California Public Utilities Commission’s decisions do not encourage the expansion of solar energy generation in the state.” loading=”eager” srcset=”https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/80×0.jpg 80w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/160×0.jpg 160w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/240×0.jpg 240w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/360×0.jpg 360w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/480×0.jpg 480w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/640×0.jpg 640w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/720×0.jpg 720w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/960×0.jpg 960w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/1080×0.jpg 1080w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/1440×0.jpg 1440w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/1920×0.jpg 1920w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/2200×0.jpg 2200w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/21/46/07/21389798/5/2400×0.jpg 2400w” sizes=”” src=”http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/aspect-ratio:3%20/%202″ class=”x100 y100 opc bgpc ofcv bgscv block bg-gray200 mnh0px fill”>
Sundale Vineyards in Tulare has a series of solar panels on its property. The California Public Utilities Commission’s decisions do not encourage the expansion of solar energy generation in the state.
Scott Strazzante/The Chronicle 2021
You might think, given California’s ambitious clean energy goals, that the state would be eager to incentivize solar projects of all shapes and sizes.
In 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission sharply reduced the rate that utilities pay homeowners with new solar panels for excess energy sold to the grid, reducing demand for residential solar and caused thousands of layoffs of solar workers. In 2023, the commission significantly reduced incentives for schools, businesses and apartment buildings to install solar panels.
Article continues below this advertisement.
On Thursday, the commission is scheduled to vote on a proposed decision that could effectively condemn community solar projects, smaller-scale installations often combined with battery storage intended to be located relatively close to the communities they serve. Renters, low-income residents and others who cannot afford or access rooftop solar panels on their homes can “subscribe” to the clean energy produced by these installations and receive bill credits for the environmental and the energy provided to the grid.
Community solar is a win-win: more clean energy available to a wider range of people. These projects can reduce the need for larger facilities and expensive long-distance transmission infrastructure, limiting some of the nastier adverse impacts of the green energy transition. And they represent a cost-effective way for builders to comply with state regulations that require most new construction to be connected to solar power.
But community solar has been slow to take off in California, largely due to complex and strict regulations, low or non-existent returns on investment for developers and volatility for customers.
Assemblyman Chris Ward, D-San Diego, wanted to change that with AB2316. The 2022 law directed the Public Utilities Commission to establish a community renewable energy program that would ensure at least 51% of its electricity went to low-income customers, prohibit costs from being covered by people who do not subscribe to the program and will pay current costs. wages, which are essentially union wages, to facility construction workers.
These provisions help explain why a highly unusual coalition of interest groups that often fight each other tooth and nail (including solar developers, ratepayer advocates, climate activists, and unions) joined forces and urged the Public Utilities Commission to support the same community solar plan.
Article continues below this advertisement.
A central element of that plan is a new compensation structure that they say will make it easier for community solar projects to establish and stabilize customer credits, incentivizing both developers and ratepayers to participate.
But California’s private utilities, including Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, don’t like the idea. They argue that this payment structure is illegal under federal law. Utilities have submitted alternative proposals to modify, rather than revise, current programs, which they admit have resulted in few projects.
However, the Public Service Commission sided with the utilities and issued a proposed decision that closely resembled Southern California Edison’s ineffective plan.
This horrified almost everyone except private utilities.
Article continues below this advertisement.
Neil Chatterjee, who led the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under President Donald Trump, warned California Public Utilities Commission Chairwoman Alice Reynolds in an April letter that the proposed decision would “disrupt markets across the country.” country” and would undermine other states’ community solar programs by questioning their legality. John Podesta, President Joe Biden’s clean energy adviser, and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul reportedly raised similar concerns. A bipartisan group of California lawmakers also urged the commission to reject the proposed decision.
Experts are not convinced by the commission’s argument that the coalition proposal violates federal law. In his letter, Chatterjee noted that the federal government has historically refused to intervene in state regulations for community and home solar programs.
The proposed decision “would completely eliminate incentives and opportunities for community solar,” Ward told the editorial board. “We need to make a program viable rather than modifying an unviable program.”
The commission should support a more reasonable plan. The coalition framework is a good starting point. Some details deserve further discussion, such as the size of the facility and the distance from customers, but the commission must act quickly.
Article continues below this advertisement.
Given the uncertain outcome of November’s presidential election, a delayed decision could hamper California’s ability to use or maximize federal funds, such as the $250 million it was recently awarded to develop community solar programs “that enable low-income communities low-income and disadvantaged to implement and benefit from residential solar energy.”
“The Biden administration has made community solar a priority. They want to get to 20 gigawatts of community solar by 2025,” enough to power 5 million homes, Derek Chernow, western regional director of the Coalition for Community Solar Access, which developed the coalition framework, told the editorial board.
“We can’t reach our national numbers without California. It’s that easy.”
California also won’t be able to meet its own climate goals without an aggressive all-of-the-above approach that encourages solar projects of all sizes, from rooftop panels to community installations and utility-scale developments.
Instead, the State is doing everything it can to ensure that the transition to green energy remains the exclusive domain of private utilities and their chosen partners.
Article continues below this advertisement.
In a world increasingly devastated by climate change, utility-scale developments should not be the default option. Just as we need more infill housing, we need more infill power.
California residents are dealing with the second-highest energy bills in the country. The Public Utilities Commission says it wants to reduce these costs, but its recent approval of a flawed plan to allow private utilities to charge customers a flat monthly fee in exchange for a slight reduction in electricity rates leaves many ratepayers in the lurch. the dust.
The commission should empower communities to produce more clean electricity locally, sustainably and economically.
Contact the editorial board with a letter to the editor at www.sfchronicle.com/submit-your-opinion.
Keynote USA
For the Latest Local News, Follow @Keynote USA Local on Twitter.
Source link