All noisy on the Western solar panel front
Presented by the Stop the Oil Shakedown Coalition.
With help from Alex Nieves and Timothy Cama
SOLAR WARS: There's enough heat behind California's long-simmering rooftop solar fight that it's boiling over on two fronts this week.
On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments from both sides on whether regulators broke the law when they slashed rooftop solar credits for new customers in 2022. At the same time, assemblymembers have a Friday deadline to pass (or not) a controversial legislative proposal to reduce the payments for legacy rooftop solar customers.
The multipronged fight shows just how entrenched the two camps are — with rooftop solar advocates allying with builders and real estate agents on one side and utilities with labor unions and ratepayer advocates on the other — and just how willing they are to take their arguments to as many venues as possible.
It's a fight that's likely to continue, given that the Supreme Court appears poised to rule narrowly — and perhaps not even on the policy debate itself.
Instead, the Supreme Court's clerk and executive officer, Jorge Navarrete, asked lawyers last month to focus on how much the judicial branch should give deference to the California Public Utilities Commission when reviewing its various decisions. A lower court had previously cited deference to the CPUC — one of the rare state agencies created by the California Constitution itself — to reject a lawsuit by environmental groups that sought to restore the rooftop solar subsidies.
For the environmental groups, the focus on deference is now an opportunity to take their fight to the agency itself, which some see as too cozy with the investor-owned utilities it regulates.
'Already, there's a gap in checks and balances on the commission,' said Roger Lin, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, which is bringing the lawsuit against the CPUC. 'The implications of this case stretch beyond rooftop solar.'
The investor-owned utilities, who otherwise argued in support of the CPUC's decision, declined to weigh in on how much the court should defer to the agency in a filing earlier this year. But Attorney General Rob Bonta's office is defending the agency, arguing in a brief that the CPUC deserves deference because of precedent, because of the agency's expertise and because the Legislature has 'repeatedly tasked the Commission with studying the effects of the NEM tariff and revising it as appropriate.'
It's timely, then, to point out that the Legislature is currently considering doing part of the commission's work itself. Assemblymember Lisa Calderon's AB 942 would slash the payments to longstanding rooftop solar customers who got spared by the CPUC's 2022 decision to reduce payments solely for new customers.
Calderon agreed this week to exempt farms and schools, which is eliminating opposition from farming groups close to some moderate Democrats. She also picked up support from the CPUC's Public Advocates Office, which said the measure could reduce costs for ratepayers without rooftop solar. But it'll come down to the wire: Some progressive Democrats have already peeled off from the bill in committee votes, citing concerns from their constituents with rooftop solar that the bill would break existing contracts.
The Supreme Court will start hearing arguments at 9 a.m. on Wednesday (and it will be livestreamed if you want to follow along). AB 942 has until Friday to pass off the Assembly floor. — CvK
Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here!
MUSK MANIA: Elon Musk has finally returned to his roots — and Democrats are loving it.
Musk's departure from the White House, where he was once among Trump's top advisers, took an explosive turn Tuesday as the Tesla CEO ripped Republicans' budget megabill on X, calling it a 'disgusting abomination' that will raise the national debt.
As we've noted, Musk's company never stopped stumping for California policies like the low-carbon fuel standard, even as Trump promised to unravel the state's regulations and Republicans blamed state officials for high gas prices.
The eccentric billionaire was always expected to eventually butt heads with an administration poised to throttle the electric vehicle transition and eliminate clean energy incentives his company has profited greatly from.
While the episode shocked Republicans and drew pushback from House Speaker Mike Johnson, Democrats could barely hide their excitement, Timothy Cama reports for POLITICO's E&E News.
'I haven't spoke to Elon Musk, I'm not sure what the reasons are for this extraordinary statement, but we're in complete agreement,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said. — AN
WE HAVE A BEE PROBLEM: California lawmakers are coming to the rescue of one of nature's most important insects: honeybees.
The Assembly unanimously approved Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom's bill today to launch a program within the California Department of Food and Agriculture to monitor the health of honeybee populations. AB 1042 would allow the department, when extra funding is available, to provide incentives and grants for health intervention projects to support the state's managed honeybee population.
The critical species is responsible for pollinating crops like fruits and tree nuts that underpin the state's agriculture sector and maintaining natural ecosystems, but are dying in large numbers due to climate change, habitat loss, pesticides and other factors.
