November 18, 2024 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Will State Regulators Kill Rooftop Solar?

By Tom Elias, Columnist

If California’s often misguided utility regulators wanted to prove they are determined to favor privately owned electric companies over almost any other interest, they could not do better than with new rules they now propose to inflict on people with rooftop solar panels.

To understand this ongoing dispute, take a look at how utilities like Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric profit most from solar.

When photovoltaic solar panels are installed atop roofs, parking lots and in backyards, the local electric company makes no money under the current rules, known as “net energy metering,” or NEM. Homeowners, parking lot owners and others with panels use the energy they need, then send the rest to the general grid and get paid minor sums for it.

Without rooftop solar, which requires no new transmission lines to reach its end users, the private utilities must buy power from vast solar thermal farms in the California deserts, transporting the energy on lines that cost billions of dollars to erect. Without some form of solar, the utilities cannot meet state renewable energy quotas.

Every cent the utilities spend on new transmission lines comes from consumers, but the companies are guaranteed to profit by more than 10 percent each year on all they spend for such capital investments.

So the utilities have a strong interest in putting the clamps on rooftop solar. Did the PUC know before making its new rule proposal that within days, the federal government would OK building two new solar thermal farms deep in the Mojave Desert?

It was the often-misguided Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez of San Diego who first tried to stifle rooftop solar, carrying a 2020 bill with rules very like what’s now before the PUC, due for a vote Jan. 27 in San Francisco.

Gonzalez, who also wrote the ill-advised AB5 that has wrecked the livelihoods of many freelance professionals and others, proposed ending the current guarantee to solar homeowners that rules will remain stable for at least 20 years after systems go in. She wanted the PUC to set new monthly fees for solar owners connected to the grid – about 97 percent of rooftop solar owners.

Her bill died quickly. But the newly termed out PUC Commissioner Martha Guzman-Aceves, a former United Farm Workers lawyer, picked up on it with today’s proposal, which goes beyond even what Gonzalez proposed.

It would impose a monthly fee of approximately $50 to $70 on each rooftop owner and reduce what home solar owners get for their excess power, among other items.

That’s just what the utilities want. They pretend this will save non rooftop solar owners money, but never mention their baked-in profits from new transmission lines, money that’s included in electric rates. Meanwhile, millions of consumers can already get solar power from publicly owned Community Choice Aggregations in places like Butte, Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco, Ventura and Los Angeles counties. These outfits provide energy cheaper than the utilities while renting space on the companies’ transmission lines to bring power to their customers.

So it’s no wonder the utilities like the proposed new rules, with their disincentives to installing new rooftop panels. Said Southern California Edison when the plan got preliminary approval, “(This is) a meaningful step (to) reduce the financial burden on non-solar customers who have subsidized net energy metering…”

That’s the kind of half-truth California’s utilities often spout. In this case, needed new transmission lines will ensure a large net benefit to the companies at customer expense.

Right now, there is every likelihood the PUC will rubber stamp the new rules, no matter what it hears during the current public comment period, when anyone can speak or write their piece to the commissioners.

But by Jan. 27, the PUC will have two new members, giving at least some hope this will suffer the same fate as the Gonzalez bill of 2020.

Odds are the PUC will OK this proposal, just as it does most items its staff presents. That would be yet another contribution to the long tradition of state and federal regulators favoring the big companies over their customers.

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, “The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It” is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

<>Related Posts

Brooke Shields’ Former Palisades Estate Listed for $8.65M: Report

November 12, 2024

November 12, 2024

Built in 1982, the Three-Story, Chalet-Style Home Spans 5,345 Square Feet and Sits on a 0.43-Acre Lot The former Pacific...

SM.a.r.t Column: Moving Ahead to the Future

November 10, 2024

November 10, 2024

As we write this, the election results are still trickling in. We’ll leave the deep analysis to others, but the...

Architectural Review Board Considers Eight-Story Mixed-Use Project on Wilshire

November 6, 2024

November 6, 2024

The Development Will Include Studio, One-, and Two-Bedroom Units, 13 of Which Will Be Reserved as Affordable Housing A proposed...

Police Seek Suspect in Vandalism of Jewish-Owned Businesses in L.A.’s Pico-Robertson Neighborhood

November 6, 2024

November 6, 2024

Authorities Investigate Series of Early Morning Attacks as Hate Crime Police are actively searching for a suspect accused of vandalizing...

“The Oakwood Residence” in Venice Beach Hits Market at $4.3M

November 4, 2024

November 4, 2024

The Home’s Design Focuses on Organic, Monochromatic Elements A newly listed property at 1008 Oakwood Avenue, priced at $4.3 million,...

Brentwood’s Beloved New York Bagel Co. to Close After 21 Years at Topa Town & Country Center

November 4, 2024

November 4, 2024

Local Favorite, Designed by Renowned Architect Fred Gehry, Must Vacate by December 31 By Dolores Quintana New York Bagel Co.,...

Opinion: Fact Check: Why Vote Yes on Measure QS

November 1, 2024

November 1, 2024

Despite living in a famously progressive region, Santa Monicans are not immune from the same political misinformation and disinformation that...

SM.a.r.t Column: Lack of Oversight and No Accountability

October 31, 2024

October 31, 2024

S.M.a.r.t. periodically invites guest columnists to write opinion articles on topics of particular interests to our readers. Below is an...

Petition Launched to Stop Sale of Venice’s Friendship Baptist Church

October 30, 2024

October 30, 2024

Congregants were recently made aware that the church property at 606 Broadway Street was listed for sale Members of Venice’s...

Governor Gavin Newsom Allocates $827 Million to Combat Homelessness Statewide

October 29, 2024

October 29, 2024

New Funding Aims To Create Housing, Expand Shelters, Enhance Support Services Governor Gavin Newsom announced $827 million in new state...

SM.a.r.t Column: “Help! I’ve Fallen, and I …!!”, Cries Santa Monica!

October 25, 2024

October 25, 2024

Maybe fallen, but slipping for sure from being a desirable beachfront community that served all equally, the local residents who...

ARB Delays Approval, Requests Design Changes to 18-Story Project Set for Downtown Santa Monica

October 21, 2024

October 21, 2024

The Project Will Feature 7,050 Square Feet of Ground-Floor Commercial Space and Two Levels of Subterranean Parking Santa Monica’s skyline...

Cassia and Rustic Canyon Host Collaborative Dinners to Benefit the Southern Smoke Foundation

October 17, 2024

October 17, 2024

This Weekend Creative Teams of Chefs Will Spice Up Santa Monica For One Night Only Two of Santa Monica’s favorite...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Vote

October 13, 2024

October 13, 2024

In a polarized country or City every vote counts. Regardless of which side of any issue or candidate you support,...

SM.a.r.t Column: Fact-Checking Election-Season Windbaggery

October 6, 2024

October 6, 2024

Claim: The state is requiring Santa Monica to build 9,000 apartments.Answer: Partially true, partially false. Santa Monica has a pretty...