Next week is shaping up to be one of those moments.
At question is a program called net energy metering, which credits solar panel owners for the excess power they send back to the grid. For years, California’s Public Utilities Commission has authorized a generous payback to those users, essentially allowing them to draw from the state power grid on cloudy days or at night, when their solar panels don’t produce, for free.
While seemingly obscure, these rules have helped make solar arrays a sound financial investment for property owners. As a consequence, California has become a global leader, going from 10,000 rooftop units in 2005 to more than 1.2 million today. Rooftop solar now accounts for at least 11% of California’s energy portfolio.
And there is potential for far more.
Environmental and energy experts are in almost unanimous agreement that more rooftop solar — paired with home battery storage — is an essential component for getting the state to net zero carbon emissions in time to do its part to stave off catastrophic global warming. The state of California clearly agrees, which is why it has backed various rooftop solar and battery mandates for new housing and commercial developments.
But there’s a problem: As more people put solar panels on their rooftops, that leaves fewer utility customers to pay to maintain the existing power grid. Rates for users who rely exclusively on that grid are going up as a consequence.
Private utilities like PG&E argue that this is unfair to poorer customers who have been left out of the solar market and are stuck footing the bill for wealthier, whiter solar owners. They want the commission to make the rates at which solar owners are credited far less generous and to give them permission to charge solar owners a hefty monthly fee to hook up to the grid.
Indications are the commission willapprove this wish in some shape or form as early as Monday.
While some modest rate adjustments may be appropriate, gouging rooftop solar users at the behest of private utilities, absent massive systemic changes to the way electricity rates are set in California, would be a terrible mistake. Making solar more expensive to operate will only entrench current inequities. If California is serious about lowering rates for customers, it should look for ways to expand solar roofs to renters and others who can’t currently afford to benefit from these installations.
It should also do something to bring its outdated utility model into the solar age.
PG&E is a menace, responsible for some of the worst and most deadly wildfires in state history. And yet California’s energy policy guarantees the company and other private utilities set revenues, regardless of energy demand or competence in delivering that energy safely.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, a public utility, has a generous net energy metering program and rates that are far lower than those of PG&E. It is clearly possible to accommodate rooftop solar without sticking it to the poor.
If California is serious about making energy more affordable and equitable, it should do the difficult and politically charged work of tackling its outdated utility pricing model before aggressively taking on net energy metering.
No, lower-income Californians should not be forced to foot the bill for the wealthy. But nor should solar users be forced to prop up the shareholder earnings of a dangerous and incompetent private utility like PG&E.
Moreover, slowed rooftop solar expansion will force California to carpet wilderness areas with energy infrastructure and then build long-distance transmission lines through wildfire country to meet its clean energy needs. This may pencil out financially in the short-term, but the danger of expanding this approach has been made obvious by power shutoffs during recent wildfire seasons — and, of course, the wildfires themselves.
Given the risks — and the environmental consequences — it’s an absurd way to handle the challenges of tackling climate change when credible alternatives exist.
This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.