Commercial beekeepers reported an average loss of 62 percent of their bee colonies between June 2024 and February of this year, according to a national survey by Project Apis m. (honeybees' Latin name). — AN
RECYCLE THE REDO: Gov. Gavin Newsom told CalRecycle to redo its plastic waste reduction rules in the name of affordability. Now, the lawmakers that passed the law behind the rules say the redo goes against their intent — and that they were the ones who wanted to make recycling affordable to begin with.
Twenty-two lawmakers joined Sen. Ben Allen, the author of 2022's SB 54, in a letter to Newsom, CalEPA Secretary Yana Garcia and CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller last week. Their goal all along, they write, was to lower costs to cities and ratepayers by making manufacturers responsible for recycling their products. The new rules, they argue, stray from their intent by exempting too much food and medication packaging and not preventing hazardous recycling technologies.
A coalition of environmental groups including Oceana and Californians Against Waste also blasted the new rules Monday. 'Getting this right is about more than checking a legislative box,' the letter reads. 'California has an opportunity to lead in the global effort to tackle plastic pollution, but not if vague, watered-down language subverts that very goal.'
Who is happy: the California Chamber of Commerce, which is arguing that the new rules are more achievable. Spokesperson John Myers shared a takeaway: 'By fostering a regulatory environment that balances ecological responsibility with economic viability, the state sets a precedent for sustainable innovation of a circular economy.' — CvK
TWO STRIKES: It's been a bad week for Sable Offshore Corp.'s oil drilling ambitions.
Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Donna Geck issued an order Tuesday blocking a waiver granted by the state fire marshal that would allow the Texas-based oil company to restart a crude pipeline off Santa Barbara.
That decision comes just days after a different Santa Barbara judge sided with the California Coastal Commission and stopped repairs on the 124-mile pipeline that leaked over 100,000 gallons in 2015.
Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, which sued the fire marshal and Sable, cheered the rulings and used the moment to call out Newsom, who has stayed relatively quiet on the issue.
'At the very least, Governor Newsom should demand that his agencies follow the law and do everything possible to prevent another ecological and economic disaster in our state,' she said. — AN
— Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a message for climate activists worried about the White House: roll up your sleeves and "stop whining.'
— Southern California is being hit with a triple whammy of thunderstorms, dry lightning and rip tides.
— Underground water supplies in the Colorado River basin are depleting even faster than the river itself, according to a new study based on NASA satellite data.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Vance blames California Dems for violent immigration protests and calls Sen. Alex Padilla 'Jose'
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Vice President JD Vance on Friday accused California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of encouraging violent immigration protests as he used his appearance in Los Angeles to rebut criticism from state and local officials that the Trump administration fueled the unrest by sending in federal officers. Vance also referred to U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, the state's first Latino senator, as 'Jose Padilla,' a week after the Democrat was forcibly taken to the ground by officers and handcuffed after speaking out during a Los Angeles news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on immigration raids. 'I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question,' Vance said, in an apparent reference to the altercation at Noem's event. 'I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn't a theater. And that's all it is.' 'They want to be able to go back to their far-left groups and to say, 'Look, me, I stood up against border enforcement. I stood up against Donald Trump,'' Vance added. A spokesperson for Padilla, Tess Oswald, noted in a social media post that Padilla and Vance were formerly colleagues in the Senate and said that Vance should know better. 'He should be more focused on demilitarizing our city than taking cheap shots,' Oswald said. Vance's visit to Los Angeles to tour a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a mobile command center came as demonstrations calmed down in the city and a curfew was lifted this week. That followed over a week of sometimes-violent clashes between protesters and police and outbreaks of vandalism and looting that followed immigration raids across Southern California. Trump's dispatching of his top emissary to Los Angeles at a time of turmoil surrounding the Israel-Iran war and the U.S.'s future role in it signals the political importance Trump places on his hard-line immigration policies. Vance echoed the president's harsh rhetoric toward California Democrats as he sought to blame them for the protests in the city. 'Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass, by treating the city as a sanctuary city, have basically said that this is open season on federal law enforcement,' Vance said after he toured federal immigration enforcement offices. 'What happened here was a tragedy,' Vance added. 