting, thereby ensuring an opportunity for tenants, property owners alike, schools, and small farmers, to save costs through solar on their own rooftops or farms.


What's at Stake for Solar for Multifamily Housing
Please review this fact sheet
· Here are the letters that were sent on the subject before the proposed decision's release: renter advocates, local elected officials, schools, and market-rate multifamily property owners


Additional Background Information:

Five letters from agricultural customers, schools, renter advocates, local elected officials, and market rate multifamily property owners, with over 700 hundred individual and organization signatures, were sent to the CPUC. Yet, the content of these letters is not seen in the proposed decision. The CPUC ignored hundreds of comments and instead sided with the three investor-owned utilities - PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E. That’s why both the CPUC and the Governor need to hear from you!

P.
S. This proposed decision is part of a broader strategy that the investor-owned utilities are doing to hurt California renters and working families. For more information, please see this fact sheet. Stay tuned for other opportunities to act.

Action 3: End Fossil Fuels Action on Sept 17th, Global Day of Action

Third Act is an organization of adults 60+. Volunteer-run groups, organized by either affinity or geographic location, are divided into working groups. The Working Groups engage with their colleagues and communities by executing relevant campaigns and organizing like-minded elders toward building a more sustainable future.

Third Act Sacramento has an event on the waterfront in Old Sacramento on Sunday, September 17, at 11:00 a.m., to demand that Governor Newsom and President Biden End the Era of Fossil Fuels by committing to end new permitting, phase out oil and gas production and declare a climate emergency.

If you live in Sacramento or the surrounding area or are visiting Sacramento the weekend of the event, you can find out more and register here.

And here is some information about Third Act and Third Act Sacramento. There are chapters of the Third Act throughout CA and the US.
Homepage - Third Act
Third Act: Sacramento

I hope to have some more details regarding the Utility Tax next week so stay tuned
 
I am retired. I have Teslas. I have solar. I have batteries. So....after the solar charges up my batteries, I could direct my solar to charging our cars. BUT....while I can manually make that happen, I don't know a way for my all-Tesla system to do this for me. Does anyone know of a solutions?
 
I am retired. I have Teslas. I have solar. I have batteries. So....after the solar charges up my batteries, I could direct my solar to charging our cars. BUT....while I can manually make that happen, I don't know a way for my all-Tesla system to do this for me. Does anyone know of a solutions?
If your batteries are Powerwalls and your car and phone have the latest updates then you can use via your phone app or the car screen: “charge on solar”.
 
COS does not allow one to set battery level charging. IMO, not worth much, I still just do manually
Unless I misundertand your statement, in my case it does. There are two buttons one for how high to charge from either source, the other is how migh to charge maximum with excess solar. I can't imagine what further control than this that'd you'd want.
 
It does not let one, last time I looked, to charge the PW to 100% first, then the car.
Correct. That is my issue. Hopefully, someone at Tesla will grasp that some of us need that. I can guess at it, of course, but that is not the same as planning it carefully. I should add that it seems clear that as our utility (SCE) seeks to find ways to extra money from those who invested so heavily in solar, there will soon be an enhanced penalty for "round-tripping" kWhs. Better to retain and use your own solar initially rather than sending it to the utility, then buying it back at night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h2ofun and gene
Why is Steve Bennett, my state representative, and please check your California representative, not signing onto this letter to abolish the pending SCE utility tax? In case you do not already know, 2024 may bring us a tax on your SCE bill that is between $30 and $160 per month based on income. This tax has zero to do with your consumption of energy. The CPUC is completely corrupt so writing them is useless. There is a push for our state legislatures to get active on this! But where is Bennett's signature? Please write your representative and ask him/her to join this movement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bkp_duke and mspohr
Why is Steve Bennett, my state representative, and please check your California representative, not signing onto this letter to abolish the pending SCE utility tax? In case you do not already know, 2024 may bring us a tax on your SCE bill that is between $30 and $160 per month based on income. This tax has zero to do with your consumption of energy. The CPUC is completely corrupt so writing them is useless. There is a push for our state legislatures to get active on this! But where is Bennett's signature? Please write your representative and ask him/her to join this movement.

Gene: this letter is all virtue signaling. The Sate Legislature passed this law. The Legislature can unpass the law. Instead of asking why your State Rep is not signing a (worthless) letter, you should be asking yoru State Rep to change the law and eliminate the income-provision. If these Reps really cared, they could pass such a law the first day they return from vacation.
 
In the two months since I reported my plans in this forum, Tesla has released an update to the Tesla App that allows Charge on Solar capabilities that are exactly what I was looking for! Here is a summary of what I now see most days here in Southern California.
Yes, California is now planning to create a utility use tax based on household income, so that brings a new battle. I frankly believe any such tax will end up being rejected by the US Supreme Court....but that will not be the end of the story. The utilities, CPUC and the State Legislature appear determined to punish those who put solar on their homes, suggesting we are privileged and racist and every other negative description they can find.
 

Attachments

  • Charge on Sunshine Analysis NOV23.jpg
    Charge on Sunshine Analysis NOV23.jpg
    232.8 KB · Views: 22
  • Hart Home Energy Story.jpg
    Hart Home Energy Story.jpg
    160 KB · Views: 12
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: bkp_duke and wws
In the two months since I reported my plans in this forum, Tesla has released an update to the Tesla App that allows Charge on Solar capabilities that are exactly what I was looking for! Here is a summary of what I now see most days here in Southern California.
Yes, California is now planning to create a utility use tax based on household income, so that brings a new battle. I frankly believe any such tax will end up being rejected by the US Supreme Court....but that will not be the end of the story. The utilities, CPUC and the State Legislature appear determined to punish those who put solar on their homes, suggesting we are privileged and racist and every other negative description they can find.

