Latest news with #AssemblyBill942
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
California's war on rooftop solar: A new bill could dim homeowners' energy freedom
California has long been a leader in solar adoption in the U.S., but a new bill gutting the state's net metering policy would deal a sharp blow to solar homeowners in the Golden state. With the help of favorable government policies and incentives spurring the expansion of solar deployment, California became a solar-friendly state for homeowners looking to save money while living more sustainably. But now, the state is poised to renege on its commitment to solar customers with the potential passage of Assembly Bill 942, a bill that would repeal net metering rules that had previously grandfathered in homeowners who had already gone solar years earlier. This May, the California State Assembly Commission passed an amended bill, known as AB 942, that proposes to sunset existing net metering contracts beginning in July 2026. Net metering is a policy that allows homeowners to send the excess electricity produced by their solar panels back to the grid and receive a credit for that energy on their utility bill. This practice is designed to return excess output to the grid, which in turn benefits local economies and reduces homeowners energy bills. Stay informed on the latest industry news—delivered to your inbox each month. Sign up for EnergySage's newsletter. All told, NEM programs have proved wildly successful at spurring solar adoption, with over 2 million households installing solar panels —, totaling 17 gigawatts. According to one industry study from a solar and storage trade group, those installations have produced $1.5 billion in cumulative savings for all customers. Net metering was first made available to Californians 30 years ago, and in subsequent years and revisions to the program, the state uncapped net energy metering (NEM) to allow new systems to produce more than a previously mandated limit of 1,000kW. While some of the other benefits of NEM were rolled back over the past few years, the program still greatly benefited solar homeowners. If AB 942 passes it will be a different story: Existing net metering contracts (under NEM versions 1.0 and 2.0) would be voided once a home is sold or its deed is transferred. That home and its system would then be regulated under the most recent version, NEM 3.0. According to the bill's author, Assemblyperson Lisa Calderon, AB 942's purpose is to address the financial shortfall of grid maintenance costs that are being covered largely by non-solar customers. 'Our energy bills are becoming increasingly unaffordable, and we must address this ratepayer inequity,' Calderon said in a recent press release. The environmental imperative of renewable energy aside, a key motivation for homeowners who want to go solar is to save course, lower utility bills piques anyone's interest, and is one of the reasons reason net metering has become so popular in one state after the next – it helps homeowners conserve energy and money at the same time. But according to critics, California had already strayed from its original mission. With the introduction of NEM 3.0 in April 2023, California swapped out net metering for a net billing tariff program (aka net billing), an arguably inferior system that substantially reduces the credits customers receive for sending excess energy to the grid, averaging about 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour. This is because the energy offsets are now valued based on the avoided costs to the utility company. In previous versions of NEM, the credits' value was equal to those deducted whenever energy had to be imported from the grid; a simple 1:1 exchange rate. Should AB 942 become law, homebuyers would be unable to inherit the benefits of existing contracts under NEM 1.0 or 2.0. (Under these versions, net metering contracts have a 20-year term and are tied to the installations, not homeowners.) Instead, those contracts would automatically shift to NEM 3.0. 'People made huge financial decisions to put solar on their roofs, with guaranteed paybacks because of these agreements,' Jeremy Nicholson, CEO of Sunergy, a California-based solar installer, told EnergySage. 'Changing that midstream would be a huge disservice. It completely erodes consumer confidence. Whatever agreements you have in place, you need to ride out to the finish line.' A key feature of those older agreements is the guarantee that one homeowner can pass savings onto the next. That alone is a huge selling point for buyers in a state like California where electricity rates seem to increase exponentially. Assemblyperson Calderon, a democrat representing California's predominantly suburban 56th State Assembly district, claims AB 942 is a question of economic equity. Her office cites a recent study conducted by the state's Public Advocates Office, which claims that in 2024 alone net metering shifted excess costs totaling $8.5 billion to non-solar ratepayers. 'Without modifications, the cost shift will continue to escalate as retail rates for electricity increase,' according to the study. It's also worth noting that Calderon herself is a former long-time employee of Southern California Edison, a large investor-owned utility and understands how they operate. While it is true that electricity rates in California are well above the national average—30 cents/kWh versus 19 cents nationally—the data for these figures comes directly from the utility companies themselves—an obvious conflict of interest. Other reports found different results: A 2021 counter study conducted by Solar United Neighbors denies the claim that cost shifting is hurting regular Californians. 'The utility's cost shift claim is false,' the Solar United report says 'Research on the issue concludes that rooftop solar more often provides a net benefit to all ratepayers.' 'Utility companies are forced monopolies, and what they're trying to do is get rid of the competition,' Nicholson says. 'An apt analogy is the U.S. Post Office versus FedEx, it's utility companies versus solar. We are the industry disruptor. And even with that competition, even with all the solar in California, rates have gone up over 50% in the last seven years.' Large utilities have made the case that increased rates are needed to help offset the costs of upgrading the U.S.'s aging electrical grid. But that,too, has been called into question, given that transmission and distribution spending on the part of California's three largest utilities has increased exponentially in recent years while electricity usage has remained relatively steady. The conclusion many critics have drawn is that, as investor-owned businesses, the utilities are motivated more by profit margins and keeping shareholders happy than providing value to their customers. 'The claim here is people who went solar are placing an undue burden on the rest of consumers, but that's not a fluid argument,' Nicholson told EnergySage. 'It may have held water if consumption remained the same across the nation and across utilities, but demand has only increased … people say you can't see the future, but I disagree. Solar takes strain off the grid and gives resiliency to customers. It's not even an ROI or cost-saving argument anymore. This is insurance.'