'You had people who were doing the simple job of enforcing the law and they had rioters egged on by the governor and the mayor, making it harder for them to do their job. That is disgraceful. And it is why the president has responded so forcefully.' Newsom's spokesperson Izzy Gardon said in a statement, 'The Vice President's claim is categorically false. The governor has consistently condemned violence and has made his stance clear.' In a statement on X, Newsom responded to Vance's reference to 'Jose Padilla,' saying the comment was no accident. Jose Padilla also is the name of a convicted al-Qaida terrorism plotter during President George W. Bush's administration, who was sentenced to two decades in prison. Padilla was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport during the tense months after the 9/11 attacks and accused of the 'dirty bomb' mission. It later emerged through U.S. interrogation of other al-Qaida suspects that the 'mission' was only a sketchy idea, and those claims never surfaced in the South Florida terrorism case. Responding to the outrage, Taylor Van Kirk, a spokesperson for Vance, said of the vice president: 'He must have mixed up two people who have broken the law.' Federal immigration authorities have been ramping up arrests across the country to fulfill Trump's promise of mass deportations. Todd Lyons, the head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has defended his tactics against criticism that authorities are being too heavy-handed. The friction in Los Angeles began June 6, when federal agents conducted a series of immigration sweeps in the region that have continued since. Amid the protests and over the objections of state and local officials, Trump ordered the deployment of roughly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the second-largest U.S. city, home to 3.8 million people. Trump has said that without the military's involvement, Los Angeles 'would be a crime scene like we haven't seen in years.' Newsom has depicted the military intervention as the onset of a much broader effort by Trump to overturn political and cultural norms at the heart of the nation's democracy. Earlier Friday, Newsom urged Vance to visit victims of the deadly January wildfires while in Southern California and talk with Trump, who earlier this week suggested his feud with the governor might influence his consideration of $40 billion in federal wildfire aid for California. 'I hope we get that back on track,' Newsom wrote on X. 'We are counting on you, Mr. Vice President.' ___ Associated Press writers Julie Watson and Jaimie Ding in Los Angeles and Tran Nguyen in Sacramento contributed to this report.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California's 30-day gun law unconstitutional, appeals court rules
California violates the constitutional right to own guns by limiting purchases to one every 30 days, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. It was the latest in a series of decisions reassessing the state's firearms restrictions since the Supreme Court set new limits on gun-control laws four years ago. The state contended its law, which restricted handgun sales in 1999 and was expanded to apply to all firearms last year, was a safety measure to prevent owners from stockpiling weapons and making 'straw sales' to people who could not legally buy them. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the restriction unduly interferes with the right to keep and bear arms. 'We doubt anyone would think government could limit citizens' free-speech right to one protest a month, their free-exercise right to one worship service per month, or their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures to apply only to one search or arrest per month,' Judge Danielle Forrest said in the 3-0 ruling. 'Possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment,' Forrest said, 'and California's law is not supported by our nation's tradition of firearms regulation.' She was referring to the standard set by the Supreme Court in 2022 when it overturned New York's ban on carrying concealed handguns in public. In that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas said government restrictions on firearms are unconstitutional unless they are shown to be 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Firearms advocates have challenged a number of California laws under that standard. But courts have upheld the state's restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in areas such as parks, banks and government buildings. A state law banning gun possession by domestic violence abusers survived when the Supreme Court upheld a similar federal law last year. And the appeals court has upheld a ban on gun sales on state property. In Friday's decision, however, Forrest said limiting where guns can be sold 'is a significantly lesser interference with an individual's ability to acquire (and therefore possess) firearms than banning the purchase of more than one firearm in a 30-day period.' Forrest, appointed by President Donald Trump, was joined by Judges Bridget Bade, another Trump appointee, and John Owens, appointed by President Barack Obama. Owens said in a separate opinion that he agreed with Forrest's reasoning but added that the case 'does not address other means of reducing bulk and straw purchasing of firearms, which our nation's tradition of firearm regulation may support.' The ruling upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge William Hayes of San Diego. Raymond DiGuiseppe, lawyer for gun companies and individuals who challenged the law, said Friday's ruling was 'the only acceptable outcome in a society where all constitutional rights must stand on equal footing.' Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said the state 'is committed to defending our common-sense gun safety laws' and declined further comment. Bonta could ask the full appeals court for a new hearing before a larger panel.