It's alarming that California government wants to promote solar and the utilities treat residential solar owners like dirt.

Solar owners need incentives, not punishments.

Instead of solarize their electricity, they create fees to increase revenues: connection fee, infrastructure fee... and now income-based fixed charge fee

This !income-based fixed charge fee is the worst idea for conservation. Notice that it's fixed, constant, doesn't change unless your income change.

For those with $180,000 income, whether you use zero or massive kilowatts, you still have to pay the $120 monthly fixed charge minimum!

That also includes those who overproduce their solar or not at all, they still have to pay $120 monthly fixed charge minimum based on their $180,000 income.

Income-based fixed charge fee is another scheme to attack residential solar!
 
It's really not about energy conservation, efficiency, environment, climate change or anything. Anytime you have a for profit based IOU controlling a required/life dependent product, it's never going to work out well.

It's all about profits for a shareholder owned company. Unlike most things life, you can't quit your energy provider other than moving. I still haven't seen someone who legally went off grid here while they and their home was part of the IOU grid. Please share if anyone has a roadmap of how that was done.
 
In the two months since I reported my plans in this forum, Tesla has released an update to the Tesla App that allows Charge on Solar capabilities that are exactly what I was looking for! Here is a summary of what I now see most days here in Southern California.
Yes, California is now planning to create a utility use tax based on household income, so that brings a new battle. I frankly believe any such tax will end up being rejected by the US Supreme Court....but that will not be the end of the story. The utilities, CPUC and the State Legislature appear determined to punish those who put solar on their homes, suggesting we are privileged and racist and every other negative description they can find.
Of course that's all b******* it's transparently an attempt to get populist outrage to operate in bizarre support of plutocratic monopolies run entirely by rich white people. It is very sad that propaganda and disinformation are pretty successful in this country to get people to vote against interest. Instead of collapsing the Monopoly and having distributed grids where prices are actually set by Supply and demand, utility companies have figured out that if they can eliminate rooftop solar, by legislation if necessary or by a phony connection tax monthly surcharge (set to roughly equal all of the savings that the homeowner would generate from the solar), they can maintain total control. Of course with those connection fees able to functionally cancel out any real savings, that completely disincentivizes anyone putting panels on their roof. Don't want anything to happen to the goose that's laying all the golden eggs. This of course will allow utilities to maintain artificially high prices despite the real cost of electricity collapsing right now, as your average solar system can supply electricity for something like 10-12 cents a kilowatt hour amortized over a reasonable lifespan give or take a bit depending on your latitude and weather. This of course is cheaper than pretty much any public utility. Keep the FUDgates wide open, carpet bomb in the media about solar being elitist and racist, and maybe you can hold on to your sleazy monopoly, all spun as free market capitalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed Hart and gene
utility companies have figured out that if they can eliminate rooftop solar, by legislation if necessary or by a phony connection tax monthly surcharge (set to roughly equal all of the savings that the homeowner would generate from the solar), they can maintain total control.

My answer is always the same: PV owners are not a utility 'class' of consumers. Any fees the utilities want to charge should apply to *all* consumers. Then the utility will get honest feedback ;)

And if CA is inclined to tax high(er) income households, fine. But by all means tax businesses too. Say, 1% gross income
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dave EV
Still the best cartoon I've ever seen about all this stuff.
My answer is always the same: PV owners are not a utility 'class' of consumers. Any fees the utilities want to charge should apply to *all* consumers. Then the utility will get honest feedback ;)

And if CA is inclined to tax high(er) income households, fine. But by all means tax businesses too.
It's not clear to me why an income tax is the purview of a so-called 'public' monopolistic utility though. Seems to me that again is pseudo populist BS designed to undercut the economics of individual rooftop solar adoption. Or at least cover their losses so that anything they lose from revenue they can take back with this phony 'income tax'. I agree that the broad application of this as opposed to a discriminatory application against solar rooftop owners would provoke an unambiguous response to get whoever authored this out of office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed Hart and gene
I think the income based fee charges is just pushing the same narrative to continue the class warfare debate/idea that the IOUs like. If the rich vs. poor is fighting amongst themselves or we sell it as rich people robbing the poor or taking advantage of the poor, then they can avoid the people vs. the utilities discussions or real solutions to use less, spend less.

It is true that transmission is the real cost factor, but this is why maybe low dense areas should have a diff solution vs. long/costly/fire prone transmission lines.

I still would rather us have grid stability based more on local solutions/levels. Rural people should just have their own thing and some, were already given free batteries.
 
I think the income based fee charges is just pushing the same narrative to continue the class warfare debate/idea that the IOUs like. If the rich vs. poor is fighting amongst themselves or we sell it as rich people robbing the poor or taking advantage of the poor, then they can avoid the people vs. the utilities discussions or real solutions to use less, spend less.

It is true that transmission is the real cost factor, but this is why maybe low dense areas should have a diff solution vs. long/costly/fire prone transmission lines.

I still would rather us have grid stability based more on local solutions/levels. Rural people should just have their own thing and some, were already given free batteries.
That transmission is the greatest cost is hotly debated. In any case local networks based on local solar grids and batteries are way cheaper than shipping power hundreds of miles. The bottom line is that the big utilities do not want to paradigm shift to small local grids with renewable energy. They want their guaranteed Cost Plus profits for their executive group who are obviously running the system. Paradigm shift to a distributed local grid based on Renewables and batteries sinks their entire ship and most of its phony buttressing arguments including any need for peaker plants which Drive the cost through the roof for everybody.