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill that would cut benefits for California rooftop solar weakened by legislators
California homeowners with rooftop solar panels may see a significant change when trying to sell their homes after the California State Assembly's Utilities & Energy Committee voted to end net metering for homes with solar when the property is sold to new owners. Assembly Bill 942, backed by Lisa Calderon, D-Whittier, a former Southern California Edison executive, reforms utility-offered programs that provide energy credits to Californians who installed solar panels. The bill initially aimed to end net energy metering for homeowners after 10 years instead of the original 20, but was amended to remove that controversial proposal that led to protests by rooftop solar owners outside of Calderon's office. 'I've gotten more opposition to this bill than to any other by eight to tenfold,' Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo, D-Santa Clarita, who voted no, told the Los Angeles Times. Here's what to know about Assembly Bill 942 and potential California rooftop solar billing changes. More than 2 million homeowners and businesses in California have rooftop solar panels, according to the California Solar and Storage Association . Rooftop solar was estimated to save all California homeowners $1.5 billion in bills in 2024 alone, according to CALSSA. However, the Public Advocates Office of California estimates the NEM program costs customers without solar an estimated $8.5 billion by the end of 2024. Utilities have fixed costs — wildfire safety measures, grid infrastructure, and maintenance —that must be paid regardless of how much electricity is consumed, the Public Advocates Office reported. If rooftop solar customers pay less, these fixed costs must be recovered from all other customers, dramatically increasing rates for non-rooftop solar customers. "As the cost shift grows, it leads to higher retail electricity rates for all customers, which disproportionatelyaffects non-solar customers who are not benefiting from the financial incentives of solar programs," the Public Advocates Office reported in a fact sheet released with the study. CALSSA, though, pushed back on that research with another study that found electricity rates have increased because of unnecessary spending on grid infrastructure. "Rooftop solar keeps demand on the electricity grid from growing, which reduces the need to build grid expansions and saves everyone money," CALSSA said in a press release announcing the study. If Assembly Bill 942 passes in California, homeowners with solar panels could see their monthly electricity bills increase by about $63 or $750 a year, the Center of Community Energy reported. And requiring homes with rooftop solar sold or transferred to end net energy metering plans would hurt property values and break promises with millions of solar users, Brad Heavner, executive director of CALSSA said. 'Messing with home values and the transferability of property has long been considered a dangerous 'third rail' for California politicians, and this interference is no different,' Heavner told PV Magazine. When NEM pricing ends, your utility will switch your account to a new solar billing plan, which will likely have different rate structures and won't have the same level of credit for surplus energy produced by your panels. A workaround for the potential loss of NEM pricing is to install a solar battery at your home, energy consumer advocate website reported. Solar batteries store surplus energy at your house so you can use power generated by solar panels later instead of sending excess energy to your utility company, EnergySage reported. Solar batteries cost about $9,000 to install after tax credits, EnergySage estimated. Assembly Bill 942 is now scheduled for hearings in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. If passed by that committee, it will face a full review by the entire chamber. This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: Assembly Bill 942 would change some of the benefits of rooftop solar
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill to slash rooftop solar incentives weakened by Assembly committee
An Assembly committee backed away on Wednesday night from a controversial provision in a proposed bill to end solar credits for 2 million owners of rooftop solar systems, saying it would apply only to those who sold their homes. Assembly Bill 942, introduced by Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), targeted long-standing programs that provide energy credits to Californians who installed solar panels before April 15, 2025. As originally drafted, the bill would have limited the current program's benefits to 10 years — half of the 20-year period the state had told rooftop owners they would receive. The committee nixed that provision, leaving another that would cancel the program for those selling their homes. With the amendment, the bill passed 10 to 5, sending it on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Scores of rooftop solar owners attended the hearing, asking the committee members to vote no. Some said that even with the amendment they believed the measure would reduce the value of their home. "We just put our home up for sale yesterday," said Dwight James, a resident of Simi Valley, who is still making payments on a loan he took out to pay for his solar system. "We didn't expect the state to break its promise to us." Calderon, a former executive at Southern California Edison, said she proposed the bill because the financial credits given to rooftop solar owners for excess electricity they send to the grid are raising electric bills for those who don't own the panels. Edison and the state's two other large for-profit electric companies supported the bill, along with members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Major utilities use unionized labor to build and repair equipment, including the lines connecting distant industrial-scale solar farms in the desert. Companies installing rooftop panels generally don't use union workers. Read more: Former Edison executive Calderon, now a lawmaker, seeks to cut rooftop solar credits The legislation doesn't affect customers served by municipal utilities. Several members of the Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee said at the hearing that their offices have been overwhelmed with calls and emails from solar customers. "I've gotten more opposition to this bill than to any other by eight- to tenfold," said Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo (D-Santa Clarita), who voted no. Before the hearing began, an analyst who reviews legislation for the committee recommended the 10-year sunset provision be removed from the bill. She cited a state requirement that solar owners sign a consumer protection guide that calls the arrangement a "contract" and says the credits are "guaranteed" for 20 years. Keeping that provision, said analyst Laura Shybut, the committee's chief consultant, could pave the way for legal challenges to the legislation. The bill prompted protests this month by owners of the rooftop solar panels, who said they had invested thousands of dollars in the green energy systems based on assurances the incentives would last for 20 years. Also opposing the bill were schools, businesses, apartment owners and others who had installed the rooftop panels. A group of school districts including Los Angeles Unified, San Diego Unified and the Alameda County Office of Education filed a letter to the Assembly committee in opposition to the proposed legislation. "School districts made good faith investments in solar energy technology based on the commitments of the state," the schools wrote. "It is unfair and could raise legal concerns to retroactively change the rules." "The state should be supporting investments in rooftop solar to meet our climate goals and to promote affordability for all customers, not undermining those who heeded its guidance and mandates to make these investments," the schools wrote. Committee members said that with the amendment the schools would no longer be affected. Also opposing the bill were dozens of environmental groups, consumer organizations and the rooftop solar industry, which argued that electric bills are rising because of excessive utility spending — not from credits given to owners of the green energy systems. The value of the credits — provided to panel owners at the retail rate of electricity — has increased rapidly as the state Public Utilities Commission voted to approve rate increases requested by the utility companies. At a news conference on Tuesday, Calderon appeared with members of utility worker unions, saying the credits were shifting billions of dollars in costs to people who did not own the panels, which was especially hurting the poor. 'This is about fairness and equity — nothing more,' she said. Read more: California officials push to cut energy credits to households with rooftop solar panels Rooftop solar advocates have challenged that assertion, citing statistics from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that show 39% of the owners of the rooftop panels in 2023 had household incomes of less than $100,000. About 12% had incomes below $50,000. Several committee members said Wednesday night that they had heard from solar owners of all income levels. "I have to push back on the narrative that these are all high-income people," Schiavo said. Some also questioned whether those without solar panels would actually see a reduction in their electric bills if the measure passed. "How much of this will go back to the consumer?" asked Laurie Davies (D-Laguna Niguel), who voted no. Her question wasn't answered. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
01-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Bill to slash rooftop solar incentives weakened by Assembly committee
An Assembly committee backed away on Wednesday night from a controversial provision in a proposed bill to end solar credits for 2 million owners of rooftop solar systems, saying it would apply only to those who sold their homes. Assembly Bill 942, introduced by Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), targeted long-standing programs that provide energy credits to Californians who installed solar panels before April 15, 2025. As originally drafted, the bill would have limited the current program's benefits to 10 years — half of the 20-year period the state had told rooftop owners they would receive. The committee nixed that provision, leaving another that would cancel the program for those selling their homes. With the amendment, the bill passed 10 to 5, sending it on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Scores of rooftop solar owners attended the hearing, asking the committee members to vote no. Some said that even with the amendment they believed the measure would reduce the value of their home. 'We just put our home up for sale yesterday,' said Dwight James, a resident of Simi Valley, who is still making payments on a loan he took out to pay for his solar system. 'We didn't expect the state to break its promise to us.' Calderon, a former executive at Southern California Edison, said she proposed the bill because the financial credits given to rooftop solar owners for excess electricity they send to the grid are raising electric bills for those who don't own the panels. Edison and the state's two other large for-profit electric companies supported the bill, along with members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Major utilities use unionized labor to build and repair equipment, including the lines connecting distant industrial-scale solar farms in the desert. Companies installing rooftop panels generally don't use union workers. The legislation doesn't affect customers served by municipal utilities. Several members of the Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee said at the hearing that their offices have been overwhelmed with calls and emails from solar customers. 'I've gotten more opposition to this bill than to any other by eight- to tenfold,' said Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo (D-Santa Clarita), who voted no. Before the hearing began, an analyst who reviews legislation for the committee recommended the 10-year sunset provision be removed from the bill. She cited a state requirement that solar owners sign a consumer protection guide that calls the arrangement a 'contract' and says the credits are 'guaranteed' for 20 years. Keeping that provision, said analyst Laura Shybut, the committee's chief consultant, could pave the way for legal challenges to the legislation. The bill prompted protests this month by owners of the rooftop solar panels, who said they had invested thousands of dollars in the green energy systems based on assurances the incentives would last for 20 years. Also opposing the bill were schools, businesses, apartment owners and others who had installed the rooftop panels. A group of school districts including Los Angeles Unified, San Diego Unified and the Alameda County Office of Education filed a letter to the Assembly committee in opposition to the proposed legislation. 'School districts made good faith investments in solar energy technology based on the commitments of the state,' the schools wrote. 'It is unfair and could raise legal concerns to retroactively change the rules.' 'The state should be supporting investments in rooftop solar to meet our climate goals and to promote affordability for all customers, not undermining those who heeded its guidance and mandates to make these investments,' the schools wrote. Committee members said that with the amendment the schools would no longer be affected. Also opposing the bill were dozens of environmental groups, consumer organizations and the rooftop solar industry, which argued that electric bills are rising because of excessive utility spending — not from credits given to owners of the green energy systems. The value of the credits — provided to panel owners at the retail rate of electricity — has increased rapidly as the state Public Utilities Commission voted to approve rate increases requested by the utility companies. At a news conference on Tuesday, Calderon appeared with members of utility worker unions, saying the credits were shifting billions of dollars in costs to people who did not own the panels, which was especially hurting the poor. 'This is about fairness and equity — nothing more,' she said. Rooftop solar advocates have challenged that assertion, citing statistics from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that show 39% of the owners of the rooftop panels in 2023 had household incomes of less than $100,000. About 12% had incomes below $50,000. Several committee members said Wednesday night that they had heard from solar owners of all income levels. 'I have to push back on the narrative that these are all high-income people,' Schiavo said. Some also questioned whether those without solar panels would actually see a reduction in their electric bills if the measure passed. 'How much of this will go back to the consumer?' asked Laurie Davies (D-Laguna Niguel), who voted no. Her question wasn't answered.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Edison disputes ‘executive' label for author of bill to cut solar power benefits
Southern California Edison is claiming the lawmaker who wrote a bill beneficial to the utility was never an executive with them, but a Los Angeles Times report indicates Edison did view her as an executive, at least in some instances. Assemblymember Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) authored Assembly Bill 942, which would cut credits homeowners receive for installing solar panels on their roofs. After the Times reported Calderon is a former executive with Edison, the utility 'objected to The Times' identifying Calderon as a former executive for the utility, claiming on its website that the news organization is 'choosing sensationalism over facts,'' LAT wrote. 'But in its official reports to the Federal Election Commission, the political action committee for Edison International — the utility's parent company — listed Calderon's occupation as an executive in more than a dozen filings made before she left the company in 2020 to run for office,' the Times report explains. When contacted by the Times, an Edison spokesperson said the 'executive' definition relates to a 'broad class of individuals' as described by the Federal Election Commission, but the utility did not consider her an executive. Calderon's office seconded that belief. 'Due to her professional responsibilities, she was categorized as an executive for FEC filing purposes,' her office told the Times. 'That does not mean that she was an executive at Edison.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
